[lit-ideas] Re: SOS -- Autonomy and Influence
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:30:43 -0500
LH:
>>Perhaps Mike likes Rorty because he does a good job of expressing certain
>>ideas that Mike already more or less had. <<
Absolutely! Yes! That's precisely what I mean when I say that I don't need to
read, I know my prejudices. I've said it a dozen times at least over the last
8 or 10 or whatever years. Maybe 100 times, I haven't kept count. Do you
honestly think that your latching onto the authors you do is out of some
disinterested, reasoned appreciation for their stellar thought and not simply
the recognition of your personal prejudices in their arguments? That's all any
of us ever do, Lawrence, Jesus! Welcome to the world of Reflect Me.
Philosophy is no more independent of contingency than anything else. If we're
dreary pessimists, we like Schopenhauer -- sorry, Erin : ) No one likes
Schopenhauer unless they're in search of justification for their
suicidal-homocidal-inclinations -- sorry, Erin : ))).
So, yes, Ferry & Renaut are just silly. We are our history, we are our genes,
we are our community, we are almost determined except for that x.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] SOS -- Autonomy and Influence
Autonomy has been taken into areas I don't recognize; so let me back up. On
5-19 I posted a note entitled "Autonomy and Individuality - the Modern Self?"
In it was Alain Renaut's definition of Humanism which included a brief
definition of "autononomy":
"Humanism is basically the valorization of humanity in its capacity for
autonomy. What I mean by this - without, of course, claiming any originality
in the matter - is that what constitutes modernity is the fact that man thinks
of himself as the source of his acts and representations, as their foundation
(read: subject) or author. (This is why, by the way, the antihumanistic
passion common to various genealogical practices of the 1960s so often involved
criticizing the idea of the author.) The humanistic man is one who does not
receive his norms and laws either from the nature of things (as per Aristotle)
or from God, but who establishes them himself, on the basis of his own reason
and will. Thus modern natural right is a subjective right, posited and defined
by human reason (as per juridical rationalism) or by the human will (as per
juridical voluntarism). Thus modern societies conceive of themselves
politically as self-established political systems based on a contractualist
scheme, in contrast to societies where authority is established through
tradition by means of the deeply antimodern notion of 'privilege.'"
According to a review Omar posted, Taylor doesn't use Renaut's emphasis but
he does consider "autonomy" something good. Renaissance man thought of himself
as being virtually unlimited: the source of all his acts and representations.
Renaut and Ferry were concerned that certain philosophers described
impingements upon this autonomy. They called these philosophers
"Anti-Humanists." These Anti-Humanists say that man may have thought he was
the source of all his acts and representations but he was mistaken. Social
institutions and forces, the subconscious and the mercurial nature of language
indicate that he was deceived. He is not the source of all his acts and
representations. He has been influenced in ways he doesn't completely
understand and those influences are the sources of most if not all of his acts
and representations.
Renaut & Ferry's views, rejecting the views of the anti-humanists, represent
my presuppositions fairly closely. Now as to a conflict between autonomy and
community I considered that in what was probably a bad example. What came to
mind was a poem and my career in aerospace, especially times in which I seemed
to be functioning autonomously. My management issued orders which they
intended to be the source of my actions. However, exercising free will I chose
to be my own source of my actions and chose to do what I thought was right.
But as I thought out loud about this I ended up thinking as I said in the note
5-20, 1:42, that my supposed autonomy was an "empty boast" and while I seemed
to be acting autonomously my manager who issued the faulty instructions was
probably in more trouble with the community, i.e., McDonnell Douglas, than I
was.
Ferry & Renaut's concerns were that certain philosophies have caused us to
think we are less autonomous than we really are (or perhaps really could be ).
Their arguments included: we are not controlled by a deterministic force
impelling us toward Communism. There is no subconscious which makes decisions
unknown to and against our conscious will. Social institutions such as prisons
and mental institutions are not the malevolent forces Foucault believed them to
be. And language is not the deceptive tool described by Derrida but is capable
of or at least has a potential for precision.
But after reading the reviews various people have posted I don't see Taylor's
concern about "autonomy" to be what I meant (i.e., the concerns of Ferry and
Renaut) when I asked the question. Perhaps what Taylor means is closer to what
Harold bloom meant in A Map of Misreading and The Anxiety of Influence. No
poet is utterly autonomous. Whoever he is, he is not the sole source of his
poetic representations. He has been influenced by one or more poets preceding
him. The same sort of thing, perhaps, could be said of a person growing up in
a given community. As he grows, the community teaches him various things so
that when he reaches adulthood he can be said to be a product of that
community. Perhaps he rebels. He was raised a Catholic and as an adult
rejects Catholicism and fancies himself an atheist, but when you ask him about
his opinions he will voice, or at least have, opinions that relate to the
community. Something went on back there that he didn't like so now he is an
atheist.
But suppose he was raised in the Catholic community and then sent off to
college where he became an atheist? College is also a community and is also
capable of influence. He has moved from the influence of his home town
community to the college community and prefers the latter insofar as issues of
religion are concerned.
So what can be said about his autonomy? Bloom would say that no one escapes
influence, but we should at least take responsibility for those we allow to
influence us. This is difficult to do because we loose track. Mike, for
example recommended Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, but he
didn't say that Rorty had influenced him. He said that he agreed with Rorty.
Perhaps this is what we all do. We develop our presuppositions in our
Communities (home town, college, USMC, etc) and then we hone them. Perhaps
Mike likes Rorty because he does a good job of expressing certain ideas that
Mike already more or less had.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
