Popper and Grice on Personal Identity
Grice, Popper, and Narcissus.
T. Fjeld notes:
“Regarding the question of whether “the roots of modern depression [lies] in
narcissism, the ‘overwrought, pathologically distorted self-reference’ that
flourished in cultures that valorize personal achievement and consequently
flatten out our relationships” there's several views on this. One is that we
live in a 'culture of narcissism' (see this), which was a view that was quite
topical a few decades ago. Another is that narcisissim is not so much specific
to a single culture, as it is a consequence of the kinds of societies that are
made by late modernity (this seems to be the view, roughly, of the author
quoted by Helm). Then there's the debate of the way the ego is viewed in
psycho-analysis, which is related not by essence but by contingency to the
first question. The point here is that narcissism is a term from psychology,
and should we not properly cosider whether psycho-analytic thinking and
therapeutic approaches have had a hand on the wheel when our perception of our
selves has become -- we can assume -- so hung up on 'overwrought,
pathologically distorted self-reference' and 'personal achievement'? Well, the
thing is that many historians of psycho-analysis holds that Freud should take
some of the heat for the present situation: they claim that it was he who
argued that the way to treat neurosis was to strengthen the ego, which, in
effect, has caused a tremendous growth of self-help therapies to the forefront
of our culture. Others argue that this is a strictly American
(mis-)interpretation of Freud, which, as Helm seems to content, has been
exacerbated by specific cultural traits (such as the idealisation of personal
acheivement). Finally, there is the view -- ala Heidegger and his students --
that the ego is a misunderstanding of the self (itself, if one is allowed the
pun). As Jacques Lacan would later have it: I am most myself when I am not
myself. What an excentric!”
Mmm. What would Popper and Grice say? Let’s consider Grice first!
“Regarding the question of whether “the roots of modern depression [lies] in
narcissism, the ‘overwrought, pathologically distorted self-reference’ that
flourished in cultures that valorize personal achievement and consequently
flatten out our relationships” there's several views on this.”
As on everything. I think McEvoy calls this ‘perspectivism,’ and one of his
favourite acronyms, is “pov,” short not for the “poverty of historicism,” but
for “point of view”.
Fjeld:
“One is that we live in a 'culture of narcissism' (see this), which was a view
that was quite topical a few decades ago.”
I wonder if Narcissus (or Descartes with his solipsism) would agree. The whole
point of being a narcissistic seems to be that you deny the conceptual analysis
of ‘culture’: cfr. “a culture of solipsism.”
Fjeld:
“Another is that narcisissim is not so much specific to a single culture, as it
is a consequence of the kinds of societies that are made by late modernity
(this seems to be the view, roughly, of the author quoted by Helm).”
A reviewer of the LRB, as Helm noted.
“Then there's the debate of the way the ego is viewed in psycho-analysis, which
is related not by essence but by contingency to the first question. The point
here is that narcissism is a term from psychology, and should we not properly
consider whether psycho-analytic thinking and therapeutic approaches have had a
hand on the wheel when our perception of our selves has become -- we can assume
-- so hung up on 'overwrought, pathologically distorted self-reference' and
'personal achievement'?”
I agree that narcissism is a ‘term of art’ of psychoanalysis, but this should
not forbid the layman to use it. Afterwards, ‘falsification’ is a Popperian
term of art, and non-Popperians use it. “Implicatura” was coined by Sidonius,
and people other than Sidonius use it!
Fjeld:
“Well, the thing is that many historians of psycho-analysis holds that Freud
should take some of the heat for the present situation: they claim that it was
he who argued that the way to treat neurosis was to strengthen the ego, which,
in effect, has caused a tremendous growth of self-help therapies to the
forefront of our culture.’”
One good thing about Freud is that he was a classisist, and I admit I don’t
dislike his –ism term of art, ‘narcissism’, qua term if not qua concept!
Fjeld:
“Others argue that this is a strictly American (mis-)interpretation of Freud,
which, as Helm seems to contend, has been exacerbated by specific cultural
traits (such as the idealisation of personal acheivement).”
I collect American misinterpretations of things – my favourite is the American
misinterpration of Grice. Since Grice became an American (in due time), the
misinterpretation became true!
Fjeld:
“Finally, there is the view -- ala Heidegger and his students -- that the ego
is a misunderstanding of the self (itself, if one is allowed the pun). As
Jacques Lacan would later have it: I am most myself when I am not myself. What
an excentric!””
Yes, Lacan was an eccentric, and I would agree that Heidegger may be right that
‘ego’ is a techno-kryptic concept best replaced by ‘self’. Strictly, ‘ego’
translates as the “I”. In the Romance languages, you don’t need the ‘ego’, but
you need the “self”. Thus, “canto,” I sing, lacks the “I”. “I sing to myself”
is actually an example from Carmen, the opera, that a Griceian uses to confirm
that Grice allows that Carmen can SING TO HERSELF, because she becomes her own
addressee!
Apparently, Popper preferred ‘self’ to ‘ego’, while Grice, typically – being an
ordinary language philosopher – preferred “I”, as in “I sing”. “Ego” is
confusing – and Grice recognises in his “Personal identity” that part of that
confusion is due to Broad (but then Grice perhaps was biased, because Broad is
Cambridge, and Grice is Oxford). In a later unpublication, Grice refers to the
“I” as a ‘logical construction’. In what way do:
i. I sing.
differs from
ii. Thou singest.
and
iii. He sings.
The ‘self’ should apply to the three cases, but of course ‘ego’ is restricted
to (i). Grice’s analysis of “I” is in terms of memory, alla Locke, and applies,
of course, to his analysis of “thou” and “he”. I’m less sure about Popper’s
‘self’.
Narcissism seems to involve what Russell would call the relation of ‘love’. Ego
is narcissistic iff
iv. LOVE (Ego, Ego)
where the healthy scenario is
v. LOVE (Ego, Thou)
We can leave “He” alone. The Bible (since McEvoy likes to quote from it)
teaches us that you should love thy neighbour as you love yourself. Is the
Bible promoting narcissism? Lacan read Heidegger and he possibly knew.
Cheers,
Speranza
