3 ms·
It's quite a common concept in existentialist philosophy. Heidegger's "The They" and Sartre's "The Gaze". In psychoanalysis Lacan's "Big Other" is related. (I
by nonrandomstring 2y ago
It's quite a common concept in existentialist philosophy. Heidegger's
"The They" and Sartre's "The Gaze". In psychoanalysis Lacan's "Big
Other" is related. (I actually have no idea whether Orwell riffed on
that.)
Not to get into it deeply, but it's a force that has two sides. One is
external, the group's desire to overwhelm the individual a la
communism/the Borg. And another is internal, the fear of being
overwhelmed by the group, stripped of identity. Of course that whole
concept is itself the flip side in tension with its opposite;
affinity/coviviality/socialbility and love/belonging of the group.
- alpinisme 2y agoA tangent but Lacan just distinguished Autre and autre (Other and other), but more recent philosophers in English (especially Zizek) popularized the more pronounceable distinction between the big and the little other. To be fair though, “l’objet petit a” does occur in Lacan, though, so he wasn’t above the “big”/“little” terminology himself
- nonrandomstring 2y agowhere capitalised (B)ig other is a more spiritial (God) thing? I don't read French so that's a nuance I miss. Thanks. Edit: sorry tired and getting mixed up with Heidegger's being/Being
- coldtea 2y agoThe small 'other' is just the other people in life, as regular people. The capitalised Big Other is the organized, concrete and symbolic forces created/imposed by all other people into the individual: law, culture, social obligations, morality, language. It's the organised imposition/force of others, also called as "the symbolic order".
- nonrandomstring 2y agonice summary, thanks
- Der_Einzige 2y agoLacan is a massive charlatan, and him being taken seriously at all in any context indicts the entire idea of HN being a high quality discussion forum.
- panarky 2y agoThe quality of the discussion here is diminished by ad hominem attacks on theorists and those who discuss their ideas in good faith. The discussion might be elevated by reasoned counterarguments instead of unsubstantiated insults.