4 ms·

Fichte is important today because we've lost contact with ourselves as selves. Consciousness is already a pretty weird thing, but in the age of social media and

Fichte is important today because we've lost contact with ourselves as selves. Consciousness is already a pretty weird thing, but in the age of social media and mass-effect it's even more tenuous and elusive. Consider all the posts here on HN from people who sincerely believe that without their smartphone or social media account they "are nothing". I encountered Fichte while researching Lacan's "mirror stage" in psychology, an interpretation that seems very important in the age of the "Black Mirror". Indeed, following that rabbit hole I discovered William Du Bois with his "Double-consciousness" [1] theory, and a rather interesting young American Jonathan N. Bertrand [2] who has been exploring what he calls a "Triple Conscious Theory" of how social media intervenes and distorts our self-image to exacerbate power inequality. How I read Fichte is that when the "self" is distorted, so is all other knowledge and perception of the world. He still has enormous currency for "identity politics" in an age where everybody wants to tell you who you are. That's an oblique way of telling you what you can do and think. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-consciousness/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-consciousness/ [2] https://jonathannbertrand.com/ https://jonathannbertrand.com/

Agamus 4y ago
While I certainly would not want to discourage anyone reading Fichte, doesn't the discussion of the distortion of "self" assume an ontology that cannot be demonstrated? Social Media has not distorted our sense of "self" - quite the opposite. We have, perhaps for the first time, a clear sense that "self" has always been an illusory construct. That said, I'm inspired to know that people are reading Fichte and engaging the topic!
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > We have, perhaps for the first time, a clear sense that "self" has always been an illusory construct. Interesting. Historically, a few readers of Goethe, Ibsen and Kierkegaard always knew that. It was contained. Maybe what's changed today is we are all confronted daily by horrifying evidence of the fragility of self-construction, and how precious it is - but without an explanation or coping method. Solomon and the terror management theorists don't fill those shoes any more than narcissism, and so perhaps we're headed on a trajectory back towards faith. Maybe that's the ultimate function of "social media", to show us why social media is inadequate to counter angst.
- nine_k 4y ago
  By this token, the whole of mathematics is an illusory construct. Despite that, it can be rather useful. Same with self: it's not something that physically exists, it's a mental construct that can be useful or not, which can be amended and replaced in its position, taken apart, etc. On one hand, the self is a bit uncomfortable to research and take apart because it's right inside "you" and is a part of the inside, but on the other hand it's extra convenient to study because it's always available.
  - Agamus 4y ago
    Agreed - mathematics is predicated on the idea that there are individual things, but as we are learning, through things like quantum field theory, there are no individual things, hence, no individuated 'things' to count. As such, mathematics is not the 'language of nature'. Check out David Tang's lecture on QFT: "there are no particles, only waves" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg Mathematics still works (at our scale); the consequence is precision. Individuation of anything is a construct - including subjects and objects: http://www.katabane.com/mt/ontology.html http://www.katabane.com/mt/ontology.html
    - hither_shores 4y ago
      > Agreed - mathematics is predicated on the idea that there are individual things, but as we are learning, through things like quantum field theory, there are no individual things, hence, no individuated 'things' to count. Even setting aside the absurdities of reducing math to elementary arithmetic, and of reducing arithmetic to counting particular concrete things - claiming to have undermined math with quantum field theory is like writing an essay that argues against the existence of language. "There are no particles, only waves" is not QFT. It's a reasonable position for which QFT arguably offers some measure of support, but that's not even remotely the same thing. QFT is layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of deeply technical mathematics, with a bit of blind symbol-pushing to round out the rough patches.
      - Agamus 4y ago

Agamus 4y ago

While I certainly would not want to discourage anyone reading Fichte, doesn't the discussion of the distortion of "self" assume an ontology that cannot be demonstrated? Social Media has not distorted our sense of "self" - quite the opposite. We have, perhaps for the first time, a clear sense that "self" has always been an illusory construct. That said, I'm inspired to know that people are reading Fichte and engaging the topic!

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> We have, perhaps for the first time, a clear sense that "self" has always been an illusory construct. Interesting. Historically, a few readers of Goethe, Ibsen and Kierkegaard always knew that. It was contained. Maybe what's changed today is we are all confronted daily by horrifying evidence of the fragility of self-construction, and how precious it is - but without an explanation or coping method. Solomon and the terror management theorists don't fill those shoes any more than narcissism, and so perhaps we're headed on a trajectory back towards faith. Maybe that's the ultimate function of "social media", to show us why social media is inadequate to counter angst.
nine_k 4y ago
By this token, the whole of mathematics is an illusory construct. Despite that, it can be rather useful. Same with self: it's not something that physically exists, it's a mental construct that can be useful or not, which can be amended and replaced in its position, taken apart, etc. On one hand, the self is a bit uncomfortable to research and take apart because it's right inside "you" and is a part of the inside, but on the other hand it's extra convenient to study because it's always available.
- Agamus 4y ago
  Agreed - mathematics is predicated on the idea that there are individual things, but as we are learning, through things like quantum field theory, there are no individual things, hence, no individuated 'things' to count. As such, mathematics is not the 'language of nature'. Check out David Tang's lecture on QFT: "there are no particles, only waves" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg Mathematics still works (at our scale); the consequence is precision. Individuation of anything is a construct - including subjects and objects: http://www.katabane.com/mt/ontology.html http://www.katabane.com/mt/ontology.html
  - hither_shores 4y ago
    > Agreed - mathematics is predicated on the idea that there are individual things, but as we are learning, through things like quantum field theory, there are no individual things, hence, no individuated 'things' to count. Even setting aside the absurdities of reducing math to elementary arithmetic, and of reducing arithmetic to counting particular concrete things - claiming to have undermined math with quantum field theory is like writing an essay that argues against the existence of language. "There are no particles, only waves" is not QFT. It's a reasonable position for which QFT arguably offers some measure of support, but that's not even remotely the same thing. QFT is layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of deeply technical mathematics, with a bit of blind symbol-pushing to round out the rough patches.
    - Agamus 4y ago