granted we try to make sense of relations -
of our relation to others -
and our relation to the non-human reality
the idea of relations presupposes a plurality
that is for a relation to exist there must be more than one thing
so the relata must have an independent existence
if there is to be a genuine relation
what the relation tells us is something other than the nature of relata
it tells us of the reality that comes into being when the individuals are placed in relation to each other
my relationship with my friend – is nether an account of myself or of my friend
it is the account of what exists between us
the point being –
identity presupposes relation
this is not just a logical point
people as a matter of fact or practise seek to understand the nature of individual things – ‘in their own right’
now such an understanding is never entirely independent of the question of relations
there is a difference though and it is one of emphasis and focus
so the first point is that Rorty has put the cart before the horse here
or at least he has not understood that we at least ask the question – what is x in itself?
true we also ask what is x in relation to y? –
but for this second question to proceed – the first needs some answer at least
a world with just relations is a world with no centre
people who only understand themselves in terms of their relations with others have no centre – and no integrity
so this issue does have some moral implications –
Rorty begins his first sentence with the phrase ‘reflective human beings’
one reflects on one’s self – and what is external to one’s self – be that other conscious entities or non-conscious entities
so a reflective human being is inwardly reflective and outwardly reflective
we have a sense of what is internal and what is external
internality and externality are the dimensions of our awareness – the dimensions of our existence
Rorty it seems wants to argue there is really only outward reflection
and yet for such to be some internality must be presumed
now I am not saying at this point that we can make definite sense of internality
and at the same time I am not suggesting we have clear and distinct ideas of externality
the point is here – that as self-conscious entities we have an inner sense – and we try to make sense of this
we ask such questions as – who am I? – what is my essence?
to fail to understand that human beings are interested in things as they are in themselves – is very strange
community -
I want to suggest that the notion of community is a defensive notion – and is a fantasy based on fear
this is not to say it has no value – or that it should not be adopted or embraced –
just that it should be seen for what it is
it is essentially an argument against the Hobbesian view of all against all – where life – like some of its bearers is nasty brutish and short
how do we decide this issue?
I’ll jump to the end of the rope here – and say – as to the true nature of man in relation to man - well the issue is always open
neither the Rorty view of togetherness or the Hobbesian view of all against all – or for that matter any combination or variation – can claim to be the final word –
there is no final word
the true nature of human beings – if there is such a thing is something we just don’t know
we operate with different views on the matter at different times
the question is always open –
and this if anything is the true nature of things
Rorty’s argument for solidarity here is very simplistic
it is suggestive of the decision to be or the desire to be as non-conscious objects appear to be –
solid –
at the very least you can say such a view stems from the desire to negate consciousness
to negate its indeterminacy and its freedom from – solidarity
I may be jumping ahead of things here – but such a notion is concerning
it is the kind of concept that if used in an extreme way could well lead to totalitarian thought and action
anyway we shall see
the initial point here is that the matter is not so simple
the practise of things as I see it is that – yes you can say at times people desire something like solidarity with their fellows
but equally at times human beings like their own company – and like to be separate and apart
yes the particle may seek mass – but it is its own light too
Rorty’s view here strikes me as being just too one sided
and when you see that – you have to wonder why?
objectivity
as to objectivity – it is best to drop the notion and the term altogether – it’s a broken record
we appreciate that there is a world outside ourselves
and that it is on the face of it – different
it is external to consciousness
it is not conscious –
now I don’t want to get into the issue of the nature of consciousness here
just to make the point that the non-conscious is not conscious
and that we understand this distinction – whatever it amounts to
my relation to the external world is no great mystery
consciousness is an internality that I am aware of – and identify with
my body is the primary external I am aware of and identify with
in terms of identification and recognition they are one in the same -
different dimensions of a single unity –
if you wish to speak of the unity – as something over and above its dimensions – as a thing in itself – so to speak – you have to recognize it as an unknown
it is ‘known’ only in terms of its dimensions
these dimensions are expressions of a singularity
the singularity that is qua singularity – an unknown
© greg. t. charlton. 2008.
