« The credulity of the recappers, or, what does Rick & Morty have in common with "Who Was Nietzsche's Genealogist?" | Main | Ford contra O'Shaugnessy »

November 05, 2017


"but even if you are, it's striking that people to whom unconscious desires and people with ascribable desires with the same content do not generally act similarly." -- This seems wrong. Not the same in all respects, but surely they do behave similarly in some relevant ways: both can be described as acting in some way to manage that desire. Say, a homophobe unconsciously dealing with his homosexual desires by condemning them in others (and so indirectly in himself -- and a self-condemned desire is then right to not act on), and a normal person dealing with his homosexual desires by satisfying them. Certainly the homophobe and the normal person act quite differently, but there is a sort of story to be told that unites them as sharing a type of root desire. The fact that their very different actions both admit of this sort of story-telling is then the relevant sort of similarity in their behavior to look to, I think, in trying to cash out what the point of desire-talk amounts to. The one person is acting in such and such a way and the other is acting to suppress such actions in their own person.

I enjoyed reading this set of rambles.

The comments to this entry are closed.