Cake or Doughnut Ontology? | Žižek vs. Johnston

Rahul Sam
26 Jul 202412:58

Summary

TLDRThe 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.

Mindmap

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

play00:00

what Professor so now to kind of flesh

play00:02

out your differences and kind of this

play00:05

ongoing debate with J now of course

play00:09

um kind of puts forward this idea of

play00:11

ontological incompleteness which is also

play00:13

something that I'm fully fully drawn

play00:16

towards um so I I I was trying to

play00:19

prepare for this conversation and I I

play00:21

Read's book on freedom uh a couple of

play00:24

months then I I there's one one part

play00:26

here if you don't mind if I could just

play00:28

read it out he he says in the book uh

play00:31

freedom disase without kill uh being

play00:34

involved in a decades long debate with

play00:36

Edan Johnston I gladly accept his

play00:39

designation of a difference as one

play00:41

between uh layer cake and donut in your

play00:44

ontology yes then uh you also did uh

play00:47

write write a little have a bit of a

play00:50

debate with him in this H book J

play00:52

response which is an excellent yes read

play00:55

uh read

play00:56

too this debate between uh cake and

play01:00

donut so if you could take as as as much

play01:04

time as you need for this because I find

play01:06

it fascinating and kind of try to

play01:09

outline uh these ontological differences

play01:12

between the dut model and the the cake

play01:15

layer cake model between yourself and

play01:16

xek yes well I should say that with with

play01:20

with xek so starting in 1996 and that

play01:24

year he he brings out um his book The

play01:27

indivisible remainder an essay on

play01:29

shelling related matters and one of the

play01:32

you know striking and novel features of

play01:35

that particular work from the mid1 1990s

play01:37

is that this was the first time the

play01:40

initial occasion when um when xek uh uh

play01:45

attempted to uh use his at that point

play01:50

primarily his combination of German

play01:51

idealism with lukan and in this case

play01:54

more more precisely uh sort of leanian

play01:57

eyes shelling to engage with quantum

play02:01

physics um and so this this gesture of

play02:05

taking recourse to Quantum Physics for

play02:08

fleshing out a particular sort of

play02:11

materialism that would involve this this

play02:13

idea of ontological incompleteness Etc

play02:15

um this is really the first place where

play02:17

you see XI do that um and then more

play02:20

recently um it's as though that project

play02:23

from the indivisible remainder has over

play02:26

the course of the past I'd say

play02:30

probably about 15 years s of returned

play02:32

with a Vengeance in his uh in his you

play02:36

know more recent work where you know he

play02:38

Now talks about his his version of

play02:40

dialectical materialism as essentially

play02:42

involving this particular hybrid German

play02:46

idealist leanian manner of engaging with

play02:50

quantum physics for instance you know

play02:52

his 2020 book sex in the failed absolute

play02:55

um is his I think most recent sustained

play02:58

presentation of that and in fact right

play02:59

now he's back to working on quantum

play03:01

physics again and has been in

play03:03

conversation with a number of you know

play03:05

eminent figures in that field and it's

play03:09

very yes that's right and

play03:11

so yeah he's in the middle of working on

play03:14

all of that right now um but uh one

play03:17

aspect of of the Kate versus donut model

play03:20

that you're talking about has to do with

play03:23

how in debating with him about some of

play03:25

these issues one of the things that I

play03:27

did is go back to shelling himself um

play03:31

and you know looking at uh you know

play03:34

shellings philosophy of Nature and

play03:37

related aspects of shellings larger the

play03:40

lack of a better word metaphysics um

play03:43

that you know it became very clear to me

play03:46

that with shelling schelling's account

play03:50

of of autonomous subjectivity of of you

play03:55

know the subject in its fullest Freedom

play03:58

um as concerns X that shelling makes

play04:02

clear that for him what this is a matter

play04:05

of is so shelling and this is you know

play04:08

this is material crucial to X's version

play04:10

of shelling the middle period shelling

play04:12

starting with shelling 1809 fight schift

play04:15

his essay on human freedom and running

play04:16

through the ages of the world up to

play04:18

around 1815 or thereabouts that this

play04:22

middle period shelling especially is

play04:24

dear to xek and this shelling has this

play04:26

distinction that xek uses again and

play04:28

again between ground glun and existence

play04:32

existence um and this ground existence

play04:35

distinction you know for shelling the

play04:37

idea is is that what we ordinarily take

play04:39

to be reality is what he calls existence

play04:42

which is this tamed and

play04:43

domesticated um you know field of

play04:46

constituted entities and events um that

play04:49

is organized in a lawful fashion that is

play04:52

intelligible for us you know as knowing

play04:55

subjects um that we are able to

play04:57

cognitively map you know get our

play04:59

bearings in relation to Etc but that

play05:02

this entire domain that we inhabit of

play05:04

this intelligible reality that shelling

play05:06

calls existence um arises from and sits

play05:10

a top this more foundational underlying

play05:13

ontological basis that shelling calls

play05:16

ground and that this ground for the

play05:18

middle and late period shelling is not a

play05:22

you know calm organized lawful rule

play05:27

governed um uh uh you know second

play05:30

reality it is Instead This unruly

play05:33

conflict-ridden

play05:34

anarchic it's kind of like this

play05:36

primordial chaos almost um and then for

play05:39

shelling what you know we take to be

play05:42

instances of effective human freedom in

play05:45

our constituted reality of existence are

play05:48

for shelling returns of the repressed

play05:50

ground it's as though the impersonal

play05:54

Anonymous uh unruly basis of all being

play05:58

um returns in this you know uh uh you

play06:01

know uh localized fashion in and through

play06:06

human subjects and that my own

play06:08

subjectivity in terms of when I am free

play06:11

and in those instances in which I am I

play06:14

can be said to be acting autonomously

play06:17

that what is happening is this in and

play06:18

through me this ground is in a sense

play06:21

intruding into the domain of existence

play06:23

it's a moment at which that underlying

play06:25

ontological unruliness breaks through

play06:29

the crust of existence and and makes

play06:32

itself felt again um and perturbs that

play06:35

field of existence now from within um

play06:39

but of course you know in my view I

play06:41

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

play06:43

bit like shelling is cheating and I call

play06:45

this a donut model because although

play06:47

Hegel is usually seen as being guilty of

play06:49

of uh of privileging you know the idea

play06:52

of circularity or this you know this

play06:54

notion of you know coming back to where

play06:57

you started uh uh ET

play07:00

that it's really with shelling that you

play07:01

get this model where it's that all right

play07:04

ground gives rise to the various

play07:05

emergent levels and layers of existence

play07:08

and then at the kind of highest level of

play07:10

emergence uh at the level of existence

play07:13

namely our subjective autonomy that that

play07:16

you know highest point is just the

play07:18

return of the of the lowest you know uh

play07:22

basis um so it's as though we in fact

play07:24

just go through you know a series of

play07:26

layers arranged in a donut shape and

play07:29

then when we get get to the highest

play07:30

emergent layer we've closed the circle

play07:32

and rejoined you know the lowest point

play07:34

so you know the highest point of the

play07:36

emergent levels of existence is the

play07:39

return of the ultimate underlying graph

play07:42

and so it's this you know layered

play07:45

circular you know dut shape kind of that

play07:48

you get with shelling um you know

play07:50

whereas you know I argue with Hegel if

play07:52

you look especially at hegel's

play07:53

philosophy of Nature and then his

play07:55

account of the emergence of human-

play07:57

mindedness out of nature you you know

play07:59

the volumes two and three of his

play08:01

encyclopedia um that you you know it's

play08:04

not that for him you know the various

play08:07

aspects of what we associate with Guist

play08:09

you know you know Spirit mind you know

play08:12

in in its various you know forms

play08:13

associated with our subjectivity that

play08:15

for heel is not just you know in a sense

play08:19

the Resurgence of something you know

play08:21

from the most primitive you know

play08:24

metaphysical basis of existence that

play08:27

then

play08:28

reints Within

play08:30

an a constituted field of natural and

play08:33

human reality and its you know in all of

play08:35

its particular features um that no that

play08:38

there's you know something irreducibly

play08:40

distinct and new about human Freedom

play08:43

rather than it being just in a sense

play08:45

tapping back into what is oldest and

play08:46

most archaic and then xek when he you

play08:50

know engages with quantum physics um in

play08:54

a way that's influenced by shelling um

play08:56

it's no accident that you know xak Flur

play08:58

with this idea that in a way it that you

play09:03

know his idea of the aut you know the

play09:04

the negativity of autonomous

play09:06

subjectivity iek is sometimes that this

play09:09

is in a way like with shelling but now

play09:11

in updated terminology that this is a

play09:14

kind of return in in ordinary

play09:16

non-quantum reality of certain unruly

play09:21

aspects of the quantum Universe right

play09:23

that it's as though you have quantum

play09:25

physics as this shadowy shenian ground

play09:28

and then you have the classical Universe

play09:30

we inhabit of course resulting from

play09:32

things like the collapse of the wave

play09:33

function as like shellings existence and

play09:36

that when human Freedom comes into play

play09:38

for xek I think he's sometimes tempted

play09:40

to take this shellian shortcut and to

play09:42

say that well that's in a sense

play09:44

something like Quantum indeterminancy

play09:47

Etc um returning within the constituted

play09:51

field of classical non-quantum reality

play09:54

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

play09:57

is that for someone who also of course

play10:00

in part thanks to his Fidelity to things

play10:03

like German idealism and dialectical

play10:05

materialism for somebody who wants a

play10:08

non-reductive account of subjectivity um

play10:10

you know this seems to be a remarkably

play10:13

reductive move is to say essentially

play10:15

that you know solving the problem of

play10:18

human- mindedness or subjectivity um is

play10:21

just simply a matter of you know we

play10:22

could really say that the UL the

play10:24

smallest ultimate constituents of

play10:27

physical reality are

play10:29

you know a sense where we are to go

play10:32

looking for the basis of what we call

play10:34

subjectivity I mean that's you know of

play10:36

course you know a hard-nosed you know

play10:39

physical reductionist or eliminativist I

play10:41

don't think ultimately we'd have too

play10:43

much of a problem with that um but

play10:44

efforts to do this I mean like you go

play10:46

back to something like Roger penrose's

play10:48

work like the emperor's new mind um you

play10:51

know to the best of my knowledge nobody

play10:53

has really gotten very far actually

play10:55

trying to flesh out okay if you're going

play10:57

to assert that there's some type of

play10:59

direct connection between the quantum

play11:02

level and then our subjectivity or

play11:04

mindedness well there's it would seem

play11:07

you would need to have the ability um to

play11:10

flesh that out at the level of the

play11:12

relevant sciences and as far as I know

play11:14

nobody is even remotely close to being

play11:17

able to do that and so you know maybe in

play11:20

the long run you know decades centuries

play11:23

down the road assuming we last that long

play11:25

as a species we'll get around to you

play11:28

know we might be able to flesh out those

play11:31

details and vindicate something like the

play11:33

Xian speculative hypothesis that would

play11:36

have it that you know subjective freedom

play11:39

is a kind of return within the field of

play11:43

classical reality of certain aspects of

play11:46

quantum reality um you know that to me

play11:50

is something that will require a very

play11:53

patient wait and see Outlook and in the

play11:56

meantime you know this is why I also say

play11:58

well look if you're going to spend time

play12:00

diving into the Natural Sciences in

play12:02

relation specifically to a nonreductive

play12:05

yet still compatible with materialism or

play12:09

naturalism account of subjectivity

play12:11

there's plenty of work to be done you

play12:13

know starting at the level of

play12:14

neurobiology which would seem to be the

play12:16

natural scientific level closest to you

play12:19

know what we're concerned with when

play12:21

talking about mindedness and to work

play12:23

those problems out um and again whether

play12:28

or not there's going to be any

play12:29

possibility of vindicating a speculative

play12:31

hypothesis about a direct link between

play12:34

you know our subjectivity and quantum

play12:36

mechanics I just think that um there's

play12:39

not much that we can do for the time

play12:41

being except wait and see you know how

play12:44

much uh progress is made thanks to a

play12:46

huge amount of collective scientific

play12:48

labor in different fields over the

play12:50

decades and you know further to you know

play12:53

and beyond that uh to see whether or not

play12:55

that can end up getting substantiated in

play12:57

any way

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Related Tags
Ontological DebatePhilosophyQuantum PhysicsFreedomExistenceSubjectivitySchellingHegelMaterialismDialecticsScience