What is the true self? A huge question raised by philosophers since the beginning of written history, I know. We find that Plato and Aristotle argued about it - the former, that the "self" is only a mirage of a perfect form found elsewhere, that is, apart from our daily consciousness; and the latter, that truth is inherent even in form - and thus a true nature can be found in this world. But how? And it goes further back - to the Chinese, that the "self" is often buried by society, but can rise with attention to what is "deigned by Heaven" - however that might be; to the Bhagavat Gita, where Arjuna excuses himself ( I think it was Arjuna, the archer) as only performing his duty - his nature - by participation in the killing fields of war. Again, how would we really know what this nature is? Aren't most of us capable of atrocities, of killing and pillage and all that stuff that our ancestors engaged in?
To underscore this point, a friend of mine told me of a Viking taunt to a certain of their number, who they called "Olaf the Baby Lover." His unpardonable offense was that he disliked skewering babies with his spear when sacking villages. What a wimp! And now - who among the Swedes and Norwegians and Danes would eagerly skewer babies? Has their genetic code changed that much?
In a book I am reading, Conscience and Its Enemies, the author, Robert George (an avowed conservative theist and professor at Princeton) claims that the role of philosophy and of liberal arts in general is (or was) to acquaint the student with the facts of history and the thoughts of the Greats so that he might steer his own path to a self that he has chosen. That is, that knowledge and self inquiry is to provide the student with an idea of the good, and with the self-mastery to overcome elements in himself that he does not want so that he can cultivate those possibilities that he believes will bring him to this "good." This recognizes what history and the other social sciences underscore: that we, as individuals, are capable of many, many things. Society and family put limits to some of our potential, while we are left to finesse the rest. With increased self-mastery, we become capable of making of ourselves what we want to be. And in doing so, we recognize our true nature, through the act of sustained will towards the good.
The author continues, siting George Washington's remarks - that he came to be what he was exactly by this self-mastery; and that this attitude was the considered norm for his time. He did not do what he wanted to do at the moment, but what he wanted to do for a lifetime - that is, to be in accord with what is "right,"
Choosing what is right is an act of free will and thus the driving part of what IS most natural in us -that which, to repeat, is determined by sustained will. And it is through the "middle way," or golden measure of moderation - that is, in self-mastery - that we are allowed to clunk our way through random desires to find what is right.
The trend in modernity, however - started, I think, not with Rousseau and his natural man (who is good by nature and twisted by society - but who still must determine for himself to BE good) but with Freud, who believed that society twists us to painful degrees (Society and Its Discontents) to the point where we are all at least somewhat neurotic and miserable. The solution to this that is now taught at universities (or so says George) is to follow one's desires - that is, to throw off the mores of family and society to become what one "naturally" is. The trouble with this, however, is obvious: our desires are infinite, varied and often contradictory. The self, when left to follow every desire, is no self at all, but rather a raft buffeted on wide and turbulent seas. We MUST decide which actions to allow and which to suppress if we are to have any center at all. And to choose, we must find within our selves that which is "good" - which will be contingent to a large degree on societal influences and family upbringing. So it is that society and family give us the footage to find the good. We ourselves then must find the inner strength - the will - to follow that design.
The change in modernity, then, is not to free oneself to become oneself - for there is no "oneself" without some form of inner and outer direction - but rather to free oneself of one's background - familial and societal - to follow another, and just as constrained, path to the" good." The good, then, is being redefined, not miraculously "found" in the ashes of a broken moral code. The question is: are these new definers of the "good" really good? Have these new un-ordained priests of the moral code mastered their natures enough to know what is the "good" beyond their own chaotic desires? Our author thinks not, and I tend to agree. While some might be more inclined to skewer babies than others, we find that most can be convinced to do so through the dominant ethic - an ethic we now despise. Do we agree with the dominant ethic now in the intellectual circles? Is it truly better than the old in most ways? Does it bring us more towards an inner truth of the "good"? In concrete terms, are we a more honest, social people than before, or is there more chaos, crime and social and familial malfunction than before? Off the top of my head, I would have to say that there is more chaos.
The Chinese would say that the will of heaven brings peace and well-being to those who follow it - which is how one knows that one is on the right path. Do we now have more peace and well-being? And do we now have a greater will to follow what is right - that is, to follow that which will lead to greater peace and well-being? FK
To underscore this point, a friend of mine told me of a Viking taunt to a certain of their number, who they called "Olaf the Baby Lover." His unpardonable offense was that he disliked skewering babies with his spear when sacking villages. What a wimp! And now - who among the Swedes and Norwegians and Danes would eagerly skewer babies? Has their genetic code changed that much?
In a book I am reading, Conscience and Its Enemies, the author, Robert George (an avowed conservative theist and professor at Princeton) claims that the role of philosophy and of liberal arts in general is (or was) to acquaint the student with the facts of history and the thoughts of the Greats so that he might steer his own path to a self that he has chosen. That is, that knowledge and self inquiry is to provide the student with an idea of the good, and with the self-mastery to overcome elements in himself that he does not want so that he can cultivate those possibilities that he believes will bring him to this "good." This recognizes what history and the other social sciences underscore: that we, as individuals, are capable of many, many things. Society and family put limits to some of our potential, while we are left to finesse the rest. With increased self-mastery, we become capable of making of ourselves what we want to be. And in doing so, we recognize our true nature, through the act of sustained will towards the good.
The author continues, siting George Washington's remarks - that he came to be what he was exactly by this self-mastery; and that this attitude was the considered norm for his time. He did not do what he wanted to do at the moment, but what he wanted to do for a lifetime - that is, to be in accord with what is "right,"
Choosing what is right is an act of free will and thus the driving part of what IS most natural in us -that which, to repeat, is determined by sustained will. And it is through the "middle way," or golden measure of moderation - that is, in self-mastery - that we are allowed to clunk our way through random desires to find what is right.
The trend in modernity, however - started, I think, not with Rousseau and his natural man (who is good by nature and twisted by society - but who still must determine for himself to BE good) but with Freud, who believed that society twists us to painful degrees (Society and Its Discontents) to the point where we are all at least somewhat neurotic and miserable. The solution to this that is now taught at universities (or so says George) is to follow one's desires - that is, to throw off the mores of family and society to become what one "naturally" is. The trouble with this, however, is obvious: our desires are infinite, varied and often contradictory. The self, when left to follow every desire, is no self at all, but rather a raft buffeted on wide and turbulent seas. We MUST decide which actions to allow and which to suppress if we are to have any center at all. And to choose, we must find within our selves that which is "good" - which will be contingent to a large degree on societal influences and family upbringing. So it is that society and family give us the footage to find the good. We ourselves then must find the inner strength - the will - to follow that design.
The change in modernity, then, is not to free oneself to become oneself - for there is no "oneself" without some form of inner and outer direction - but rather to free oneself of one's background - familial and societal - to follow another, and just as constrained, path to the" good." The good, then, is being redefined, not miraculously "found" in the ashes of a broken moral code. The question is: are these new definers of the "good" really good? Have these new un-ordained priests of the moral code mastered their natures enough to know what is the "good" beyond their own chaotic desires? Our author thinks not, and I tend to agree. While some might be more inclined to skewer babies than others, we find that most can be convinced to do so through the dominant ethic - an ethic we now despise. Do we agree with the dominant ethic now in the intellectual circles? Is it truly better than the old in most ways? Does it bring us more towards an inner truth of the "good"? In concrete terms, are we a more honest, social people than before, or is there more chaos, crime and social and familial malfunction than before? Off the top of my head, I would have to say that there is more chaos.
The Chinese would say that the will of heaven brings peace and well-being to those who follow it - which is how one knows that one is on the right path. Do we now have more peace and well-being? And do we now have a greater will to follow what is right - that is, to follow that which will lead to greater peace and well-being? FK
RSS Feed