|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
down to earth
I am not in a position to add or correct this entry; as it stands is wholly obscure and probably useless to those who don't already know what "overdetermination" is. A down-to-earth rewrite would be in order. Ben.
I likewise think that this article is fairly "obscure" (although I wouldn't go quite so far as to call it "wholly obscure") and in serious need of revision. I think part of the article's obscurity results from the fact that each of the sections says virutally nothing about what overdetermination is in that section's specific context; the only exception is the section on Althusser, which still needs much more expansion and development. To be honest, the concept--if it can even be referred to as one concept--of overdetermination probably deserves separate articles concerning its use in Freud, Althusser, Baudrillard, etc. Job L 06:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article needs to be revised to include an analytic philosophical meaning of overdetermination. Dialogic 14:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was not aware that the concept had a use in analytic philosophy, but if it indeed does, then I wholly concur with Dialogic. Job L 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- The section on Baudrillard needs to be expanded by a specialist on the subject. The article says he draws on Althusser but breaks with him in important ways, but doesn't say how he breaks with him or what his new definition of 'overdetermination' is. Zorba the Geek (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The section on Baudrillard might as well be removed, as per above. The portion on Althusser after the quotation from "Reading Capital" is almost impossible to understand due to its terrible grammar: "instances that are more really, slight, understandable" is gibberish, and the "[concealed/unaccepted]" part is alien because I have no idea how to interpret brackets in this, as well as the fact that one could interpret concealed as either a verb or an adjective here. -Phette23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phette23 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I come from a mathematics background. In mathematics, over-determination is a relatively straightforward concept. Specifically, assume something that is described by a set of equations, each with several variables. Over-determination just means that two or more equations say the same thing, so that a specific point solution can't be found. As a simple example, consider the tow equations:
2x + 2y = 4 4x + 4y = 8
Although there are two equations in two unknowns, no specific point values for x and y can be determined, because one equation is proportional to the other: one of the equations is superfluous; the "system of equations" is "over-determined.
I suspect what this means in the field of psychology is that two or more statements about reality are equivalent: one is a scaled version of the other. PictouGene, 1 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PictouGene (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) __________ "Thus, for Althusser's reiterating of Marxist thought, overdetermination is what [concealed/unaccepted] "determinant contradictions", or capital-economic incongruities (i.e., abstract labour resulting in "isolation" -- the class struggle), which are analogous to Freud's "potent thoughts", apply to instances that are more really, slight, understandable." <-- This is the worst sentence in the history of language. The person who wrote it should be shot.
An instance of a popular riot calling for revolution could exemplify overdetermination. The event has to it, in capitalist culture, an over-application (determination) of agitation. The determinant contradictions (the reasons for popular revolt) are not addressed and so their great mass is "displaced" onto the singular event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)