ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
The Law's Nonsense
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ก.พ. 2023
- The nonsensical dimension of the law consists in the absence of authorization behind it. This nonsense of the law is what is emancipatory in the law, in contrast to the regime of particular laws, which can often be oppressive.
Thanks, Todd! This talk really gets at the heart of the matter. The Law is a groundless ground - an unnecessary necessity.
Excellent, and that was a wonderful articulation of how “the senselessness of the law” is precisely the source of its transcendence and necessity. I also like the idea from Lacan that every legislator is an imposter, and yet the law is necessary.
Thanks, Todd, this explains beautifully the neurotic necessity for the micro-legislating of our lives we see so much in today’s capitalist society. My condolences on the loss of your mother, may she rest in peace.
You a remarkable skill to make these ideas clear.
Just watched the history of the world for the first time ever last night. Got more laughs out of me than most comedies of the last decade.
it’s a good day when todd posts
Incredible, Todd McGowan broadcasting from the future (the intro says Nov. 10, 2023)
I've heard of Nachträglichkeit, but what's this, Vorausschauendheit?
This is fantastic, Todd.
incredibly common Todd McGowan W
Do you see any correspondence between your ideas of recognizing the absurdity of Law itself and the notions of a waning oedipal/paternal function in modern capitalist society? An emancipatory potential in capitalism eroding the subject's investment in authority maybe?
It's a fascinating point. I do think that capitalism's basic structure of universalized corruption or criminality does bring the absurdity of the law into relief. And yes, I don't think it's probably possible to see this before the capitalist epoch. Great questions.
can't wait to read Emancipation After Hegel!
Thanks Todd! I am still a relative newbie when it come to philosophy, especially to Lacan, Zizek, etc. Is this "nonsense of the Law" analogous to how Zizek interprets the Book of Job when he says that in the the end, God engages in blasphemy? If so, does the 'emancipation' you hinted at entail how Zizek interprets the Death of God and the ensuing collective of the Holy Spirit?
Also, my instinct tells me that this is just a modern rewriting (and I guess an answer) of the Euthyphro dilemma from Plato/Socrates. Is this an accurate way to understand this?
It's related to the Euthyphro, but that dialogue doesn't emphasize the nonsense of the law, which I think is crucial. As for emancipation as the emergence of Holy Spirit, that's right. It's the movement of the transcendent beyond into the immanence of the everyday.
You guys should do a Why Theory episode or multiple on the emancipatory potential of the law. Ngl I don’t think I fully got it on first watch of this and it’s something I’ve been trying to think about for a while based on the other ideas you guys go over on the podcast.
Best start to your videos ever! So funny, and didn't Lacan say something about when there is humor, there is psychoanalysis, there is the unconscious?
Yes, but he should himself have been a little funnier, I think.
@@toddmcgowan8233So there's a lot of psychoanalysis where there's Zizek
Good shit T Dog
I also like it when Charlton Heston comes doen from the mount and the visible sign he has encountered God is that his hair transforms into a silver phallic column (Brook's greatest celebration of pure negativity is probably the final moment of Silent Movie).
Song name ?
It's a late Beethoven piano sonata, maybe #31
It's not so much that 'the people' seek a justification for the law giver, rather that the law giver fabricates a justification for his power, which the people must accept. Power moves, laws and ideology follow. This links to Schmitt's 'state of exception' - sovereign is he who decides on the exception. He isnt an 'imposter' per se, because to see him as such is to stand outside the everyday, outside the drama.
Within this analysis there's a a kind of everyman view of the law that is then kind of criticized. The view is that the law as such (as contrasted with any specific law) is necessary (in what sense? idk some sense) and it has an authoritative source (here described as a/the legislator, maybe plural too). It may be that people in the past viewed the law this way, but I just don't think people view the law this way anymore. People recognize the contingency of law, the "stupidity" of legislators, and that there is only an internal perspective to the law (although I don't think most people would say it like that), that there is no real authoritative source of law as such. Maybe psychoanalytic theory somehow is the a significant cause of this change in people's view on the law (personally I doubt that). Yet, even though people recognize these aspects of the law, the view of law as necessary (in some sense, perhaps deontic), somewhat authoritative (although in a different sense than the original view) and sourced (even if not authoritatively sourced) still persists. Only a few anarchists here and there think that law is in no way at all necessary, and those who ultimately don't think the law is authoritative are the ones who can avoid its strictures or wear them without being encumbered so to speak or those who protest parts but not the law as such. Nothing about this seems particularly emancipatory. That's why I think that much more is needed before we can claim that viewing the law in this way is emancipatory.
There's a great analogy here with morality. It probably was the case in the past that people thought morality was both necessary and comes from an authoritative source, be it god or nature or whatever. Now, people, even particularly religious people, do not think that morality is necessary nor authoritative nor originating from an authoritative source. Yet it's still a very prominent part of discourse and conceptual life. If it's emancipatory, it's not because of its "nonsense." It's because of something else. Perhaps something in its content, perhaps a different aspect of its form. But not its senselessness. Maybe I and everyone else is missing some aspect of this nonsense account of the law though, and what we're missing would make the law then be truly emancipatory.
Funnily enough, as an analytic(ish) philosopher myself, I know that meta-ethical non-naturalist realists and some constructivist realists still think that law is in some way necessary and authoritatively sourced, but they're sort of the starting point of disagreement rather than the view to defeat, even if its proponents are often some of the most cited people (Shafer-Landeau, Cuneo, Korsgaard, etc.). Analytic philosophy is a good case study in how people recognize the "nonsense" of the law, morality, and normativity generally, but their resultant views are not of emancipatory normative domains lol.
From the view of psychoanalysis, how would you take the passage from the Bible that states that Christ is the fulfillment of the Law?
I think that this is one of the key passages from Matthew that completely distinguishes Christ from Paul, who insists that the love of Christ trumps the law. I think what Christ is saying is that the introduction of love does not eliminate the grounding status of the law, which will be implicitly even in a structure built around the idea of love.
I’ve had the thought that the movement from the law to love, Judaism to Christianity, could be seen as a movement from the law to obscene superego. If the law to love your neighbor is not an injunction to enjoy, I don’t know what is!
This is really interesting. I just took a course in policy analysis and development, and, illusory though it may be, it seems like the authority policymakers rely on, or other of the other for the other, is science, or its lesser cousin of research-based/evidence-based best practices. This would be a really interesting idea to apply to administrative law in general, because it already sits on pretty unstable ground. There's the power of delegation, which is more or less a formality and really means nothing, speaking to the general absence of authorization. But administration has their own ethic by which they justify/authorize not only policy, but also enforcement and really their existence, which mostly boils down to an ideology of neutrality. Have you found that the insubstantial authority can be more conceptual, like scientism or neutrality, as well as the idea of a figurehead?
Yes, I think it is just as evident in the case of scientism or the like, perhaps more so
RIP to your mom Todd. Fascinating talk as ever.
Thanks so much for thinking of that.
Sorry to hear about your loss. All the best
This problem of "who authorizes the authorizer" has been solved by a recourse to threats of violence, or by an appeal to divine authority, or use of force in the name of divine authority 😉
At least that's what I learned from history books of my nation, and what is even more disturbing is that many people (almost exclusively men) seem to be proud of it, a part of national character
I’ve broken more laws than Moses at Mt. Sinai!
This seems like rubbish. I don't get the "emancipation". Where? You elide it. Is there another video?
Hmmm … if this was true, does this mean I should be able to self proclaim myself a law giver and create a law randomly sending people to forced labour on Mars, and no one outside this small group would be able to see the imposture. I think they would see it … fortunately!
I sadly didn't understand anything lol
I fought the law and the law won
Have no other Gods. That means do whatever God says. 1rst tablet is how to serve God. 2 nd tablet how to serve man?
Yo
Momma.