The Hegelian configuration of desire is dependent on the thesis that social relations between two self-conscious subjects is a struggle. The struggle is to force another subject into affirming/creating the dominant self-conscious conception of the world. The reason for this is ultimately for self-identity, to be able to equate the self as a singular object in the world unbound by the shackles of other subjects. (Don’t worry if this makes no sense, it’s Hegel for gods sake!)

This thesis is predicated on a western conception of the self. That self which is judged by St Peter at the gates of heaven, that self whose heart is weighed against the feather of Ma’at by Anubis. A self that has been told it is a self, that it is responsible for that self and that selves differ in value. That self which is an ego, who understands himself as singular and sharing identity with only itself (me = me, or Socrates = Socrates). To break this dialectic of desire we only have to step out into Spirit, and defang the self of curse of identity (=).

Arendt argues that the self is defined and in fact created in relation to a public sphere. A self is not a mystical essence, but a reflexive machine creating its singularity through its own action and words in the public realm. You barley remember who you are because of how bad human memory is, you can only know what is allowed by language (maybe). There is an interesting idea here that selfhood is necessitated by language’s inherent function of discrimination, but I can leave that be for now. In the Arendtian conception, a man alone with himself is not man at all; that existence is like a tree falling unseen in a remote wood, nobody fucking cares. To become a self is to disclose that thesis of selfhood in the public sphere, to strip away the clothing of anonymity and proclaim yourself through action and speech.

Yet in entering this public sphere we re-enter the goonerish loop of desire, forever needing to define itself as a self. That acting and speaking self is still forever trying to impress its conception of the world upon the world, to push the zeitgeist (Zeitgeist - spirit of the age) in favour of it’s understand of the world. Yes, I am arguing here that the western epistemic conception of the self resolves itself in an unachievable universal fame or power, just accept it for now. The world will exist long after that bumbling monkey dissolves into indistinguishable entropic dust, yet as it is still animate (an anima or Soul in Arestitolean terms) it still engages in the forever process of self-assertion.

Is there no escape then? Well yes, there is: don’t take yourself seriously, don’t engage with the world like you have mastered it—only exist within it, exist as an un-idealistic reflexive member of the polis (polis - πόλις - city-state/political community). History will sort itself out, if your included it shouldn’t matter. This does demand that you be political, meaning make assertions on the way your society should work. Though do try and keep it local, the world is too big for any organic mind to understand.

There is another option: to forget the polis and forget the self and to be a tree falling where no one will see you, and to not care that no one cares. The battle-royal of egos is such a barbaric game, so civilised but so pointless. To return to the sexual metaphore, to Fortnite over concepts with other self-conscious subject who have their own concepts is only in service of developing language. It is not integral to living or being. But whilst you debate, submit and dominate the polis, you have to keep stroking that thing, stroking for an illusory climax. Does your arm not get tired? Do you not stop and question why am I even stroking this thing in the first place?

The way of the Bodhisattva is probably the only way to stop stroking. I use Bodhisattva here but there are parallels in many different systems of thought; however, I think it is best elucidated by the Buddhist texts and commentaries on the process. It’s really hard to do that though and you have to sacrifice so much. Maybe one day I will do that but for now LET’S KEEP GOONING!

Works Used

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Aristotle. The Politics. Translated by Carnes Lord. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Aristotle. Prior Analytics. Translated by Robin Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989.

Berkeley, George. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Edited by Jonathan Dancy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Diogenes the Cynic. Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes, With Other Popular Moralists. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Hegel, G. W. F. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Edited by Allen W. Wood. Translated by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Man Alone with Himself. Translated by Helen Zimmern. In Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Part II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Śāntideva. The Way of the Bodhisattva. Translated by Padmakara Translation Group. Rev. ed. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2006.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness. London: Routledge, 2001.