🦋🤖 Robo-Spun by IBF 🦋🤖

🎵 Tod MacGowan had a talk 🤠👻

The podcast episode “Analyseverbot” explores the tension between criticism and true analysis. Işık Barış Fidaner discusses how being overly critical can hinder deep understanding, contrasting superficial critique with genuine analysis that delves beneath judgments. The podcast emphasizes moving beyond the ego-driven need to be right and instead embracing curiosity and wonder. Fidaner also reflects on how dreams and irrational thoughts can be valuable when we stop applying strict rationality to them.

Generated by Google’s NotepadLM website given these links:

1) Analyseverbot: critic with refined tastes vs. analysis proper

2) Genuine Analysis is Beyond Criticism: Criticism Reveals Imposture, Analysis Reveals Self-Sabotage

3) From hypo-critical reason to hippo-queery-tickle reason: Just a dream → A just dream → Adjust dream

4) Psychocritical Wisdom Is Not Psychoanalysis

5) Ladders and Philosophy: Context and Scope

6) Criticizing Flowers or No Fruit Without Flower

This is part of Numerical Discourses

---

Have you ever felt like, you know, really trying to be critical of something—like, really critical—actually kind of stopped you from truly getting it? Like, almost as if the criticism itself was a block? Well, get ready because that’s exactly what we’re diving into today—this whole concept of analyseverbot. Oh yeah, that’s a good one. A real head-scratcher at first, right? Analyseverbot—it’s German, and it basically means “analysis prohibition,” right? And it’s like, how can you even ban analysis? Isn’t the whole point to analyze stuff to get deeper? Like, that’s what we’re trying to do, right?

Exactly, and that’s what makes analyseverbot so interesting. It’s not just about stopping critical thinking altogether. It’s more about how sometimes the way we criticize—the urge to be right—can actually get in the way of really understanding.

Okay, yeah, I’m seeing that, but we’ve got to unpack this carefully. So, we’re working with these blog posts by Işık Barış Fidaner—fascinating guy. He’s a computer scientist, has a PhD and all that, but he also writes about philosophy on his blog Žižekian Analysis. And Fidaner makes this point that it’s not enough to just think about something. You’ve got to go past the surface and really analyze it.

Which seems obvious when you say it like that, but yeah, isn’t analysis just a deeper kind of thinking anyway?

It is, and that’s exactly Fidaner’s point. He’s saying our thoughts are already kind of messed with, right? Our biases, assumptions, and that voice we all have—the one that’s always judging, criticizing. In psychoanalysis, they call it the superego.

Oh, you mean that voice that’s like, “You’re not working hard enough” or “Everyone’s judging you right now”?

Yeah, that voice and I are well acquainted.

There you go. And Fidaner’s saying true analysis means you’ve got to turn that voice down. Like, remember Freud and free association? To find the hidden stuff, you’ve got to drop the judgment and just let the thoughts flow.

Right, right. Like, imagine trying to brainstorm, but you’re also shooting down every idea you have. Good luck getting anywhere.

Exactly! And this is where he gets into this super interesting difference between criticism and analysis. Because it’s not just that criticism is bad and analysis is good, right? There’s like a mechanism going on here.

100%. Fidaner argues that a lot of criticism comes from this need to be right, to win, even to show off how great our taste is. He even calls it—get this—the need to “show blood.”

Show blood? Okay, now I’m really lost. Like, you need a victim to prove your point?

Kind of, yeah. Like, you need that concrete proof, even if it’s just for show. Just to be like, “See? I’m right!” And he even ties that back to how we see menstrual blood—almost taboo, something to hide unless it’s in this specific context.

Wow, okay, yeah, I see how that connects to something deeper. It’s like needing to win the argument, even if it has nothing to do with the actual topic anymore. It’s like all those arguments online, right? It’s less about understanding and more about, like, scoring points, you know what I mean?

Oh, 100%. Yeah, and this leads right into what Fidaner calls—and this is a good one—the “critic with refined tastes.”

Okay, yeah, when I saw that, I was like, whoa, hold on. Like a character, you know?

Yeah, so who is this critic with refined tastes, and like, what’s their deal?

So, imagine, right, someone who’s learned all the fancy analysis words and techniques, but deep down, they just want to sound smart or like they’re better than everyone else. It’s not that they totally missed the analysis boat, but it’s become more about their ego, you know?

So it’s like they learned the steps to the dance, but there’s no music playing. They look the part, but…

Yeah, perfect way to put it. And because they’re so busy trying to be right, they miss the whole point. It’s like a defense mechanism, blocking any real understanding from happening. Fidaner even uses Todd McGowan, the Freud critic, as an example of this.

Which reminds me, there’s this other thing Fidaner brings up with this really wild analogy. He talks about how Slavoj Žižek, that philosopher, said he finds tulips disgusting.

Right, that’s Žižek for you. Always going to make you think, huh?

Exactly. Like, tulips are supposed to be beautiful, right? So what’s Fidaner getting at with that?

So, Žižek, he’s known for these almost shocking statements, right? To shake things up. And here, he’s playing on how we tend to criticize on the surface level—one detail and miss the whole picture. So instead of like, “Oh, pretty tulip,” it’s, “Ew, gross.” But that’s not the point of the tulip.

Exactly. And even more, he’s saying even if you don’t like something about it, that doesn’t mean it has no value. It’s like focusing on the thorns of a rose but ignoring the flower itself. And you need both, right, for the rose to give you fruit.

Okay, I love that, because it’s so like what we’re talking about. We get stuck judging, criticizing, seeing only the thorns, and we miss the whole rose. And like you said, the thorns—they’re part of it. And it’s analyseverbot to a tee when we’re too busy being critical, looking for flaws, and we’re stuck at the surface, not really engaging at all.

It’s like that critical voice becomes a wall, keeping any real understanding out.

100%. And this goes even further into how Fidaner says our critical reason affects how we see our dreams.

Oh, you mean like how we brush them off as “just a dream,” like they mean nothing?

Exactly. Fidaner’s like, “No, dreams always have meaning.” And he even points out the phrase “just a dream,” like putting just in quotes. Even that implies there should be some fairness, like dreams should be held to the same standards as waking life, which is kind of ridiculous when you think about it.

Totally. Dreams have their own logic, their own symbols, for sure.

And that’s what’s so cool about how he ties it to critical reason. He’s saying that way of thinking—needing everything to be rational and explainable—it can shut down a whole other type of understanding, one that’s okay with the weird stuff, the irrational stuff.

It’s like saying the only things worth our time are the things that already fit in our little boxes of knowledge.

And this is where he introduces a term that’s—well, it’s a bit more fun, but no less smart—hippo-queery-tickle reason.

I’ve got to admit, when I first saw that, I thought he was messing with us, but then I was like, I kind of love it. So much more inviting than just saying “critical reason,” right?

And that’s the point—that playfulness, that openness—that’s what he’s going for. Versus, like, he calls it hypocritical reason, which is all about limiting and controlling thought, like we were saying.

So instead of “just a dream,” it’s, “Whoa, what’s this dream telling me? What truth is hiding here?”

Boom, exactly. It’s approaching things with curiosity, with wonder, instead of that knee-jerk judgment. It really is, like, I don’t know—freeing almost—to think about things that way. With that—what was it? Hippo-queery-tickle reason.

Right, it can really open your eyes to stuff. And when we let go of having to be right all the time, judging everything, that’s when things get really interesting.

So, it’s not like we should never be critical, right? Going back to analyseverbot—it’s more nuanced than that.

Exactly. It’s about noticing when that critical voice, especially the one that’s all about our ego, about us being right, when that’s actually stopping us from understanding.

Like, sometimes you’re so busy trying to be the smartest person in the room, you can’t learn anything new.

Yeah, 100%. And this goes back to that idea Fidaner had about the world being full of, like, he said, flowers and thorns. Both have to be there. You try to separate them, and you miss the whole thing. Like a rose without thorns—that’s not even a real rose, you know?

And the thorns—sometimes that’s what makes the rose so cool, part of what makes it what it is.

So, what I’m getting from all this is analyseverbot is really about knowing yourself—uh-huh—paying attention to that inner critic, asking, “Is this actually helping me get this, or is it just my ego acting up?”

Nailed it! And I think that’s a perfect place to leave folks with today. As you’re going through your day, running into those—well, those flowers and thorns—ask yourself, how can I bring a little more of that hippo-queery-tickle reason into it? What happens when you embrace the whole thing, thorns and all? It might surprise you.