Thursday, December 09, 2004
(11:11 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
Sullivan on Zizek
Sullywatch wonders what I think of Andrew Sullivan's use of Slavoj Zizek in a recent post. As the blogosphere's foremost expert on that irascable Slovenian, I was glad to see his teachings promoted by any means necessary, even if it is at the hands of the Internet's foremost gay Catholic conservative who's skeptical about Bush but didn't trust Kerry. here is the post in question:CHEMICALS BY CHANCE: Here's s philosophical tangle that gets to the heart of the debate about steroids:The Zizek article is a year and a half old, so there are a couple of possibilities here. One is that he is an avid reader of Zizek who only decided to deploy this essay now that steroids are a "big issue." (By the way, remember how we all laughed about the steroids reference in the state of the union speech a couple years ago? Remember how it seemed to come way out of left field? Did anyone else notice that a story on steroids in baseball was on the front page of the Times last Sunday? I'm frankly terrified.) The other is that he doesn't really know who the fuck Zizek is and either (a) just turned up the article on a Google search for "steroids" or (b) received an e-mail tip from a knowledgable reader and isn't giving that reader credit where credit is due. I will leave the task of deciding which possibility is the most plausible as an exercise for the reader.[W]e see it as perfectly justified when someone with a good natural singing voice takes pride in his performance, although we're aware that his singing has more to do with talent than with effort and training. If, however, I were to improve my singing by the use of a drug, I would be denied the same recognition (unless I had put a lot of effort into inventing the drug in question before testing it on myself). The point is that both hard work and natural talent are considered 'part of me', while using a drug is 'artificial' enhancement because it is a form of external manipulation. Which brings us back to the same problem: once we know that my 'natural talent' depends on the levels of certain chemicals in my brain, does it matter, morally, whether I acquired it from outside or have possessed it from birth? To further complicate matters, it's possible that my willingness to accept discipline and work hard itself depends on certain chemicals. What if, in order to win a quiz, I don't take a drug which enhances my memory but one which 'merely' strengthens my resolve? Is this still 'cheating'?"If we're all chemicals, why prefer the ones we have by chance rather than those we have by design? Slavoj Zizek elaborates.
