The following may seem very esoteric, alienating, or in-understandable, or boring. There's nothing I can do about that. But I'd like to voice that this has been one of the most moving passages of philosophy I've ever read. To help summarize, Stanley Cavell (the author) is discussing the idea of "Skepticism" :
(e.g. "how can you know that that really is a bird?" "it could be fake!" or "How can you know that you really know?" "The world may just be an illusion").
This particular passage bridges this view of "skepticism" with human emotions, transactions, and communications. If you're really lazy, please just see my highlighted portion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To withhold, or hedge, our concepts of psychological states from a given creature, on the ground that our criteria cannot reach to the inner life of the creature, is specifically to withhold the source of my idea that living beings are things that feel; it is to withhold myself, to reject my response to anything as a living being; to blank so much as my idea of anything as having a body" (83).
"There is nothing to read from that body, nothing the body is of; it does not go beyond itself, it expresses nothing; it does not so much as behave. There is no body left to manifest consciousness (or unconsciousness). It is not dead, but inanimate; it hides nothing, but is absolutely at my disposal; if it were empty it would be quite hollow, but in fact it is quite dense, though less uniform than stone. It was already at best an automaton. It does not matter to me now whether there turn out to be wheels and springs inside, or stuffing, or some subtler or messier mechanism; or rather, whether it matters depends upon my curiosity in such matters. The most anything inside it could do (e.g., something we choose to call "nerves" or "muscles") is to run or work the thing, move it around. My feeling is: What this "body" lacks is privacy. (In what spirit does Wittgenstein "deny" the "possibility" of a private language?) Only I could reach that privacy, by accepting it as a home of my concepts of the human soul. When I withdraw that acceptance, the criteria are dead (§432; §§454-55)." (84)
(e.g. "how can you know that that really is a bird?" "it could be fake!" or "How can you know that you really know?" "The world may just be an illusion").
This particular passage bridges this view of "skepticism" with human emotions, transactions, and communications. If you're really lazy, please just see my highlighted portion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To withhold, or hedge, our concepts of psychological states from a given creature, on the ground that our criteria cannot reach to the inner life of the creature, is specifically to withhold the source of my idea that living beings are things that feel; it is to withhold myself, to reject my response to anything as a living being; to blank so much as my idea of anything as having a body" (83).
"There is nothing to read from that body, nothing the body is of; it does not go beyond itself, it expresses nothing; it does not so much as behave. There is no body left to manifest consciousness (or unconsciousness). It is not dead, but inanimate; it hides nothing, but is absolutely at my disposal; if it were empty it would be quite hollow, but in fact it is quite dense, though less uniform than stone. It was already at best an automaton. It does not matter to me now whether there turn out to be wheels and springs inside, or stuffing, or some subtler or messier mechanism; or rather, whether it matters depends upon my curiosity in such matters. The most anything inside it could do (e.g., something we choose to call "nerves" or "muscles") is to run or work the thing, move it around. My feeling is: What this "body" lacks is privacy. (In what spirit does Wittgenstein "deny" the "possibility" of a private language?) Only I could reach that privacy, by accepting it as a home of my concepts of the human soul. When I withdraw that acceptance, the criteria are dead (§432; §§454-55)." (84)
My problem is no longer that my words can't get past his body to him. There is nothing for them to get to; they can't even reach as far as my body; they are stuck behind the tongue, or at the back of the mind. The signs are dead; merely working them out loud doesn't breathe life into them; even dogs can speak more effectively. Words have no carry. It is like trying to throw a feather; for some things, breath is better than strength; stronger. This is also something I meant by saying that voicing my criteria has to have the force of "call".
I was saying that only I could reach to the other's (inner) life. My condition is not exactly that I have to put the other's life there; and not exactly that I have to leave it there either. I (have to) respond to it, or refuse to respond. It calls upon me; it calls me out. I have to acknowledge it. I am as fated to that as I am to my body; it is as natural to me. In everyday life the lives of others are neither here nor there; they drift between their own inexpressiveness and my inaccuracy in responding to them. Sincerity is not the issue. Or rather, sincerity is nothing (is not the inspiration of trust, theirs in me or mine in myself) without the desire and courage for accuracy. Skepticism meant to find the other, search others out with certainty. Instead it closes them out. What happens to them? And what happens to me when I withhold my acceptance of privacy -anyway, of otherness -- as the home of my concepts of the human soul and find my criteria to be dead, mere words, word-shells? I said a while ago in passing that I withhold myself. What I withhold myself from is my attunement with others -- with all others, not merely with the one I was to know. -- Isn't the idea of withholding prejudicial, implying a prior state of union, or closeness? Whereas maybe I never was a part, or party, to these (other) lives. Couldn't I be just different? -- But I want to know where this leaves me, what has happened to me. -- Then it is the idea of being left that is prejudicial.
dude...today was so good. look out for mail. :D
ReplyDeleteHAHA thanks for the link. why would i be offended?? it actually made me laugh a lot. especially the part about indian guys =)
ReplyDelete-tiffany