| Sažetak | Ovaj rad kreće od situiranja materijalističke filozofske tradicije s obzirom na pitanje subjektivnosti i problem odnosa između uma i tijela. Rasprava se zatim okreće „transcendentalnom materijalizmu“ Adriana Johnstona i njegovom nastojanju da poveže suvremene prirodne znanosti s određenim dijalektičkim materijalizmom. Tekst nastoji situirati Johnstonovu transcendentalno-materijalističku ontologiju i teoriju subjektivnosti unutar materijalističke i naturalističke tradicije te pokazati na koji način polja poput epigenetike, neuroznanosti, kognitivne znanosti i neurobiologije mogu pridonijeti formulaciji nereduktivne materijalističke ontologije i teorije subjektivnosti. Fokus je također stavljen na Catherine Malabou koja u svom radu pokušava postaviti temelje nove materijalističke teorije subjektivnosti koja bi se temeljila na kognitivnoj znanosti. Malabou u središte svog rada stavlja koncept „plastičnosti“ i poziva na „novi materijalizam“, materijalizam koji je osjetljiv na otkrića i uvide prirodnih znanosti – na koje se Malabou oslanja da bi, između ostalog, ukazala na netočnost duboko uvriježenih ideja o genetskom determinizmu. Johnston i Malabou smatraju da je nereduktivna, znanstveno utemeljena materijalistička teorija psihoanalitičke subjektivnosti na presjeku filozofije, psihoanalize i prirodnih znanosti danas moguća zahvaljujući empirijskim, eksperimentalnim istragama u neuralne sisteme i evolucijskogenetsku dinamiku. Tekst zatim prelazi na detaljnije smještanje Johnstonovog transcendentalnog materijalizma unutar filozofske tradicije njemačkog idealizma, s posebnim fokusom na koncept subjektivnosti kao radikalne negativnosti. Povezivanjem njemačko-idealističkog koncepta subjektivnosti s lacanovskom psihoanalizom proširuje se ranije postavljena teza o heterogenosti, fragmentiranosti, konfliktnosti i antagonizmu unutar samih materijalnih temelja ljudskog bića i prirode kao takve – što kulminira formulacijom ontologije „slabe prirode“ (koja je uvelike oblikovana Hegelovom Naturphilosophie). U ovoj točki, tekst se okreće Johnstonovoj naturalističkoj rekonceptualizaciji instinkta, freudovskog nagona (smrti) i žudnje, pri čemu se Johnston oslanja na uvide evolucijske teorije, neurobiologije, neuroznanosti i psihoanalize. Središnji dio rada obuhvaća problematiku vezanu uz formuliranje uvjeta za antireduktivan naturalistički materijalizam tj. Johnstonovu ontologiju prirode koja je potrebna za materijalističku teoriju subjektivnosti koja ne reducira subjekte na fizičku, kemijsku ili biološku materiju. Sljedeće poglavlje služi kao prolegomena buduće lacanovske neuropsihoanalize, pri čemu je naglasak stavljen na Johnstonovu kritiku rada francuskog psihoanalitičara Françoisa Ansermeta i neuroznanstvenika Pierrea Magistrettija i njihovu teoriju subjektivne slobode na presjeku freudovsko-lacanovske psihoanalize i suvremene neurobiologije. Nakon ovog u tekstu se razlaže povezivanje Johnstonovog transcendentalnog materijalizma s radom analitičkog filozofa Johna McDowella i filozofkinje znanosti Nancy Cartwright. Dok Lacan premošćuje analitičko-kontinentalni jaz s kontinentalne strane, McDowell ga premošćuje s analitičke strane, a kao svoje središnje referentne točke uzima Kanta i Hegela. Tekst se fokusira na specifičnu vrstu naturalizma tj. ono što McDowell u svom radu naziva „naturalizam druge prirode“ a što Johnston povezuje s elementima njemačkog idealizma, psihoanalize i neurobiologije. U kontekstu problema naturalizma, oslanjajući se na McDowella i na njegovu koncepciju druge prirode, Johnston kroz imanentnu kritiku McDowella nastoji ponuditi radikalnu rekonceptualizaciju prirode kao materijalnog temelja bitka te pružiti nekoliko preliminarnih uvida u to kako bi mogla izgledati moguća ontologizirana verzija hibridnog lacanovsko-mcdowellijanskog kvazinaturalizma. Osim na McDowella, Johnston se također oslanja na rad Nancy Cartwright i njezine doprinose filozofiji znanosti. Cartwrightin svjetonazor „raščlanjenog“ svijeta u potpunosti ruši razne dogme u vezi znanstvenog i naturalističkog te njihovog odnosa. U svom „empirističkom lokalnom realizmu“, Cartwright uzima disciplinu koja se čini najotpornijom slici slabe prirode ili raščlanjenog svijeta te pokazuje da ni u samoj fizici zapravo ne nalazimo neku vrstu determinističkog, uravnoteženog, samointegriranog, jedinstvenog polja kojim upravljaju univerzalno važeći kauzalni zakoni, drugim riječima, da nam sama fizika zapravo nije nikada uspjela dati sliku ujedinjenog kozmosa ili fizičkog univerzuma koji je bešavno integriran i kojim upravlja jedinstveni skup svevladajućih univerzalnih kauzalnih zakona. Dakle, Cartwrightin rad demonstrira da čak i na razini fizike ne nalazimo kauzalno uređenu cjelovitost i integriranost kakvu obično povezujemo s prirodom. Upravo je to za Johnstona važan korak u smislu daljnjeg utemeljenja ovog naturalizma slabe prirode. U ovoj točki teksta, Johnstonov pristup može se definirati kao „egzistencijalni transcendentalni materijalizam slabe prirode“, a Hegel, Marx, Engels i Lacan navode se kao neki od preteča ovog pristupa. Zahvaljujući dostignućima suvremenih znanosti, Johnston smatra da nam njegov dijalektički pristup ovim problemima pruža konkretan realistički uvid u pitanje „pozicioniranja umova u svijetu“. Posljednji dio rada posvećen je problemima vezanim uz spekulativni realizam i nove materijalizme i realizme. Razmatra se uloga subjekta u novim materijalizmima i realizmima koji subjekt decentriraju iz njegovog privilegiranog, središnjeg ili temeljnog mjesta unutar filozofije i ontologije. Transcendentalni materijalizam, s druge strane, želi očuvati koncept subjektivnosti kao središnji filozofski koncept. Tekst također objašnjava odnos Johnstonovog transcendentalnog materijalizma i novih materijalizama i realizama, a posebno je izdvojena lacanovsko-hegelijanska kritika novo-materijalističkog/realističkog shvaćanja subjektivnosti. U zaključnom poglavlju sažimaju se nalazi prethodnih poglavlja te se nasuprot klasičnom (i danas nedvojbeno zastarjelom) konceptualiziranju materijalizma, prirode kao takve, i problema subjektivnosti, zagovara rekonceptualizacija ovih termina u skladu s resursima brojnih grana ujedno kontinentalne i analitičke filozofije, freudovsko-lacanovske psihoanalize te višestrukih domena životnih i prirodnih znanosti, s posebnim naglaskom na znanosti o mozgu. Ovakav ogroman interdisciplinarni poduhvat rezultirao bi novom materijalističkom ontologijom i komplementarnom teorijom subjektivnosti koje imaju potencijal iz temelja promijeniti smjer današnjih debata o odnosu između tijela i psihe. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | This thesis starts from situating the materialist philosophical tradition in regard to the question of subjectivity and the problem of the relationship between mind and body. The discussion then turns to Adrian Johnston's "transcendental materialism" and his attempt to connect contemporary natural sciences with a certain dialectical materialism. Johnston primarily relies on three main intellectual traditions/orientations: German idealism, Marxism, and Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis. Through the formulation of a unique materialist ontology, which also includes a non-reductive theory of subjectivity, Johnston connects these three European intellectual traditions with contemporary natural sciences (with a particular focus on neuroscience and neurobiology). Under the title "transcendental materialism", Johnston offers a new theoretical approach to the old problem of the relationship between mind and body. Johnston's goal is the formulation of a theory of subjectivity that is both materialist and naturalist, and which at the same time describes human beings as irreducible exclusively to natural matter, but is also resolutely opposed to any form of idealism, dualism, and spiritualism. As a fully secularized materialism, Johnston's transcendental materialism is inextricably linked to the idea of nature as a fragmented, disjointed, conflict-ridden heterogeneous materiality. In order to remain faithful to the materialist ontological axiom of the primacy of matter as the only and basic foundation of being, transcendental materialism must describe the genesis of subjectivity from materiality, and explain how material substance itself must be configured so that subjectivity could arise from it. Johnston's transcendental materialistic (quasi-)naturalism wants to retain the denaturalized strangeness of subjects - in contrast to the usual types of naturalism that treat every version of more-than-natural subjectivity as partially or completely illusory and try to unilaterally reduce or eliminate it. While many contemporary theoretical trends - from structuralism/poststructuralism, antihumanism, deconstruction to new materialism and speculative realism - decentralize, diminish or eliminate the role of the subject, the subject remains a central philosophical concept behind transcendental materialism. In the context of the reawakening of interest in materialism and realism in contemporary continental philosophical circles, Johnston believes that today's materialism is internally divided into those who seek to abandon the figure of the subject (neo-Spinozists) and those who seek to preserve the figure of the subject (neo-Hegelians). The text tries to situate Johnston's transcendental-materialist ontology and theory of subjectivity within the materialist and naturalist tradition and show how fields such as epigenetics, neuroscience, cognitive science and neurobiology can contribute to the formulation of a non-reductive materialist ontology and theory of subjectivity. The focus is also placed on Catherine Malabou, who in her work tries to set the foundations of a new materialist theory of subjectivity based on cognitive science. Malabou places the concept of "plasticity" at the center of her work and calls for a "new materialism", a materialism that is responsive to the discoveries and insights of the natural sciences – on which Malabou relies to, among other things, point out the inaccuracy of deep-rooted ideas about genetic determinism. Malabou shows how the genetic paradigm today is slowly becoming the story of the past, as is the concept of "program". The increasing importance of epigenetics indicates that we are currently witnessing the establishment of the epigenetic paradigm that is in the process of its constitution. In addition to implying a revolution within biology itself, this new paradigm also functions as an invaluable resource for the humanities. Therefore, continental philosophy must include the resources of today's cellular biology, molecular biology and neurobiology. Such significant discoveries in the field of natural sciences also suggest that the introduction of biology to the materialistic theory of subjectivity does not inevitably lead to reductive materialism of the mechanistic and/or eliminative kind. Important findings of today's natural sciences can help us formulate a new philosophical concept of nature as the foundation for a non-reductive materialist ontology and theory of subjectivity, but also to stimulate new interest in the psychoanalytic community regarding the future development of psychoanalysis and scientific foundation of psychoanalytic metapsychology. Taking into account the knowledge of contemporary natural sciences will allow us to avoid falling into the trap of dualistic idealism, mysticism and spiritualist ideology, in order to remain faithful to the project of the formulation of an intellectually responsible philosophical materialism. Johnston and Malabou also believe that a non-reductive, scientifically based materialist theory of psychoanalytic subjectivity at the intersection of philosophy, psychoanalysis and natural sciences is possible today thanks to empirical, experimental investigations into neural systems and evolutionary-genetic dynamics. The text then moves on to a more detailed placement of Johnston's transcendental materialism within the philosophical tradition of German idealism, with a special focus on the concept of subjectivity as radical negativity. By connecting the German-idealist concept of subjectivity with Lacanian psychoanalysis, the earlier thesis about heterogeneity, fragmentation, conflict and antagonism within the very material foundations of human beings and nature as such is expanded - which culminates in the formulation of the ontology of "weak nature" (which is largely shaped by Hegel's Naturphilosophie). According to Johnston, German idealism, psychoanalysis and modern neuroscience show that the material Real of nature (especially human nature) is fragmented, disunited, riddled with antagonisms and discontinuities, instead of being seamlessly integrated and free from internal conflicts. This Freudian-Lacanian conceptualization of (human) nature as weak, impotent, incomplete, imbued with and troubled by biomaterial negativities (embodied in the fragmented human body), a nature that lacks monistic integration and cohesion, must be recognized as a register that is complementary to Lacan's barred big Other or Symbolic order which is detotalized, permeated with contradictions, dead ends, discontinuities, etc. In other words, Johnston postulates that not only the Symbolic order is barred, but the very substance of the being itself is inconsistent and divided, i.e. the Lacanian Real is also barred. At this point, the text turns to Johnston's naturalistic reconceptualization of instinct, the Freudian (death) drive, and desire, drawing on insights from evolutionary theory, neurobiology, neuroscience, and psychoanalysis. The central part of the text includes issues related to the formulation of conditions for anti-reductive naturalistic materialism, i.e. Johnston's ontology of nature, which is necessary for a materialist theory of subjectivity which does not reduce the subject to physical, chemical or biological matter. Johnston explores how biology can bridge the gap between natural substances and denaturalized subjects, reconceptualizing the classic Freudian-Lacanian interpretation of drive and desire in the context of evolutionary history and natural history. Johnston's unconventional presentation of the similarities and differences between instinct and desire relies on the resources of modern biology and neurobiology, which provide him with a rigorously materialist and scientifically responsible explanation of the ontogeny of desire. Johnston also offers a reconceptualization of the theory of drive and connects this theory with the ontology of weak nature. This allows him to formulate an empirically responsible, radically atheistic, post-critical basis for a dialectical-speculative orientation that connects the scientific-empirical (in the sense of the natural sciences) and the philosophical-theoretical (in the sense of philosophy and psychoanalysis). The following chapter serves as a prolegomena to any future Lacanian neuropsychoanalysis, with an emphasis on Johnston's critique of the work of French psychoanalyst François Ansermet and the neuroscientist Pierre Magistretti and their theory of subjective freedom at the intersection of Freudian-Lacanian psychoanalysis and contemporary neurobiology. Johnston starts from the basic observations of modern neurobiology and neuroscience, which lead to a paradigm shift in how we perceive the human brain. Modern experimental research in the field of neuroscience shows that the brain is not an internally coordinated, balanced, optimized system that normally communicates with its various parts and with the rest of the organism. For Ansermet and Magistretti, the irreducible specificity of the individual's brain represents the embodiment of autonomy. Thanks to epigenetic factors and the unpredictability of contingency, plasticity results in a singular brain/psyche, i.e. autonomy. In other words, Ansermet and Magistretti believe that the very fact of neuroplasticity necessarily implies individualization, while individualization implies freedom. They also point out that the "biology of freedom" is in itself the result of the refutation of vulgar scientific determinism. Therefore, in contrast to what is usually understood by various biological determinisms (such as genetic or neuronal determinism, but also psychological determinism), plasticity includes heterogeneity and idiosyncrasy, i.e. plasticity is what enables the subject to actively participate in the process of its own becoming. While Ansermet and Magistretti believe that their formulation of the "biology of freedom" can offer a theory of autonomous subjectivity that finds its foundations in neurobiology and Freudian-Lacanian psychoanalysis, Johnston, on the other hand, in his criticism of Ansermet and Magistretti, posits that contingency, specificity, idiosyncrasy, unpredictability, etc. are not a guarantee of true autonomy. After this, the text analyzes the merging of Johnston's transcendental materialism with the work of analytic philosopher John McDowell and philosopher of science Nancy Cartwright. While Lacan bridges the analytic-continental divide from the continental side, McDowell bridges it from the analytic side, taking Kant and Hegel as his central points of reference. The text focuses on a specific type of naturalism, i.e. what McDowell calls "naturalism of second nature" and which Johnston connects with elements of German idealism, psychoanalysis and neurobiology. In the context of the problem of naturalism, relying on McDowell and his concept of second nature, Johnston - through an immanent critique of McDowell - tries to offer a radical reconceptualization of nature as the material foundation of being and to provide some preliminary insights into what a possible ontologized version of the hybrid LacanianMcDowellian quasi-naturalism might look like. In addition to McDowell, Johnston also draws on the work of Nancy Cartwright and her contributions to the philosophy of science. Cartwright's worldview of the "dappled" world completely overturns various dogmas regarding the scientific and the naturalistic and their relationship. In her "empiricist local realism", Cartwright takes a discipline that seems most resistant to the image of weak nature or dappled world and shows that even in physics itself we do not actually find some kind of deterministic, balanced, self-integrated, unified field governed by universally valid causal laws, in other words, that physics itself has never really been able to give us a picture of a unified cosmos or a physical universe that is seamlessly integrated and governed by a single set of universal causal laws. Thus, Cartwright's work demonstrates that even at the level of physics we do not find the causally ordered wholeness and integration that we usually associate with nature. According to Johnston, this is an important step in terms of further establishing this naturalism of a weak nature. At this point in the text, Johnston's approach can be defined as "existential transcendental materialism of a weak nature", while Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lacan are cited as some of the forerunners of this approach. Thanks to the achievements of modern science, Johnston believes that his dialectical approach to these problems provides concrete realist insight into the question of "situating minds in the world". The last part of the text deals with the problems related to speculative realism and new materialisms and realisms. The role of the subject in new materialisms and realisms (which decenter the subject from its privileged, central or fundamental place within philosophy and ontology) is considered. Transcendental materialism, on the other hand, seeks to preserve the concept of subjectivity as a central philosophical concept. The text also explains the relationship between Johnston's transcendental materialism and new materialisms and realisms, while special focus is placed on a Lacanian-Hegelian critique of the new materialist/realist understanding of subjectivity. The concluding chapter summarizes the findings of the previous chapters, and, in contrast to the standard conceptualizations of materialism, nature, and the problem of subjectivity, advocates for the reconceptualization of these terms in accordance with the resources of numerous branches of both continental and analytical philosophy, FreudianLacanian psychoanalysis, and the multiple domains of life sciences and natural sciences. Such a vast interdisciplinary endeavor would result in a new materialist ontology and a complementary theory of subjectivity, which have the potential to fundamentally change the direction of today's debates about the relationship between the body and the psyche. |
