Det skrider (fanme) hurtigt

Så er Kapitel Fem allerede mere eller mindre klar. For en gangs skyld var der ikke behov for de store til- eller omskrivninger, og der skulle ikke flyttes noget videre om, og så går det pludselig stærkt 🙂

Som sædvanligt følger her et uddrag af konklusionen – til de mennesker der måtte have masochistiske tilbøjeligheder af filosofisk art:

If the capacity for actively resisting the unifying aspects of human upbringing really is a feature of human psychology, and if, as Lovibond clearly believes, this capacity is ethically significant (and even ethically valuable), then the development of this capacity should be viewed as just as important and fundamental an element of the formative process as the attempt to create a unitary self. This is what is missing from Lovibond’s account. She fails to take seriously that the capacity for active resistance is a part of, and not just something external to, the formative process. Like Aristotle Lovibond views (ethical) formation primarily as a socializing process through which human beings become acquainted with and learn to endorse and reliably employ the norms and values of the community into which they are born. And like Aristotle Lovibond acknowledges that being a moral agent involves more than simply having internalized the values and norms of one’s community; one also need the critical capacities needed to critically scrutinize, reflect upon and (if necessary) reject the norms – or perhaps the entire set of norms – within which one has been brought up.

What both Aristotle and Lovibond have difficulty explaining (Aristotle probably more so than Lovibond) is how to make room for and explain the development of this capacity within their own theories. Aristotle, as we saw, did not really provide an account of the development of the intellectual virtues. And Lovibond construes, or at least tends to construe, the “capacity for active resistance” as something external to the process of formation. That is; Lovibond ends up regarding the capacito for active resistance as at most an “enabling presence“, a “valuable pointer in the direction of fallibilism” and as something which “give expression to an unexceptionable sense of the limits” of reason and formation in the lives of embodied creatures like human beings. But these concessions to the sort of radically critical “counter-teleological thinking” outlined in the third part of Ethical Formation seems insufficient when one realizes that the capacity for critical reflection (the “capacity for active resistance“) must itself be viewed as something which is acquired and developed through some sort of formative process.

To me these considerations speak in favour of modifying or revising the Aristotelian account of (ethical) formation. What we need is a conception of formation which takes seriously the idea that the formative process not only implies the creation of a unitary human subject through socialization into the values and norms of a community, but also involves processes which actively opposes this unifying process. To use Lovibond’s Aristotelian-inspired language; what we need is a conception of formation which does not regard the creation of a unitary self capable of expressive seriousness as the only, and single most important, telos of formation. If we want to take seriously the idea that formation also involves the creation of a certain level of opposition and conflict within the self, then it would seem that the telos of ethical formation cannot be simply, or only, unity of self; it must also, in some way or another, include the idea of a certain fragmentation or plurality of the self.

Og til de som måtte tænke deres: Ja, det er Kant, der, i de kommende kapitler, leverer løsningen/svaret på (næsten) alle disse problemer 🙂

Om filoffen

Filoffen filosoferer
Dette indlæg blev udgivet i Afhandlingen, filosofi. Bogmærk permalinket.

7 kommentarer til Det skrider (fanme) hurtigt

  1. Kasper P skriver:

    Hov, var det bare mig, eller kom du rent faktisk til at sige, at subjektet må være “splittet” for at være fuldt dannet? 🙂
    Det næste bliver vel at du begynder at tale om begærsstrukturer, fortrængning og sådan noget!

  2. Kasper P skriver:

    (eller også er det bare mig, der er ved at blive fagblind)

  3. filoffen skriver:

    Næh, det har du skam ganske ret i, at jeg siger. Og det er ikke noget jeg “kom til” at skrive; det er sådan set hele omdrejningspunktet for sidste del af afhandlingen, og en grundlæggende del af min kritik af Lovibond. Meeen der kommer ikke noget om begærsstrukturer eller fortrængninger eller andet freudiansk/lacaniansk sludder ind i afhandlingen – jeg nøjes med Kant og Schiller 🙂

  4. Kasper P skriver:

    Det er så i orden. Træerne vokser jo heller ikke ind i himlen 😉
    I øvrigt var Schiller vist nok lidt af en lurendrejer. Var der ikke noget med to søstre, hvor han ville gifte sig med begge, men måtte nøjes med den ene..? eller hvordan var det nu.

  5. filoffen skriver:

    Det lyder meget sandsynligt. Der var generelt gang i filofferne på den tid. Bare se på Novalis/Hölderlin/Schlegel/Schelling: Skizofreni, sindsyge, utroskab, had og digtning.

  6. Jacob\ skriver:

    Jeg ville ikke sige noget, men jeg havde nøjagtigt samme oplevelse som Kasper. Naturligvis antager jeg, at du ikke som sådan mener, at SELVET er splittet, men snarere at såvel den empiriske som den intelligible side af mennesket er nødvendige at inddrage, hvis man vil forstå de grundbetingelser, under hvilke mennesker handler og lever. Men hvorfor så overhovedet benytte en terminologi, som synes at købe ideen om, at selvet (udelukkende?) er noget, der skal dannes? Hvor blev det transcendentale af…

    (Kedelig kongruens: i linie 34 skal ‘seems’ være ‘seem’, idet det refererer til ‘concessions’ :-)). Bruger du altid amerikansk staveform? (realize i stedet for realise).

    Gift dig eller gift dig ikke … etc etc … begge dele

  7. filoffen skriver:

    Det er sgu ikke en kedelig kongruens: Det er en FORKERT kongruens. Og ja, jeg bruger (så vidt jeg da husker) amerikansk stavemåde. Men det er den slags ting der skal gennemtjekkes inden aflevering. Det er næøste trin – efter redigering og omskrivning.

    Dannelse/splittelse/selv: Den korte forklaring: Fordi der er andet og mere til livet end det transcendentale. 🙂

Skriv et svar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret. Krævede felter er markeret med *