
Science, art & truth : on the subject constituted in Ljubljana’s disciplinary concern
- Author
- Kobe Keymeulen (UGent)
- Organization
- Project
- Abstract
- This paper addresses a particular problem of subjectivity within the frame of the Ljubljana School, popularized by thinkers such as Slavoj Žižek. Within this theoretical field, we find seemingly totally separate debates: (a) the ontological meaning of advancements in neuroscience (Johnston and Malabou 2013; Žižek 2011), and (b) Ljubljana’s often unexplained fascination with cinema as a preferred artistic object of study (Heath 1999; McGowan 2007). Previously, I have argued that these debates are (at least in part) an expression of the same disciplinary tension. Because Ljubljana is committed to both considering its own philosophical practices as a large interdisciplinary endeavor (Johnston 2020; Žižek 2012), and connects its Badiouan case for anti-historicism to one of anti-disciplinary contingency (Copjec 1994; McGowan 2017), it is not always able to properly articulate how and why certain scientific disciplines or artistic practices should be of a greater concern than others. In this paper, I further explore both this shared underlying tension by addressing the second of the two problems mentioned above (b), by continuing a line of thought developed in the literature of the first (a). In the debate on the ontology of neuroscience (a), many have begun to return to the seminal essay La science et la verité (1966) (De Vos and Pluth 2016), in which Lacan details the relation between psychoanalysis and modern science.. Not only do disciplinary practices constitute their own object of study or science, they also have to constitute a subject of study, as Lacan argues . From this stems the contemporary argument that it is here, by constituting a different subjectivity, where psychoanalysis distinguishes itself, relates differently to other modern scientific disciplines then they might among themselves (Althusser 1993; Milner 1995; Pluth 2018; Tomšič 2012) – an argument which some (contra Lacan himself) suggest could be extended to philosophy too (Johnston 2013). In the debate on the philosophical significance of cinema (b), the main argument has revolved around cinema’s consideration of subjectivity and the Gaze. It has been argued that that it ought to be due to Ljubljana’s interest in the Lacanian Gaze as a concept, that it ought to take an interest in cinema. However, this argument does not sufficiently explain this connection between cinema and the Gaze beyond a combination of a series of examples, and the mere intuitive reasoning that cinema concerns looking at a screen (McGowan 2007). However, a much more recent suggestion has been to treat artistic disciplines as constituting distinct objects of artistic practice, similar to a scientific discipline (McGowan 2020). I develop this latest suggestion by McGowan further by demonstrating how the Lacanian/Milnerian argument can be mapped onto it. How it, in other words, can be argued that various artistic practices constitute different modern subjects – as understood in a Ljubljana manner (e.g. Zupančič 2000). Lastly, I also briefly show how this argument is supported by previous exploration of this disciplinary topic, which was done by way of the position of the subject in G.W.F. Hegel’s Naturphilosophie and Aesthetics (Keymeulen 2021). Throughout, I make use of Milner’s reading of Lacan in particular when it comes to avoiding the problem of historicism, which, after all, I argue, lies at the bottom of this conundrum.
- Keywords
- psychoanalysis, interdisciplinarity, discipinarity, johnston, lacan, philosophy of science, althusser, mcgowan, cinema, discourse, historicism, Žižek, badiou
Downloads
-
(...).pdf
- full text (Accepted manuscript)
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 316.90 KB
-
(...).pdf
- full text
- |
- UGent only
- |
- |
- 761.75 KB
Citation
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01H2QZJ3GK099X8439E64Q4WQV
- MLA
- Keymeulen, Kobe. “Science, Art & Truth : On the Subject Constituted in Ljubljana’s Disciplinary Concern.” Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023, 2023.
- APA
- Keymeulen, K. (2023). Science, art & truth : on the subject constituted in Ljubljana’s disciplinary concern. Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023. Presented at the Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023 (5th edition) : Subject and Identity, Warwrick, UK.
- Chicago author-date
- Keymeulen, Kobe. 2023. “Science, Art & Truth : On the Subject Constituted in Ljubljana’s Disciplinary Concern.” In Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023.
- Chicago author-date (all authors)
- Keymeulen, Kobe. 2023. “Science, Art & Truth : On the Subject Constituted in Ljubljana’s Disciplinary Concern.” In Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023.
- Vancouver
- 1.Keymeulen K. Science, art & truth : on the subject constituted in Ljubljana’s disciplinary concern. In: Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023. 2023.
- IEEE
- [1]K. Keymeulen, “Science, art & truth : on the subject constituted in Ljubljana’s disciplinary concern,” in Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023, Warwrick, UK, 2023.
@inproceedings{01H2QZJ3GK099X8439E64Q4WQV, abstract = {{This paper addresses a particular problem of subjectivity within the frame of the Ljubljana School, popularized by thinkers such as Slavoj Žižek. Within this theoretical field, we find seemingly totally separate debates: (a) the ontological meaning of advancements in neuroscience (Johnston and Malabou 2013; Žižek 2011), and (b) Ljubljana’s often unexplained fascination with cinema as a preferred artistic object of study (Heath 1999; McGowan 2007). Previously, I have argued that these debates are (at least in part) an expression of the same disciplinary tension. Because Ljubljana is committed to both considering its own philosophical practices as a large interdisciplinary endeavor (Johnston 2020; Žižek 2012), and connects its Badiouan case for anti-historicism to one of anti-disciplinary contingency (Copjec 1994; McGowan 2017), it is not always able to properly articulate how and why certain scientific disciplines or artistic practices should be of a greater concern than others. In this paper, I further explore both this shared underlying tension by addressing the second of the two problems mentioned above (b), by continuing a line of thought developed in the literature of the first (a). In the debate on the ontology of neuroscience (a), many have begun to return to the seminal essay La science et la verité (1966) (De Vos and Pluth 2016), in which Lacan details the relation between psychoanalysis and modern science.. Not only do disciplinary practices constitute their own object of study or science, they also have to constitute a subject of study, as Lacan argues . From this stems the contemporary argument that it is here, by constituting a different subjectivity, where psychoanalysis distinguishes itself, relates differently to other modern scientific disciplines then they might among themselves (Althusser 1993; Milner 1995; Pluth 2018; Tomšič 2012) – an argument which some (contra Lacan himself) suggest could be extended to philosophy too (Johnston 2013). In the debate on the philosophical significance of cinema (b), the main argument has revolved around cinema’s consideration of subjectivity and the Gaze. It has been argued that that it ought to be due to Ljubljana’s interest in the Lacanian Gaze as a concept, that it ought to take an interest in cinema. However, this argument does not sufficiently explain this connection between cinema and the Gaze beyond a combination of a series of examples, and the mere intuitive reasoning that cinema concerns looking at a screen (McGowan 2007). However, a much more recent suggestion has been to treat artistic disciplines as constituting distinct objects of artistic practice, similar to a scientific discipline (McGowan 2020). I develop this latest suggestion by McGowan further by demonstrating how the Lacanian/Milnerian argument can be mapped onto it. How it, in other words, can be argued that various artistic practices constitute different modern subjects – as understood in a Ljubljana manner (e.g. Zupančič 2000). Lastly, I also briefly show how this argument is supported by previous exploration of this disciplinary topic, which was done by way of the position of the subject in G.W.F. Hegel’s Naturphilosophie and Aesthetics (Keymeulen 2021). Throughout, I make use of Milner’s reading of Lacan in particular when it comes to avoiding the problem of historicism, which, after all, I argue, lies at the bottom of this conundrum.}}, author = {{Keymeulen, Kobe}}, booktitle = {{Warwick Continental Philosophy Conference 2023}}, keywords = {{psychoanalysis,interdisciplinarity,discipinarity,johnston,lacan,philosophy of science,althusser,mcgowan,cinema,discourse,historicism,Žižek,badiou}}, language = {{eng}}, location = {{Warwrick, UK}}, title = {{Science, art & truth : on the subject constituted in Ljubljana’s disciplinary concern}}, url = {{https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/research/activities/postkantian/events/wcpc/}}, year = {{2023}}, }