Postmodernism v Existentialism (was: Is pomo the successor ...)
NS Brown
[Gerald McNerney wrote:]
: Aren't Postmodernism and Existentialism both a reaction to the loss of
: anything absolute, such as the church, the state, and even rationalism
: (i.e., science) on which to base our belief's?
I can't speak for either postmodernism or existentialism.
I can say that experientialism (the theories I'm exploring
here) tries to sidestep the issue altogether by concentrating
on *experience* rather than ontology, on Pragmatic Truth (what
is reliable) rather than Absolute Truth (logical positivism).
: Sartre was very concerned with ethics. In fact, I feel that
: Existentialism is basically an ethical philosophy. This is because
: Sartre was supremely sensitive to the problem of how his fundamental
: belief that a person has to live as if he or she was the model for all
: others, could be misunderstood and abused.
This fundamental ethical model was also proposed by both Kant
and Christ. Kant stated it as the Categorical Imperative: "In
each situation, let each man act as if he wished his acts to be
the rule for all others in like situations." Christ stated it
as the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you."
It's also one of what John Rawls' proposes as fundamental due
process rights in any legal system: "Like cases should be
treated alike," a notion which Anglo-American law recognizes
in the principle of _stare decisis_.
In short, this ethical model is not unique to French Existen-
tialism. It's fairly common, throughout history.
: Don't get me wrong, there is a moral relativism, but the moral
: relativism is mis-directed in Existentialism. The moral relativism
: pertains to the conditions of the civilization, not to the individual.
: What I am saying is that as civilization advances (and cities become
: more crowded) the ethical norms will change. To take a banal example,
: it may be acceptable to urinate on the roadside in sparsely populated
: areas, but unacceptable in cities. It may be acceptable to fornicate
: promiscuously in early civilization, but in modern society with the WWW
: of STD's it is not safe or prudent, and society has to discourage the
: practice.
Your "ethical norms" here are really an expression of what
jurisprudes refer to as "utilitarianism," which can be crudely
stated as "the greater good for the greater number." (There
are other versions of utilitarianism, but they merely redefine
how we measure "greater good.") Again, it's hardly original
to Existentialism, or even to modernism.
: Consequently, a society has the responsibility to define it's ethical
: standards. An individual in the society is not able to choose for
: himself or herself what ethical principles apply. Naturally, ethics is
: meaningless without the freedom for individuals to choose to abide, but
: they will rightly be judged wrong when they transgress. Moral
: relativism applies to societies, not to individuals.
If you've got some time, you might want to check out H.L.A. Hart's
_The Concept of Law_, John Rawls' _A Theory of Justice_, and Ron
Dworkin's _Taking Rights Seriously_. They treat these issues in
great depth, exploring by what "right" a society can enact laws,
and what responsibilities individuals have to obey what they believe
to be bad laws (which is always the stickler in jurisprudence).
There are similarities in the approaches of Hart, Rawls and Dworkin,
but there are also significant differences.
You're asking good questions here, and I'm not sure you'll be
100% satisfied with the "answers" these books propose (I'm not).
But you can at least get the benefit of not having to till the
same soil. :)
Just an opinion, worth what you paid for it. :)
Cris
Andy Perry
Existentialism: You, as an individual are morally obligated to develop
your own system of values and meaning and impose it upon the world. If
you don't, the world will be meaningless, which is the Ultimate Bad. The
Good is the creation of self. Is this moral relativism? I don't know.
Pomo (in an extremely broad sense of the term, encompassing for the moment
just about everything that gets called "theory" these days): Here, the
obligation is to understand the ways in which you are not simply an
autonomous individual, to understand the consequences of whatever
system(s) of value and meaning you happen to be in (=interpellated by).
The Good is the knowledge of self, primarily and centrally the knowledge
that the self isn't an identity, and therefore isn't knowable as such.
The Bad is the damage which (it is claimed) gets caused by
denial/ignorance of the splitting/complicity/whatever of the subject.
I await your vehement denials that any of the above is even vaguely accurate...
--
Andy Perry "This life has been a test.
Brown University Had this been an actual life,
Dept of English you would have received instructions
Andrew...@Brown.edu OR on where to go and what to do."
st00...@Brownvm.bitnet -- Angela Chase
jle...@utdallas.edu
> Here a summary of the ethical stances involved, in a nutshell:
> Existentialism: You, as an individual are morally obligated to develop
> your own system of values and meaning and impose it upon the world. If
> you don't, the world will be meaningless, which is the Ultimate Bad. The
> Good is the creation of self. Is this moral relativism? I don't know.
Perhaps it is, but it is reminiscent of the "universal law" form of
Kant's categorical imperative.
> Pomo (in an extremely broad sense of the term, encompassing for the moment
> just about everything that gets called "theory" these days): Here, the
> obligation is to understand the ways in which you are not simply an
> autonomous individual, to understand the consequences of whatever
> system(s) of value and meaning you happen to be in (=interpellated by).
> The Good is the knowledge of self, primarily and centrally the knowledge
> that the self isn't an identity, and therefore isn't knowable as such.
> The Bad is the damage which (it is claimed) gets caused by
> denial/ignorance of the splitting/complicity/whatever of the subject.
Perhaps some pm authors could be fairly described in that way.
ButI'd strongly object to those formulations as simplistic and
superficial. The notions of the "Self" and "the 'Good' vs. the
'Bad'" belong to the metaphysical tradition. Of course, pm ethics
doesn't rule out notion_s_ of the 'good', better yet, the 'worthy'.
--
============================================================================
James L Elson: |<o When you stare into the abyss too long o>|
School of Arts & Humanities |<o the abyss stares back into you. o>|
University of Texas-Dallas | --Nietzsche-- |
jle...@utdallas.edu
[Andy had said that pomo considers that "The Good is the knowledge of
self" while "The Bad is the damage ... caused by denial/ignorance of
the splitting/complicity/whatever of the subject.]
[I replied:]
> > Perhaps some pm authors could be fairly described in that way.
> > ButI'd strongly object to those formulations as simplistic and
> > superficial. The notions of the "Self" and "the 'Good' vs. the
> > 'Bad'" belong to the metaphysical tradition. Of course, pm ethics
> > doesn't rule out notion_s_ of the 'good', better yet, the 'worthy'.
> "Self" is a weird category in this context, as my description above must
> make fairly plain. But its weirdness can't entirely dissolve it, since
> its also such a useful one.
> "The Good" was meant more as semi-caricatured shorthand. But it is, I
> think, warranted to a great extent. Many if not most theorists these days
> think that people should "have a politics." [snip]
> So, I guess my response is, the valuation isn't gone, it's just
> displaced. Eliminating the capital G, and putting an "s" on the end of
> good doesn't change the fact that we still evaluate theory based upon "its
> politics."
I had wondered it you meant it to be caricaturistic. There is merit
to your argument re "having a politics." I think this reflects that
the problem that the question of how any sort of ethical 'system'
can be constructed is largely unaddressed. I see this as a very
pressing need. (Failure to address this leaves one open to a
a number of charges, e.g., inconsistency.)