As was evident last class, I have some trouble explaining the ideas I want to explore in my paper. I guess I want to explain how I understand the world in a certain respect so maybe I should just try that here and see what you guys think.
First of all, aside from scientific explanations, the world is absurd. The unreasonableness I identify has more to do with the “why” than the “how”. Science can explain how something happens because these things can be observed and identified; why they occur is a different matter entirely. We are drawn towards a universal perspective or “god’s-eye-view” of the world where there is a single standard of truth but I can find no evidence of this. Instead, I believe we all have our individual perspectives which we work off of. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we can do whatever we want because there is no standard, but rather that all our perspectives are equally valid, in a certain sense, and we have to respect each other’s perspectives equally. In this way we are able to make our own meanings in our lives and are not required to subscribe to anyone else’s ideas. This realization also frees us from feeling bound by what we view as universal or community standards. We have to keep in mind at the same time to respect each other’s perspectives, so while we may disagree with others, we should regard other perspectives with same respect we expect for ourselves. This leads us to come to something like the golden rule of treating others the way we would like to be treated. If we reach this point, then we might come to the realization that helping other people helps ourselves because the goodness of the community trickles down to the individual.
I have a lot of ideas I’m trying to incorporate here and I know I’m forgetting something that might make it more sensible, but I’m interested in what you guys have to say about these things. I’m still trying to flesh these ideas out in my head and any suggestions for where I should turn for explanations that will help me with my ideas would be appreciated.
1) I'm often struck by the absurdity of the world, but in a different way, perhaps. It's not so much that things are meaningless but that they all appear so contingent. Why is a fish the way it is? It's weird. Where we differ, I think, is that since I believe there IS a "God's-eye view," there is an answer to these questions, even if the answer is simply that God is creative and likes it that way. So I don't know if it would be technically absurd or just silly, but I get you there. We want answers. Where will we find them?
ReplyDelete2) There is still an overarching normative claim being made here, so in my opinion it doesn't really escape the problem of relativism. As long as there is an "ought," there will have to be something to ground it in, and I just don't see what it could be if there are no absolutes. We can't be cursed with this radical freedom to construct our own values and meanings and then be told to remember to respect others' perspectives. Why? What's the point? That's what troubles me.
You can always try to make some comment like how for every observed trend in the universe there can be a thousand valid theories people can pose with it. You could argue that science itself is filled with subjectivity because the theories people favor often come from past beliefs they may have had. For example i think Longino said that science is dominated by a male perspective which skews theories. She also argues that everyone has their own perspectives. She does conclude that we can combine them into some semi objective state though. But most people try to leave the How to philosophy. As much as you may dislike pragmatism, I think you would be able to find that philosophy as a valuable ally in writing your paper. They argue for subjectivity (because of individual experience) and respecting each others perspectives. In addition they are completely opposed to the idea of Universal truth.You may want to look into James or someone like that.
ReplyDeleteKip, I think I understand where you are going with this, but to clarify, are you saying there should be a reversal of interpretation towards our interactions with the way we view the world and through doing that the way we interact with eachother. Pointing out the absurdity of the world is a very existential perspective, but possibly through using human interaction and reaching some golden world we are able to see past the absurdity. As for the birds eye view, is this a reference to God or religion in general? It may be interesting to talk about how this does shape our human interaction.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you believe that everyone is free to develop their own values and meanings (subjectivity), you hint that there is some form of ethical standard thrown into the mix (objectivity). So, in addition to the sources and philosophers that discuss pragmatism, you may want to explore the ethical theories that account for individual freedom. Reviewing Kant's "Categorical Imperative" or Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill) may be beneficial. We also went over Noddings' care ethics with Shade, but nothing involving this subject strikes me as useful when applied to this particular topic. It seems like you want to square off with some of "life's questions" or the "why's" associated with our existence. I think it will be some work, but it sounds like it will be enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteI like where your paper is going already. The world doesn't make much sense, especially not until one is given some senses of meaning. I'm sure all the ethicists, especially Care ethicist Nel Noddings would be useful. Let's get together and talk sometime, you may be onto something.
ReplyDelete