Rocking with Dr. House: Tractatus Vicodin - Philosophicus
()
About this ebook
In this book, I'm not going to distinguish between Dr Gregory House's line of thought and that of the series creator David Shore, just as students of Socrates are obliged to ignore the distinction between Socrates' and Plato's ideas.
In both cases one is dealing with virtual characters. In House's case, it's obvious that as a fictional character he doesn't exist as such; rather he's a person through which a team of screenwriters voice their ideas. In each episode these reflections are re-worked around a single plotline, a mix of character and physical being, in line with a narrative project. In Socrates' case, it's more or less the same thing, with Plato constructing a fiction as a vehicle for his ideas on important philosophical questions. The fiction - meant here as a performance of characters, some fictional, others based on real people, representing divergent and often contradictory opinions - relies on the well-known 'Manzonian' criterion of 'plausibility'. Would Socrates plausibly have said this, thought that? Would he have inferred that? But who is this Socrates? What do we know about him? We currently know two things for sure: firstly, as far as we know there are established historical witnesses to the existence of Socrates; and secondly, the task of establishing whether there is total convergence between the thoughts and philosophies of Socrates and Plato lies beyond this author's remit and the scope of this work.
The second reference I intend to make is to a philosopher who in many ways shares House's outlook, namely Nietzsche. This analogy essentially rests on a central claim - that both have, as Ernst Nolte said in a famous and controversial essay, turned their bodies into battlefields. Both have gained an intimate knowledge of their body through its darkest and most horrendous aspect - pain. For both, philosophising has had to painfully make its way in a jungle of suffering. In these conditions no thought is taken for granted, no inference is ever banal; everything is earned at high price. Consequently, every element in this context should occasionally be re-considered as a non-given element. When normal gestures that are easy for everyone to make become complicated and reliant on the actor's inexhaustible will, there's no longer a place you can call home, a communal place. You have to continuously invent your way. There is no better condition for the researcher, indeed for anyone who refuses the comfortable banality of everyday life, whether detested or longed for. From a methodological point of view, this is a privileged situation as it allows us to examine everything, to take nothing for granted and to see things where others no longer see anything.
The other analogy, strictly linked to the first, is the tendency to behave in a politically incorrect way - taking drugs, sex, gambling and so on. These are forms of behaviour which depend totally on the rejection of the ordinary as the sole rule of life and on the use of the self as a testing ground for the out-of-the-ordinary. The cynical behaviour that results is, at this point, obvious.
Another analogy is in the rational method. Even if both Nietzsche and House successfully use a rational method (the former a philosophical method, the latter a logical-scientific method) this does not mean that both are absolute rationalists. As Nietzsche sustains, the dialectic method of the Greek philosophers refuses emotions and rewards rational analysis. However, it retains an element of feeling in its roots. And this is the pleasure in using the dialectic method itself. The real passion is to philosophise, meaning here exercising one's capacity to resolve philosophical problems, dilemmas, or, as we'd say nowadays, brainteasers; in a word, puzzles.
Giuseppe Cascione
Giuseppe Cascione is professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Bari (Italy). He is the author of many essays and books such as: Iconocrazia (Milan 2007); Le regole della comunità (Bari 2004); Libertà e paura (Milan 1998) and is director of the series Iconocrazia (Milan 2007-2010).
Related to Rocking with Dr. House
Related ebooks
Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Pragmatism Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Life and Words: Violence and the Descent into the Ordinary Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTotem and Taboo Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOf the Power of the Intellect: One World of Roscoe Thierebault Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPragmatism and the Conception of Thruth Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay of Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The American Credo - Interpretation of the National Mind Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Paranormal and the Politics of Truth: A Sociological Account Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNo Gods, No Masters : Beyond the Limits of Structuralism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsReceptive Bodies Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe History of Transcendentalist Movement in New England Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBook of Replicated Thought Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe American Credo: A Contribution Toward the Interpretation of the National Mind Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIngenious Nonsense: Religion, Philosophy, Pseudoscience, and the Paranormal Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWe Live in Social Space: A Window to a New Science Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Intermediate Sex Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPocket Pantheon: Figures of Postwar Philosophy Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Wisdom of George Santayana Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/57 best short stories by Stanley G. Weinbaum Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWit and Its Relation to the Unconscious Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Pluralistic Universe Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsMyths and Dreams Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Philosophy of John Dewey: Collected Works Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHuman Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSecret Body: Erotic and Esoteric Currents in the History of Religions Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Transcendentalism in New England Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe First and Last Freedom Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Essays, Study, and Teaching For You
AP® U.S. History Crash Course, For the 2020 Exam, Book + Online: Get a Higher Score in Less Time Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsHomo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Human Nature Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Handy History Answer Book: From the Stone Age to the Digital Age Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Story of the Trapp Family Singers Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFounding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Gulag Archipelago [Volume 1]: An Experiment in Literary Investigation Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5History's Greatest Lies: The Startling Truths Behind World Events Our History Books Got Wrong Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5AP® U.S. History Crash Course, 4th Ed., Book + Online Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDebunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. History Textbook, Vol. 2: Since 1877 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Dick Gregory's Political Primer Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Souls of Black Folk: The Unabridged Classic Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Defining Moments in Black History: Reading Between the Lies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Journeys: An American Story: 72 Essays about Immigration and American Greatness Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Truth: Sex, Love, Commitment, and the Puzzle of the Male Mind Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Letters of E. B. White, Revised Edition Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsModern Times Revised Edition: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5A Student's Guide to U.S. History Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Profiles in Courage: Deluxe Modern Classic Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Witch of Eye Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Reconstruction Updated Edition: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-18 Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Way I Heard It Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Story of America: Essays on Origins Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Trail of Tears:The 19th Century Forced Migration of Native Americans Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5
Reviews for Rocking with Dr. House
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Rocking with Dr. House - Giuseppe Cascione
Rocking with
Dr. House
Rocking with
Dr. House
Tractatus Vicodin—Philosophicus
Giuseppe Cascione
Copyright © 2010 by Giuseppe Cascione.
ISBN: Softcover 978-1-4535-4370-2
E-book 978-1-4535-4371-9
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to any actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.
This book was printed in the United States of America.
To order additional copies of this book, contact:
Xlibris Corporation
0-800-644-6988
www.xlibrispublishing.co.uk
Orders@www.xlibrispublishing.co.uk
300749
To all of those tolerant people
hurt every day by the jerk I am.
Contents
INTRODUCTION
I
THEMES FOR A HOUSIAN PHILOSOPHY
II
TRACTATUS VICODIN-PHILOSOPHICUS
INTRODUCTION
This essay is a game. And like all games it sets some rules.
In this book, I’m not going to distinguish between Dr Gregory House’s line of thought and that of the series creator David Shore, just as students of Socrates are obliged to ignore the distinction between Socrates’ and Plato’s ideas.
In both cases one is dealing with virtual characters. In House’s case, it’s obvious that as a fictional character he doesn’t exist as such; rather he’s a person through which a team of screenwriters voice their ideas. In each episode these reflections are re-worked around a single plotline, a mix of character and physical being, in line with a narrative project. In Socrates’ case, it’s more or less the same thing, with Plato constructing a fiction as a vehicle for his ideas on important philosophical questions. The fiction—meant here as a performance of characters, some fictional, others based on real people, representing divergent and often contradictory opinions—relies on the well-known ‘Manzonian’ criterion of ‘plausibility’. Would Socrates plausibly have said this, thought that? Would he have inferred that? But who is this Socrates? What do we know about him? We currently know two things for sure: firstly, as far as we know there are established historical witnesses to the existence of Socrates; and secondly, the task of establishing whether there is total convergence between the thoughts and philosophies of Socrates and Plato lies beyond this author’s remit and the scope of this work. Thus, we can draw certain deductions from what we have so far said:
1. we will treat the ideas of Dr Gregory House as if they were genuine philosophical ideas;
2. we will act as if Dr House was a philosopher who actually lived (or is living), just as we do for Plato’s Socrates;
3. we will no longer refer to our Plato, that’s to say to the screenwriters of the television series, but to their creation, even if it’s to them that we owe the credit, or demerit, of provoking the current reflections.
The second reference I intend to make is to a philosopher who in many ways shares House’s outlook, namely Nietzsche. This analogy essentially rests on a central claim—that both have, as Ernst Nolte said in a famous and controversial essay, turned their bodies into battlefields. Both have gained an intimate knowledge of their body through its darkest and most horrendous aspect—pain. For both, philosophising has had to painfully make its way in a jungle of suffering. In these conditions no thought is taken for granted, no inference is ever banal; everything is earned at high price. Consequently, every element in this context should occasionally be re-considered as a non-given element. When normal gestures that are easy for everyone to make become complicated and reliant on the actor’s inexhaustible will, there’s no longer a place you can call home, a communal place. You have to continuously invent your way. There is no better condition for the researcher, indeed for anyone who refuses the comfortable banality of everyday life, whether detested or longed for. From a methodological point of view, this is a privileged situation as it allows us to examine everything, to take nothing for granted and to see things where others no longer see anything.
The other analogy, strictly linked to the first, is the tendency to behave in a politically incorrect way—taking drugs, sex, gambling and so on. These are forms of behaviour which depend totally on the rejection of the ordinary as the sole rule of life and on the use of the self as a testing ground for the out-of-the-ordinary. The cynical behaviour that results is, at this point, obvious.
Another analogy is in the rational method. Even if both Nietzsche and House successfully use a rational method (the former a philosophical method, the latter a logical-scientific method) this does not mean that both are absolute rationalists. As Nietzsche sustains, the dialectic method of the Greek philosophers refuses emotions and rewards rational analysis. However, it retains an element of feeling in its roots. And this is the pleasure in using the dialectic method itself. The real passion is to philosophise, meaning here exercising one’s capacity to resolve philosophical problems, dilemmas, or, as we’d say nowadays, brainteasers; in a word, puzzles.
The last element which I’d like to focus on is the fundamental non-functionality of the two philosophies, in the sense that they don’t present themselves as theories, rather they continuously diverge, deviating off the main line and engaging in apparently futile and senseless exchanges. Or so it would seem. In fact, the method advances through diversion and deviation. Both thinkers persist in talking to people who are in no way comparable to them in philosophical terms, yet it is thanks to these people and the suffering generated in the unequal confrontation that the procedural dynamic of intuition can arise.
Finally, and as is obvious from the title of this work, there’s the analogy with Ludwig Wittgenstein. But this is so radical that it doesn’t deserve to be set out explicitly. House pays a methodological, conceptual and experimental tribute to Wittgenstein. I trust that this will become clear over the course of this work.
I thank those who have read and discussed this manuscript with me: Rossella Pisconti, Francisco Oliver Català, Gino Dato; and those who have shared and discussed their love for the House character, in particular Genti Puka. I extend a special thanks to Giacomo who, with his youthful acumen, has often provided precious ideas. He is a genuine testament to the fact that Italy no longer has to be a country for old men.
For his careful work on the translation of my writing I am particularly grateful to Duncan Garwood.
This work concentrates on the first three seasons of House M.D. for a number of reasons. Above all I am convinced that the fourth season was excessively affected by the American writers’ strike which forced the early suspension of the series and an excess of mannerism. The last two extraordinary episodes are exceptions but they could nevertheless be read in the light of this analysis.
The translation supplied here takes into account the original American version, translations made for the Italian version and some scripts available online. Everything has been re-interpreted in the light of several evident errors and some culpable omissions and the ‘philosophical’ interpretation of the scripts.
Housian quotations will be followed by two indications in brackets. The first refers to the season and the episode (eg. episode 12 of the first season will be written as [1.12]). The second indicates the time of the quotation (eg. if the quote takes place twenty minutes and thirty seconds after the beginning of the episode and lasts until twenty-one minutes and forty seconds it will be written as [20:30-21:40]).
I
THEMES FOR A HOUSIAN PHILOSOPHY
1. Who is Gregory House?
Who’s that man? White, Anglo-Saxon, lame, slovenly in dress and body care. This is the superficial, visible phenomenology of the House character. Arrogant, unlikable, sociopathic—this is his psycho-biographical personality. Cynical, lawless, addicted to drugs, alcohol and sex with prostitutes—these are his behavioural traits. However, these phenomenological considerations are only possible from the outside. This is House as seen by the others. There’s also the House that thinks about and describes himself. The difference is relevant enough to merit a rigorously divided treatment.
Let’s start with the House seen by other people.
This House represents his political face, his public contextualisation. At the end of the day other people interpret him in their own way and according to a logic informed by experiences they have shared with him or through him. His work group (the ducklings) tend to treat him as a boss and acknowledge his leadership qualities. They look up to him, which exalts his rough, strict side—from the male perspective—and his male-appeal—from the female perspective.
His ex-partner tends to see the unpleasant traits of his day-to-day behaviour. She is someone who has deified him but whose expectations have been (severely) deluded and she views his behaviour in the light of this disillusionment. She develops a cynical and disillusioned attitude towards him which blinds her to the aura with which he subdues his crew.
His boss sees his professional side, his technical quality, knowing that this is the only quality which allows her to tolerate his behaviour which is so obviously politically incorrect and insubordinate. There’s a continuous conflict between the two, although in the communal interests of the hospital, for which both hold a sacred respect, this can never erupt into open warfare. In its place there’s a kind of cooperation-competition which, on the one hand, complicates things, but on the other, gives rise to that dialectic tension which so often leads to intuitive impulses and the limits within which these impulses can be explored.
His friend sees him as a blank cheque signed such a long time ago that he can’t even remember why—if, of course there was a reason—he signed it. House can do anything to him, overstep any mark. The friend’s sense of loyalty and protection towards House is a sort of universal, limitless ethical duty. The reason for this loyalty is probably his ongoing bet that House has a ‘human side’, a ‘weak point’ that will bring him down to earth and back to normality. There’s no professional jealousy of House’s brilliance nor intolerance of the obvious awe that the friend feels. Rather there’s a kind of patient waiting for the moment when House will surrender to his need to be loved. After all, «everybody needs somebody to love . . . ».
Finally, there are the institutional figures. His medical colleagues hate him, because his very presence represents a continuous threat to the reassuring medical procedures and to the medical profession as practiced in the Third Millennium. The typical de-responsibilisation of the figure of the doctor, the presumed guarantor of efficiency in the name of the patient, doesn’t affect House. House gives the impression of being able to continually test the limits of medical procedures and the language of medicine. At heart, he seems to believe that medicine is nothing more than a tangle of kaleidoscopic techniques. This conviction obviously sits on a complex, not banal, epistemological level but his colleagues probably regard it as arrogance. Paraphrasing the philosopher, «medicine doesn’t discover, it invents»—and this could be House’s methodological motto, where the inventing process is simply the testing of medical procedures’ presumed limits through a surplus of rational criticism, free from the constraints of everyday banality.
On the institutional front, there are also the financiers, those who would like to exercise direct control over House’s goals and the professional choices he makes through their money. These people are simply irritated by House’s un-functional and anti-utilitarian logic. Their language produces no communication with House, who probably regards the logic of capital as simply meaningless in dealing with such radical questions as life and death.
Finally, there are the norms. The representatives of the law, be they judges, policemen or politicians, hate House. He represents total civil disobedience. House is an anarchist, they say, one who fails to recognise why institutional norms are necessary. In reality, however, what House can’t stand is the fact that different logics interfere with the logic of the medical profession. His instinctive need to order the world rationally impedes him from reasoning according to a logic based on judicial, legal or political grounds in a field which has never recognised these grounds. His anarchy is a request for sovereignty within a logic which already has its own rules and which is often incompatible with the presuppositions of other logics. Just as it’s utterly meaningless to apply economic rules to ethical problems, so legal and political norms have no sense in a field held to exist a priori to the application of these rules.
Up to this point we have looked at the context, at how House is judged from the outside. But how does House see himself? How does he define himself?
Naturally, to provide a comprehensive answer to these questions, we will have to rely on what House says about himself, even if we have no way of knowing whether this coincides with what he thinks about himself. But, you know, everyone lies . . .
From his own point of view, House regards himself as a simple man, in the manner of Ockham and his razor. To quote Norman Malcolm’s excellent book on Wittgenstein «nothing is hidden».