Beyond the Dichotomy: On the Openness of OC

In what could be called the modern age, it was the done thing to propose a basic principle of subjectivity. The two main movements which set out this stall – being reductive, of course – were rationalism and idealism. These are two barriers we still must overcome.[1] Such a thing is far easier said than done, like most things. Except speaking, which is pretty much the same. For in overcoming this divide we will then be able to nuance an idea of subjectivity suitable to our 21^st Century, digital age. It is my belief that nothing else will suffice.  

These are the basic features of rationalism and idealism:

·       Reason is the fundamental dimension of human being;

·       Reason stands over the particularities of each subject, is not temporary, but stands over time, and therefore is able to tie us to abstract truths, to everlasting truths. Reason stands over every subjective or historical element, and even opposes to life in the extreme versions of rationalism;

·       This universal reason is necessary for the development of philosophy, sciences, moral and policy;

·       The world is a product of reason or, more exactly, a datum that the reason, the subjectivity, finds within itself; the things of the world are just ideas of the conscience.

So how are we to find a way through this dichotomy? Not from turning away from the search for subjectivity, but charging at it, recharging it.

*

Two opposing views of reality.

Realism: dominant and popular.

-          Reality is independent of consciousness. The subject does not build reality in the act of knowing. Reality exists as it is perceived, and not simply because it is perceived. The Universe as a whole, exists for realism beyond our minds, has its own, independent existence. When we reach truth, our minds are passive, they are like a faithful mirror for reality.

-          Ortega emphasizes two very different attitudes regarding the world and subjectivity: the first one, which is the spontaneous, primary, and more usual, is to take care of the world, to let ourselves be taken by its claims, to stay outside ourselves (alteration). Only later appears the second possibility, which is to leave this disposition and pay attention to ourselves, to our own inner life (withdrawal). The natural attitude is the one of the alteration, and it means we emphasize the importance of things and of the world above the subjectivity. Therefore, there are two traditional philosophical proposals on this issue, but the first and more usual, the spontaneous and more similar to the natural attitude of human being facing the world is realism.[2]

Idealism:

-          Reality is a construction of the subjectivity that imagines it, is inseparable of the conscience that knows

Christianity removed God from the world. Such a move was a major departure from the Ancient Greeks, who saw the gods as part of but superior to the natural world. The Christian God, in contradistinction, is separate from the world, opposed to the nature He created. If this is the case, how do we connect with God? Simply that God is therefore more closely reflected in our inner being than our outer reality. Through Descartes we found cogito, an indispensable withdrawal into our inner being to commune with God. No wonder Augustine of Hippo held the same views as Descartes in relation to philosophical withdrawal. By turning inwards, Descartes “discovered” consciousness (of course this is an absurd oversimplification, but serves here), subjectivity in a search for an absolute foundation of knowledge. But. If our minds are completely different from what we traditionally call physical reality but we perceive it, then physical reality is just what is contained in our minds, a construction of our conscience. Reality becomes conceived as a content of conscience. We are incarcerated.

-          Ortega studied with Cohen and Natorp in Marburg, two neo-Kantian philosophers, but left this way of thinking declaring he felt like living in jail, hoping precisely to recover lost reality. This recovery did not lead him back to Realism, simply because it was not possible. Idealism was equally unacceptable; we better try to hold a balance between the subject and the object, the mind and the world, ourselves and reality.[3]

*

How to move forwards? How to move at all? First, I accept that (“)Reality(“) is comprised of two key factors: the world and “i”, Things and their subjectivity. They are mutually dependent, two sides of a coin which has been flipped and admired in two-dimensions, but not holistically. I am the one who sees the world, and the world is a sight for me. Perhaps the answer is correlative coexistence: reality is not a static substance that exists without us, but the subject is neither an independent substance. The world does not exist by itself, independently of me, nor do I exist apart from the world, having a mere accidental relation with it. The world exists as world only in its essential relation with my subjectivity, and my single subjectivity is so only in my essential relation with the world. The constant world's changes determine my being, my way of watching it, of loving it, of hating it; but, simultaneously, the constant subjectivity's changes in feelings, beliefs, perspective, determine the being of the world.

(Here we see the limitations of what could be termed neo-Realism, as practiced by Object-Oriented Ontologists.[4] For them, a flat ontology requires accepting the firmness of the world, of a mutually withdrawn Thing-ness in all Things. Not only does the world exist beyond our perception, but so do we, and so does the world to the world. The irony in such a view is that it then accepts that it relies entirely upon speculation, which claiming definitive solidity in engaging with reality. It is such a solidity which undermines OOO’s perspective, preventing as it does any true interaction or engagement with the world by asserting its obdurate withdrawal, its firm barring of the subject from the world. That is, OOO’s neo-Realism is inadequate precisely because it does not go far enough: the fluid, chaotic relations between mutually withdrawn Things (the world, subjectivity, Reality…) must be considered as central, not just the Thing-ness, but the essential relations of that Thing-ness to others’ and its own Thing-ness. Subjectivity becomes a field, a non-linear network dynamic.[5] It is a perspective vision.[6]

Living is the radical way of being: every other thing or way of being exists only in my life, within my life, as a detail of my life and in regard my own life. Within my own life exists the rest of the world, and it only exists as whatever it means to me, as lived by me. The most difficult equation of mathematics, the most solemn and abstract concept of philosophy, the Universe or God are just what I encounter in my life, what I live. And their radical and primary being is, therefore, being lived by me…[7]

Here again writ large is the factor OOO misses. Things are mutually withdrawn, yes, but only from the lived perspective vision of the subject. The result is a miasma, never repeating, never repeatable. What is called Real in OOO is not a genuine, fundamental reality but a singular, human interpretation of that reality and, therefore, a thought. These thoughts may consolidate themselves into belief, but is a central irony to OOO’s neo-Realism: their Reality held so dear is not Reality at all, but a perspective of it.)

The words subject and object, I and the world can be replaced by more easy ones: me and my circumstances. This is one of the deepest thoughts of Ortega, explained in just one sentence: "I am me and my circumstance": my circumstances are there because I take care of them. The world does not exist independently, but rather in its relation with me, with my interests, preferences and thoughts, with my whole subjectivity, (and this idea comes from the idealism); but neither do I exist without this circumstances, nor could I be what I am without the whole realm of concrete things I depend on for my accomplishment (an idea that comes from realism). Reality is a complex mix of world and subjectivity, both parts are needed, and both are radically gathered.[8]

We do not discover our Selves and then discover the world, but discover ourselves as we discover the world. My own being is in a constant process of building as I encounter the world and its claims.[9] It is a mutual development, and must be considered as such. Consequently, it is also temporal, not so focussed on an impossible, unknowable futurity but primarily the past as a passage to the present, and that present. From our perspective, the perspective of the lived “i”, the future is the primary category. But circumstance is rooted in the past and the present, and the lived “i” cannot function without circumstance, as we have seen. We articulate the future, but to do so we act upon, count on, the past and the present. The future that awaits us is not just any future, but “our future", the one that fits with our present, with our now, just as our past is not any past, but the one which belongs to our present. Reality and subjectivity are concatenated, one unable to overcome the other, unable to stand either outside of our point of view of time.  I and my circumstance are radically joined.[10]

*

If the aim of studying subjectivity is to illuminate an authenticity of self, the absolute loyalty of the subject to what he really is, we must accept that such a thing is impossible. At best, it is fragmentary and synchronic, therefore placing a ceiling of meaning, a ceiling of being, feeling and acting upon the very subject it wishes to liberate. To others, we are different to how we view ourselves; symbolically we are different again; amongst ourselves we have the shadows and the lights. Furthermore, we have digital selves, work selves, home selves &tc., all blending and flowing freely between each other. It is not even the case now that they will be born and die together, since digital identities are often born long after the human Self, and continue to exist into infinity after the decaying of the latter. We are, then, already cyborgs, simply by engaging in the social contract of 21^st Century modernity, from which we cannot opt out.  Authenticity is an impossibility perpetrated by a belief in the myth of a totemic, total self. Existence is fickle. I (read: you, me, she, it, he, xe, they…) am (are, is, will be, has been…) a chaotic mess. To garner a true 21^st Century subjectivity, we must invest in that chaos, consent not to be a single being.

This is the task, the challenge within, Optimistic Criticism. We must grasp our perspective as perspective in considering any subject. It thus requires an openness to circumstance, to fluidity and mutual noumena that defined theories are unable to reconcile through explicit definition. OC relies upon knowledge of its failure, of the ability to argue for 2,000 words then say at the end.

I don’t know, though. What about you?

For the being of the things is indeed the scheme we build of their reality. To be within Reality is to live together with our circumstance, what could possibly be understood as a becoming.[11] It is in engagement that we birth ourselves and our subject and object, in perspective rather than objectivism or subjectivism. In OC, we welcome this movement relating to our subjects, for we understanding that in so doing we build ourselves and the subject. What we build, then, are not the things, but their being.[12]

Put into the simplest terms, OC is not just a perspective but an acceptance of perspective as world, as Thing and as Self. By accepting this limitation, one can liberate one’s engagement the world with a true flat ontology, one’s perspective constantly and symbiotically shaped by and shaping that of one’s subject of consideration. 

We have to take distance from the other to understand he is not like us; but, simultaneously, we need to approach him to discover that, however, he is a man like us, and his life has sense.[13]

I don't know. What about you?