[lit-ideas] SOS - The Self in Moral Space
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 15:13:04 -0700
I just finished Taylor's second chapter. I see no reason at this point to
see his "framework" as different from R. G. Collingwood's "Constellation of
absolute presuppositions," but without really expanding upon it, satisfied
with an example or two, he moves ahead; so I will too.
His discussion of what comprises the Good Life, his second axis, is
interesting. Our framework includes a standard of the good life; so we
either progress toward it or fail to do so. We can feel satisfied and
contented if we are making progress but depressed if we fall short. He
doesn't pin down a specific framework so we can substitute our own. If we
are Leftist and believe in the ultimate success of a world-wide Socialist
revolution; then we will feel satisfied if we have done something to further
that goal. On the other hand if we have given up on the possibility of such
a revolution, perhaps we feel alienated and adrift. We can make no progress
toward the "good life" contained in our framework. I mentioned the
Socialistic framework first because I don't see how anyone with that
framework could avoid being depressed and alienated, but perhaps there are
little victories, like bad-mouthing of Bush on Lit-ideas, that keep one
going.
Another framework is the "Artistic." We have within us or fancy we might
one day have within us the ability to create something valuable, beautiful,
or significant. I recall the character, included in several novels the
titles of which escape me, of the failed author. He had hoped to write the
great American novel, but has become convinced over time that he hasn't the
ability; so he lies about working on it and spends his time drinking. But
there are other examples. Perhaps he does actually write some novels, but
"great American" they are not. Frederick Faust wrote under the pseudonym
Max Brand. His Westerns eclipsed Zane Grey's in popularity, but he wanted
to write the great American novel. At age 51 and with a bad heart he became
a War Correspondent during WWII and was killed in a hilltop village in Italy
during a night attack by the Germans. I don't know this, but I thought his
dissatisfaction with his art drove him to seek what he perceived to be a
more meaningful existence. His Western Heroes were fearless fighters, but
what was he - a hack writer. Why not get into the war and test his metal?
Taylor also describes the Christian framework, but hints that modern
Christians have more trouble with it than Luther did in his day. His
Constellation of Presuppositions was indeed absolute. But the modern
Christian may find difficulties in the proliferation of denominations since
Luther's day, but if he does accept this framework in one of its
denominational forms then he may very well be bewildered by the many modern
challenges to it. Western Democracy grew out of his framework and its
secularity has denounced and repudiated it. Notice the irrationality of
what many of the European nations are doing: continuing to take a hostile
stance toward the Christianity that gave birth to them while at the same
time embracing or at least expressing greater tolerance for Islam.
Taylor says there is a "Yes or No" involved in each framework. We must say
"I believe" to it. Even if we say, "I believe, help thou my unbelief," we
shall defend it against its detractors. We include ourselves among the
Framework's members.
Collingwood wrote that in a Constellation of Absolute Presuppositions, an
adherent may not hold precisely the same presupposition as every other
member, but none of his presuppositions may be precluded by the
Constellation. One could not believe in Communism in the 30s, for example,
and not believe in its ultimate victory over Capitalism. And one cannot
adhere to any of the conservative Christian Frameworks and believe that
Christ's resurrection was a myth.
I can't help wondering what sort of Framework can be developed from what
little I have read about Rorty. He avoided nihilism by only the barest bit
of kindness. I can see that Nihilism or Rorty-Nihilism can demand a yea or
a no, but what is the "good life," and how does one progress toward it?
Perhaps a Rorty-Nihilist needs to invoke Omar Khayam's solution.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
