Invidia
 |
| Gericault, Portrait of a Woman Suffering from Obsessive Envy c. 1822 |
"What Nietzsche and Freud share is the idea that justice as equality is founded on envy--on the envy of the Other who has what we do not have, and who enjoys it. The demand for justice is thus ultimately the demand that the excessive enjoyment of the Other should be curtailed so that everyone's access to enjoyment is equal."
Žižek, Violence (Picador, 2008), p. 89
Yes I'm happy with this definition of envy, and think it isn't talked about enough. However, it needs to be contrasted with jealousy, so all the by-products of one and of the other can be exposed. Invidia bifurcates. We look at the root of the word in Latin and it quickly becomes apparent that it stems from another word. Going backwards: invidia from invedere (regard maliciously), from in- (=into) + videre (= to see).
I read further.
Yes I'm happy with this definition of envy, and think it isn't talked about enough. However, it needs to be contrasted with jealousy, so all the by-products of one and of the other can be exposed. Invidia bifurcates. We look at the root of the word in Latin and it quickly becomes apparent that it stems from another word. Going backwards: invidia from invedere (regard maliciously), from in- (=into) + videre (= to see).
I read further.
"An evil person is thus not an egotist, 'thinking only about his own interests.' A true egotist is too busy taking care of his own good to have time to cause misfortune to others. The primary vice of a bad person is precisely that he is more preoccupied with others than with himself."
Žižek, Violence (Picador, 2008), p. 92
True. This point is v important and ppl often neglect the implications of true egotism, or selfishness. Then:
True. This point is v important and ppl often neglect the implications of true egotism, or selfishness. Then:
"Here is why egalitarianism itself should never be accepted at its face value: the notion (and practice) of egalitarian justice, insofar as it is sustained by envy, relies on the inversion of the standard renunciation accomplished to benefit others: 'I am ready to renounce it, so that others will (also) NOT be able to have it!' Far from being opposed to the spirit of sacrifice, evil here emerges as the very spirit of sacrifice, ready to ignore one's own well being--if, through my sacrifice, I can deprive the Other of his enjoyment..."
Žižek, Violence (Picador, 2008), p. 92
But Slavoj, aren't you dodging v important factors? Two, off the top of my head. Namely:
1) The possibility egalitarianism and enjoyment can be levelled up. I don't deny the very real fact that if there are two ppl and one of them is cheerful and the other isn't, it gets complicated to see how both can be equally joyful, given the positive energy will come from one individual and the other will absorb it, therefore each person ends up with less energy than existed before it was divided in two; however, it is also possible that multiplication will arise from the division. Now, with more positive energy than he had at the beginning of the equation, SadIndividual may turn into CheerfulIndividual and start to produce his own positive energy, enough to give some back to the person who was already joyful, increasing the product. It's a possible interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, no? Multiply the initial natural resource, and;
2) It is problematic to isolate envy without contrasting it to jealousy, because one crucial element gets lost in the analysis of only one concept.
I agree envy is characterized primarily by not only the desire to have a quality or a thing the Other possesses but also, and, more importantly, by wanting to take it away from the Other so that no one has it in the end. "If I can't have it, I don't want you to have it either." It's a framework where everyone loses.
However, the missing element must be inserted into the equation precisely because I believe that once it is brought to light, the likelihood envy will turn into jealousy is encouraging.
If one starts from the premise that jealousy is characterized by the desire to possess something one doesn't yet have, without the added factor of wanting the Other to lose it, one reaches the conclusion that the dispossessed may end up achieving the object of his covetous thoughts. Coveting isn't necessarily bad-- it may become negative if one crosses the line into envy.
Envious ppl could experience a positive transition into jealousy if they considered the following:
a) If the object of my envy loses what it possesses, the world becomes poorer and poorer, until, in the end, if my wishes are granted, I won't even have anything to be envious of, since no one will have anything worthy of my envy;
b) I, too, can have what I envy, within reason, if I apply myself and take the paths which lead to it;
c) Envy is stupid: what the envious person fails to perceive is that he who observes a quality has the perspicacity, the sensibility, the intelligence, the emotional resources to look at it and make an assessment of it, to see it, to value it for what it is. The reader, the spectator, the listener is as responsible for the elevation or recognition of something as the person who created it or has it. If I look at Magritte and see nothing, I have no reason at all to be jealous/envious. If I see how stupendous it is, some of the credit goes to me, too! Magritte wouldn't exist if no one could see his talent, and appreciate his art. So envious ppl only need think this through. They're underestimating their own capacity to identify quality, beauty, value.
Slavoj, I'd like to know what you'd say to this, but I don't think you read my blog. I know you wouldn't be envious, though.
But Slavoj, aren't you dodging v important factors? Two, off the top of my head. Namely:
1) The possibility egalitarianism and enjoyment can be levelled up. I don't deny the very real fact that if there are two ppl and one of them is cheerful and the other isn't, it gets complicated to see how both can be equally joyful, given the positive energy will come from one individual and the other will absorb it, therefore each person ends up with less energy than existed before it was divided in two; however, it is also possible that multiplication will arise from the division. Now, with more positive energy than he had at the beginning of the equation, SadIndividual may turn into CheerfulIndividual and start to produce his own positive energy, enough to give some back to the person who was already joyful, increasing the product. It's a possible interpretation of the Parable of the Talents, no? Multiply the initial natural resource, and;
2) It is problematic to isolate envy without contrasting it to jealousy, because one crucial element gets lost in the analysis of only one concept.
I agree envy is characterized primarily by not only the desire to have a quality or a thing the Other possesses but also, and, more importantly, by wanting to take it away from the Other so that no one has it in the end. "If I can't have it, I don't want you to have it either." It's a framework where everyone loses.
However, the missing element must be inserted into the equation precisely because I believe that once it is brought to light, the likelihood envy will turn into jealousy is encouraging.
If one starts from the premise that jealousy is characterized by the desire to possess something one doesn't yet have, without the added factor of wanting the Other to lose it, one reaches the conclusion that the dispossessed may end up achieving the object of his covetous thoughts. Coveting isn't necessarily bad-- it may become negative if one crosses the line into envy.
Envious ppl could experience a positive transition into jealousy if they considered the following:
a) If the object of my envy loses what it possesses, the world becomes poorer and poorer, until, in the end, if my wishes are granted, I won't even have anything to be envious of, since no one will have anything worthy of my envy;
b) I, too, can have what I envy, within reason, if I apply myself and take the paths which lead to it;
c) Envy is stupid: what the envious person fails to perceive is that he who observes a quality has the perspicacity, the sensibility, the intelligence, the emotional resources to look at it and make an assessment of it, to see it, to value it for what it is. The reader, the spectator, the listener is as responsible for the elevation or recognition of something as the person who created it or has it. If I look at Magritte and see nothing, I have no reason at all to be jealous/envious. If I see how stupendous it is, some of the credit goes to me, too! Magritte wouldn't exist if no one could see his talent, and appreciate his art. So envious ppl only need think this through. They're underestimating their own capacity to identify quality, beauty, value.
Slavoj, I'd like to know what you'd say to this, but I don't think you read my blog. I know you wouldn't be envious, though.
4 comments:
Justice defined as social justice and not justice under law, unless of course you have a whole set of law dedicated to the premise of social justice, political correctness, and the prevention of discrimination. So in my compartmentalized little mind and world, I fail to make that assimilation of terminology in any real sense or dimension outside the materialistic pursuits of our present state of being. Frankly I hold the notion that Nietzsche and Freud were smoking opium laced with DDT…if it had been invented at that time.
But continuing on, I would query as to why an evil person could not be an egotist? Could that true egotist not be so engorged in self that in that singular pursuit of a good time, either by omission or commission, the misfortune is caused and the egotist is ambivalent to who is affected, so long as his needs are met? So the vice is not bifurcated but singular; the blind pursuit of want and desire by the ego saturated individual.
So, Žižek is using philosophy to try and justify conclusions that aren’t empirical. Philosophy isn’t empirical, its philosophy. Now, the only thing I’ve read of ‘ol Ziz is what I’ve seen here. So I’m taking a risk of being wrong myself; if I am it wouldn’t be the first time.
Skipping down, I think you’re right to the extent that it invalidates the entire piece in my mind, i.e.; Žižek. Looking at how egalitarianism is defined as a product of political theory and thought which perceptively has little to do with coveting thy neighbor’s stuff (thought I’d go Old Testament). The entire premise of egalitarianism posits seeing people as equal under the law, in law, or has having equal worth. That premise has nothing to do with material things, monetary worth, or what kind of car you drive.
There is a concept of fair eluded to and is, in all fairness ( obvious pun, couldn’t help it), a completely unattainable ideal. Setting aside the notion of law and how we are viewed in the eyes of, the rest of the world is completely unfair and never will abide by this premise, no matter how hard we might try to level the field. Why this person is successful and the other is not is almost as old as man. It used to be ascribed by birth; whether one was born noble or common defined that person for life. Now by bank account, clothing, automobile, or house. So materialistic envy and jealousy are real and they’ve been around a day or two as well. Probably why envy is one of the 7 deadly sins. Why is it we want what we can’t have? I don’t have an answer but I don’t think that Žižek is on the path to enlightenment either. So to answer or ponder a paradox of why one person is happy and another isn’t, is, monumental if not impossible to answer in terms of broad philosophical theory. Happiness or sadness, why or why not, is in the purview of the particular individual. Not to say that envy or jealousy might not be at play for the individual who’s sad, but without knowing that person’s mind, who’s to say? And the same is true for me with the happy individual. Perhaps that person is happy for reasons beyond or in despite the materialistic mecca of what we are told will make us happy.
My analysis comports to rational choice theory. We make the choices we adhere or subscribe to because we make a rational choice to do so. So to be envious or jealous of someone else or their property is seemingly on the basis of rational choice, albeit irrational for you to do so. That same irrational basis drives pity, making one a perpetual victim, and I don’t see it. All things being equal, there will always be a winner and a loser, someone with more and someone else with less. There are no trophies for participating in life and life isn’t fair. But that’s just the way it is now, was in the past, and will be in the future.
Tango, to be honest with you I'm not entire sure what you're saying.
Yes, justice as social justice insofar as one's talking about material inequality.
Jealousy is wanting to have something someone else has without wanting to take it away from this person.
Envy, by contrast, is when I not only want what you have (whatever it is) but I also want to deprive you of it, I no longer want you to have it.
Yes, many reasons can make someone happy or sad, cheerful or gloomy, but here, I was specifically dealing with these two concepts: jealousy and envy.
Inequality has always existed, of course, but I do think it can be diminished, if not entirely abolished; either way, one must make an attempt, yes? So we're always striving for a better world, a better life, a better understanding of ppl and things, ideas and feelings.
I'm a careful optimist; I look at history and see all the real progress mankind has made, and it fills me with hope, even if the paths were often tortuous, and they were, my take is: if we were born perfect, why be born? We're learning all the time, continually having to reassess our positions, certainties, and even our doubts.
thanks for comment
x
Not my most lucid of writings, certainly. However, reading your reply, I think it might have made better sense on the 40th reading. I lacked the ability of understanding the context of the quotes presented, since I haven't read the book, so I compartmentalize and dissect. And I let my mind wander while I argue with myself and make vague statements and sometimes contradictory points. See, you got all of that!
As you can tell however, I don't subscribe to a higher notion of our species' being. Under the thin veil of what we term humanity, our animal instincts lurk, which I think is what fuels behaviors subscribing to the notions of vanity and perhaps jealousy to a lesser extent. Why? Knowing why isn't as important to me as the acceptance that it exists.
No we certainly aren't perfect. Nothing of this world is, I think. The journey we take through this life is what it's about, not the destination or the attainment of 'stuff' as we go through. I think too that it is incumbent on us to leave this world better than we found it. And perhaps that is the best general statement I can make.
Sounds good to me! Although I am quite interested in the Why of things.
Yeah, it's tricky without the context but it's okay because I wanted to focus on envy/jealousy, so in the end those quotes were helpful to me.
I agree we're also animals but there is that constant friction between instinct and thought, feeling and reason, yeah? So that we're always having to consider things soooo much before deciding which is the better path according to the situation.
thanks for comment! I get what you mean now hehehe x
Post a Comment