Duel with language and the way Slavoj Žižek encoded Heidegger (Second Segment) ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

Slavoj Žižek’s persuades his readers to mean language an adverse event for them when they dwell with it. Conversely, Heidegger swayed readers to consider this place with modest reverence. He welcomed them to remember the metaphysical preconditions when they talked about the peaceful coexistence of “being and language” in the same house. Heidegger’s text influenced his readers to believe how “language” represents the real “being” and speak on behalf of it. Such kind of dwelling, in contrast, appeared a battle to Žižek when he treats himself as a dweller of this house. His realistic thinking insists him to feel the pain where language intercepts his every step; not only this, it compelled him to consider the dwelling place a torture house for “being”. This feeling then pressurized him to think about the dialectical postures between “being and language” with care. We should remember this pivotal difference between Heidegger and Žižek before moves forward; since it as well pivotal to realize how the Lacan interpreter convinced his readers misreads Heidegger’s assertion on “being and language” in context of Hegel and so on.

Duel with Language_2_9

YouTube Channel: Gregory B. Sadler: Core Concepts of Philosophy

… Humans differentiate them by escaped from the Natural animalism where language itself the part of yonder isms. This separation is the first dialectical step for human beings, and now he bound to express his beingness through the dialectical language that he got from the unknown source. Language is the only medium that can speak for him, despite the threat that is, —every spoken word rewarded the “being” suffering pain and contradiction.
… … …

Slavoj Žižek is very technical when he deals Heidegger in his texts and lectures. This Slovenian cleverly creates confusion in reader’s mind through his intentional misreading of Heidegger’s assertion about “being and language”. He uses the garnished book “Being and Time” mostly to mark Heidegger wrong; but rarely he quoted other references suppose his “The Thinker as Poet”, “Letter on ‘Humanism”, “The question concerning technology”, “Black Notebooks” etc. Martin Heidegger might be the rare one who criticized his own thoughts are incorrect in some critical points; above all, he never hesitates to rectify his thoughts with anew question and doubt in a frequent interval. His philosophical texts (if we consider “The question concerning technology” bit exceptional) are incomplete in that sense. “Being and Time” is apparently incomplete; it deals “being” by taking such ontological path what he thinks uncomfortable for grounding such critical issue with enough caution

Heidegger expelled him from such judgment where philosopher spoiled his own thoughts by taking overdose philosophy on his shoulder; he appointed his effort to refute other notions but lost his own integrity to the end. As a young and rebellious thinker, He was bound to experience this when he wrote the first volume of “Being and Time”. The young man was pledged to face Plato, Kant, Descartes, Hegel and Nietzsche in his garnished book. Heidegger was obligated to confront them, to utter the phrase over again that, —it sounds sad, but “being” is actually missing in their mind-blowing notions. Yes, it made “Being and Time” priceworthy to it readers; in parallel this book lost the real essence what Heidegger repeatedly beckons at later in his writings and lectures; that is, —ontology is not enough to realize what “Being” is, rather persistent questions can save philosopher when he deals such issues with curious mind and sharp insight. 

Heidegger pointed this by quoting Nietzsche in his book. He showed how Nietzsche’s robust declaration about God (that is “God is dead”) intercepted the ways from where unravelment of question seemed harder to his later followers. His criticism of Christianity was essential in the context of time; it sounds quite realistic but this powerful polemics then drives him to talk like a Christian Priest. Nietzsche’s robust irony then provoked him to set a Godless world against the Godcentric; his battle with Christianity diverted his mind where he failed to address this that —the real problem of “being” is yet not discussed with care

Duel with Language_2_8

litkicks.com: Hegel’s Portrait

… The only way to understand our relationship with it (Absolute), that might be engaged the “being” with language. Language is signifier who waits to be signified by the signifier itself. This complex pattern what Žižek justified through Lacan (and to some extent Marx), does it help us to deal with the real philosophical problem of “Absolute Beginning”? Since Hegel thinks it contradictory when he faced Kant’s “thing-in-itself”?
… … …

This lacking obsessed Nietzsche to generate super-natural “being”, that he thinks help people to overcome the Christian God-doctrines. He then came along with his “Übermensch” (Hyperman or Beyond-Man); a powerful “being” and humans can follow it instead of the created Gods, especially it means Christian God. This approach later pressed philosophy tottering with the “salvation in “beings” versus the nihilism of beings” battle. This is the major problem of ontological thinking, from where philosophy stifles the querist, and as well as Destruktion (dismantling of real “being”) appeared harder to him. Heidegger addressed this by the following wording:

“… because the question of being is indeed not itself the basic question—instead, only a first stoppage of the disempowerment and a preparation for the conversion to the empowerment of the essence. “Ontology” does not at all know the question of being—; where the transition of the latter to “ontology”! Plato—Aristotle—precisely through their greatness the ambiguity of their philosophizing is intensified.” [See: Black Notebooks by Martin Heidegger]

Maybe for the reason, Heidegger not finished “Being and Time”. He mobilized his mind clearly made an opposition to his own texts so that he can investigate it like a rebeginner.

“People are waiting for the second volume of Being and Time; I am waiting for this waiting to cease and for people to finally confront the first volume.” [See: Black Notebooks by Martin Heidegger]

Thus, draw a finishing line by depends on “being and Time” it might be suicidal for readers. We should remember Heidegger himself questioned and criticized his book in many extents. Everybody knows Slavoj Žižek is the strong criticizer of post-modernist thought-paradigm. His opponency to Derrida’s de-construction is an open secret for many years. Nevertheless, his reading of philosopher’s text often indicates such carelessness what we’ve seen (not often but sometimes) in post-modernism and its de-construction patterns.

Žižek might have his own opposition to Heidegger what he tried to mean in his texts. Anyway, his analysis shows his intention to read Heidegger (as well as Hegel) with disintegration, though both of them deserved reverse, and that is, —their texts cannot be readable without integration. We need to remember this before reading Heidegger by taken Žižek’s style. His style is elegant but very slippery and flippant. Above all, we must understand what Heidegger meant by the relation when he said, —language is the home of a “Being”; he is the guardian of that home where language talks on behalf him.
… … …

Dwel with language_10

The Guardian: Slavoj Zizek: ‘We are all basically evil, egotistical, disgusting’

… Žižek’s relation with language is inescapable in that extent. He cannot think himself by going beyond the language that Heidegger means hyper-language; that maybe at once present in this Earth when pre-Socrates thinkers tried to find the answer with such pasture what indicates openness and freedom. Yes, raise the next question by trailing the answer you’ve got.
… …. …

Heidegger when talks about the language it leads him to comatose remoteness. “Being and language” both coexist in that reality without having any intention to mean it a “reality”. “Being” itself stayed there as “hyper-being” along with language. Heidegger thinks suchlike dwelling is possible when we enabling us to think the metaphysical beingness of this apparent world in a Da-sein state. Therefore, his phraseology about the peaceful dwelling, in fact, a paraphrasing of metaphysical relation, that he think existed between “being and language” when they stayed in the home. It indicates three states:

First is “being”, the fundamental individual property and might be the cause of all kind of beingness what we’ve experienced through sensory participation. Second, is language; it by-self concealed with every “being” and appeared along with the “being” when creation happened. The third is home or Da-sein; it might sound bit allegorical but we can treat this home an always “there” state where “being” takes it position to rebegin the creation over again.

Da-sein is a paraphrase for Heidegger. He uses it to serve multiple wits. Suppose Da-sein indicates “being”-s position in the concordant state that might be identical with “nothingness”; and, we know “nothingness” is a non-negotiable state for human cognizance. We human beings can guess it, but we cannot apply our sensory applications to describe it with accuracy. No language exists in human-world that can talk about this void-looking state with ovenproof confidence. This “nothingness” appeared as a positional state for the “being” in Heidegger’s texts. There is one problem; —nobody knows what could be the language of this state! The language of “nothingness” where “being” exists… is unknown for human cognition. Heidegger means it by using poetic allegory and he beckons: —“being” is shuddering when it stayed in the void-looking Da-sein. 

To the contrary, Da-sein indicates an always present state of “being”. Heidegger explained the state by naming it “there or thereness”; means “being” never lost in the void due to its positional trait. As Aristotle disowned the possibility of the void in his mechanics to think it (position) a quality of motion. Heidegger disowned “nothingness” to consider the same positional activeness of “being” in “there” state. His “being” is such originary or fundamental property that cannot hide it in “nothingness” state. Instead, it always maintains its hyperactive state so that one “being” can assimilate another “being”. This assimilation is looking like gestalt.

However, Heidegger described the assimilation process of “being” by calling it Gestell. The easiest meaning of this German idiom indicate the “Enframing” of thing; suppose what we called technological goods they are nothing but the enframed phenomenal assimilation of things; the techno goods are the combination of assorted parts, and we assorted them by revealment. That’s why technology invented nothing; what it invented that is it reveals things from the nothing looking “there” state and enframed them to produce new technological goods for use. We can take bit freedom hired Heidegger’s Gestell and applied it to understand how every single “being” enframed them in “beings”. “Enframing” of “being” in Da-sein state might be the reason for this apparent world where we are staying as human beings. We can say, reality always enframed it through the plural Enframing of “being”.

Duel with Language_2_10

The Guardian: Martin Heidegger and Black Notebooks

… Every thought-paradigm from Socrates to post-Socrates era has tried to induct them as the final answer of how “being” has happened and what be the reality stayed behind it. Every answer squeezed the possibility of “being” in this way. The impact now appeared negative for querist; it makes impossible his journey to realize the real essence of “being” by crossing the so-called language border.
… … …

The moral is profound here; creation is the combination of “being” and we are the byproduct of that combinedness. We can consider this plurality of “being” in Marxian context. Classification of labor produce commodities, as like as classified “being” produce “beings”, and this apparent reality happened over again through this way. “Beings” can never happen if “being” lost its hyperactivity in its “there” state. The plurality of “being” is the over again happening state of reality, and the beginning of reality might be uncountable, as uncountable the beginning of “being”. Nobody knows how it begins and as well tough to guess how many times “being” enframed them for “beings”. 

Heidegger appeared realistic when he tagged his Da-sein to mean openness. In one way, it beckons “there”. The creation of reality always started without intentions from “there”. In another way, it talked about the re-beginning of philosophy and the language as well. Since philosophy forgets how to talk with the originary “being”, that might be always hyperactive in the Da-sein state, and Das-Seiendes (mean “beings”) might not possible without this state. 

We should remember that reality is non-dual in Heidegger’s world. “Being” is not separate to the “beings” and same the reverse. However, it doesn’t mean “beings” are “being”; actually “being” is the reason for “beings” but the revealment and assimilation of “being” in Da-sein state are unknowable for the “beings”. This crucial fact makes Heidegger different from other philosophers. His “being and beings” happened in the same positional state and spacetime. It not like that Da-sein (“being”) and Das-Seiendes (“beings”) happen separately. Both happened in the same state. Only the reason that makes a difference between them that is, —“being” lost its pure beingness state when it combined itself with other “being” to give birth “beings” through the assimilation process. 

In that sense we can assume when “being” stayed in the unrevealed state that is Das-Sein; but when it revealed itself through assimilation that is Das-Seiendes. Language as well follows the same procedures. It appeared from the Das-Sein to Das-Seiendes state. When Heidegger uses “originary”, it indicates “being”, the only fundamental cause for this apparent world. Everything has made through the essence which “being” contained within it. However, “being” per se is unconscious about its essence. This unconscious autonomous “there”, in where beingness always happened, this state is the only reality where “being” exists and interacts to rebegin the being of the “beings” over again. Human being forgets this reality since from the Socrates-era when Plato has appeared with his two-world presumption. 

Heidegger uses the word “re-begin” in his texts several times. Rebeginning indicates the rebegin of “being” over again but maybe in the different positional state. As well as it means the rebegin of philosophy itself. Heidegger thinks philosophy lost its capacity to realize what “being” is and how “being” makes it journey as “beings” in the same “there” state. He also thinks about the language which human beings applying since from the Socrates-age, to solve the “being” problem of reality. He thinks Socrates and later searching should consider a falsification of “being”. This searching tried to confine “being” through definition and abstraction. When he reproaches Hegel for his oblivion that he forgets mentioned “the phenomenal experience of negativity”, it doesn’t mean what Žižek tried to establish in his article (see: “Hegel versus Heidegger by Slavoj Žižek”).

Heidegger reproaches Hegel for following causations:

When Hegel discussed “Nothing or Absolute” he forgets to mention: great thinkers of human civilization confined the real beingness of the “being” by importing two-world theories, as Plato introduced Ideal and Real-world in his Republic. Hegel forgets many thinkers tried to introduce one-way reality where “beings and being” got the same treatment by them. He also forgets mentioning: some thinkers tried to justify that a language just represents the duality of human body-mind and nothing else. 

Every thought-paradigm from Socrates to post-Socrates era has tried to induct them as the final answer of how “being” has happened and what be the reality stayed behind it. Every answer squeezed the possibility of “being” in this way. The impact now appeared negative for querist; it makes impossible his journey to realize the real essence of “being” by crossing the so-called language border.

Duel with Language_2_12

Colunastortas.com: Slavoj Žižek 

… everything has made through the essence which “being” contained within it. However, “being” per se is unconscious about its essence. This unconscious autonomous “there”, in where beingness always happened, this state is the only reality where “being” exists and interacts to rebegin the being of the “beings” over again. Human being forgets this reality since from the Socrates-era when Plato has appeared with his two-world presumption.
… … …

This impossibility led Heidegger to criticize Hegel and other great philosophers, in where everybody tried to highlight “being” by forgetting the real essence of it. “Being” is fundamental and it always remains in the hyperactive state to perform the self-automaton process over again; besides, no duality exists in the reality of beingness. Neither it exists in the Hegel-mentioned “nothingness”, nor does it exist in the apparent reality. What makes it dual that is the two-world concept; it first led by Platonism and later followed by many others. Hegel’s phenomenology forgets to mention this negativity with care. 

Anyway, Hegel’s lacking appeared as a chance to the Žižek-like theorists. They renounce his statement on “nothingness” in excuse that it reflects metaphysical abstraction which Hegel himself judged non-negotiable transcendentalism of being. Žižek’s relation with language is inescapable in that extent. He cannot think himself by going beyond the language that Heidegger means hyper-language; that maybe at once present in this Earth when pre-Socrates thinkers tried to find the answer with such pasture what indicates openness and freedom. Yes, raise the next question by trailing the answer you’ve got.

Žižek is epidemic in his misreading even Hegel’s text. For instance, Žižek Studies Center where students tried to defend his thought, we can consider one of the articles is valid for this current discussion. His fellow students tried to refute Mr. Henrich’s propositions about Hegel’s phenomenology and Absolute Beginning. [See: From Hegel to Lacan or from Ego to Agora by Roberto Ribeiro Baldino and Tânia C. B. Cabral; International Journal of Žižek Studies

The article writers started by defending Henrich’s arguments on Hegel and gradually drive their cart to Lacan extents; and finally, they formalized Hegel with Marxian dialectical materialism. They use Žižek as a reference to refute Henrich. It explained Henrich’s arguments about Hegel’s phenomenology at the first segment; then it quoted some Hegel’s text to clarify what he meant by the “Absolute Beginning”. The article writers made a hypothetical dialogue to denote how Hegel contradicts his own logic to destroy the logical process, and how it leads us to the dialectical materialism. Above all, it gives us space to make our own conversation that how Hegelian “being” exchanges itself and transpires it from “nothingness” to the “beginning”.

e.g: hypothetical dialogue:
Hegel: Being and Nothing are the same.
Big Other: How come? You have just distinguished them with the
conjunction “and”.
Hegel: Of course, they are distinct.
Big Other: Then you contradict yourself.
Hegel: Yes, of course, I embrace this contradiction.
Big Other: I understand… [See: From Hegel to Lacan or from Ego to Agora by Roberto Ribeiro Baldino and Tânia C. B. Cabral; International Journal of Žižek Studies

The article writers incorporate Lacan by using Žižek as a reference but it appeared along with the “generalization” of Hegel’s text as well. Readers failed to find the proper positional state of “Absolute Beginning” which might Hegel discussed in his texts (ref: The Spirit of Phenomenology and Science of Logic) with profound insight. We can read whole Conjecture section of this article for better understanding:

“We conjecture that Hegel’s remark discussed above (Hegel 1929: 102) gives a privileged bottleneck connecting Hegel to Lacan, provided we read what Hegel calls the Absolute what Lacan calls the big Other. Consequently, the ‘Absolute’ does not live in heaven, as Engels thought, but in the Agora. From this point of view, Hegel Marx-Lacan theory as elicited by Žižek appears as a discursive materialism where language is not a biased mediation but acquires neutral full primacy. This approach extirpates metaphysics by its root and leads to a system that can be properly called dialectical materialism. As a consequence of our identification of the Absolute with the big Other, truth becomes that which is proved in the Agora and as such becomes incorporated in the Absolute.” [See: From Hegel to Lacan or from Ego to Agora by Roberto Ribeiro Baldino and Tânia C. B. Cabral; International Journal of Žižek Studies]

Dwel with language_5

Fine art america.com: Portrait Of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is a painting by Jacob Schlesinger

… This crucial fact makes Heidegger different from other philosophers. His “being and beings” happened in the same positional state and spacetime. It not like that Da-sein (“being”) and Das-Seiendes (“beings”) happen separately. Both happened in the same state. Only the reason that makes a difference between them that is, —“being” lost its pure beingness state when it combined itself with other “being” to give birth “beings” through the assimilation process.
… … …

It indicates Žižek and his followers use Lacan in such way that diverts us to the original problem of beingness. The original question should be like this, —how the beginning happened and how it remains to its Agora State despite the dialectical relation between the subjective and objective reality? His typical assertion on Hegel’s “Being and Nothing are the same”, —does it connotes what Hegel wanted to mean in his outstanding texts? Žižek is hardcore to mean it, Lacan’s “Dialogue with Big other” somehow maintained an equal possession with Hegel’s “Absolute Beginning” of the “being” from the “nothingness” state. Žižek then determinates him and claimed, —the beginning always reflects the beginning itself. That’s why it (“beginning”) remains as a subjective reference in Hegel’s Dialectics so that “being” can make a dialogue with it; this stimulus is equally constant to the position where language tortured the “being” or compelled it to talk with the beginning. 

Žižek tried to actualize the concept that there is a gap remains between the subjective spirit (suppose “being, absolute, beginning etc”) and this objective real world where “being” exists. When it talked with the “Absolute”, it actually talked with the “subjective Absolute” which might stay in the “Nothingness”. The only way to understand our relationship with it (Absolute), that might be engaged the “being” with language. Language is signifier who waits to be signified by the signifier itself. This complex pattern what Žižek justified through Lacan (and to some extent Marx), does it help us to deal with the real philosophical problem of “Absolute Beginning”? Since Hegel thinks it contradictory when he faced Kant’s “thing-in-itself”? 

This misreading and miscoding is a regular event for Žižek. The reason is not critical to guess, language is the only ventilation for him to announce his identity as a “being”. Thus, Žižek subjected his “self-apprehension” with language; in where, as a “being” he is make-bound to dwell and duel with language. “Being” has remained untold except for this cohabitation; it might be more terrible for a “being”, supposed like Žižek. 

Duel with Language_2_7

Philosophynow.org: Slavoj Žižek by Woodrow Cowher 

… Žižek might have his own opposition to Heidegger what he tried to mean in his texts. Anyway, his analysis shows his intention to read Heidegger (as well as Hegel) with disintegration, though both of them deserved reverse, and that is, —their texts cannot be readable without integration. We need to remember this before reading Heidegger by taken Žižek’s style. His style is elegant but very slippery and flippant. Above all, we must understand what Heidegger meant by the relation when he said, —language is the home of a “Being”; he is the guardian of that home where language talks on behalf him.
… … …

Every unspoken state of “being” prolonged the uncanny silence and human-like “being” cannot resist this, nor he is capable to escape from it. Dealing own existence with instinctive animalism might easy for all other “being” but the same thing is difficult for a human “being”. Humans can talk through language where they try to mean their beingness by this. Language is Nature to other animals. It helps them to survive in Nature oriented environment. Humans differentiate them by escaped from the Natural animalism where language itself the part of yonder isms. This separation is the first dialectical step for human beings, and now he bound to express his beingness through the dialectical language that he got from the unknown source. Language is the only medium that can speak for him, despite the threat that is, —every spoken word rewarded the “being” suffering pain and contradiction. 

Human use language without knowing its source that how language arrives with “being” and how as much as it able to dig out the real being with care. Why the interception happened when “being and language” coexists to make a connection between them? —this question insists Žižek differ with Heidegger. Is it correct? We will search the answer in next chapter.
… … …

Duel with Language_2_11

Goodreads.com: How to read Lacan:  Slavoj Žižek
… it sounds sad, but “being” is actually missing in their mind-blowing notions. Yes, it made “Being and Time” priceworthy to it readers; in parallel this book lost the real essence what Heidegger repeatedly beckons at later in his writings and lectures; that is, —ontology is not enough to realize what “Being” is, rather persistent questions can save philosopher when he deals such issues with curious mind and sharp insight.
… … …

… Continued to the next …

Previous Segment Link: Duel with language and the way Slavoj Žižek encoded Heidegger (First Segment)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.