The four branches of philosophy and the four clinical structures

 

Philosophy is divided into four major branches: metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics and ethics.

We can divide them with two “dichotomies”:

TRUTH VS. VALUE: Metaphysics and epistemology are more concerned with questions of truth (“thinking”). Aesthetics and ethics are more concerned with questions of value (“feeling”).

REACTIVE VS. PROACTIVE: Metaphysics and aesthetics are reactive, they are preoccupied with the psychological reactions of our brain to stimuli. Epistemology and ethics are proactive, they are preoccupied with judgments and rationale, with the human trying to control themselves and have some resistance to pure reactions to stimuli.

Hence, by combining these two dichotomies, we can describe the four branches of philosophy as follows:

METAPHYSICS is a reaction to truth. Our sense-organs leave us internal impressions of the external reality. Metaphysics is defined by most philosophers as the study of reality, hence, it should follow that it is also the study of “truth reactions”.

AESTHETICS is a reaction to value. Our brains leave us internal impressions of value as reactions to stimuli: we divide them between “what feels good” and “what feels bad”. Aesthetics is the philosophy studying “what feels good” – for instance, what is pleasant to our eyes (beauty, visual art), what is pleasant to our ears (musical art), and so on. Hence, we can define aesthetics, equivalently, as the study of “value reactions”.

EPISTEMOLOGY can be described, with a little exaggeration, as “meta-metaphysics”. Epistemology is not a reaction to truth, but a self-reflective questioning of truth. Epistemology has truth as either its input (“We know this is true – what does this imply?”) or as its output (“How do we find out what is true?”).

ETHICS can be described, with a little exaggeration, as “meta-aesthetics”. Ethics is not a reaction to value, but a self-reflective questioning of value. Ethics has value as either its input (“We know what is good/important/valuable/right – what do we do about it?”) or as its output (“How do we find out what’s valuable/important/good?”).

The paradox of truth is known as contradiction (something that is both true and false at the same time).

The paradox of value is known in Lacanian psychoanalysis as jouissance (something that is both good and bad, pleasant and painful, etc.).

The latter two “evolved” branches of philosophy are not only self-reflective: While epistemology can be viewed as the movement of metaphysics to itself (“self-reflective metaphysics” or “meta-metaphysics”), it is also the movement of aesthetics to metaphysics. The quest of finding the truth (epistemology) implies uncovering the essence behind the appearance, the “true self” behind the mask, the signified behind the signifier, the reality under the illusion, etc. In other words, epistemology starts with aesthetics as an input (“here is what is good – my first impression”) and ends with metaphysics as its output (“here is what is real – my last impression”).

Similarly enough, ethics is not only self-reflective aesthetics (“meta-aesthetics”) but also the movement from metaphysics to aesthetics (“from essence to appearance, from reality to fantasy, from signified to signifier, from the “true” me behind the mask to my persona, etc.). In is the same as epistemology, but in reversed.

You can view the four branches of philosophy as the following diagram, where the first two (metaphysics and aesthetics) are static, fixed “points” on the diagram, whereas the latter two (epistemology and ethics) are vectors that represent movement from one point to another:

 

You can view metaphysics and aesthetics as being in a sort of “primordial conflict”. For example, inside language, we often have a split or gap between the metaphysical nature of our speech (whether it’s true/real or not) and the aesthetical nature of our speech (whether it sounds good or not). The epistemological function of speech communicates its metaphysical content and is concerned with questions regarding the “cold” transfer of knowledge and information. The ethical function of speech communicates its aesthetic content and is concerned with questions regarding the “warm” transfer of words that “sound good to the ear”. The epistemology/ethics divide, for instance, is the divide between “what you say” vs. “how you say what you say”. One cliché example of this split is the dilemma of diplomacy – do you say the truth even when you risk hurting people’s feelings? To remain “real” and say the truth regarding of how other people feel is to take the side of epistemology and metaphysics. To choose to be “fake” and prioritize other people’s feelings means to take the side of ethics and aesthetics in this particular case. It should be noted that the “gap” or “split” is between metaphysics and aesthetics, not between epistemology and ethics. Epistemology and ethics, instead, are the two ways to mediate this split – two different “compromise formations”, let’s say, for lack of a better term.

The constant tension caused by the split between metaphysics and aesthetics creates encryption. Encrypted speech (indirect communication, ambiguous speech, politeness, formalities, “honest lies”, hints, allusions, euphemisms, political correctness, being subtle etc.) is a compromise-formation between metaphysics and aesthetics in regards to language. On one hand, we have an epistemological function of speech (concerned with truth and metaphysics – the cold transfer of knowledge and information), on the other hand, we have an ethical function of speech (concerned with value and aesthetics – the “warm” play of saying what sounds ‘nice’ or “good to the ear”), encrypted speech is the compromise between the two.

The four branches of philosophy are four different master-signifiers for each four clinical structures:

METAPHYSICS is the master-signifier of the detached person. The detached structure is the only one that Lacan did not describe, he only focused on the other three (psychotic, neurotic, perverted). Detached people are "pre-psychotic", they contain autistic, schizoid, histrionic, borderline and antisocial personality disorders, and they are the people who did not form an attachment to their primary caregivers (symbolic mothers) in the first place (whereas the psychotic got attached but not separated by the father-figure, and the neurotics and perverts got separated in different ways). 

The detached person’s life revolves around metaphysics – what is real. You will often hear a detached person talk about other people’s behavior from a purely empirical view – what they observed about its rules, its patterns, and so on, like a machine that is trying to be figured out. A detached person will often describe human behavior in a purely metaphysical way (“in my anecdotal experience, I found out what if you do this people will react like this, I observed that this works the best, etc.”). Another thing that detached people often do is take people’s speech as a statement about reality – if you insult something about their appearance for example, it’s almost as if the thing stops existing (existence = ontology), if you say something mean it’s almost as if you change something about reality (reality = metaphysics). The detached mode of functioning overlaps metaphysics and intersubjectivity – their sense of self is based on other people’s reaction and relation to them, hence, for the detached person, the social is the metaphysical (“to not be social means to stop existing”).

AESTHETICS is the master-signifier of the psychotic person. The psychotic person’s life revolves around aesthetics – what feels “nice”. This is the imaginary phallus – the way our brain can be “stroked”, just like the male penis (“the real phallus”) is the male organ that is most sensitive to both pleasure and pain. Just like detached people will describe social interaction purely through a metaphysical lens, psychotics will describe social interaction purely through an aesthetics or value lens – the psychotic doesn’t care about whether the words you use to describe your subjective experiences (beliefs, emotions, desires, intentions, feelings, etc.) are true or not, they only care that it “sounds nice”. For the psychotic, to say something/to speak/to use language/to communicate and to “try to sound nice” are one and the same. The psychotic’s speech has pure aesthetic value, with no intent to actually be true, they choose words because they are “funny-sounding”/”cool-sounding”, because it makes them appear in a certain way, or because it feels good to hear another person say that kind of stuff to you. Questions about authenticity are out of the question for the psychotic. The psychotic mode of functioning overlaps aesthetics and intersubjectivity – for the psychotic person, the social is the aesthetics (“to talk with other people means to say to each other stuff that sounds nice”).

            EPISTEMOLOGY is the master-signifier of the neurotic person. The neurotic person’s life revolves around epistemology – how do we find out what’s true? Epistemology is the movement from aesthetics to metaphysics, not the other way around. This is how neurotics start from the appearance and seek to arrive at the essence. If you say something to a neurotic, they will question whether you are actually saying the truth (“authentic”) or lying to them just to sound nice. The neurotic is concerned with the “what” behind the other’s speech – these are my impressions, how do we go from the immediate “mask” (aesthetics) to the essence “behind the mask” (metaphysics)? When faced with ambiguous or encrypted speech, the neurotic asks themselves “what does it mean?” or “what would I see if I could read the other person’s mind right as they were saying that thing?”. The neurotic is primarily concerned with questions of truth. Hence, for the neurotic, the social is the epistemological.

            ETHICS is the master-signifier of the perverted person. The pervert’s life revolves around ethics – how do we find out what’s good? How do we do the right thing? Ethics is the movement from metaphysics to aesthetics, not the other way around. This is how perverts start from the essence and seek to arrive at the appearance. If you say something to a pervert, they will not start from the appearance, potentially “aesthetic” function of your speech, and seek to arrive at “the essence” that lies “behind the mask” – this is what a neurotic does. Instead, perverts will ask themselves the why of what you said instead of the what. Perverts are concerned with trying to figure out the ethics behind the other’s speech – why did they choose to say that thing out of the million things they could have said, why now instead of any other time, etc.? In other words, while they will inevitably start from the appearance, in a way (the aesthetics), as that is in a way inevitable by the definition of “appearance” itself, but then will start questioning about what essence could have existed in order to give rise to this appearance, thus “reversing” the movement that the neurotic does, the final question still having the direction “essence -> appearance”. Hence, for the pervert, the social is the ethical.

            Notice how the first two clinical structures (detached, psychotic) are concerned with reactive branches of philosophy (metaphysics, aesthetics), as if self-reflection, restraint and freedom did not exist for them. The latter two clinical structures (neurotic, pervert) are concerned with proactive branches of philosophy (epistemology, ethics), showcasing a higher level of psychological maturity and development.