This post has fewer, but chunkier sections where I talk about continental and analytic philosophy. I also respond to a few people who asked how the love encounter is related to ethics. These writings can be read in any order.

To Mike from Netherlands, and John who asked me about Descartes and Lacan, I received you guys’ emails. I’m just really busy with life right now and will respond ASAP when I am less exhausted. Feel free to email again and harass me if I don’t respond in a week or two.

Edit: I forgot about Giorgio. Thank you for the compliment and citing one of my psychoanalytic post for your book!

P.S. Mango ice cream is really good!

* * *

What is Bobbyism?

It was a term coined by my friends to describe anything that Bobby says and does just because he likes to say and do stupid things without caring what other people thinks LOL. When I say that someone has a PhD in Bobbyism, it just means they are an expert in the quirks and knowledge of Bobby.

* * *

My Writings on Psychoanalysis and Love

I am flattered that someone wants to cite this post for their masters degree thesis. It is one of my favorite writings on this site (found here). Thank you Max from Germany. His thesis is about how Hollywood movies portrays love from a Lacanian psychoanalytic perspective. I think it’s a pretty original idea because the Lacanian position on love is quite unique which defies many conventional views that falls into social norms.

Everyone wish him luck! He said he would send me his thesis if I can read German. Brb, I’m going to learn German right now. 😉😉

* * *

To people who sends me angry emails ranting about stuff that I write on here…

Your mom. 😂

75% of the emails I get through this blog are people requesting my full name for citations. 20% are people who asks questions and sends me random things to read that I always forget about (sorry, I need my beauty sleep). The remaining 5% are people who sends disgruntled emails where I have to try really hard to not troll them because it’s funny. Some people are so petty LOL.

* * *

Why does voting left, center or right not change anything in regards to equality? (From last post)

Because capitalism as an economic structure consists of hierarchies where you have different social classes. No matter how well balanced these classes are, there will always be hierarchies which means there will be economic inequality where someone is really rich (bourgeoise) who has private ownership of the means of production, and another person who is poor (proletariat) with little to no control. The Spanish film, The Platform is an allegory of this hierarchical system. It’s a pretty good movie.

China is a good example of a country that tries to regulate the general wealth of all social classes. This is how they lifted 700 million people out of poverty (the ability to achieve this comes at a cost). But equality does not always involve capital. It can also be a question of law and policy among other things.

* * *

The Critique of Ideology

If you are interested in Guy Debord and the critique of ideology that I spoke about last time. There is a film called, The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology which features Slavoj Zizek explaining how ideology functions behind your everyday life through popular culture and how it influences you. No one likes to eat from the trash can, but we eat from it all the time. We just don’t know it!

This trash can is called ideology.
(It’s a meme).

* * *

Maturity

From personal experience, I think most people starts getting more mature in their mid 20s (24-26 give or take) and probably doesn’t stop until older age. It kind of makes sense because the human brain does not stop growing until around 25.

I am 33. Sometimes, I just think back to some of the stupid shit I did in my 20s and go like, “What was I even thinking?”. LOL it’s funny. Everyone does stupid things. Everyone makes mistakes. We learn and we grow. It’s all part of life. 🙂

* * *

The Praying Mantis: Fear and Anxiety

Last time, I briefly mentioned that there is a difference between fear and anxiety.

The simplest way to explain this is that fear involves a form of knowing, and anxiety involves not knowing (repression; lack). Fear and anxiety are often confused by the person who experiences it, even when they are very different from each other. Lacan once famously used the praying mantis example to showcase the experience of anxiety.

Consider the natural phenomena on how the female praying mantis are known for biting off the head of the male after they mate. Now suppose that you are a praying mantis with a mask on where you don’t know whether you are female or male. A female mantis approaches where you become anxious due to not knowing whether you will die. This experience on the uncertainty of whether you are male or female is famously known as “castration anxiety”. It is one of the fundamental experiences that everyone gets when they become split subjects (recall in hysterics who asks: “Am I a man or a woman?”). It is sort of like unconsciously deciding which washroom you should walk into at a mall. You will see Slavoj Zizek talk about this when he discusses gender neutral bathrooms.

On the other hand, fear is the experience of already knowing that you are a male who will die after you mate with the female mantis. I will likely talk more about this in the future, but this is the gist of it.

* * *

Dealing with writer’s block

I have it all the time, but I just try to let it pass. I often write best early in the morning or late at night. If I didn’t have to wake up early, I would be a night owl and write all night, even if it might be about random things that I will never publish. My brain is most active late at night where my mind moves at lightning speeds.

* * *

Why are INTJs so quiet?

They’re only quiet when you don’t know how to pull the right strings. They can be really social if they are in the right mood and/or once you open yourself up to them more. Try to take initiative, be curious and tell them about yourself. They can be very formal when you first meet them. Also, there is nothing wrong with being a little quiet. INTJs can definitely be the anchors of peace and silence who represents the movement of thought itself! They tend to balance out extroverted types because they are really good listeners (though the super extroverts might overwhelm them). But once you know them better, they also talk a lot who can be quite goofy.

Remember that INTJs are basically human cats (INFJ has this aura as well). They look a bit aloof on the outside who secretly likes to play and talk to people they like. They are independent who does their own thing, but they also like to snuggle. They are clingy but not clingy, just like cats. Once you know them better and understand their quirky humor, they might start to regularly say and do stupid things to tease you just because it’s funny, where they might resemble a child who wants to play with you.

🐱

* * *

Continental and Analytic Philosophy

It is commonly thought that both of these schools of philosophy opposes each other which I personally disagree. In fact, I often think they are trying to do the same things where they have a lot of overlapping ideas, but with different methods and approaches—though I am no expert in analytic philosophy.

The term “Continental philosophy” just means “Continental European philosophy”. Its root stems from influences of Enlightenment era philosophers, especially those from 18th century German Idealism, namely Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel. These two figures led to sharp responses from 19th century thinkers from existentialists such as Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. It was also around this time where psychoanalysis was invented by Sigmund Freud. Phenomenology came into existence through Gotlob Frege and Edmund Husserl. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also took center stage who basically invented modern social science as a discipline. There is the Copenhagen school of linguistics with figures like Roman Jakobson and Louis Hjelmslev; along with influential Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure. Then there is Frankfurt school in Germany and “Post-Structuralism” in France. Overtime, these different strands of philosophies came to influence each other which established the “continental philosophy” tradition. Though we must remember that some of these figures also influenced the analytic school and vice versa. For example, Ludwig Wittgenstein was influenced by people like Kierkegaard.

On the other hand, analytic philosophy began from the Vienna Circle in the 1920s which consisted of a group of philosophers and scientists who were trying to unify the entire field of science, where they tried to find the lowest common dominator to all scientific thought. It was inspired by people such as Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and Gotlob Frege (the teacher of Husserl). Eventually, the Vienna Circle lead to analytic philosophy and movements such as Logical Positivism and Logical Empiricism (together known as Neopositivism). The Vienna Circle is a major influence in disciplines such as the philosophy of science and the philosophy of mind. Then there is also Metaphysical Realism and Critical Rationalism (Karl Popper is quite good).

There are some distinct differences between analytic and continental philosophy in terms of approach. Analytic philosophy often carries much more technical and logical methods to its thinking style. A lot of the famous analytic works involves rigorous analysis using axioms, propositions, and inferences to produce arguments (known as “formal logic”; it’s sort of like math with its own language system and syntax). The best example is Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. It is a three volume book which sought to understand the foundations of mathematics. Both Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein are also good examples of analytic philosophy. The latter text which was published posthumously is often considered as the most important book of 20th century. You will also see analytic tradition at work in people like Noam Chomsky who is well known for his theory on universal grammar and his political stance on socialism. Chomsky is also well known for his criticism of Jacques Lacan—someone he understands very little about, with all due respect.

Whereas continental philosophy is much more organic in its tone and writing styles, where they can get quite artistic, poetic, and romantic even. Many of them are also much more “stylish” than analytic texts, where each philosopher has their own writing style and rhythm to their work. Quite a few continental philosophers are also established poets, artists, filmmakers, literary writers and vice versa. Jean-Paul Sartre is a good example of this, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature and tried to reject it. On the other hand, Samuel Beckett was a writer whose work carried a lot of philosophical themes—sometimes to the point where it is basically philosophy (Beckett also won the Nobel prize). There is also Jean-Luc Godard, a filmmaker who incorporated a lot of philosophical ideas into his works both technically and narratively. Godard is likely one of the most influential filmmakers of 20th century who influenced mainstream directors like Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan (non-linear story telling is one of Godard’s signature style).

Continental philosophy books are often less about rigorous logic, axioms and inferences, but more about working with a series of complex ideas which generates into a system of concepts that structures and informs reality. A good example is Logical Investigations by Edmund Husserl where he tried to show how logic is distinct from psychology (which subsequently sets itself up against psychoanalysis). It is a book that is often credited as the foundations for 20th century continental philosophy, where it gets compared to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, and Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Another good example is Being and Time by Martin Heidegger which fuses the ideas of Nietzsche, Husserl and others into an existential phenomenological philosophy.

While the two big schools of philosophy appears different in style and approach, there are overlaps between analytic and continental thinkers where both schools are equally difficult to learn and read. One of the best examples is between Wittgenstein (analytic) and Derrida (continental) where both of them saw language as a system of play and games where the meanings of words are dependent on its context. Yet, these two figures came to similar conclusions through very different methods and backgrounds. Both analytic and continental philosophy tends to see language as part of reality and not separate entities. The relationship between language and reality became a big focus in 20th century which eventually got dubbed as the “Linguistic turn”.

* * *

One Sign that Someone Loves You

Time.

Time will tell you everything without saying a single word. Time will tell you who someone really is, all the way to how much someone loves or doesn’t love you. Time will show you the people who stays and won’t give up on you. Time will show you who your real friends are. It will show you who lusts over you (or “loves” you). But some say that time also makes us forget and heals wounds. I think it’s true!

Time is the natural destiny to everything that exists in this universe. Time reveals the truth. It does not care whether you agree or disagree with it. You cannot avoid time because you live in it. Part of me thinks that the one thing which can transcend time is love itself. People can for example, love someone who is not with them and/or are elsewhere in time; or we can love someone who passed away. I firmly believe that if you truly love someone, you will always love them until the day you die. I think this is the part where people discovers what it means to have faith. Real love has no conditions. It’s always there, but always elsewhere. Love is infinite.

“Faith is not a question of the existence or non-existence of God. It is believing that love without reward is valuable.” —Emmanuel Levinas 

* * *

On Temporality

I’ve always had a fascination with time. Ever since my studies in philosophy from deconstruction all the way to phenomenology and psychoanalysis, a big chunk of my interest lies in the experience of time, space, love, and human consciousness. Where psychoanalysis showed me how humans gets divided by language and the laws of society, deconstruction showed me how humans gets divided by time between the past and future. Subsequently, it showed me how time could transcend from subjective experience into objective reality. This was actually my masters degree thesis/capstone project. 🙂

* * *

The Love Encounter as an Ethical Event

Earlier this year, some people asked me about the relationship between love and ethics that I briefly mentioned near the end of Part III of my psychoanalysis post (hyperlinked here). This idea had already been spoken about by Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou quite a bit (look into a book by Badiou called, In Praise of Love). Before I get to how the love encounter is related to ethics, let me try to elaborate more on its experience and rephrase some of the things I said.

The love encounter is often described through the first major encounter of the other person. One day, you run into someone who makes you feel uncomfortable, someone who shakes you out of your comfort zone like stage fright. Yet, something inside you drives your curiosity for this person where it makes you want to get to know them more. But you don’t know what this “something” is, which might stir up all your anxieties. This experience of anxiety that you might have when you encounter the other is the wound of your split subjectivity. It is the repression/lack (object a) that you unconsciously locate in the other person where you have gotten too close to (it is the initial manifestation of love; or the “fall” of falling in love 💘).

Such lack which drives your anxiety for said person is produced when your semblance of the other temporarily collapses (another term that is used to describe this feeling is “uncanny” depending on who you ask). This experience of anxiety will usually diminish after you start talking to them, as semblance gradually reemerges to fill this lack via speech (semblance = to resemble; the semblant person functions as a substitute for someone/thing else [metaphor]). And it is through semblance in paradoxical conjunction with lack/object a which can sometimes produce the most powerful and intense love encounters between two people. It may for example, involve two people who catches and locks onto each other’s eyes, where it feels like every physical law cease to exist, as space and time comes to a halt.

Love becomes a concern for ethics because from the moment we encounter this person, we are put into a moral position where we feel compelled to try and get to know them. Truths are produced from the unconscious mind, where differences emerge as we talk and get to know the other! Over time, love becomes a construction of truth between two people who remains faithful to their love encounter. Similarly, we can think of a derivative scenario where you encounter someone who accidentally drops all their books on the floor in front of you, where they make you feel morally obligated to help them. Here, we can see how ethics is summoned in the face of a chance encounter, just like the love encounter of the other. It is also reminiscent to how you may choose to help an injured animal on the street when you encounter them. This idea of an ethical encounter originates from Emmanuel Levinas who refers to it as “face-to-face ethics” (it can be found in a really influential book called, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority).

Love is an invitation from the other that throws you into the unknown. For once, you run into someone who makes you feel different and uneasy. You run into someone who makes your heart flutter, where you stumble over your words. You run into someone who marks the signifier of difference that is ruptured from your unconscious mind. To be sure, this person is not Lindsey or Dave that a dating app thinks you will like, where it attempts to simulate chance and the love encounter. They are also not the typical attractive person you approach at the bar or social event who you happen to hit it off with. Instead, they are someone where you have already unconsciously located your wound/lack in them, as they did the same in you. Here, we begin to see the difference between a love encounter and a lust encounter. The former which is a significantly more profound and impactful experience; whereas the latter is common, as it is riddled with imaginary, narcissism, and fantasy; the movement of pure desire. Certainly, love can also develop through this latter encounter which is how a lot of people falls in love (the social norm). Hence the effect of surprise that I spoke about.

However, in the love encounter, one suddenly finds themselves already caught in an experience that is radically foreign, different, and otherworldly. It is this suddenness that is driven by the surprise of running into them, which makes it so unique. One finds themselves blinded by space and muted by time, as the other challenges everything that you know about love and the world. This person makes you feel anxious and uncanny. But it is not fear. You don’t really know what this feeling is. It is beyond language. It is speechless—it is a wound; an intuition without origin. This feeling can become so powerful that we may even mistake it as a threat that compels us to run away and seek for safety!

While we might encounter many people in our lives who we desire, not everyone will make us feel the way certain individuals will. The encounter of the other will inevitably summon ethics, where we are forced into a moral position as to how we should treat this person. As such, the love encounter becomes a catastrophic event, and an incredibly rare one at that! Such an experience, while seemingly perplexing, is best summarized by James Joyce, who would say:

“First we feel.
Then we fall.”