Cake or Doughnut Ontology? | Žižek vs. Johnston

Summary

The transcript captures a deep philosophical debate on ontological differences, focusing on the contrasting views of Professor Adrian Johnston and Slavoj Žižek. Johnston critiques Žižek's 'ontological incompleteness' and 'donut model', which links human freedom to quantum physics, suggesting it reduces subjectivity to a return of the primal chaos. Instead, Johnston advocates for a 'layer cake model', emphasizing the distinct emergence of human freedom, separate from archaic metaphysical foundations. The conversation delves into Schelling's influence on Žižek and the challenges of integrating quantum physics with a non-reductive account of human subjectivity.

Takeaways

• 📚 The ongoing debate between Professor S and J revolves around the concept of ontological incompleteness and its implications in understanding reality.
• 🎨 J introduces the idea of a 'layer cake' versus 'donut' ontology, suggesting different ways to conceptualize the relationship between the fundamental and emergent levels of reality.
• 🔬 J's work, starting with 'The Indivisible Remainder,' attempts to integrate German idealism with quantum physics to explore materialism and ontological incompleteness.
• 🌀 Schelling's philosophy, particularly his distinction between 'ground' and 'existence,' is central to J's thought, with the 'ground' representing a chaotic, anarchic basis of reality.
• 🌐 Schelling's 'ground' is seen as the source of human freedom, where moments of autonomy are intrusions of this primordial chaos into the structured reality of 'existence'.
• 🍩 Professor S criticizes this view as a 'donut model,' implying a circular return to the origin at the highest level of emergence, which he finds problematic.
• 🤔 The debate touches on the challenge of reconciling non-reductive accounts of subjectivity with materialism or naturalism, without resorting to reductionism.
• 🧠 The discussion suggests that neurobiology might be a more fruitful area of scientific exploration for understanding subjectivity and mindedness.
• 🔬 J's recent work, including 'Sex and the Failed Absolute,' continues to develop his version of dialectical materialism, engaging with quantum physics in a Schelling-influenced manner.
• 🔮 There is skepticism about the direct link between quantum mechanics and human subjectivity, with the current state of scientific understanding not yet able to substantiate such claims.
• ⏳ The conversation acknowledges the need for patience and ongoing scientific inquiry to potentially validate or refute speculative hypotheses about the connections between quantum physics and human freedom.

Q & A

What is the central debate between Professor S and J regarding ontology?

The central debate revolves around the concept of ontological incompleteness and the metaphorical difference between a 'layer cake' and a 'donut' in their ontological models, which represent different views on the structure and nature of reality.

What is the significance of J's book 'The Indivisible Remainder' in this debate?

It is significant because it was the first time J attempted to combine German idealism with Lukácsian Marxism to engage with quantum physics, introducing the idea of ontological incompleteness and initiating the debate on materialism and subjectivity.

How does Professor S view Schelling's philosophy in relation to the debate?

Professor S sees Schelling's philosophy as crucial to J's version of ontological incompleteness, especially Schelling's distinction between 'ground' and 'existence', which J uses to argue for a return of the repressed ground in instances of human freedom.

What is the 'ground' in Schelling's philosophy as described by Professor S?

In Schelling's philosophy, the 'ground' is a foundational, underlying ontological basis that is unruly, conflict-ridden, and anarchic, in contrast to the 'existence', which is the intelligible reality we inhabit.

How does Professor S critique J's use of Schelling's philosophy in relation to quantum physics?

Professor S critiques J's approach as reductive, suggesting that J is tempted to equate human freedom with a return of quantum indeterminacy within classical reality, which Professor S sees as a shortcut rather than a fully fleshed-out argument.

What does Professor S mean by referring to the 'donut model' in Schelling's philosophy?

The 'donut model' refers to the idea that the highest point of emergence in reality, such as human subjectivity, is a return to the underlying ground, creating a circular, layered structure where the highest and lowest points are connected.

How does Professor S differentiate his view on human freedom from J's interpretation?

Professor S argues for a non-reductive account of human freedom, suggesting that it is distinct and new rather than a resurgence of the most primitive metaphysical basis of existence.

What is the relevance of Hegel's philosophy to the debate between Professor S and J?

Hegel's philosophy is relevant because Professor S uses it to argue against the 'donut model', suggesting that Hegel's account of the emergence of human-mindedness out of nature supports the idea of human freedom being something distinct and new.

What is the role of quantum physics in J's recent work, as mentioned by Professor S?

In J's recent work, quantum physics is used to flesh out a version of dialectical materialism that involves ontological incompleteness, with J engaging in conversations with eminent figures in the field to explore this connection further.

What is Professor S's stance on the speculative hypothesis linking quantum mechanics and human subjectivity?

Professor S maintains a patient 'wait and see' outlook, acknowledging that while such a hypothesis is intriguing, it currently lacks substantiation from scientific research and requires further exploration and evidence.

How does Professor S suggest approaching the study of subjectivity from a scientific perspective?

Professor S suggests starting at the level of neurobiology, which is closest to the study of mindedness, and working out problems from there, rather than relying on speculative hypotheses about quantum mechanics.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Ontological Debates and Quantum Physics

The first paragraph delves into a philosophical debate between Professor S and J, focusing on the concept of ontological incompleteness. It discusses how J's work, starting with 'The Indivisible Remainder', integrates German idealism with Lukácsian Marxism and quantum physics to propose a materialistic philosophy. The debate is framed as a metaphorical difference between a layer cake and a donut in ontological models, with the latter suggesting a circular return to the foundational 'ground' of reality through the highest level of subjectivity. The paragraph also references Schelling's philosophy, particularly his distinction between 'ground' and 'existence', and how it influences J's thought, especially regarding the nature of human freedom and autonomy.

05:02

🌀 The Donut Model of Reality and Subjectivity

This paragraph continues the exploration of ontological models, contrasting the 'donut model' with Hegel's philosophy of nature and the emergence of human-mindedness. It critiques Schelling's view as a form of circularity where the highest form of existence is a return to the foundational ground, akin to a donut's hole. The speaker argues for a more distinct and new aspect of human freedom, rather than seeing it as a resurgence of the most primitive aspects of existence. The influence of quantum physics on J's thought is highlighted, suggesting a connection between quantum indeterminacy and human freedom, which the speaker finds reductive and speculative without concrete scientific backing.

10:04

🔬 The Challenge of Linking Quantum Physics to Subjectivity

The final paragraph addresses the speculative nature of linking quantum physics to human subjectivity and consciousness. It points out the lack of a direct scientific connection between the quantum level and our experience of subjectivity, referencing Roger Penrose's work as an example of such attempts. The speaker advocates for a patient 'wait and see' approach, emphasizing the need for substantial collective scientific effort over time to potentially substantiate such hypotheses. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that work on a non-reductive account of subjectivity should start with neurobiology, which is more directly related to our understanding of mindedness.

Keywords

💡Ontological incompleteness

Ontological incompleteness is a philosophical concept suggesting that reality may not be fully comprehensible or that there are aspects of existence that cannot be fully captured by our theories or understanding. In the video, this concept is central to the debate between the two philosophers, as it pertains to their differing views on the nature of reality and the possibility of a complete ontological framework. The term is used to contrast with the idea of a 'layer cake' ontology, implying that reality might be more complex and less structured than a simple hierarchical model.

💡Layer cake ontology

The 'layer cake' ontology is a metaphor used to describe a hierarchical view of reality, where different levels of existence are stacked upon one another like layers of a cake. In the script, this concept is juxtaposed with the 'donut' model, suggesting a more cyclical or interconnected understanding of reality. The layer cake model is criticized for potentially oversimplifying the complexity of existence and for not accounting for the dynamic interplay between different levels of reality.

💡Donut model

The 'donut model' is a metaphor introduced by one of the philosophers to describe a cyclical or interconnected view of reality, as opposed to the linear, hierarchical 'layer cake' model. According to the script, this model suggests that the highest levels of reality, such as human subjectivity and freedom, are not simply the result of a linear progression from more basic levels but are instead a return to or manifestation of the most fundamental aspects of existence.

💡Quantum physics

Quantum physics is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of matter and energy at very small scales. In the video, quantum physics is discussed as a means to explore and understand the concept of ontological incompleteness and its implications for materialism. The philosopher Xek uses quantum physics to argue for a non-deterministic, indeterminate aspect of reality that may be connected to human freedom and subjectivity.

💡German idealism

German idealism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the role of the mind or spirit in shaping reality. In the context of the video, German idealism is combined with other philosophical perspectives to engage with quantum physics and to develop a unique approach to understanding reality. The reference to German idealism indicates an attempt to integrate subjective experience and consciousness into a materialist or naturalist worldview.

💡Schelling

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, often referred to simply as Schelling in the script, is a German philosopher known for his contributions to German idealism and his philosophy of nature. His work is discussed in the video as a key influence on the philosopher Xek's ideas about the relationship between the ground (the fundamental basis of reality) and existence (the intelligible, structured reality we experience).

💡Ground and existence

The terms 'ground' and 'existence' are used by Schelling to distinguish between the underlying, chaotic, and anarchic basis of reality (ground) and the structured, intelligible reality we experience (existence). In the video, these concepts are central to the debate about the nature of human freedom and subjectivity, with the ground being associated with the return of the repressed, unruly aspects of reality within human autonomy.

💡Autonomy

Autonomy, in the context of the video, refers to the capacity for self-governance and the exercise of free will. It is a key concept in the debate about the nature of human subjectivity and its relation to the underlying reality. The script discusses how autonomy might be understood as a manifestation of the 'ground' within the structured reality of 'existence', challenging traditional hierarchical models of reality.

💡Dialectical materialism

Dialectical materialism is a philosophical approach that combines dialectics—the idea that change and development result from the conflict of opposing forces—with materialism, the belief that the material world is primary and that consciousness and ideas are determined by material conditions. In the video, Xek's version of dialectical materialism is discussed as involving an engagement with quantum physics and German idealism to explore the nature of reality and human subjectivity.

💡Subjectivity

Subjectivity refers to the individual perspective, consciousness, or self-awareness of a person. In the video, the nature of subjectivity is a central topic of debate, with the philosophers discussing how it might be related to or derived from the fundamental aspects of reality. The script explores whether subjectivity is a resurgence of the most primitive aspects of existence or something distinct and new that emerges at a higher level of reality.

Highlights

Debate on ontological incompleteness and its implications in understanding reality.

Introduction of the layer cake and donut ontology models as a metaphor for different philosophical perspectives.

Discussion on the decades-long debate between the guest and the host, highlighting the contrast between their views.

Exploration of Schelling's philosophy and its influence on the concept of ontological incompleteness.

Analysis of the 'ground' and 'existence' distinction in Schelling's philosophy and its relevance to the debate.

Critique of Schelling's model as a 'donut' shape, suggesting a circular return to the initial state in the highest level of emergence.

Contrasting Hegel's view on the emergence of human-mindedness with Schelling's, emphasizing the novelty of human freedom.

The role of quantum physics in fleshing out a materialism that involves ontological incompleteness.

Iek's engagement with quantum physics and its connection to the concept of autonomous subjectivity.

Critique of the reductionist approach to subjectivity, suggesting it lacks a comprehensive scientific foundation.

The challenge of linking quantum mechanics to human subjectivity and the need for further scientific exploration.

The potential for future scientific advancements to substantiate speculative hypotheses about the connection between quantum reality and human freedom.

The importance of patience and a 'wait and see' approach in the face of current scientific limitations.

The call for a deeper investigation into neurobiology as a more immediate scientific field relevant to understanding subjectivity.

Reflection on the irony of seeking a non-reductive account of subjectivity through potentially reductive scientific hypotheses.

The need for collective scientific labor across various fields to make progress in understanding the nature of subjectivity.

The philosophical and scientific significance of the debate on the nature of reality and human freedom.

Transcripts

what Professor so now to kind of flesh

out your differences and kind of this

ongoing debate with J now of course

um kind of puts forward this idea of

ontological incompleteness which is also

something that I'm fully fully drawn

towards um so I I I was trying to

prepare for this conversation and I I

Read's book on freedom uh a couple of

months then I I there's one one part

here if you don't mind if I could just

read it out he he says in the book uh

freedom disase without kill uh being

involved in a decades long debate with

Edan Johnston I gladly accept his

designation of a difference as one

between uh layer cake and donut in your

ontology yes then uh you also did uh

write write a little have a bit of a

debate with him in this H book J

response which is an excellent yes read

uh read

too this debate between uh cake and

donut so if you could take as as as much

time as you need for this because I find

it fascinating and kind of try to

outline uh these ontological differences

between the dut model and the the cake

layer cake model between yourself and

xek yes well I should say that with with

with xek so starting in 1996 and that

year he he brings out um his book The

indivisible remainder an essay on

shelling related matters and one of the

you know striking and novel features of

that particular work from the mid1 1990s

is that this was the first time the

initial occasion when um when xek uh uh

attempted to uh use his at that point

primarily his combination of German

idealism with lukan and in this case

more more precisely uh sort of leanian

eyes shelling to engage with quantum

physics um and so this this gesture of

taking recourse to Quantum Physics for

fleshing out a particular sort of

materialism that would involve this this

idea of ontological incompleteness Etc

um this is really the first place where

you see XI do that um and then more

recently um it's as though that project

from the indivisible remainder has over

the course of the past I'd say

probably about 15 years s of returned

with a Vengeance in his uh in his you

know more recent work where you know he

Now talks about his his version of

dialectical materialism as essentially

involving this particular hybrid German

idealist leanian manner of engaging with

quantum physics for instance you know

his 2020 book sex in the failed absolute

um is his I think most recent sustained

presentation of that and in fact right

now he's back to working on quantum

physics again and has been in

conversation with a number of you know

eminent figures in that field and it's

very yes that's right and

so yeah he's in the middle of working on

all of that right now um but uh one

aspect of of the Kate versus donut model

that you're talking about has to do with

how in debating with him about some of

these issues one of the things that I

did is go back to shelling himself um

and you know looking at uh you know

shellings philosophy of Nature and

related aspects of shellings larger the

lack of a better word metaphysics um

that you know it became very clear to me

that with shelling schelling's account

of of autonomous subjectivity of of you

know the subject in its fullest Freedom

um as concerns X that shelling makes

clear that for him what this is a matter

of is so shelling and this is you know

this is material crucial to X's version

of shelling the middle period shelling

starting with shelling 1809 fight schift

his essay on human freedom and running

through the ages of the world up to

around 1815 or thereabouts that this

middle period shelling especially is

dear to xek and this shelling has this

distinction that xek uses again and

again between ground glun and existence

existence um and this ground existence

distinction you know for shelling the

idea is is that what we ordinarily take

to be reality is what he calls existence

which is this tamed and

domesticated um you know field of

constituted entities and events um that

is organized in a lawful fashion that is

intelligible for us you know as knowing

subjects um that we are able to

cognitively map you know get our

bearings in relation to Etc but that

this entire domain that we inhabit of

this intelligible reality that shelling

calls existence um arises from and sits

a top this more foundational underlying

ontological basis that shelling calls

ground and that this ground for the

middle and late period shelling is not a

you know calm organized lawful rule

governed um uh uh you know second

reality it is Instead This unruly

conflict-ridden

anarchic it's kind of like this

primordial chaos almost um and then for

shelling what you know we take to be

instances of effective human freedom in

our constituted reality of existence are

for shelling returns of the repressed

ground it's as though the impersonal

Anonymous uh unruly basis of all being

um returns in this you know uh uh you

know uh localized fashion in and through

human subjects and that my own

subjectivity in terms of when I am free

and in those instances in which I am I

can be said to be acting autonomously

that what is happening is this in and

through me this ground is in a sense

intruding into the domain of existence

it's a moment at which that underlying

ontological unruliness breaks through

the crust of existence and and makes

itself felt again um and perturbs that

field of existence now from within um

but of course you know in my view I

don't you know there's it almost seems a

bit like shelling is cheating and I call

this a donut model because although

Hegel is usually seen as being guilty of

of uh of privileging you know the idea

of circularity or this you know this

notion of you know coming back to where

you started uh uh ET

that it's really with shelling that you

get this model where it's that all right

ground gives rise to the various

emergent levels and layers of existence

and then at the kind of highest level of

emergence uh at the level of existence

namely our subjective autonomy that that

you know highest point is just the

return of the of the lowest you know uh

basis um so it's as though we in fact

just go through you know a series of

layers arranged in a donut shape and

then when we get get to the highest

emergent layer we've closed the circle

and rejoined you know the lowest point

so you know the highest point of the

emergent levels of existence is the

return of the ultimate underlying graph

and so it's this you know layered

circular you know dut shape kind of that

you get with shelling um you know

whereas you know I argue with Hegel if

you look especially at hegel's

philosophy of Nature and then his

account of the emergence of human-

mindedness out of nature you you know

the volumes two and three of his

encyclopedia um that you you know it's

not that for him you know the various

aspects of what we associate with Guist

you know you know Spirit mind you know

in in its various you know forms

associated with our subjectivity that

for heel is not just you know in a sense

the Resurgence of something you know

from the most primitive you know

metaphysical basis of existence that

then

reints Within

an a constituted field of natural and

human reality and its you know in all of

its particular features um that no that

there's you know something irreducibly

distinct and new about human Freedom

rather than it being just in a sense

tapping back into what is oldest and

most archaic and then xek when he you

know engages with quantum physics um in

a way that's influenced by shelling um

it's no accident that you know xak Flur

with this idea that in a way it that you

know his idea of the aut you know the

the negativity of autonomous

subjectivity iek is sometimes that this

is in a way like with shelling but now

in updated terminology that this is a

kind of return in in ordinary

non-quantum reality of certain unruly

aspects of the quantum Universe right

that it's as though you have quantum

physics as this shadowy shenian ground

and then you have the classical Universe

we inhabit of course resulting from

things like the collapse of the wave

function as like shellings existence and

that when human Freedom comes into play

for xek I think he's sometimes tempted

to take this shellian shortcut and to

say that well that's in a sense

something like Quantum indeterminancy

Etc um returning within the constituted

field of classical non-quantum reality

um and it's to me one of the ironies is

is that for someone who also of course

in part thanks to his Fidelity to things

like German idealism and dialectical

materialism for somebody who wants a

non-reductive account of subjectivity um

you know this seems to be a remarkably

reductive move is to say essentially

that you know solving the problem of

human- mindedness or subjectivity um is

just simply a matter of you know we

could really say that the UL the

smallest ultimate constituents of

physical reality are

you know a sense where we are to go

looking for the basis of what we call

subjectivity I mean that's you know of

course you know a hard-nosed you know

physical reductionist or eliminativist I

don't think ultimately we'd have too

much of a problem with that um but

efforts to do this I mean like you go

back to something like Roger penrose's

work like the emperor's new mind um you

know to the best of my knowledge nobody

has really gotten very far actually

trying to flesh out okay if you're going

to assert that there's some type of

direct connection between the quantum

level and then our subjectivity or

mindedness well there's it would seem

you would need to have the ability um to

flesh that out at the level of the

relevant sciences and as far as I know

nobody is even remotely close to being

able to do that and so you know maybe in

the long run you know decades centuries

down the road assuming we last that long

as a species we'll get around to you

know we might be able to flesh out those

details and vindicate something like the

Xian speculative hypothesis that would

have it that you know subjective freedom

is a kind of return within the field of

classical reality of certain aspects of

quantum reality um you know that to me

is something that will require a very

patient wait and see Outlook and in the

meantime you know this is why I also say

well look if you're going to spend time

diving into the Natural Sciences in

relation specifically to a nonreductive

yet still compatible with materialism or

naturalism account of subjectivity

there's plenty of work to be done you

know starting at the level of

neurobiology which would seem to be the

natural scientific level closest to you

know what we're concerned with when

talking about mindedness and to work

those problems out um and again whether

or not there's going to be any

possibility of vindicating a speculative

hypothesis about a direct link between

you know our subjectivity and quantum

mechanics I just think that um there's

not much that we can do for the time

being except wait and see you know how

much uh progress is made thanks to a

huge amount of collective scientific

labor in different fields over the

decades and you know further to you know

and beyond that uh to see whether or not

that can end up getting substantiated in

any way