Contemporary philosophy has maliciously assailed my eyes from the moment I opened the first book of the course at the beginning of last school year. I always knew in my heart that the seemingly omniscient authors, with their apparently magnificent writing styles, were missing something. However, it was not until I studied Wittgenstein and some of his colleagues that I acquired the necessary “intellectual weapons” to combat the confusions of the contemporary philosophers.
One philosopher in particular, Georges Bataille, has always been an irritant. One need only gaze at the back of his book, The Accursed Share, to get a sense of the onslaught of confusions ahead:
[i] Here Georges Bataille introduces his concept of the accursed share, the surplus energy that any system, natural or cultural, must expend; it is this expenditure, according to Bataille, that most clearly defines a society
[/i]
What?! First of all, if each society expends energy in a unique way that is free from moral judgment, then how can the “share” of energy that they must expend be called an “accursed” thing? Is the word “accursed” not a value judgment of some sort? Is it “accursed” because this expenditure appears to be some tragic finality that challenges man’s traditional beliefs in higher power? Exactly what causes this energy to be viewed as a curse? And what does “must expend” mean? That certain biological creatures must turn food into energy? That the poor element iron must lose its “ironness” to oxygen? Why is the natural expenditure of energy in the universe viewed as some sort of inevitable and tragic occurrence? Also, at what point is the difference between a natural and cultural system determined? These terms sound so smooth on paper, but one need only ask “what is that?” in order to see that a slew of problems await.
Let us begin then, oh brave reader. My copy of the Accursed Share has come out of retirement as a colorful paperweight. If this paper suddenly cuts short without any sort of conclusion, it is because the writer has suffered an aneurysm from having to open this "accursed" book once again. Luckily, I highlighted certain passages in the text for the purpose of the rare event in which I am feeling masochistic and want to give myself a headache.
This is an assertion in the first section of the book, titled "The Meaning of General Economy:"
I will begin with a basic fact: The living organism, in a situation determined by the play of energy on the surface of the globe, ordinarily receives more energy than is necessary for maintaining life; the excess energy (wealth) can be used for the growth of a system (e.g., an organism); if the system can no longer grow, or if the excess cannot be completely absorbed in its growth, it must necessarily be lost without profit; it must be spent, willingly or not, gloriously or catastrophically.
If the system is determined by the “play of energy on the surface of the globe, then Bataille must agree that the organism is continually at the mercy of the system, whether the organism appears to have a will or not. The "will" of an organism, to Bataille, would simply be a scientifically measurable mental faculty that has come to be in an "organism set" that has expended and consumed enough energy to evolve to the point of self-awareness; namely human beings. If this will is an illusion to Bataille, then an organism would not be able to help but expend energy in the way that it does. Thus, it would be a mistake for him to even begin speaking in terms of "gloriously or catastrophically." Gloriously in comparison to what? If a man were to use his energy to serve other people, Bataille could not assert that he is better than the man who uses his energy to enact the Holocaust. To him, Mother Teresa and Hitler would both simply be "great expenders of energy." He would even declare my reaction of disgust to simply be the result of social engineering- I have been molded this way by the consumption and expenditure of energy around me. Under this umbrella, every perception of "glorious" or "catastrophic" would be equal and arbitrary; thus it would make no sense to speak on the matter.
What Bataille has done here is swapped out one language game for the other. He begins with an eloquent argument under the guise of empiricism, and then slips a moral value judgment in at the end. He would have made an excellent propagandist, for certain. In order to make moral value judgments in an absolute sense, one must acknowledge the possibility that morality is not something that is arbitrarily set by individuals. For if value judgments and goodness are uniquely defined by each man, then what would we be talking about?
This next bit is from the same section:
When one considers the totality of productive wealth on the surface of the globe, it is evident that the products of this wealth can be employed for productive ends only insofar as the living organism that is economic mankind can increase its equipment.
Wittgenstein would read this and determine that Bataille is suffering not only from an apparent need to make generalities where they need not exist, but also the need to tend too often towards the methods of science.
To declare the whole of "economic mankind" (whatever that means) to be a singular, living organism is also another way in which Bataille attempts to deconstruct the human will. Also, Bataille gives no reason for why "increasing man's equipment" is more productive than using one's energy to assist other "competing" organisms. There must be an implicit premise here: that all humans seek only survival and pleasure. "Productive" activities are actions that aid man in this pursuit.
If one were to take that implicit premise and stick it at the beginning of the statement, then the expenditure of energy for the production of equipment would necessarily follow. However, the premise itself is unsound. It is a mistake to assume that all humans fall under this general category, for to accuse the moralist of simply being "a product of his environment" also implies that all writers who work on the subject of morality are simply doing so to further their own ends. This argument gives no explanation for why one human would risk his life for another, or why he would give away "energy" to someone who cannot repay him. The belief that man desires only to "fornicate and read the papers" (to quote Camus) is also un-testable beneath the scientific umbrella that Bataille so quickly tends to hide under.
Bataille also tends too quickly towards the methods of [pseudo] science with this statement, less than a page later:
The general movement of exudation (of waste) of living matter impels him, and he cannot stop it; moreover, being at the summit, his sovereignty in the living world identifies him with this movement; it destines him, in a privileged way, to that glorious operation, to useless consumption.
Bataille continues to mix language games here. He views man's intellect as a means by which man can physically dominate the rest of living (and inanimate) matter for the sake of wasting it. However, to call the "wasting of matter" a glorious thing is to make a value judgment. By what standard is this better than conserving energy, or for using it to contemplate the possibility of God? Bataille must think that man receives some "intoxicating sense of power" through the expenditure of energy that is preferable to all other human activity. But the empiricist who gets this feeling from human sacrifice, throwing banana peels out of his car window, or burning down his house need only realize that under his very beliefs he is simply the product of the expenditure of energy, and that he has not come to be in this "powerful position" by his own merit. Thus, it would be pointless for him to take any joy in this expenditure unless he viewed it as a gift. But in order for the excess energy of the world to be considered a gift, it must have been "given" by something.
Bataille might view his "happiness at the expenditure of energy" to be some scientifically natural phenomena that is simply a contingent of the intellectual being, but a person who does not feel the need to overdress his language would call it "greed." And to state that "All humans desire to partake in the pleasure of greed" is contradictory to what a vast number of people believe. It is also contradictory to the premise "Man is driven to survive" because if every intellectual being were absolutely greedy all of the time, the resources of the planet would quickly run out, and everyone would die. Thus, it is impossible for man to simultaneously "strive for survival" while "striving to waste as much as possible."
Furthermore, to call the consumption of all energy "useless" completely contradicts the point of writing a book to inform people about it. What good would it do to inform someone that "all of his actions are useless consumption," if that very act were useless in itself? Bataille must put some value in truth, for it seems that he is trying to inform the reader of a "certainty" that he has come to. But to assist someone without a return benefit is a venture that would be contradictory to the "truth" that he is speaking of. Thus, the words begin to spin out of control-
Bataille continues in the next chapter:
In a sense, life suffocates within limits that are too close; it aspires in manifold ways to an impossible growth; it releases a steady flow of excess resources, possibly involving large squandering of energy. The limit of growth being reached, life, without being in a closed container, at least enters into ebullition: Without exploding, its extreme exuberance pours out in a movement always bordering on explosion.
To state that mankind is simply destined to grow is a generality, as well. Wittgenstein would use his statement about the man who sees one leaf and then declares that he knows exactly what a "leaf" is, and say that Bataille is doing the same for life. To state that all life (with man at the helm) is destined to grow until it can grow no further is a vast assumption. It gives no explanation to the Tibetan Buddhist monks who live in perfect harmony in nature, or even the simple "mountain man" who is happy by living the life of necessity.
If man were to have a final cause, then the attainment of his end would give him supreme happiness. Thus, if the end of man were to expend as much energy as possible, then all people should be happy doing so. This is not the case, thus it cannot be the end of man. But Bataille cannot even get this far. By leaving no room for the possibility of God, he must agree that his self-constructed "end" of mankind is merely an object of his perception, and must be taken equally with the perception of a child.
Also, if an intellectual being can see that "continuous economic growth" is impossible, then he can use his will to alter the course, or to reexamine his life to determine if he missed the mark somewhere. Is this "altering the course" merely the product of energy consumption? In what sense?
To state that the person who is "unable to continue growing" is somehow "suffocating" is to imply that without growth, man is unhappy. I will agree with this statement. However, it is a mistake to assume that man only becomes happy when he grows economically. There are countless people who are rich in intellectual truth who are far happier than wealthy individuals who could "expend a lot of energy" at the drop of a hat. Why is there no explanation for this "anomaly" in Bataille's theory?
By using the teachings of Wittgenstein to detect misused or vague words, needless generalities, and the swapping of language games, the confusions of Georges Bataille become painfully apparent. It is simultaneously disappointing and disgusting that the contemporary "intellectual" community hails such writings with "Ooohs" and "Aaahs" when it is obvious that the very point of these writings is to deconstruct morality for the sake of selfish behavior.