The Insulted, the Interpellated, and the Austered

The two phenomenological approaches to conflicts are as follows: some people enter into conflicts knowing it, while others find themselves involved in one. The former enters into conflict consciously knowing it while the latter are unconsciously propelled into conflict by emotions. Yet, both forms of conflict lack a telos — a grand resolution that promises an ultimate end. If one enters into conflict unconsciously, i.e. they find themselves involved in one, they must first “grab a footing” by becoming conscious of the fact. The obsession with determining "who started it" is the attempt to make the shift from an unconscious conflict to a conscious one. By consciousness, we simply mean the knowledge of one’s position in the political environment. Modern rational politics says that reason will allow people to agree on which policies, laws, or norms to follow and which ones to dispose of. In other words, political rationalism says that as long as citizens can reason through the consequences of a particular law, they will agree to follow it. According to Alexandre Kojeve, nation-states after WW2 have claimed that all political violence have been suspended by becoming post-political. A civil society becomes possible by sitting on top of political violence. Knowledge about how to live, i.e. one’s position, now shifts forward to preemptively calculate all violence as resolvable.

I will argue that by attempting to preemptively work towards a resolution under post-political conflict, modern rationalists become unconscious savages by using rational argumentation while irrational individuals become conscious civilians. Modern political rationalism reverses the notion of “the noble savage” where the rational antagonists implement brutal severe conditions onto their enemies while the irrational ones implement more moderate ones.

The Insulted Individual

The obsession over determining “who started it” is an attempt to “gain a footing” within conflicts. It keeps arguments rational or at the very least it transitions unconscious conflicts into conscious ones. We can say that this preemptive anticipation is a result of knowledge being pushed forwards even before conflicts arise. But what kind of knowledge are we referring to? And why bother with rational argumentation to win in the cosmopolitan arena? Remember cosmopolitanism is a situation where all political violence becomes resolvable under the most correct regime. And knowledge of one’s political standing can determine one’s conscious awareness as “inner” or “outer” of political ranks.

We can answer the following question, “why do people insult each other?” with, “because they were insulted.” We can ask a better question, “why do people continue to insult each other?” For the former, we enter a paradox of “who caused it.” The answer is either an infinite regression of causes or a circular cause-and-effect loop that goes on indefinitely. There has to be a decision made somewhere in the middle where it forces antagonisms to create a beginning. Once an antagonist is able to “make a footing,” an accusation can be made to the other antagonist. The one that forces the other to react in the cosmopolitan arena becomes the aggressor while the one who acts becomes the self-conscious victim. Human beings believe that we can force a telos onto conflict if we can somehow obtain its end. Thus we calculate and measure arguments to better position ourselves to end up on top. Thus, all conflicts are resolvable even in the event of an unsolvable one. By forcing unresolvable conflicts to become resolvable ones, we preemptively anticipate the result by using rational argumentation. One becomes insulted when they lose the argument and the outcome is knowledge that they can grow conscious from. Thus, consciousness is derived from theoretical knowledge giving rise to practical philosophy. An insulted individual has become lost in the theory. He has wedged himself between action and inaction becoming trapped. With every move, the insulted individual buries himself deeper and deeper into the ground, entrapping himself within the webs of argumentation. The more he tries to escape, or attempt to obtain a footing, the more argumentation ensnares him. Knowledge becomes a trap.

Overcoming the natural given

In nature, objects are given (gifted) to a subject through natural law. This cannot mean that the subject possesses the object. The subject hasn’t become conscious of the fact. In other words, he hasn’t gained the knowledge of private property. The natural given object still belongs to nature or to God. The story of the Garden of Eden in the Bible can be interpreted as a journey to consciousness. By consciousness, we mean the practical body of knowledge used to sustain one’s life. The fact that the object affords the subject its utility means that the object can hold the subject’s attention. Put simply, the natural object comes to act upon the subject and not the other way around. As the subject becomes captured by the object, the subject gives his attention to it. His attention becomes captured by the object and this prevents desire from escaping outwardly but rather inflicts inwardly. This inward orientation allows him to learn his way under natural law. This awareness turns into consciousness under this body of knowledge collected to be able to sustain oneself in the world. This inward collection of vital awareness is called the ego. He comes to win consciousness (ego) from the object’s gift and protects the ego like it's an object found in nature.

As the subject surrenders his subjectivity towards the natural object, the object orients him into consciousness.

However, this knowledge is merely practical knowledge used to sustain his life. The ego becomes only occupied with the basic necessities afforded to him by the intrinsic uses of the natural object. Just like the subject protects the object for its use value, The subject protects the ego for its symbolic value. Recall that it’s until the natural object is desired by someone else that the object turns from an object of protection to an object of desire. Cosmopolitanism transitions the ego from a protected object to a desired object because all political conflict exists resolvable (post-political). This marks the beginning of rational argumentation as an attempt to give the ego its meaning (telos) and the consequences is knowledge.

The Interpellated individual

Interpellation - when an individual unknowingly accepts a condition where he becomes subject.

The ego is protected under its owner, the subject. When the subject has taken symbolic damage, it’s said to have a bruised ego. Subjects protect their ego to protect their honor and worth. An insult is an attack on one’s sense of worth or honor. It is through the use of rational argumentation that subjects gasp for air as they try to defend their honor after feeling attacked. The ego is a natural object and it serves its owner as long as it has a final purpose. If that purpose has been exhausted, i.e. has taken damage, it can only look outwardly for a reevaluation. Remember, the ego is the result of directing the subject’s attention inwardly (as it is an inward attention to one’s survival). After feeling offended, an external pull begins a new process of knowledge. The ego passes along the same marches of progress as history does. According to historicism, dialectical idealism actualizes the ego into a new consciousness from the legacy of progressive history. This means that the attacker (defendant) is at a loss. As soon as the ego turns from an object of protection to an object of desire, the subject begins to desire vindication. But if attacking someone’s ego makes it more resilient (grows a thicker skin) how shall one proceed if they are to be on top? This is when the insulted individual interpellates his antagonist. The ego, as a natural object, has to become desired by someone else of which the insulted individual (ego’s owner) can now obtain it in return. In other words, the insulted individual has a desire for vengeance (desiring-revenge) but must first “give it away.”

An insult is an accusation of theft which accuses a defendant of desiring one's ego. The burden of proof lies on the aggressive defendant while the victim (prosecutor) receives the benefit of the doubt. This leaves both antagonists aware of the fact that the ego is desired. Rational argumentation then serves as an initiation ritual where the first accusation relays cross examination. The aggressor (defendant) must make the victim (prosecutor) desires the ego as it will absorb the shock of a verbal attack. If the victim takes the bait, he or she will agree unconsciously that he or she has desires the ego, leaving it with worth. This was the natural act of the “gift” from when the defendant gives his antagonist what he wants. As soon as the antagonist takes the bait, the ego switches to become an object of desire. It is now that the owner-subject (defendant) can truly possess his ego if only he can earn it back. The feeling of having one’s ego vindicated is merely repossessing something one voluntarily gave up only to have it returned naturally. This has similarity to Von Klasuvit’s “principle of defence.” In a military situation, it is the defence that has the upperhand over the offence because the offence must come to the defender's territory. When the offence is in unfamiliar territory, the defender can take advantage and defeat the offence. Both defence and offence are in standby, waiting for the other to make the first move. In a cosmopolitical situation, the person who utters an insult typically loses credibility from conventional society and the victim is given the benefit of the doubt. To get around this paradox, the insulted individual must “gift” his opponent pre-modern substance: life-force. In other words, he must appeal to nature.

The return to nature