what does this fragment mean: we are hungry for the approval of others
often this hunger gets concentrated in
particular individuals a boss Mentor
partner Etc we think that the object of
our desire is this individual's approval
yet the source generating our desire for
this approval is not this or that person
nor is it located in some consciously
held subjective Choice instead the cause
of our desire is a gaze irreducible to
the individual a look we experience
externally but is in fact an imminent
part of our subjectivity that we're
ceaselessly attempting to appease for
this reason if and once we finally
obtain approval from this individual
that is we get our object we are
inevitably disappointed by it and find
ourselves seeking approval and yet an
another figure in every different object
we're moved by the same cause not
because the cause is uniquely embodied
in every object but because we our
subjectivities are continuously
re-inscribed in objects this example
illustrates a central idea presented in
the first chapter wherein shijek Begins
by reconceiving the classic duality of
subject and object to contextualize
gizek's argument concerning the relation
between subject and object it'll be
helpful to keep in mind the standard
formulation of the subject object
Duality the scientific standard of truth
demands that our knowledge of the
objective world now be influenced by the
messy contingencies of subjective
experience as such a central
philosophical issue entails establishing
the conditions of possibility for
overcoming the vagaries of our
unreliable first-person perspective by
acceding to the changing certainty of a
third person objective perspective a
solution to this issue one found most
readily in the standard interpretation
of Kant is to conceive of the subject as
an active agent who contains within
itself Universal categories by which it
can construct a reliable view of reality
shared by all rational beings the object
in this formulation then is a passive
construction of this active Universal
agent the first move zuzek makes is to
flip the characteristics ascribed to the
subject and object the subject no longer
refers to an active agent but means to
subject or submit oneself to something
this act of submitting marks the subject
with a fundamental passivity the object
in turn is no longer the passive
construction of an active subject but
means to object or oppose in the sense
of creating an obstacle thereby
conferring upon the object a fundamental
activity what kind of object is this
jizik names it The Parallax object an
object that disrupts and disturbs or
objects to the smooth running of things
for the subject in the example provided
it is that inscribed cause of Desire
that interrupts the possibility of
satisfaction from the desired object in
other words it is a way the object
actively inscribes me within it
constituting a blind spot for me an
invisible stain that hinders me from
beholding the whole of reality that is
embodied by the object this Parallax
object is equivalent to what the Khan
names object that intangible element in
the desired object that generates our
desire in the first place jizek will
also call it the tickling object meaning
that which moves the subject by also
disturbing and undermining it what
induces the shift from one view of the
object to the other Zizek suggests that
it's something that can never be pinned
down in its particular properties since
it is that part of oneself that is in
the object more than it is something one
would identify in oneself we're not
dealing with two distinct objects but
one object that is divided within itself
this split is one in the same with the
other object that emerges from it in
other words this difference as such
immediately coincides with an
unfathomable object in contrast to a
mere difference between objects the pure
difference is itself an object and this
is what zuzia calls the minimal
difference a difference that divides the
same object from itself producing an
unfathomable object that cannot be
grounded in any positive substantial
properties

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

The fragment "we are hungry for the approval of others" speaks to a fundamental aspect of human nature - the desire for validation and acceptance from external sources. This hunger for approval often becomes concentrated in specific individuals such as a boss, mentor, or partner, leading us to believe that the object of our desire is the approval of that particular person. However, the true source of this desire is not the individual themselves, but rather a gaze that is irreducible to the individual - an external look that is actually an imminent part of our subjectivity. We endlessly seek to appease this gaze, constantly chasing after approval from different figures, only to be inevitably disappointed when we finally obtain it. This cycle continues because the cause of our desire is not uniquely embodied in each object of our affection, but rather is continuously re-inscribed in objects by our own subjectivities. This brings to light a central idea presented in the first chapter, wherein Slavoj Zizek reconceives the classic duality of subject and object. Instead of the subject being an active agent constructing reality and the object being a passive construction, Zizek flips these characteristics, presenting the subject as a passive entity submitting to the object, and the object as an active force creating obstacles. This shift in perspective leads to the concept of the Parallax object, an object that disrupts and disturbs the subject's pursuit of satisfaction. This object, also known as the tickling object, embodies the intangible element in desired objects that generates desire. It is that part of oneself that is in the object more than it is something one would identify in themselves. The minimal difference, as Zizek calls it, divides the same object from itself, producing an unfathomable object that cannot be grounded in any positive substantial properties. In essence, our endless quest for approval is a reflection of our deeply ingrained desire to navigate the complexities of subjectivity and objectivity, ultimately leading us to confront the enigmatic nature of our own desires and the objects that incite them.