My answer is related to teleology, which in turn requires a brief discussion of epistemology. I would argue that TRUTH as a an inflexible, immutable, absolute thing died long ago, with the introduction of Kierkegaard's ethical moment of faith and subsequent existentialist and phenomenological elaborations on the limitations of knowledge and the nature of human freedom. I would describe human freedom as the tiny bit of choice that we have within the confines of physiological and physical imperatives and the immanent fallibility of cognition or consciousness. Our perception of a given moment is necessarily limited to our point of view, at this time, in this place, with change being subjectively determined as something moving or what have you relative to our point of view over successive moments. Our interpretation of a given moment is the cumulative subjectivity of a lifetime of experience that has persuaded us, rightly or wrongly, that things behave in a certain manner and with a certain sort of consistency. Our fallibility is manifest and legion.
With these fundamental limitations on the efficacy of truth, then, we go about our daily business. As political animals, our lives are fundamentally social. There is, then, and interplay between the individual and the society in which that individual is seated. Moreover, society as a whole is composed of nothing but many, many individuals. Accordingly, the ethics or character of a given society is simply the consensus its constituent individuals. The densely populated part of a scatterplot, with outliers being defined as geniuses or lunatics or various other terms of admiration and disparagement, depending on how well that particular individual sells the merits of his or her idiom to society as a whole. The difference between Lady Gaga and a crazy bag lady who sings well is mostly a difference in salesmanship.
That being said, a society as a whole is teleologically oriented towards improvement of some sort. The growth of wealth, power, the subjugation or incorporation of other societies, an improved quality of life for its constituents: the list of possible improvements goes on and on (although whether they are considered improvements is largely dependent on the collective determination of the society. Thus subjugation of others was prized by the Romans, but less so by current society).
Because society is composed of a number of individuals, its teleological success is dependent upon individual choice. Teleology at the individual level is directed at creating some change or innovation that pushes the common consensus in the direction of a collective improvement. Obviously the efficacy of this effort towards improvement is situated in material circumstance and human fallibility, which leads to a wide variety in the sort of attempts at improvement made. Lebron James tries to further this improvement by being really good at basketball and joining the Heat, then failing to win a national championship. Osama bin Laden tried by engaged in terrorism, with the ultimate aim of establishing a Sunni emirate (never mind that historically, emirates were quickly destroyed by tribal tensions). Einstein contributed by pushing the boundaries of human knowledge. I contribute by serving my country, reading a lot, and writing a blog with fifteen to thirty regular readers.
To my way of thinking, this individual teleological effort needs to be grounded in some sort of ideology (which isn't quite the right word for what I have in mind) to give it structure, allow us to evaluate the nature and intent of effort, and provide succor during times of uncertainty. Existentialism fits the bill nicely, inasmuch as it emphasizes individual choice as situated in a concrete reality. Kierkegaard, while laudable, is somewhat circumscribed by the historical circumstances in which he wrote (I qualify this by saying that I haven't read enough Kierkegaard to authoritatively denounce him, and that he is certainly worth reading). Accordingly, he tends to frame individual choice within a religious and social fabric that is too restrictive for my taste. Sartre has the opposite problem; he posits an unlimited freedom that is simply insubstatiable given the interaction between physical and cultural reality. Jaspers shows promise, but I haven't read enough of his work to definitively say. The same goes for Schopenhauer.
Nietzsche, on the other hand, argues for a sense of human freedom that is grounded in physical reality; implies a hierarchy of thoughtfulness, freedom, and effort; grudgingly admits the necessity and benefit of hierarchies below the superman; correctly identifies good and evil as human constructions; and notes the role of aesthetics in rendering intelligible the unintelligible vicissitudes of fortune. This is not to ignore the many areas in which he is problematic, but simply to say that at his best, he is without peer.
In any case, individual teleology is only one piece of the pie. As Sartre so aptly notes, hell is other people, and the abutment of distinct teleological efforts creates conflict, as does the fact that an individual's effort is often contrary to the benefit of the collective good. So there are other variables that need to be factored in to the equation.
But such is life. If things were simple and clear-cut, it would take all the fun out of living.
No comments:
Post a Comment