[lit-ideas] Re: SOS: Auto - nomos
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:46:51 -0230
Quoting Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I?m seeing ?autonomy? as being an act rather than a potentiality.
W: No, autonomy is a disposition - a sort of potentiality. (I'd provide a
definition that identified necessary and sufficient conditions, but Robert
would get upset :-)
>One is
> autonomous because one is functioning independently of the community.
W: No, one may be autonomous even while abiding by the values, norms and ideals
of a given community. One fails to be autonomous, however, if such abidance or
accordance is performed for the reason that a given community subscribes to
them. That is a sign of a heteronomous will.
>I?m
> not seeing autonomy as being synonymous with free will,
W: For good reason. Autonomy requires the free submission of one's rationality
to the formal dictates of universal reason, and this from the (motivationally
ert) recognition that they are such dictates. Acts of free will require no such
submission, and hence may include wanton acts of self-assertion or
self-aggrandizement (i.e., non-universalizable acts that are
self-contradictory, involve illegitimate self-exemption, cannot hold as
univeral laws, fail to respect others as ends-in-themselves and of equal moral
worth as persons, and thus cannot coherently be legislated.)
Cheers, Walter
Enjoying the thread but am presently up to my eyes in teaching and
administration.
Walter C. Okshevsky
Memorial University
or as someone
> considering functioning independently and then choosing not to.
>
>
>
> From my own experience in Aerospace, I can?t claim that I always functioned
> autonomously. I needed to stay employed; so I preferred not to. But I
> recall occasions when I functioned autonomously. I was the experienced
> old-timer who knew the work better than the young manager with the MBA. I
> functioned autonomously enough of the time so that some co-workers referred
> jokingly to me as the ?Helm Aircraft Company,? however I conformed enough so
> that I worked 39 continuous years for Douglas which became McDonnell Douglas
> which became Boeing. Someone might say with some justification that my
> self-described autonomy was an empty boast if I could do that. The young
> boss making the wrong decision was as likely to get into trouble as the
> old-timer refusing to take his direction.
>
>
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Robert Paul
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:42 PM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: SOS: Autonomical risk
>
>
>
> Lawrence Helm wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sinclair Lewis with /Babbitt, /made /conformity /a dirty word, and yet
>
> > people still desire to be accepted members in good standing of their
>
> > communities. Organizations of all sorts want their members to /conform
>
> > /to a greater or lesser extent. So how valuable is /autonomy? / Or
>
> > perhaps a better question would be ?what sort of person most values
>
> > autonomy??
>
>
>
> > A member-in-good-standing at a local church is going to be one who
>
> > conforms to the beliefs and practices of that church. To call a church
>
> > member ?autonomous? is almost a contradiction in terms. If someone
>
> > disagrees with the doctrine and practices of his church, he will almost
>
> > certainly not remain a member. He cannot be /utterly /autonomous and be
>
> > a conscientious member at the same time.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why not. A person could certainly choose to be the sort of
>
> person who adheres to the beliefs and carries out the practices of a
>
> church to which she belongs. (Or not.) To be autonomous doesn't entail
>
> that one be a rebel or an iconoclast. Suppose I'm on a committee to
>
> revise the dress code for Mutton College, and that the committee's
>
> decisions are arrived at by a simple majority vote. I favor green socks
>
> and purple waistcoats but eventually the committee decides on purple
>
> socks and green waistcoats. Have I somehow lost my autonomy if I abide
>
> by this decision, or must I, to preserve it, wear green socks and a
>
> purple waistcoat anyway?
>
>
>
> As for disagreeing 'with the doctrines and practices of his church,' and
>
> not remaining a member, the autonomous person might well (as many
>
> Catholics have done, and as many Anglicans are now doing) 'work for
>
> change from within,' as the cliché goes; or he might say to hell with it
>
> and leave. But remaining autonomous requires neither one nor the other.
>
>
>
> > On the other hand a historian writing an original work of history will
>
> > strive to be autonomous in the sense that he will seek to avoid being
>
> > influenced by previous historians? opinions; otherwise he will be called
>
> > a disciple. The same thing would be true in other fields. Russell
>
> > wanted Wittgenstein to be a disciple but the latter /was /autonomous and
>
> > could not subordinate his thinking to Russell?s.
>
>
>
> Wittgenstein indeed turned out to be a surprise and soon a headache to
>
> Russell, but that he wanted him to remain a disciple isn't clear. He
>
> wanted to give over the hard thinking to 'his German,' as he kept
>
> calling him, so that he, Russell, could rest his brain while
>
> Wittgenstein carried on the great work. To his dismay, Wittgenstein
>
> turned out to believe that the great work was entirely mistaken.
>
>
>
> Robert Paul
>
> Reed College
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: SOS: Auto - nomos
