QUARTET OF GERMAN IDEALISM / ŽIŽEKIAN MASTERCLASS (7)

This Masterclass focuses on the way Žižek uses the quartet of German Idealism: Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. He refers to this quartet as an unbearable density of thought that fundamentally structures philosophy itself (both past and future). This quartet attempts to work through the consequences of Newtonian science for human history and subjectivity. Kant focuses on a priori conceptual schemas, Fichte focuses on political freedom, Schelling focuses on intuitive artistic creation, and Hegel focuses on the dialectic of law and love. These four thinkers help us to think the absolute in a becoming.

Contact:

[maosagor]

Absolutely fantastic interpretation. Thank you!

[thomassimmons]

Very important work by CL. Keep the faith my brothers and sisters!

[SalamoonYTB]

It seems that in describing the main themes behind this "ultimate philosophical Gang of Four" (as he calls them in 'Less Than Nothing') Zizek was inspired by Badiou's four conditions of philosophy: science, politics, love and art.

[deforeestwright]

What a great vid! It raises a question in my mind, that might be a little complicated, but here goes.

For Kant, the “ideas” are in the mind, and allow no access to “the thing in itself”. This perspective is almost exactly that of medieval “conceptualists”, who interpreted Plato’s “Forms” as really existing, but only in the mind, as opposed to “platonic realists” who thought that the forms had independent objective existence, and nominalists who thought that the forms didn’t really exist and were mere “names”.

Hegel seems more like one of these realists, because for him “ideas” are historically active (i.e. they have an effect on the objective world). Fichte, from what I read, was taking Kant in a more subjective, Berklenean direction.

So my question is what kind of idealism does Žižek espouse? Subjective Idealism, Objective Idealism, some sort of middle-ground, or hybrid system? And, importantly, how would that affect our practical understanding of the modern world, scientific, political, artistic, and so on and so on and so on, as he likes to say?

[deforeestwright]

Another question, a tangent off my first.

If “philosophy-proper only emerges with these four thinkers”, why call it Idealism at all? Certainly German Idealism is a development of an ancient metaphysical outlook that goes all the way back to Plato, and pops up in Leibniz, Berkeley, and Hume.

This is not to argue with the video, but just to inquire into the proposition. Is German Idealism so revolutionary that considerations about 1) whether forms or ideas exist in reality or only in the mind, 2) whether some perceiver is necessary to the existence of the phenomenal world a la Berkeley, or 3) whether the universe is composed of “ideal” monads (an example I think of Leibniz anticipating the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics) are irrelevant or outmoded? If so, on what grounds are such older formulations of Idealism to be rejected or ignored?

To be clear, this is not to interpret Zizek's quote too harshly, nor is it to diminish the significance of the German Idealists. What I am getting at is does Zizek see German Idealism as contiguous with Idealism as a whole? If so, where does he think that it fits in?


I think epistemology might be important to this question, as Idealists who are also rationalists, like Plato and Leibniz seem prone to see ideas as objective (The Good/monads, etc.), while Idealists who are also empiricists, like Berkeley and Hume, tend to see them as subjective (perceptions/impressions). I realize that Kant attempted to reconcile the dispute between rationalism and empiricism, but from what I understand, the later GI's didn't unilaterally jump on board.


So, while my first question (see previous comment) was, basically, "where does Zizek stand on the epistemology and objective/subjective nuts and bolts of Idealism?", this second question is, basically, where does he think the German Idealists (as a group or as individuals) stand on such problems? Or, are they so sophisticated and advanced that they are beyond such considerations?