Language makes us a result of the world because it does not come from us only. Further, this only further exemplifies the relationship between subject and object, but more importantly it highlights how the separation between the two is illusory.
The subject is empty without an object. When reflecting upon one’s own subjectivity, when asking “what am I doing?”—you are making yourself into an object for yourself (the subject) to study:
What makes something meaningful and how it becomes meaningful is all tied into this subject/object relationship. Our very being as humans—how we think, know and are—is inseparable from history. Our knowing and being (elements of a pure subjectivity) are inseparable from history (objects). To this same degree, in the attempt to understand who I am, it turns me back to the world (society/culture) of which I am intertwined. They are a product of history: they are reproduced to such a degree that to ask “Who am I?” is inseparable from “What is the meaning of historical experience?”
the same way that one would say ‘I am using a pen’, you can reverse it and say ‘The pen is using me’ at the same time. There is barbarism in objectivity and there is barbarism in subjectivity
Idealists and romantics has ignored such differences and has thus coarsened a spiritualization that serves abstraction as a disguise. Yet this occasions a revision of the stand toward the subject which prevails in traditional theory. That theory glorifies the subject in ideology and slanders it in epistemological practice
The subject is empty without an object. When reflecting upon one’s own subjectivity, when asking “what am I doing?”—you are making yourself into an object for yourself (the subject) to study:
What makes something meaningful and how it becomes meaningful is all tied into this subject/object relationship. Our very being as humans—how we think, know and are—is inseparable from history. Our knowing and being (elements of a pure subjectivity) are inseparable from history (objects). To this same degree, in the attempt to understand who I am, it turns me back to the world (society/culture) of which I am intertwined. They are a product of history: they are reproduced to such a degree that to ask “Who am I?” is inseparable from “What is the meaning of historical experience?”
the same way that one would say ‘I am using a pen’, you can reverse it and say ‘The pen is using me’ at the same time. There is barbarism in objectivity and there is barbarism in subjectivity
Idealists and romantics has ignored such differences and has thus coarsened a spiritualization that serves abstraction as a disguise. Yet this occasions a revision of the stand toward the subject which prevails in traditional theory. That theory glorifies the subject in ideology and slanders it in epistemological practice
No comments:
Post a Comment