Zizek on Lacan - Masculine vs Feminine Logic

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'm flattered by the kind offer, but I have to pass...

lol.

 

[Pseudo]

It's hard to follow. When I first heard Zizek explain it I didn't udnerstand at all, so I read a lot on it, because it bothered me.

It is just one logic. Both masculine and feminine logic are self-contradictory, because existence can never be fully explained. That which is outside of our "symbolic order" i.e. which we cannot verbalize, is "The Real".

The self-contradiction of masculine logic is precisely that it is universal, so something must be excluded. i.e. "All swans are white. Those which are not white, are aberrations, not true swans".

The self-contradiction of feminine logic is precisely the opposite, "Not all swans are white. But no swans are not white". i.e., "I don't accept a universalizing claim, but I cannot find anything outside the existing universal order"

That example is very simple for the sake of clarity. To give a better example

Masc logic: "Humans are inherently capitalist. All societies which were not capitalist were deformed, aberations against human nature". Universality with one exception.

Fem logic: "Not all humans are inherently capitalist. There are no societies which override the capitalist order". i.e., "We cannot make universal claims. Precisely because of this, there is no alternate universe except for this one".

I like this because, there is an "universal function", which nobody truly lives up to, but which nobody lives outside of.

Another good example Zizek gives is "The Undead", from horror movies. i.e. "If you are not Alive, you are Dead. But if you are not Dead, you are not necessarily Alive. You can be Not-Dead. Or the Undead. To "The Living", they are still part of The Dead. They are just The Dead which refuses to fully die. The walking representation of Death.

So masculine logic would say "Everyone who is not Alive, is Dead. Except for the Undead, who are an aberration".

Feminine logic would say, "Not everyone who is Not Alive is Dead, but there is no-one who is Not Alive, who is Not Dead." i.e., no alternative universal vision of life vs death is proposed.

We instead get this tension, a strata caught in the middle, the Undead, who contradict the the existing universality of Alive vs Dead, but who still exist inside of it, and paradoxically, accept that same universality in practice.

I hope that makes sense! I am not saying it's "true" but it's interesting (to me).




No bluff, I would do it.

I et it more with the undead things but it seems like just anger way of expressing the same idea as masculine logic in that it feels the need for universals.

Why not just stop at "not all swan are white" not all people are capitalist. There is a wider spectrum than dead or alive?

The main difference seems to be judgement of the conflicting stament as an aberration

 

[sprinkles]

Don't unnecessarily classify things - problem solved.

Both these sides are trying to be needlessly academic and there's no benefit to either of their claims. Why do we even care how many swans are white, or how many people are capitalist?

Logic is merely a tradition where we make claims that we don't even need to know about most of the time. It's not advanced, and often it isn't helpful either, and people get caught in its trappings looking for answers that could easily be ignored, preventing them from moving on to better things to think about.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I et it more with the undead things but it seems like just anger way of expressing the same idea as masculine logic in that it feels the need for universals.

Why not just stop at "not all swan are white" not all people are capitalist. There is a wider spectrum than dead or alive?

The main difference seems to be judgement of the conflicting stament as an aberration

I think what he is getting at, is that if we reject that we can "know" the unviersal, then all we are left with, is what we can experience.

He classifies Hegel and Hume as examples of "feminine" logic, meaning that they both believe that there is something beyond the senses, but because they reject that we can know it, essentially the limit of existence is "what there is", i.e. the "non-All". Precisely because they reject that the universal can be stated.

Zizek would say, to paraphrase him, that this is problematic because there will always be a dominant schema within which you are operating, and the need for a "universal" which is beyond our sensory experience, will always exist, because there always will be something beyond what our senses can capture and make sense of in imaginary or symbolic terms, i.e., The Real.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

preventing them from moving on to better things to think about.

Sounds like a thing my INFJ brother and cousin would both say.

I always ask them - who is to judge what is a "better" thing for people to think about?

If people want to watch Fox, let them. If they want to read Zizek, let them. If they want to think the same as you, let them.

Zizek himself wouldn't agree with what I am saying btw. I just find him itneresting. I dodn't necessarilly think he is 100% "right" or helps humanity. but then that is not my concern...

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Sounds like a thing my INFJ brother and cousin would both say..

It isn't something I would say, so does that make me the aberration unless we get a bigger sample size to agree with me, or a universal theory of INFJ more like me?

From what I am understanding of this topic so far (and I would like to read more first-hand to be comfortable with it), the two approaches each work better when applied to different systems. When approaching an analysis of the external world through observation and measurement as we do in science, we require some assumption that there are larger universals that exist outside individual perception that are theorized and validated through consistent measurement. Would the scientific method fall into the category of masculine logic? I realize this is overly simplistic, as I have heard some philosophies that even math is not exploring the universal, but is beholden to human perception and reasoning.

Subjective systems that are more fully dependent on perception are more given to feminine logic? I'll confess that those examples in the OP are more difficult for me to understand, but since perception is not fully knowable outside experience we then must examine aspects of it from the standpoint of being beholden at least in part to our personal perception and our cultural biases. Even when we try to push outside of these assumptions, to some extent we are left with a degree of relativism?

My approach to understanding this topic is based on the assumption that there is an external reality that exists independently of human perception, but that our comprehension of it is beholden to the many distortions and artifacts of human perception and reasoning. The exploration of the universal is an attempt to evaluate this external reality as independently from the limitations of our minds, the ability to glimpse the Big Picture, devise universal theories based on the fragments we observe and to verify these through consistent measurement. But when dealing with the internal reality of perception in self and others, it is more unknowable because it also cannot be fully observed, but there is also not a way to measure and verify the consistency of universal theories applied to it, and so we by necessity must form assumptions based on smaller and more varied contexts?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Sounds like a thing my INFJ brother and cousin would both say..

It isn't something I would say, so does that make me the aberration unless we get a bigger sample size to agree with me, or a universal theory of INFJ more like me? To present a theory, our category called, Ni, is all about distilling the universal down to its core, and Fe is about externalizing emotion, values, and subjective systems, so I would think the INFJ mind would care a great deal about such a topic. If not in an intellectualized way, at least in some personalized manner that tries to personally understand the core of universal meaning, but with varied external applications. Not sure I buy into MBTI that strongly, but I say this in part based on my understanding and in part as a tease for the topic.

From what I am understanding of this topic so far (and I would like to read more first-hand to be comfortable with it), the two approaches each work better when applied to different systems. When approaching an analysis of the external world through observation and measurement as we do in science, we require some assumption that there are larger universals that exist outside individual perception that are theorized and validated through consistent measurement. Would the scientific method fall into the category of masculine logic? I realize this is overly simplistic, as I have heard some philosophies that even math is not exploring the universal, but is beholden to human perception and reasoning.

Subjective systems that are more fully dependent on perception are more given to feminine logic? I'll confess that those examples in the OP are more difficult for me to understand, but since perception is not fully knowable outside experience we then must examine aspects of it from the standpoint of being beholden at least in part to our personal perception and our cultural biases. Even when we try to push outside of these assumptions, to some extent we are left with some degree of relativism?

My approach to understanding this topic is based on the assumption that there is an external reality that exists independently of human perception, but that our comprehension of it is beholden to the many distortions and artifacts of human perception and reasoning. The exploration of the universal is an attempt to evaluate this external reality as independently from the limitations of our minds, the ability to glimpse the Big Picture, devise universal theories based on the fragments we observe and to verify these through consistent measurement. But when dealing with the internal reality of perception in self and others, it is more unknowable because it also cannot be fully observed, but there is also not a way to measure and verify the consistency of universal theories applied to it, and so we by necessity must form assumptions based on smaller and more varied contexts?

 

[1487610420]

Greta Svabo Bech