The Shadows of Totalization, Part XXIV
I do not proffer this statement,
Without motivation, without reason, (without interest.)
I am on an errand: I want to say something about philosophy’s contestation (assuming there is such a contestation, or can be) of convention, Totalization.
I have to make distinctions between several Descartes: 1) a pre-private or pre-public Descartes, who has a life indistinguishable from any other human being (or hominid): he eats, he drinks, he sleeps, he shits (but does this Descartes think?) 2) a private Descartes, a member of a society or civilization, who contributes to and benefits from that society, but without changing that society (but what do the words “contribute to,” or “benefit from,” mean if there is no contribution to the change of society?) 3) a private-public Descartes—this would be the author of The Meditations, etc. The private-public Descartes has nothing to do—stands in no relation to--the Descartes of my statement, “Descartes founds his philosophy on a self which is self-evident.” 4) a public Descartes, who changes society by becoming a literal part of society per se. This is the Descartes of my statement, “Descartes founds his philosophy on a self which is self-evident.” Strangely, I am as much this Descartes as Descartes himself was…We all are.
I can make similar distinctions between levels of myself, (or of Enlightenment Underground readers,) but these couldn’t include the fourth level,( the “Descartes” or public-Descartes, 4th level.)
There is an “official version” (it is important to note this is in the singular “official version” –not the plural, as in “official version(s)”) of Descartes out there, floating around—I draw down on it in order to make an appeal to others (except I haven’t really begun my appeal yet.) I want to make something public.
Part of the problem is that “I”, of levels 1,2 and possibly of 3, attempt to form a relationship with “Descartes” of level 4. “I” cannot do so by actually reading Descartes ( in other words,by reading the works of level 3 Descartes, some of which I own and others of which are available to me both at the public library and the University library about a mile from my home.)
Descartes founds his philosophy on a self which is self-evident.
Without motivation, without reason, (without interest.)
I am on an errand: I want to say something about philosophy’s contestation (assuming there is such a contestation, or can be) of convention, Totalization.
I have to make distinctions between several Descartes: 1) a pre-private or pre-public Descartes, who has a life indistinguishable from any other human being (or hominid): he eats, he drinks, he sleeps, he shits (but does this Descartes think?) 2) a private Descartes, a member of a society or civilization, who contributes to and benefits from that society, but without changing that society (but what do the words “contribute to,” or “benefit from,” mean if there is no contribution to the change of society?) 3) a private-public Descartes—this would be the author of The Meditations, etc. The private-public Descartes has nothing to do—stands in no relation to--the Descartes of my statement, “Descartes founds his philosophy on a self which is self-evident.” 4) a public Descartes, who changes society by becoming a literal part of society per se. This is the Descartes of my statement, “Descartes founds his philosophy on a self which is self-evident.” Strangely, I am as much this Descartes as Descartes himself was…We all are.
I can make similar distinctions between levels of myself, (or of Enlightenment Underground readers,) but these couldn’t include the fourth level,( the “Descartes” or public-Descartes, 4th level.)
There is an “official version” (it is important to note this is in the singular “official version” –not the plural, as in “official version(s)”) of Descartes out there, floating around—I draw down on it in order to make an appeal to others (except I haven’t really begun my appeal yet.) I want to make something public.
Part of the problem is that “I”, of levels 1,2 and possibly of 3, attempt to form a relationship with “Descartes” of level 4. “I” cannot do so by actually reading Descartes ( in other words,by reading the works of level 3 Descartes, some of which I own and others of which are available to me both at the public library and the University library about a mile from my home.)
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 1:23 PM
6 Comments:
Hi Yusef,
You certainly are on a systematic and persistent quest here.
I am on an errand: I want to say something about philosophy’s contestation (assuming there is such a contestation, or can be) of convention, Totalization.A few reactions:
(1) Couldn't it be argued that philosophy is both about creating conventions and contesting them?
(2) Wouldn't it be more fruitful to move away from the personal (the first three Descartes*es) and problematize the "self" itself?
(3) Aren't we confronted with the dangers of unnecessary reductionism in this?
(4) When does Totalization become totalitarian?
(5) Is the "I" a self which is self-evident? Can it ever be?
(6) Isn't the search for a "subject" a "self"defeating exercise?
(7) Is there even a TERRA FIRMA to be found?
(8) Isn't the holy grail of philosophy to contest "the official version" of Descartes and indeed everyone?
(9) Multiplicity transcends univocal pursuits, doesn't it?
(10) When does definition become containment of thought?
Orla
"Couldn't it be argued that philosophy is both about creating conventions and contesting them?"
Anything can be argued, but I don't think philosophy is about creating conventions. While it is true philosophers become a source of conventions, I do not think it is true they were the inventors of these conventions. These conventions cover them over and destroy what's great in them.
"Wouldn't it be more fruitful to move away from the personal (the first three Descartes*es) and problematize the "self" itself?"
I don't think the first three Descartes are personal. As far as I know, I am problematizing the "self"--it's just that I don't think this has anything to do with banishing personal pronouns, so maybe you don't recognize this as problematization.
"Aren't we confronted with the dangers of unnecessary reductionism in this?"
If we are, identify 1) the "unnecessary" reductions; 2) why you think they are reductions; 3) and the alternative approach by which we avoid this "danger."
"When does Totalization become totalitarian?"
Who knows? Who knows if the two terms even relate as a progression?
--Yusef
The ambition of Descartes was essentially to overcome doubt, in fact to erase it and arrive at the Terra Firma of uncontested knowledge.
This qualifies as "the danger of unnecessary reductionism".
The alternative approach by which to avoid this "danger" is naturally to acknowledge its impossibility.
Cogito, ergo sum is a tautology since, logically, the "cogito" implies a subject in Latin and consequently the "ergo" is superfluous as a conclusion - not to mention the confusion of the dualism of mind and body.
This doesn't mean that your search (longing?) for "a self which is self-evident" isn't relevant, just that it is an universal human quest which might be a cul-de-sac.
But the journey there (the GPS of philosophy!) is certainly full of sights.
Orla
"This doesn't mean that your search (longing?) for "a self which is self-evident" isn't relevant, just that it is an universal human quest which might be a cul-de-sac."
I've never said I had a longing for, or was on a search for, a self which is self-evident.
I've said I want to say something about philosophical contestation of coventions, of Totality.
Am I really this misleading?
Descartes wanted to achieve a terra firma of knowledge in part to eliminate reliance on external authority, and to find a way out of the tedious and interminable back and forth of scholasticism's disputation--goals I'm 100% behind.
Why and how Descartes gets twisted into some kind of reductionistic lunatic is in itself a reduction and a lunacy. It's one I want to study further. To do so isn't my point here, though, and I'm sorry to see I am not conveying my point very well.
--Yusef
I've said I want to say something about philosophical contestation of coventions, of Totality.
Am I really this misleading?No. My bad. Sorry.
Descartes wanted to achieve a terra firma of knowledge in part to eliminate reliance on external authority, and to find a way out of the tedious and interminable back and forth of scholasticism's disputation--goals I'm 100% behind.Doesn't this sound remarkably like the meaning of the opening paragraph in Kant's essay "What Is Enlightenment?"
Looking forward to more contestation of coventions.
Orla
I hope you are going to explore or ponder these four distinctions of Descartes further. They are compelling.
Post a Comment
<< Home