Night of the World: Traversing the Ideology of Objectivity

by Frank Smecker

By situating objectivity at the level of ideology, while placing it within a dynamic, experimental and, at times, unorthodox interplay with Hegelian and Lacanian philosophy, Night of the World offers a unique and radical re-thinking of objectivity. Encompassing a constellational array of wide-ranging subjects, from popular culture, politics, history, science, and philosophy, while deploying an engaging prose that is both incisive and seamlessly tangential, Smecker is both an ally with, and emerging voice in, the field of Žižekian dialectics. Incorporating  Žižek's philosophy, Smecker speculates over both objectivity and ideology, evoking methods of thought not so prevalent since German Idealism was all the rage. In the spirit of Kierkegaard, Night of the World is the result of an imaginative hypothesis. And that is only the half of it. Written in a style that will undoubtedly leave the reader itching to read it again once finished, Night of the World is an ongoing engagement with an abundance of additional postulations, whose sole purpose is to produce more products of thought.

297 pages, Paperback

First published May 30, 2014

Reviews

[Христо]

I really wanted to give this a better rating. For the most part, it does a fantastic job consolidating both Zizekianism and Lacanianism in an easy to understand presentation - it would have been an ideal starter book in this class of theory.

However, Smecker's blunder is to bet heavily on what Meillassoux can only call "strong correlationism". In fact, it's closer to full fledged idealism - misconstruing Badiou criminally by claiming that the Subject is, literally, human consciousness (a conclusion forbidden by the latter on multiple occasions). And further - claiming it's the generative basis for objectivity. This interpretation is almost solipsistic in character.

I would have looked away and granted the explanatory bulk of the book without the inherent idealism had he not been attempting to construct an ethics based on his frankly religious belief in what he proceeds to call Spirit throughout the book. The danger is he doesn't see how his position has no more theoretical backing or explanatory power than blind fanaticism.