EMBRACING THE VOID (w/ Richard Boothby)

[@Parsons4Geist]

❤ Boothbay is a Beautiful Beautiful Man. well you made my easter.

[@joethelionjoethelion]

This was an informative and interesting discussion. I believe what made it so valuable was drBoothby’s sharing of his son’s plight. Engaging and heartfelt. Thank you

[@Whats_in_a_name_1]

There is no greater desire today than to know what religion means. It's reaching a frenzy. It is courageous for Dr Boothby to admit the mystery rather than the rule at the moment on yt of claiming gnosis. Thanks.

[@thevanishingmediators]

Hell yeah! What a dope interview. Andrew and I got to see Boothby debate Adrian Johnston in Pittsburgh last year and it was the single best highlight of the conference. Props to Boothby!

[@PhilosophyPortal]

Boothby x Johnston 🔥🔥 that sounds special -- I've always thought Adrian Johnston's work was such an important contribution to our theory space

[@nicholasr279]

This is an incredible discussion. Thank you both.

[@dissatisfiedphilosophy]

this is a great interview! I am certainly gonna check this book out

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Richard Boothby is very impressive, and I agree with his take on religion as at its best when it emphasizes the Unknown, though unfortunately religion also entails the seeds to deny its central core and heart. I agree that we need to emphasize that Socrates is deeply genuine in his ignorance, that it isn’t just prep for a “gotcha”-moment or something. I also appreciated the emphasis on the character of religion in Greek thought, as well as the discussion on the distinctions between “objet petit a” and “das ding.” Comparing the function of the unknown in science and the unknown in religion, and bringing this together, is also paramount. Well done!

[@PhilosophyPortal]

Thanks for your comment, Daniel. I found it quite an enlightening and also paradoxical aspect of Boothby's book, the way he highlights the way Religion proper simultaneously opens us to the deepest unknown, and at the same time, always risks creating defensive knowledge structures which block the light of this truth, so to speak. Of course, the same such patterns manifest in Science, and so it may be interesting to work towards a structural analysis of Religion and Science on the level of the Signifier or the Symbolic as such. I often feel like when we focus on the particular content of Religion and Science we can miss the structural similarities. I also find the distinction between objet petit a (which seems so useful in clinical work) and Das Ding (which seems so important in familial/social work) to be of primary importance, and I am looking forward to the way Boothby will develop that further in the future, and also in the upcoming course on the Ecrits. Lots of pathways forward to have our minds blown🤯🥳

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

@@PhilosophyPortal I think you highlighted really well one of the most complex, dangerous, and yet also interesting dimensions of Religion, mainly ‘the way […] Religion proper simultaneously opens us to the deepest unknown, and at the same time, always risks creating defensive knowledge structures which block the light of this truth.’ That particular tension is of the utmost importance to think, because that very tendency seems structured into the very nature of thought itself, yet comes out particularly clearly in Religion. ‘It may be interesting to work towards a structural analysis of Religion and Science on the level of the Signifier or the Symbolic as such.’ - I completely, completely agree, and also believe comparing ‘objet petit a’ and ‘Das Ding’ is important. That comparison fascinates me.

[@jaymuhumuza]

Absolutely stellar conversation. Added to my must-read list. Hoping you can do a series on Kierkegaard at some point.

[@PhilosophyPortal]

🙏 Thanks for your comment. I would definitely love to approach Kierkegaard one day. I have often thought it would be cool to teach a comparative course on Nietzsche and Kierkegaard's work.

[@noahwaiwaiole7888]

Such a great conversation. It’s a breath of fresh air to hear another perspective in the midst of the unknown. The greatest hurdle for me is mustering the will and courage to remain open when suffering is so difficult to accept. But hearing boothby speak gives me hope.

[@PhilosophyPortal]

I think you speak for us all, Noah, when you emphasise how difficult it is to "remain open when suffering is so difficult to accept". Indeed, Boothby's work is an inspiration for us all in this direction, as his views on religion reflect not only deep psychoanalytic self-work, but also the working through of his own impossible sufferings (like the suicide of his son).

[@z6li22]

Good stuff

[@lemondirector]

Freud and Metapsychology is an amazing book

[@PhilosophyPortal]

Yes! Boothby has many classics. And he claims Embracing the Void is his favourite thus far, and with even more to come. Stay tuned 👀👀

[@Retrogamer71]

I don't think you can walk Freud into Theology. It's not compatible.

[@PhilosophyPortal]

Well, I think it’s more accurate to say he is walking the Freudo-Lacanian tradition into theology. But even that may not be accurate considering he is developing a psychoanalytic perspective on religion and not necessarily trying to enter or replace theology as such. There is a lot of precedent for opening that type of door, in both Freud and Lacan. It’s all very well argued in Dr. Boothby’s book, which I highly recommend!

[@AB-ok7hu]

Lacan's anti-ontology is compatible with relativistic physics and Lao Tsu's Taoism. The pre-symbolic oceanic feeling of Oneness.