증상-향유로서의 영화관람성과 그 실재의 윤리

박제철 영상예술학회 2004 영상예술연구 Vol.5 No.-

Since 1970's psychoanalytic studies on the cinematic spectatorship have been developed through two opposing approaches: the cinema apparatus approach and the cinema fantasy approach. While the former describes spectatorship as being sutured by ideological interpellation, the latter emphasizes the subversive role of disturbing desire in the spectator. As the Freudian concept of fantasy suggests, the spectator would identify with multiple subject positions whether simultaneously or successively. In contrast to the former approach, in the latter one, ideological operation is actually ineffective and the spectator- subject is already autonomous and subversive. Now in view of late Lacanian insight recently revealed by the works of a group of Slovenian Lacanian scholars, however, such optimistic conception leaves room for doubt. This essay is an attempt to delineate a new psychoanalytic approach on spectatorship, founded upon late Lacanian accomplishments. In order to do this, the essay mainly deals with three inter-related concerns: the logic of symbolic order and the reformulation of the concept of ideology; the reexamination of the concept of suture and instances of suturing cinematic symptom; the ethical act of the real in spectatorship and its relation to the feminine spectatorship. The symbolic order of which the paradoxical logic Lacan articulated several times since 1960 is, properly speaking, different both from a static structure in terms of structuralism and from a heterogeneous open whole that post-structuralism implies. It is not only the structure as not-all that constitutively produces impossible jouissance--object a--as its by-product. But it is also the structure that blinds subject to its constitutive lack, providing her with the fantasy scenario of distancing jouissance. Slavoj Zizek, on this basis, reformulates the concept of the ideological interpellation previously presented by Louis Althusser. According to Zizek, ideological interpellation requires no identification/ subjectivization but functions by implying something supposedly hidden behind strange jouissance. In its light, the pursuit of transgressive desires through the fantasy, rather, supports the ideological function of the existing symbolic order. It is the concept of suture that needs to be illuminated again along with the emphasis on the jouissance in spectatorship. The concept has been misappropriated as describing signification on spectatorship. In view of Jacques-Alain Miller’s proper intention, however, it is worth redeeming as indicating jouissance (and subject as its correlative) in spectatorship. Such reexamination allows us to consider a few important but more or less ignored arguments as embodying instances avant la lettre embodying a new psychoanalytic approach on the spectatorship. Among them, the two noteworthy cases are the study of gaze in Hitchcock films by Pascal Bonizer and that of voice in films by Michel Chion. Indeed, the gaze and voice are the paradigmatic elements of cinematic jouissance. But still more importantly, Slavoj Zizek presents a generalized argument about cinematic jouissance, rediscovering the two cases through his brilliant psychoanalytic insights. Inert, spectral, and persistent Thing as remnants of any cinematic significations is, now, generalized as the minimum or basic level of cinematic materialism. The one of the essential questions that psychoanalytic studies on spectatorship have struggled to answer is how the spectator can/or must break with ideological spectatorship. This new approach, bringing to the fore the spectatorship as jouissance, finds its own answer in the very place that both previous approaches have excluded as impossible. In order to really sever herself from the ideology in spectatorship, the spectator-subject must not merely assume identifications thorough fantasy,but identify with indivisible symptom- jouissance as the ultimate remnant of such identifications. This strategy corresponds to the act of grounding the absolute universal of spectatorshipin that it requires the spectator to find herself in void in the structure of spectatorship. It, indeed, indicates the ethical act in terms of the Real. Such liberating gesture in 증상- 향유로서의영화관람성과그실재의윤리_ 박제철 spectatorship needs to be distinguished from the feminine spectatorship described as multiple and/or fluid identifications. Nevertheless, via Lacanian sexuation formulas, the gesture could open the way toward reformulating feminine spectatorship. In so far as the feminine attitude as the combination of not-all and non-exception can be regarded as essential to feminine spectatorship, the liberating spectatorial gesture mentioned above could precisely be the proper feminine spectatorship. During 1970's and 1980's the psychoanalytic studies on spectatorship had been oscillated between two contrasting approaches. The apparatus approach posited too easily the absolute dominance of ideology in spectatorship, whereas the fantasy approach assumed too early the disturbance of ideology by spectatorial desire. Consequently, neither approach led to really effective arguments concerning the break with ideology and transformation of spectator-subject. Though there remain some further essential questions, this rising approach on spectatorship would deserve concretizing and elaborating, at least, in that it raises to the surface a singular place where we as spectators would not too easily fall into despair nor would they become too early optimistic.

라이프니츠의 개체적 실체 개념에서 기체의 의미

박제철 서양근대철학회 2007 근대철학 Vol.2 No.2

This article is focused on the structure of Leibnizian substance. Contrary to the interpretations of Russell and Clatterbaugh, according to which the individual substance includes substratum, the precise reading of Leibniz makes us conclude that the individual substance is a bundle of attributes. To do this, it is necessary to consider various Leibnizian doctrines : the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles, diachronic identity of individual substance, the problem of trans -worlds identity and Leibnizian principle of the truth. This consideration will permit us to conclude that the individual substance is a bundle of attributes. 이 논문은 라이프니츠에 있어서의 개체적 실체의 구조를 밝히고자 한다. 러셀과 클래터보우의 해석과는 달리 라이프니츠에 있어 개체적 실체는 기체를 포함하지 않는다. 다시 말해 라이프니츠에 있어 개체적 실체는 속성들의 다발이다. 이를 증명하기 위해 이 논문은 식별 불가능자 동일성의 원리, 개체의 지속에 대한 원리, 개체의 가능 세계적 동일성의 문제, 라이프니츠의 진리론 등을 다룬다. 이 모든 것에 대한 검토를 통해 우리는 라이프니츠에 있어 개체적 실체는 다발 이론적으로 해석된다는 결론을 내릴 수 있다

라이프니츠 연구 동향

박제철 서양근대철학회 2007 근대철학 Vol.2 No.2

포스트휴머니즘 시대의 생태영화 이론 - 신경미학, 사변적 실재론, 과정-관계 존재론 관점을 중심으로

박제철 서울대학교 인문학연구원 2023 人文論叢 Vol.80 No.3

생태영화 연구는 영화, 자연세계, 비인간 동물 사이의 관계의 다양한 측면을 탐구하는 영화 연구 분야로 21세기에 본격적으로 전개되고 있다. 20세기 말부터 인류세라는 새로운 지질학적 시대의 제안 등에서 볼 수 있듯이 지구행성의 생태학적 위기에 대한각성이 고조되고 있고 이와 맞물려 인간중심주의를 보완, 보충, 해체, 초월하려는 다양한 비인간적 혹은 포스트휴먼적 관점들이 인문학 내에서 본격적으로 제안됨에 따라 생태영화 연구가 점차 다각도로 활성화되고 있다. 이에 따라 생태영화 연구는 자연환경을소재로 다루는 영화에 대한 단순 주제 비평을 넘어 영화가 어떻게 인간과 자연환경 사이의 상호작용을 비인간중심적 방식으로 매개할 수 있을지에 대한 정교한 이론적 탐구를다각도로 전개하고 있다. 필자는 21세기 생태영화 이론의 주요한 성과들에서 발견되는세 가지 주요 경향인 신경미학적 생태영화 이론, 사변적 실재론적 생태영화 이론, 과정관계존재론적 생태영화 이론에 초점을 맞추고 이 세 경향의 이론을 비판적으로 비교 분석한다. 이를 통해 필자는 이 세 경향의 이론이 모두 나름의 방식으로 영화가 어떻게 인간 관람 주체에게 세계에 대한 비인간중심적 경험을 제공함으로써 지구생태계의 위기에인간이 대처할 수 있는 생태학적 역량을 제공할 수 있는지를 이론화한다고 주장한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 필자는 세 경향 간에 그리고 각 경향에 속하는 이론들 간에는 무시못할차이가 있으며 그 차이는 각각의 이론이 채택하는 철학적 입장의 차이, 인간 관람 주체의 영화적 경험을 이론화하는 방식의 차이, 디지털과 컴퓨터 기술이 인간중심적 영화 경험에 미치는 영향을 고찰하는 방식의 차이에 달려 있음을 주장한다. As a field of research that explores various aspects of the relationship between cinema, natural world, and nonhuman animal, ecocinema studies has been actively developed in the 21st century. As seen in the proposal of a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene, since the end of the 20th century, there has been a heightened awareness of the ecological crisis of the Earth. In line with this, a diversity of nonhuman and posthuman perspectives have been actively proposed in the humanities that aim to complement, supplement, dismantle, or transcend anthropocentrism. This tendency has also promoted a vital development of ecocinema studies in a variety of ways. As such, ecocinema studies, going beyond offering a thematic criticism of films that deal with natural environments, develops various sophisticated theoretical explorations on how films can mediate the interactions between the human and the natural environment in a nonanthropocentric way. This paper focuses on the three main theoretical trends of ecocinema theory including neuroaesthetic, speculative realist, and process-relational ontological ones and critically compares and analyzes these three. In doing so, I argue that each of the three theorizes how cinema can offer the human an ecological power to address the crisis in the Earth’s ecoystem by providing the human viewer a nonanthropocentric film experience of the world. I also argue that there are significant differences between the three trends and among the theories belonging to each trend, and that these differences depend on what philosophical position each theory adopts, how it theorizes the human viewer’s film experience, and how it examines the impact of digital and computational technologies on the anthropocentric film experience.

스트롱 프로그램에 대한 비판적 검토

박제철 서강대학교 철학연구소 2010 철학논집 Vol.20 No.-

블루어의 스트롱 프로그램은 정상적 과학의 채택 과정을 사회학적으로 다루려는 시도이다. 이러한 시도는 분명 장점이 있다. 지식은 무균실에서 자라나는 것이 아니기 때문에, 어떤 조건이 지식의 성립과 채택을 결정하는지를 보여주는 시도는 분명 의미 있다. 그러나 블루어의 스트롱 프로그램은 문제를 갖는다. 그것은 바로 스트롱 프로그램이 자신의 연구 영역으로서 수학과 논리학까지 포함시키고 있다는 것이다. 물론 수학과 논리학의 채택 과정에서 정말로 사회적 조건들이 영향을 끼친다면, 블루어의 논의는 매우 강력한 힘을 갖게 될 것이다. 그러나 블루어는 이를 보이는데 실패하고 있다. 블루어는 모두스 포넌스의 타당성을 부정하고 있지만, 사실 블루어가 이해하고 있는 바의 타당성 개념을 그대로 따를 때, 모두스 포넌스는 여전히 타당한 논증형식이다. 이러한 사실은 블루어의 프로그램이 실패함을 보여주는 것이다.

퍼트남의 통 속의 뇌 논증 비판 – 세 개의 차원

박제철 서양근대철학회 2022 근대철학 Vol.20 No.-

In this paper, I criticize Putnam’s “brain in a vat” argument. Putnam establishes three different dimensions in the “brain in a vat” argument. The possible world, the real world, and the belief system are these three. Putnam establishes these three dimensions in his “brain in a vat” argument and then bases it on the fact that we do not have cognitive access to possible worlds, that is, we cannot see with our eyes or hear with our ears. Yes, we claim that our utterances, “I am a brain in a vat,” are self-refuting utterances, and therefore are necessarily false. However, in my view, the truth value of this utterance is true when talking about the possible world, and false when talking about the real world. Putnam develops a “brain in a vat” argument, building up the argument by first establishing a possible world and then eliminating it. The utterance “I am the brain in a vat” is true when talking about possible worlds, so removing the possible worlds is of course false. This is an error.

퍼트남의 통 속의 뇌 논증 비판 - 몇 가지 그림들 -

박제철 가톨릭대학교 인간학연구소 2023 인간연구 Vol.- No.50

Putnam proposed the brain in a vat hypothesis, a modern adaptation of a traditional philosophical theme: skepticism toward the outside world. The brain in a vat hypothesis states that the world we think real is actually a world that is unfolded by an electrical signal given to the brain in a vat connected to a computer. Putnam, through his theory of causal constraints on references, sought to prove that this hypothesis cannot be true. The brain in a vat hypothesis is conceptually impossible, and in my opinion, Putnam’s argument fails. The reason is that Putnam arrived at his conclusions after very seriously undermining the picture of skepticism of the outside world traditionally put forward in his argument. The original theme of skepticism toward the outside world regards our world as the “real world” and asserts that such a real world is in fact virtual. However, the real world is omitted from Putnam’s final picture of the skepticism of the external world, and the “image world” is included instead. All the utterances in that image world are set up so that they have the modifier “in the image.” Thus, all utterances of the “real world” are under- stood at face value, meaning the phrase “trees are blue” is understood as “trees are blue” at face value. However, the image world in Putnam’s final picture of external world skepticism is drawn so that every utterance is translated in a certain way, meaning that “trees are blue” is set to be translated into “the trees in the image are blue.” This is a completely different picture from the picture presented by outside world skepticism. After portraying his own interpretation of external world skepticism by distorting the real world sug- gested by the original external world skepticism, Putnam claimed to have bro- ken external world skepticism. Putnam turned the elusive topic of outside world skepticism into a very easy one. Then he attacked the subject that had been transformed into breakables. As a typical example of a straw man fallacy, Putnam’s argument can be said to be a failure as long as this error is made.

라이프니츠의 결정론 - 결정론을 벗어나며

박제철 범한철학회 2014 汎韓哲學 Vol.74 No.3

J'avais fait voir que Leibniz a tombé sous le déterminisme. Cette doctrine était basée sur le nombre des positions leibniziennes, relatives à la correspondance avec Arnauld à l'année de 1686. Après 24 ans, dans sa Théodiée Leibniz a préparé le dispositif de l'évasion du déterminisme. C'est la théorie du contrepart, organisée et systèmatisée par David Lewis. Dans ce document Je veux dessiner la figure comment Leibniz sort-il du déterminisme. Je vais considerer des théories de la structure de la particulière, des théories qui sont des conséquences métaphysiques qui en découlent(anti-essentialisme, super-essentialisme). Je veux aussi dessiner le problème du débat entre anti-déterminisme et déterminisme, et puis comment résolu ce problème(par l'identité trans-mondiale, et la théorie du contrepart), et comment le probème de la déterminisme leibnizienne est finalement résolu par Leibniz lui-même. Dans le présent article, nous voulons garder une trace de ce processus. 필자는 라이프니츠가 결정론에 빠진다고 주장했었다. 이러한 주장은 1686년 아르노와의 서신 교환에서 드러났던 라이프니츠의 여러 입장들에 근거한 것이었다. 그로부터 24년 뒤 출간된 『변신론』에서 라이프니츠는 결정론으로부터 벗어날 장치를 마련하게 된다. 바로 1986년 루이스에 의해 체계화된 상대역 이론이다. 본 논문은 라이프니츠가 어떻게 결정론에서 벗어나고 있는지 그 그림을 그려보고자 한다. 개체의 구조에 대한 이론들, 즉 기체이론과 다발이론을 검토하고, 이로부터 어떤 형이상학적 귀결들이 도출되는지(반본질주의, 초본질주의), 그리고 이것들이 각 이론 진영에서 어떻게 이해되는지, 어떤 문제들이 있고(비결정론, 결정론), 어떻게 해결되는지(개체의 통세계적 동일성, 상대역 이론), 그리고 라이프니츠가 천착했던 결정론의 문제가 최종적으로 어떻게 해결되는지, 본 논문은 이런 과정들을 추적해 보고자 한다.

Productivity model 에 의한 수양호의 primary productivity 측정

박제철,김범철,조규송 한국하천호수학회 1986 생태와 환경 Vol.19 No.3·4

반복, 육체, 섹스 : 이질적인 불가능성으로서의 영화 <교사형 絞死刑>

박제철 영상예술학회 2001 영상예술연구 Vol.1 No.-