Hello to you all, dear sociopaths. I am here with a new episode and a new microphone.
In our last broadcast, we made a small introduction to Giddens' sociology. More precisely, we tried to understand the British sociologist Anthony Giddens in the context of the individual, system and structure.
What did Giddens say, to remind you very briefly?
The structural properties of systems are never stable. On the contrary, systems are dynamic formations and are constantly changing. Let's not even call it "changing". Systems are constantly reconstituted.
Take the education system for example. Many of us, in our daily lives, keep saying "The education system must change". Educators, in particular, get angry with their naughty students every day and say in the teachers' room:
"What a terrible system! Some students should not even be allowed to enter the school! According to PISA, Turkey ranks last in understanding what is read. Did you know that!"
I watched a video the other day, probably you have seen it too. A student tears his report card right next to his teacher. Moreover, he laughs brazenly. Of course, his friends record this moment and upload it to Tik Tok. I don't know if you watched it.
When the video exploded on social media, our society was divided into two as usual. The majority talked about the immorality of Generation Z and wrote that the boy should be immediately given to the industry as an apprentice. Some people in the minority said: The MEB report card no longer has any specific weight! This child is reacting to the system in the most natural way!
However, the truth is that there is a problem, and everyone is aware of it.
Should the education system change or not?
Dear sociopath brothers and sisters, according to Giddensian sociology, this question is utterly meaningless and even absurd.
We are actually making a wrong image. When we say system, we understand something like a concrete mold. This system can only change if the relevant ministry takes a decision or a legal regulation is made. This is how we usually imagine it. If we didn't imagine it this way, we wouldn't all be chanting "The education system must change!" in chorus.
However, Giddensian terminology requires another perspective. What is the system? It is something reconstituted every day with the participation of teachers, principals, vice principals, students, even bus drivers and cleaners!
Every single day, these people come together. We call this unity of theirs "the system".
To use an analogy, we can say the following:
In the morning, you turn the ignition of your car. All the parts of the car started doing their job, and the car moved forward. This is how concrete the system is! It is also such an everyday thing!
In response to this, you may raise the following objection:
"Oh İsmail, how can it be possible? A human being is not mindless like a spark plug, a gearbox or a carburetor! A human being has a mind, feelings and passions. If we look at it with your logic, every day, a completely different system emerges. For example, tomorrow the math teacher will say: 'I'm so tired of explaining functions, I'm so tired of solving equations on the blackboard, I want to take music class today.' The physical education teacher tries to take biology class. The cleaning lady will strike a blow at the principal. Everyone does as they please! Then, the system ceases to be a system!"
Of course, I know that you will not raise such an objection. Why not? Dear sociopaths, this is where the concept of "structure" comes into play. What do we mean by saying "structure"? We mean rules and resources.
So, here's how Giddensian sociology works:
Hundreds of thousands of educators, hundreds of thousands of students from 81 cities get out of bed at 7 o'clock in the morning. These people already have some structural elements in their heads. They all act in accordance with these structural elements. As a result, we call this concrete and familiar collectivity "a system".
What is "system"? They are concrete collectivities that form at certain intervals of time. And what is structure? It is a set of imaginary elements or ideal types that are both immanent and transcendent to the system.
Dear sociopaths, why is it so important that you understand these concepts?
Because if you believe that the system is a static and stable thing like a concrete mold... If you believe that the system can only be changed by institutional power... If you visualize the system in this way... Then, you will never believe in the power of the individual. As a result, you will be dragged by the postmodern wind.
However, Giddens refuses to be caught in this wind. Giddens embraces modernity with all hands.
So, what does "embracing modernity with all hands" mean? In my opinion, it means "having a subject-centered understanding of philosophy that started with Descartes".
As you know, dear sociopaths, it is generally accepted that philosophy was born in Ancient Greece. According to this general assumption, philosophy begins with Thales in the 7th century BC. About 1000 years later, in the 3rd century AD, philosophy gradually came under the domination of theology. And then, welcome to the Middle Ages!
Why does philosophy come under the domination of theology? There are two main reasons:
Firstly, The Neo-Platonists (especially Plotinus) interpreted and polemicized about Plato's works so much that these efforts led the people to religious doctrines.
If we think like Derrida, we can say this: There is no limit to textual interpretation. Interpreting a text is a boundless act. Just like the Neo-Platonists did! The interpretations that the Neo-Platonists developed on Plato have constituted a philosophical ground for the abrahamic religions.
For example, the Neo-Platonists roughly say: "The world is ruled by a superior intellect. This superior intellect is, of course, connected to God."
This and similar interpretations are quite suitable for abrahamic religions, don't you think?
The second reason, quite related to the first, is this: The mysticism of the East has somehow infected the West.
Under these circumstances, the Middle Ages began. The Catholic Church became more and more powerful. At that time, intellectual relations were like this:
You can philosophize in Europe in the 9th or 10th century. However, there is a precondition. You cannot reject Christianity. You can only philosophize if you don't contradict Christianity! So, can you philosophize like that? Of course not! This is precisely why we only remember the middle ages with three or five church fathers, unless we do a detailed research. The church fathers of the patristic period, the church fathers of the scholastic period, and so on.
However, at the end of the 16th century, a man named Descartes was born in France. This man was extremely skeptical. In addition, this man has a very famous saying as you know: "I think, therefore I am."
This sentence is often misunderstood. People usually assume that according to Descartes, thinking is a very good thing. Descartes glorifies the act of thinking with that sentence!
No, Descartes' point is not to glorify thinking. Descartes is actually having a crisis there. He doubts everything. He doubts all of his perceptions and tries to explain that there is no absolute certainty.
"I wonder if these objects around me are really like I perceive them? Is a simple math operation I've been doing for years, 2+3=5, really true?"
"I went to bed the other night and fell asleep. Then in my dream, I added 2 and 3 together, and the result was 5. However, for example, in the same dream, I saw also a flying carpet. In addition, I saw my dead relatives. In the same dream! However, as far as I know, carpets cannot fly and my relatives are in the ground right now. If so, the fact that I calculate this operation as 5 right now in a supposedly conscious and vigilant way cannot be a proof that my mind is working properly."
(These sentences don't belong to Descartes. I am just speculating on the topic.)
So how can I prove that my mind and my perceptions are correct? What if there is a devil inside me? What if the devil shows me the result as 5 when in fact 2 plus 3 equals 4? What if the devil inside me is playing with my perceptions?
After all these agonies, Descartes comes to the following conclusion:
Yes, the devil may be misleading me. The devil may be distorting all my perceptions. It is also possible that 2 plus 3 equals 4. But one way or the other, I am thinking! I am capable of thinking whether the devil misleads me or not.
So there is only one thing I can be sure of in this life. Only one thing! And that is the knowledge that I can think. That's the only thing I can be sure of.
By expressing these views, by doing this philosophy, what kind of a world is Descartes opening the doors to, dear sociopaths?
If I cannot prove that my mind works correctly, if I can never have absolute confidence in my perceptions... then, there is no need for me to pursue objective truths.
This should not be misunderstood. There are some objective truths according to Descartes, of course. Here is an objective truth for you: There are three substances: The soul, the body and God.
These three substances (the soul, the body and God) do not need the perception of any person to exist. More precisely, these three substances do not need anything to exist. That's why we call them "substances".
At this point, my dear sociopathic brothers and sisters, you may rightly ask the following question: Wasn't Descartes an absolute skeptic? Yes, he was skeptical of everything at first, but then, he managed to limit his doubts. Descartes does not doubt the three substances we just mentioned. So lets try to prove the existence of these substances as Descartes did:
The first is the mind: What did we say? The only thing that is certain is that I can think. If so, I need a mind to think. Otherwise, I cannot doubt anyway. Doubting my ability to doubt would be absurd, right? It's like saying "Existence is non-existence." In short, what did I do, just like Descartes? I proved that I have a mind.
What was the second substance? The body: I can't trust my perceptions as I said before. For example, maybe I have the body of a 73-year-old woman. Maybe I have been misperceiving my body for 33 years. Maybe I have breasts. Maybe I have a vagina. I cannot know these things.
Yes, this is where we need to talk about Cartesian dualism (soul body dualism)!
The fact that I have the ability to think is all about my soul. I am a Catholic soul awaiting judgment in the afterlife. If I have a soul, my soul needs a body. You always need a body. Even if I am a software, even if I am a computer program, even if I am an artificial intelligence, I need a hard disk. Hard disks are concrete bodies of softwares, aren't they? In short, what have I done? I proved that I have a body, even though I can never be sure that I perceive it correctly.
What was the third substance? God: Yes, dear sociopaths... Now, you are eagerly waiting for me to prove the existence of God from Descartes' perspective. I'm not going to do that because Descartes does not have any interesting reasoning about God.
Descartes was a Catholic. More precisely, Descartes was born in a continent that was just recovering from the Middle Ages and the hegemony of the Church. Of course, it is no surprise that Descartes believed in the existence of God.
Descartes' skepticism can be summarized as follows:
I cannot know that my mind works correctly, but I certainly have a mind.
I cannot trust my perceptions, so I cannot know what my body looks like, but I do have a body, one way or another.
Finally, of course, there is God.
However, Descartes doubts everything except these three substances. Almost everything!
Now, I have got another simple question, my dear sociopaths. How did his skeptism affect Europe? His skeptism led to three things:
1. A subject-centered understanding of philosophy.
2. The beginning of the Renaissance.
3. The birth of modern art.
Now, I'm going to dramatize this a little bit, because I want the whole story to stay in your mind. Then, I'm going to slowly bring the subject back to Anthony Giddens.
Imagine that you are Pablo Picasso. You are a painter from Europe where, thanks to Descartes and other philosophers, modernity was invented.
Would you make a sentence like this?
"Before I exhibit my own paintings, I should get a license and permission from my painting teacher."
Would you say such a thing?
Of course, you wouldn't! Because just as you don't trust your own perceptions, you don't trust your painting teacher's perceptions either. Moreover, you don't trust any objective measure, academic imposition or social norm regarding painting! You absolutely do not believe in any institutional criteria!
Then, there is only one thing to do: You go near the canvas. Whatever your perceptions are at that moment, however you perceive the life at that moment, you will reflect it on the canvas in an uncaring manner, giving the society the middle finger. That's all!
If you were Pablo Picasso, this is how you would think. This is how you would perform your art. That's exactly why Picasso is categorized as a "modern painter".
For example, while I was preparing this podcast, I went to Google. I typed "Pablo Picasso art" in the search bar. A lot of colorful works appeared in the images. I chose one and clicked on it.
Then, I said: "What the hell is this! A face painted with irrelevant colors, nose in a different place, eyes in a different place, ears asymmetrical, a meaningless absurd painting! What kind of art is this, brother? My nephew in middle school can draw better than this!"
Please excuse my ignorance.
What if I could direct these criticisms to Pablo Picasso himself? How would Picasso react to me?
He would react like this:
"İsmail brother, this is how I perceived, imagined and interpreted it. I don't paint my paintings to appeal to your aesthetic perceptions! I perform my art as my heart desires because I am at the center when I perform this art! The artist is at the center! Do you understand, İsmail? Besides, I'm not trying to reflect an objective truth here. I'm not trying to reflect the objective symmetry of the human face on the canvas. I'm just conveying my own imagination. That's what's important to me."
What do we see here? We see that Descartes' subject-centered philosophy paved the way for the formation of modern art.
As all good things come to an end, I guess modernity has been coming to an end. The concept called postmodernity appeared for the first time in the 20th century. These day, we have been still trying to understand this concept. So what is postmodernity? I will explain it very roughly.
Postmodernity says this:
"Dear modern thinkers! Descartes is sorely mistaken! The philosophy of "I think, therefore I am" is nothing but an exaggeration. If I can think, this does not prove that I have a mind. Nor does it prove that I have a body. It doesn't even prove that I exist. Absolutely not! There is a big exaggeration here! What does the fact that I can think prove? It only proves the existence of thought. Actually, you are nothing but thoughts."
Stop thinking for a second. Don't think anything, if possible. Then, you will cease to exist! So it is possible to say that your existence just includes your thoughts.
According to many postmodernists, there are only thoughts floating in the air. (Foucault calls them discourses, and Derrida calls them texts!).
These thoughts or discourses or texts are not only floating in the air like ghosts, they are also looking for a pair of lips, a larynx, teeth, vocal cords, in short, a body. That's all! All that exists are thoughts or discourses or texts. These are the only things that exist.
This is what postmodernity tells us, my dear sociopathic brothers and sisters. Look, what happened? I want to draw your attention again:
In modernity, the central factor was the individual. The creative factor was the individual.
With the beginning of postmodernity, however, the central factor has become the discourse or the text.
The sovereignty of the individual has unfortunately been destroyed. The world has moved from partial undecidability to absolute undecidability. In other words, the age of post-truth has begun.
What does "absolute undecidability" mean?
There is no longer an objective truth in the air. There is not even a single objective truth. Moreover, there is no individual anymore. Even if there is one, it does not have a role other than being a courier, a messenger. The individual is just a courier, carrying discourses and texts from one place to another.
So what is there? There are only languages and thoughts. The thoughts flying among billions of lips no longer even represent their owners.
This is what postmodernity is.
Why is Anthony Giddens so important, dear sociopaths? Because Giddens refuses to get on the train of postmodernity. He insists on giving the individual an active role in his theories.
He expresses this in the following sentences. (These sentences don't belong to Giddens exactly. I am just speculating again.)
"Stop saying 'the system is this, the system is that'! You are already building what you call 'the system' every morning when you wake up and go to work, collectively. So stop complaining. Do not surrender yourself to mediocrity, to evil. Change the bad aspects of the structure by utilizing the structure again. The structure is dynamic. It can change. When you do this, even if you struggle on your own (okay, maybe it's quite difficult on your own, but...), you may find yourself in a completely different system in the future."
Because according to Giddens, you are the system!
By İsmail PİŞER (The founder of Sosyopat TVFM)
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
- Anthony Giddens (Kitap), Toplumun İnşası: Yapılaşma Teorisinin Ana Hatları, Sentez Yayınevi
- Anthony Giddens (Kitap), Sosyal Teorinin Temel Problemleri: Sosyal Analizde Eylem, Yapı ve Çelişki, Paradigma Yayıncılık
- Engin Yıldırım (Makale), Anthony Giddens'ın Yapılanma Teorisi, Bilgi Dergisi, 1999/1: 25-44.
- Ömer Yıldırım (İnternet Yazısı), Rene Descartes ve Doğanın Tözsel Yapısı, Töz Nedir?, (Felsefe.gen.tr), https://www.felsefe.gen.tr/rene-descartes-ve-doganin-tozsel-yapisi-toz-nedir/
THE LIST OF SOCIOPATHS (SUPPORTERS)
Oğuzhan Cebe
Seçil Cansever
Zuhal Tarar
Bahadır Tekin
Emrah Demirci
Salih Özal
Serhat Öz
İrem Aydın
Birsen Altaylı Özemir
Başak Kaplan
Nilgün Baykızı
Emre Yılmaz
Deniz Erdoğan
Emma
Aysun Karabulut
Mehmet Ersöz
Deniz
Selim Kızılboğa
Didem Dağkıran
Sümeyye Okyay
Neylan Öğütveren Aular
Hasan Sarı
Brave Brush
Kdjdkd Kaan
Abdulkerim Atlı
Tolgahan Erdoğan
Sibel Sevgen
Beti Beti
Rukiye Kayalı
Comments
Post a Comment