It sounds to me like what you're saying is that this part of you is simply that part which experiences values as objective/real, i.e. out there, not dependent on your personal preferences - this part is both highly valued because a real value is the only one that can enable self-transcendence (any value dependent on one's own personal preferences keeps you within the sphere of yourself), but also necessarily conflicts with the kind of liberal relativism that seeks (chimerically) to impose nothing on others, to never advance a value claim against them, i.e. in a way that could come to them as an alien demand. You feel a conflict between really valuing things and being infinitely tolerant, a conflict mirrored in liberal ideology itself. Or something like that. Does this sound right?
As for why, I'd paraphrase Hegel's early description of self-consciousness: it is only by losing ourselves and our narcissism, that is by deciding to take another person as interesting in themselves, that we can genuinely rediscover ourselves, that is, develop a fuller and more developed selfhood. Which is just a fancy way of saying 'why not?'.
that this part of you is simply that part which experiences values as objective/real, i.e. out there, not dependent on your personal preferences
Yes, that sounds right.
this part is both highly valued because a real value is the only one that can enable self-transcendence (any value dependent on one's own personal preferences keeps you within the sphere of yourself)
This seems resonates less well with me. In my personal musings I tend to think very little about the self, or transcending it. I think what's going on here is a kind of deontological itch--a capacity for duty that is desperate for an obligating power.
liberal relativism that seeks (chimerically) to impose nothing on others, to never advance a value claim against them, i.e. in a way that could come to them as an alien demand.
It's funny, but the term "liberal relativism" has come up in several conversations recently. Personally, I think it's a bit of a misnomer, because it seems like liberals tend to be realists, even absolutists, about some values--although these values may allow within their scope a broader range of activities and beliefs. Then again, maybe there's something to the claim that liberalism takes a lot of what people hold as values--particular ethical stances, for example--and pulls the rug out from under them, declaring them to be subjective or merely cultural, or whatever.
I'm going off on a tangent, but just yesterday I went to a bioethics thesis presentation by a friend where he was advocating for a pluralism in the definition of death. His argument was that the medical system should have a clause that supports conscientious objection to particular criteria for death. (The competing definitions are between the primarily Western scientific institutions that define death at brain-death, and more traditional groups like some Orthodox Jews and apparently the majority of Japanese people who believe that you're only dead when your heart stops beating.) He never really motivated the pluralism bit though. I think that afterwards I got him to admit that in fact, he's not a realist about death, which is a pretty amazing position to have, I think, although there was also a commitment to fallibilism there that I found appealing. (I realize that I'm talking to myself a little bit at this point, but it's the first time I've gotten these thoughts down into text...)
But what was I talking about? Oh.
You feel a conflict between really valuing things and being infinitely tolerant, a conflict mirrored in liberal ideology itself. Or something like that.
You know, when I first read this I thought that I disagreed, but now I think I see your point. Yes, something like that. Although I think the motivating force working against those real values isn't a commitment to tolerance, but a real need to form relationships with people. While the former might require just permitting differences to exist, the latter requires some real synthesis. Perhaps this isn't so much a mirror of the liberal ideology but the recently relabeled 'progressive' ideology. I can't help but notice from your user info that you're British (?) -- I've heard that there are subtle differences between European and American uses of the word 'liberal.' Has 'progressive' been adopted in the UK?
Hegel
Have you read much Hegel? I've read only about twelve pages of him--the introduction to some book--but it was some of the most frustrating stuff I've ever read. It little kept me second-guessing myself for a week. Would you recommend anything in particular?
In my personal musings I tend to think very little about the self, or transcending it. I think what's going on here is a kind of deontological itch--a capacity for duty that is desperate for an obligating power. I dunno, I think these two could go together quite well. You don't have to think about yourself to transcend yourself, since transcending yourself simply means going beyond it, which doesn't require you to, I dunno, look down at it as you pass. An obligating power sounds to me like the perfect thing to do this - doesn't it imply something above you, with the authority to obligate, and hence something greater than yourself that you can tap into? Well, I'm not really sure, so whatever.
I think the motivating force working against those real values isn't a commitment to tolerance, but a real need to form relationships with people. While the former might require just permitting differences to exist, the latter requires some real synthesis. Hmm. Interesting.
I've heard that there are subtle differences between European and American uses of the word 'liberal.' Well, by liberal I don't really mean any kind of current political movement, but the ideological tradition that's been absorbed as the basis of politics in most 'western' countries and now isn't really in question - this tradition being centred around the ideas of freedom for all, with the corollary of government by consent of and permission of the governed. Part of this seems to me to be the tendency toward respecting people's right to differ, whether in beliefs, words, or lifestyles. But as you point out, this can't be done fully, because you must at least be an absolutist about basic things like physical protection and tolerance itself. Because freedom for all means equality, and judging someone morally carries an implication of superiority? So I guess what I'm trying to say is that liberalism (and personal attitudes that involve respecting the equal autonomy of other people) has within it an indefinite desire for relativism (in the practical sense of letting people do what they want) but that this desire, because of both contingencies and necessities about how the world is, can't be fully expressed, comes into conflict with itself, and..yeah. I'm now realising this isn't all that tied to your specific feeling of solitude, but oh well.
Have you read much Hegel? Actually, I haven't read any Hegel - I was put off by that very obscurity of style you meantion. I have however read a few secondary texts, of which I'd most recommend Michael Inwood's - I think it's called 'Hegel' or something original like that. Of course, my head is now probably filled with Inwoodism which I wrongly take to be Hegelianism, but that's a risk you have to take.
An obligating power sounds to me like the perfect thing to do this - doesn't it imply something above you, with the authority to obligate, and hence something greater than yourself that you can tap into? Well, I'm not really sure, so whatever.
Not of my hunches on this are right.... Personally, I think there has to be some way of obligating oneself. Binding one part of the will to another, or creating one's own (real enough) values. You know, Nietzsche stuff.
the ideological tradition that's been absorbed as the basis of politics in most 'western' countries and now isn't really in question
Oh man. I wish it 'weren't really in question' in the U.S. We've got a huge population of people who froth at the mouth at the mention of "liberal moral relativism," and want to take it down.
I'm trying to say is that liberalism (and personal attitudes that involve respecting the equal autonomy of other people) has within it an indefinite desire for relativism (in the practical sense of letting people do what they want) but that this desire, because of both contingencies and necessities about how the world is, can't be fully expressed, comes into conflict with itself, and..yeah.
I think that if you replaced the word 'relativism' with 'pluralism', I'd completely agree with you here.
Personally, I think there has to be some way of obligating oneself...You know, Nietzsche stuff. Fair enough...although I can't help pointing out that Nietzsche was very fond of creating 'beyond oneself': "I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind?"
We've got a huge population of people who froth at the mouth at the mention of "liberal moral relativism," and want to take it down. Yep, and leaders who think little matters like the rule of law, separation of powers, and human rights should take backseat to 'national security'. So yes, there are questionings. But at the same time, it is surely significant that in proportion as people are actually in positions of (official) political power, they don't question the actual ideology as a whole, even if they say 'this particular aspect needs to be 'balanced' against such-and-such''. Anyway, you know what I mean?
I think that if you replaced the word 'relativism' with 'pluralism', I'd completely agree with you here. Yeah, that's a better word. *replaces*
As for why, I'd paraphrase Hegel's early description of self-consciousness: it is only by losing ourselves and our narcissism, that is by deciding to take another person as interesting in themselves, that we can genuinely rediscover ourselves, that is, develop a fuller and more developed selfhood. Which is just a fancy way of saying 'why not?'.
Reply
that this part of you is simply that part which experiences values as objective/real, i.e. out there, not dependent on your personal preferences
Yes, that sounds right.
this part is both highly valued because a real value is the only one that can enable self-transcendence (any value dependent on one's own personal preferences keeps you within the sphere of yourself)
This seems resonates less well with me. In my personal musings I tend to think very little about the self, or transcending it. I think what's going on here is a kind of deontological itch--a capacity for duty that is desperate for an obligating power.
liberal relativism that seeks (chimerically) to impose nothing on others, to never advance a value claim against them, i.e. in a way that could come to them as an alien demand.
It's funny, but the term "liberal relativism" has come up in several conversations recently. Personally, I think it's a bit of a misnomer, because it seems like liberals tend to be realists, even absolutists, about some values--although these values may allow within their scope a broader range of activities and beliefs. Then again, maybe there's something to the claim that liberalism takes a lot of what people hold as values--particular ethical stances, for example--and pulls the rug out from under them, declaring them to be subjective or merely cultural, or whatever.
I'm going off on a tangent, but just yesterday I went to a bioethics thesis presentation by a friend where he was advocating for a pluralism in the definition of death. His argument was that the medical system should have a clause that supports conscientious objection to particular criteria for death. (The competing definitions are between the primarily Western scientific institutions that define death at brain-death, and more traditional groups like some Orthodox Jews and apparently the majority of Japanese people who believe that you're only dead when your heart stops beating.) He never really motivated the pluralism bit though. I think that afterwards I got him to admit that in fact, he's not a realist about death, which is a pretty amazing position to have, I think, although there was also a commitment to fallibilism there that I found appealing. (I realize that I'm talking to myself a little bit at this point, but it's the first time I've gotten these thoughts down into text...)
But what was I talking about? Oh.
You feel a conflict between really valuing things and being infinitely tolerant, a conflict mirrored in liberal ideology itself. Or something like that.
You know, when I first read this I thought that I disagreed, but now I think I see your point. Yes, something like that. Although I think the motivating force working against those real values isn't a commitment to tolerance, but a real need to form relationships with people. While the former might require just permitting differences to exist, the latter requires some real synthesis. Perhaps this isn't so much a mirror of the liberal ideology but the recently relabeled 'progressive' ideology. I can't help but notice from your user info that you're British (?) -- I've heard that there are subtle differences between European and American uses of the word 'liberal.' Has 'progressive' been adopted in the UK?
Hegel
Have you read much Hegel? I've read only about twelve pages of him--the introduction to some book--but it was some of the most frustrating stuff I've ever read. It little kept me second-guessing myself for a week. Would you recommend anything in particular?
Which is just a fancy way of saying 'why not?'.
Well, thanks for asking!
Reply
I dunno, I think these two could go together quite well. You don't have to think about yourself to transcend yourself, since transcending yourself simply means going beyond it, which doesn't require you to, I dunno, look down at it as you pass. An obligating power sounds to me like the perfect thing to do this - doesn't it imply something above you, with the authority to obligate, and hence something greater than yourself that you can tap into? Well, I'm not really sure, so whatever.
I think the motivating force working against those real values isn't a commitment to tolerance, but a real need to form relationships with people. While the former might require just permitting differences to exist, the latter requires some real synthesis.
Hmm. Interesting.
I've heard that there are subtle differences between European and American uses of the word 'liberal.'
Well, by liberal I don't really mean any kind of current political movement, but the ideological tradition that's been absorbed as the basis of politics in most 'western' countries and now isn't really in question - this tradition being centred around the ideas of freedom for all, with the corollary of government by consent of and permission of the governed. Part of this seems to me to be the tendency toward respecting people's right to differ, whether in beliefs, words, or lifestyles. But as you point out, this can't be done fully, because you must at least be an absolutist about basic things like physical protection and tolerance itself. Because freedom for all means equality, and judging someone morally carries an implication of superiority? So I guess what I'm trying to say is that liberalism (and personal attitudes that involve respecting the equal autonomy of other people) has within it an indefinite desire for relativism (in the practical sense of letting people do what they want) but that this desire, because of both contingencies and necessities about how the world is, can't be fully expressed, comes into conflict with itself, and..yeah. I'm now realising this isn't all that tied to your specific feeling of solitude, but oh well.
Have you read much Hegel?
Actually, I haven't read any Hegel - I was put off by that very obscurity of style you meantion. I have however read a few secondary texts, of which I'd most recommend Michael Inwood's - I think it's called 'Hegel' or something original like that. Of course, my head is now probably filled with Inwoodism which I wrongly take to be Hegelianism, but that's a risk you have to take.
Reply
Not of my hunches on this are right.... Personally, I think there has to be some way of obligating oneself. Binding one part of the will to another, or creating one's own (real enough) values. You know, Nietzsche stuff.
the ideological tradition that's been absorbed as the basis of politics in most 'western' countries and now isn't really in question
Oh man. I wish it 'weren't really in question' in the U.S. We've got a huge population of people who froth at the mouth at the mention of "liberal moral relativism," and want to take it down.
I'm trying to say is that liberalism (and personal attitudes that involve respecting the equal autonomy of other people) has within it an indefinite desire for relativism (in the practical sense of letting people do what they want) but that this desire, because of both contingencies and necessities about how the world is, can't be fully expressed, comes into conflict with itself, and..yeah.
I think that if you replaced the word 'relativism' with 'pluralism', I'd completely agree with you here.
Reply
Fair enough...although I can't help pointing out that Nietzsche was very fond of creating 'beyond oneself': "I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?
All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind?"
We've got a huge population of people who froth at the mouth at the mention of "liberal moral relativism," and want to take it down.
Yep, and leaders who think little matters like the rule of law, separation of powers, and human rights should take backseat to 'national security'. So yes, there are questionings. But at the same time, it is surely significant that in proportion as people are actually in positions of (official) political power, they don't question the actual ideology as a whole, even if they say 'this particular aspect needs to be 'balanced' against such-and-such''. Anyway, you know what I mean?
I think that if you replaced the word 'relativism' with 'pluralism', I'd completely agree with you here.
Yeah, that's a better word. *replaces*
Reply
Leave a comment