[lit-ideas] Re: Sacrifice
- From: "Richard Koenigsberg, Ph.D." <libraryofsocialscience@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:57:12 -0500
It's not some "rational choice." It's like submission to a higher
power, like an irresistible force.
The "nation" is experienced as if a god, hovering over us. We submit
to it.=20
Soldiers have been willing to join the army and to make the "supreme
sacrifice." It's not as if they knew exactly what they are doing. =
"Society"
is like a higher power that sucked them in. We all believe in and =
worship
"society." Society is the god to which we submit and sacrifice.
Richard Koenigsberg=09
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:47 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sacrifice
=20
In a message dated 2/10/2005 12:28:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, =20
nantongo@xxxxxxxxx writes:
I mean does the sacrifier really trot around going, ho, watch me make =
my=20
next sacrifice? It seems to me they (sacrifiers or whatever the active =
participle is) mostly just go ahead and do what they think should be =
done
at=20
the moment ie what makes them feel good, or, failing that, feel better. =
It=20
seems to me that any analysis of sacrifice would have to center on how =
it
is=20
seen from the outside rather than how it is lived from the inside.
----
=20
The OED defines 'sacrifice', among other things, as "to surrender or =
give
up=20
(something) for the attainment of some higher advantage or dearer =
object. =20
Const. to." -- and I think that is the usage Marlena is mainly thinking =
of.
(Quotes given for that specific usage in the OED below).
=20
Mirembe's distinction between the inside and the outside reminded me of =
the
late Kenneth Pike's distinction between the -etic and the -emic, which =
I'm=20
not sure I systematically follow.
=20
If 'to sacrifice' is 'to surrender something for the attainment of some =
higher advantage', it seems to me obvious that there is some level of =20
_relativisation_ already built up in there. Alla the way H. P. Grice
analyses things=20
like "Richard Nixon must get the Oxford Chair of Moral and Pastoral
Theology" in=20
_Aspects of Reason_ (p. 57, quote below)
=20
If Agent A sacrifices x for the attainment of y", it is understood that =
(it
must be analytically true) that A must regard y as being higher than x =
-- to
follow the OED definition. What people other than agent A _think_ seems =
precisely irrelevant when it comes to analyse if A is performing an act =
of =20
'sacrificing' or not.
=20
Cheers,
=20
JL
=20
------
1706 PHILLIPS (ed. Kersey), To Sacrifice,..to quit or leave a Thing =
upon=20
some Consideration. 1710 SWIFT Jrnl. to Stella 23 Sept., Deuce take =
Lady
D;=20
and if I know y, he is a rawboned-faced fellow..; she sacrifices two
thousand=20
pounds a year, and keeps only six hundred. 1720 OZELL Vertot's Rom. =
Rep.
I.=20
v. 298 The first Obligation which a Roman lay under..was to sacrifice =
his=20
Life in Defence of the Public Liberty. 1837 KEIGHTLEY Hist. Eng. I. =
416
Henry =20
[VIII]..was never known to sacrifice an inclination to the interest or=20
happiness of another. 1875 JOWETT Plato (ed. 2) V. 126 Everything =
seems
to have=20
been sacrificed to a false notion of equality. 1879 G. C. HARLAN =
Eyesight
vii. 97 Generally, the only men who can be persuaded to wear protecting =
=20
glasses are those who have already sacrificed one eye to their =
objections.
Grice writes:
=20
"Suppose someone were to say, ... "Richard Nixon must get the Oxford =
Chair =20
of Moral and Pastoral Theology". Depending on context, one might find =
three
different interpretations, all of them falling within the VOLITIVE zone. =
One
might mean that it is VITAL (perhaps vital to the world, or to some
microcosm =20
which is momentarily taken as if it were the world), that Nixon should =
be =20
established in this position. On this interpretation, one would NOT be
laying on =20
any AGENT's shoulders an incumbency to see to it, that this happy state =
be =20
realised, unless it were on the shoulders of someone with a reputation =
for
total=20
ineffectiveness in mundane affairs, like The Almighty. On another =20
interpretation, one would be invoking a supposed incumbency, perhaps an
incumbency on=20
'us' (whoever 'us' might be) to secure the result. On what might be a=20
particularly NATURAL interpretation, one would be charging _Richard =
Nixon_
with an=20
incumbency to secure the his own election to this august chair. On both
[these=20
two latter interpretations], one would be advancing the idea that it was =
=20
necessary RELATIVE TO SOME POTENTIAL AGENT ('us' or Richard Nixon) that
Richard =20
Nixon obtain the chair. On the alethic side ["If he drinks the poison, =
he
must=20
die"] no such SIGNIFICANT relativity is observable." (p. 57).=20
=20
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
