Synopsis: A STUDY OF THE MODERN NOTION OF SELF IN THE WRITINGS OF CHARLES TAYLOR
Prayer:
A reading from the Letter of St. Paul to Eph 4: 22-24- “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”
Synopsis:
There are three kinds of philosophers who study the modern notion of the self:
1) Boosters-They say, there is no problem with modernity. The changes that it brings are for the betterment of the world.
2) Knockers- They only highlight the loss and decline in culture.
3) Middle path- They are neither sheer boosters nor knockers. They take the middle path. They accept all that is good (individualism) and reject all that is bad (relativism).
Taylor, on whose thoughts on modern notion of self I am concerned with in my paper, differs from the above mentioned three kinds of philosophers. His way is something new. He uses the method of retrieval. His method of retrieval involves three steps. They are; understanding, identifying the greatness and danger; and retrieving. In my second chapter I have made an attempt to understand the modern self. He identifies three key aspects, which form the modern notion of self. They are inwardness, affirmation of ordinary life and nature and reason as inner moral source. Each of these aspects has its own history.
1. Inwardness: Its genesis is identified in Plato. For him, good life is contemplating the order of the cosmos and attuning our life according to the order of the cosmos. (Contemplation of the order is important) After him, St. Augustine for the first time in the history of philosophy distinguishes between inner and outer self. It is the inner self, which leads the individual to the higher form of life, i.e., God (The journey to truth is inward. It is from inner to the higher). Descartes, who follows the thoughts of St. Augustine, takes him in a new direction. Moral source is not outside of us but rather within us. (I think therefore I am. Only the existence of the individual is true). Hence, order is something the individual builds or constructs. It is no more contemplation. Locke who followed Descartes rejected all form innate ideas. So, the individual has to construct everything. Therefore, inwardness is nothing but reducing whole reality to individual.
2. Affirmation of Ordinary Life: It is giving importance to everyday life of production and reproduction. Its origin lies in the first chapter of Genesis, which says; ‘and God saw that it was good.’ Reformers took this aspect and said that God affirmed life, so life is participating in God’s affirmation. All the human beings are participating in it. Hence, all are equal. There is no hierarchy or higher form of life. Puritans who also followed the same line of thought rebelled against the authority and tried to reorganize the church with committed people. Francis Bacon who was influenced by puritans fused religious stewardship with science. Scientific inquiry is pious man’s effort to use the things according to God’s plan. Locke says that this God’s plan is known by not only revelation but also reason. He merges his ideas with protestant affirmation of life and says that being industrialist is God’s will and it is for the common good. He also says that happiness is matter of fulfilling our natural desires and sentiments.
3. Inner Moral Source: In it, there are two views: 1. Instrumental or disengaged reason is the inner moral source for all our actions. This is proposed by radical enlightenment philosophers. For instances utilitarians (reason must help the individual to attain maximum happiness and avoid obstacles.) Materialists (there is no difference between humans and other physical beings.) and Atheists (there is no God. This concept empowers humans to live life without fear). 2. Nature and freedom as inner moral source: Philosophers who propose this idea are called as counter radical enlightenment philosophers. For instance Rousseau (Good life is living according to the inner voice. Inner voice is the language of the nature) and Kant (Acting morally is acting as rational agent).
My third Chapter Moral self, attempts to retrieve limitations found in the first and third aspects of modern self. They limit morality to doing and inner moral source to nature and reason. All the human beings have by nature reluctance to cause death or injury to another (this is moral intuition). But this intuition is altered by frameworks (culture, family, religion, etc.) In each frameworks there is a higher good or hypergood towards which we direct all our actions. Basing on this framework and hypergood each individual evaluates his/her actions and orders them as higher and lower (for instance, if we consider charity as a hypergood for Christians then we order our actions according to it). Now Taylor says that this hypergood morality provides reason or rational criteria for our actions but Taylor asks what is that sustains these hypergoods? Hence, Taylor proposes constitutive good morality. There are three constitutive goods. Among them, the first two are secular (nature and reason). They alone cannot sustain our moral life. They need God to be adequate moral source. God or love of God (agape) is the source of morality.
My fourth chapter deals with ‘Interpreting self’ which attempts to retrieve the buried goods from second and third aspect of modern self, i.e., affirmation of ordinary life which attempts to study humans from the standpoint of natural philosophy. Naturalism does not take into consideration the human experiences, thoughts, motivations, feelings, preferences, assertions, attitudes and values (subject-related phenomena) in studying humans. Taylor says that subject-related phenomena play an important role in studying humans. Hence, he proposes hermeneutics as method to study humans by saying that humans are self-interpreting animals. He also proves them by making five explicit claims. All our emotions have certain objects and situation. These objects or situations are subject referring properties because they affect the emotions of the subject and challenge them. These emotions tell us what we value most. When we articulate them we transform them, i.e., we become aware of them.
The fifth Chapter ‘Dialogical self’ is a response to the limitations found in the first and third aspect of modern self which reduces the whole reality to the subject or individual. One can never be a self on one’s own. An individual is individual only in relation to certain interlocutors. A self exists only in a web of interlocutions. A self is not self-sufficient outside the society. Hence, self is a social animal. Dialogue enables the self to identify its identity. Authenticity, being true to one’s own consciousness is the fruit of dialogue. Dialogue offers the picture of what is better or higher mode of life for the individual. Dialogue is constituted by language.
Hence, I would like to summarize the efforts of Charles Taylor by presenting some of my findings (the principles) in Taylor’s writings about modern self.
Experiential Philosophy: His experience of diversity in language (French and English), culture (Francophone and Anglophone culture), history (Struggle of Francophones to preserve their culture and language) religion (Catholic and Protestant) and modern principles like individualism, self- autonomy and liberalism helped him to study and come out with his own philosophy.
Method of Retrieval: It engages in understanding, appreciating and retrieving. To retrieve the individual and the culture from its limitations or shortcomings, we need to understand them in their history, background and significantly the driving force of that individual and culture that keeps them moving. Only then, we can appreciate and assist the individual or the culture to recover from their limitations.
Inner Call to be Moral: Moreover, Taylor’s philosophy is celebrated for the noticeable claim that “Selfhood and the good or selfhood and morality turn out to be intertwined themes.” Each of us has an inner call not to kill or impinge death to another and strive towards good.
Self as Interpreting Animal: The world is embedded with meaning. Meaning is present in inchoate and confused condition. Hence, we need to interpret to know the significance of our life. Our ability to interpret enables us to discover meaning. Even in the most difficult and disappointing, unsatisfactory situation, we, human beings find meaning. I would like to assert that Taylor’s claim that the self is an interpreting animal is an invitation to live a meaningful life or to make sense of our life.
Language and Community as Constitutive of Identity: Taylor’s insights on language and community are inseparable. The language that the individual speaks is not the language of the individual but rather of the community, and the individual is made or given status as an interlocutor by community. Fundamentally, it is our name, family and language community to which we belong that provide us our basic identity. Language enables us to be identified as human beings and provides us means to express our thoughts in a more and effective way.
Authenticity: Taylor notes that being authentic is ethics of modernity. Authenticity is being true to one’s own inner self or consciousness. A person can be authentic only in dialogue, because only in dialogue (either with oneself or with others) can the self know its authenticity.
God as Moral Source of Modernity: Taylor, who is basically a believer, acknowledges God as moral source in this modern world where the phrase, ‘God is dead’ is being echoed everywhere. He proposes Catholicism as one of the models to retrieve modern self. He also admits that his faith is not for everyone. The principles that he brings out in his theistic argument are the need of the hour. He does not omit secularistic outlook rather de-centers individual self-sufficiency and centralizes transcendence. He, thus, fuses secularism with theism.
To conclude, the self, in this post-modern and scientific world, has often been equated to mere things and commodities, sentiments and desires, lust and sex; it is understood as individualistic, as instrumental reason, as centre of the universe; it is considered as self-sufficient, struggling with misrecognition and identity crisis; finally it is viewed as ‘no-self self’ by postmodern philosophers. Hence, there is a great need to rearticulate and restore the sense of the self. Therefore, I, following the reflections of Charles Taylor, would like to rearticulate and define the self thus: “Self is a person who is created in the image and likeness of God. Self is good, moral, strong evaluator and interpreter. Self is a being who understands and lives in dialogue and in inter-subjectivity. Self is a person who acts responsibly and authentically.”
Comments
Post a Comment