Being human as opposed to being an alien? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't fully understand the nature of your question. The idea is, I guess, that by learning something about humanity, I'll have a better picture of it. Better than my earlier picture of it, that is; but what if I don't have much of a picture of it to begin with? Hmmm, let me think. I guess I think people are sometimes great, sometimes horrible, and by and large too concerned with themselves to be given much credit for being really great or really (intentionally) horrible.
I don't know what would change my mind about this vague view of things. I mean, our response to Hurricane Katrina pretty much sums it up for me: some people before and after the hurricane really made an effort to help others. Some people pretended to care for a little why after. But most people don't really give a shit, and would rather not think about it. And some people are blameworthy. I don't see much of a common human nature there, at least not enough to say that learning something new would radically revise my picture of things.
What would revise your picture? Or, more to the point, what picture are you starting with?
Good questions. Admittedly, I was being vague, and you're right to wonder how being human can be made more or less attractive by anything, given the absence of alternatives.
The point, I think was not about human nature (a dubious notion the way it gets used) but about the human condition (somewhat less dubious). In the latter category I place such platitudes as: "life is lonely", "we are can't know what our true motivations are" and so forth. I take it that there are such facts about the nature of our agency, that they are generally dissonant with the view we like to have of ourselves, and in that sense, make being human seem less attractive.
I have a very vivid memory of once trying, really hard, to make my appreciation of blues records coincide with my appreciation of Kierkegaard. I remember thinking to myself that the problem with blues records was that rather than identifying something internal to the human condition, as Kierkegaard does, and lamenting it, they tend to focus on contingent aspects of life, such as losing your woman or house. I remember thinking that this was a real weakness in blues records because it wasn't locating the problem deep enough. After all, if you didn't lose your woman or house, then there wouldn't be any problem.
But then I sat down and listened again to some of my blues records, and my attitude shifted completely. Rather than finding their focus on contingent problems a weakness, I decided it was a better depiction of the human condition than Kierkegaard's a priori insistence that it is impossible to be happy.
So, to return to your topic, as I now understand it, I think the reality is that the loneliness of life, or the level of transparency we have with regard to our real motivations, depends, a lot, on how things are for each of us in the particular situations we find ourselves in. I wasn't lonely at all this past summer, hanging out all the time with you and Ms. Bossy. But now I'm pretty damn lonely. And I think the point generalizes.
What sucks is that things really suck for a lot of people a lot of the time. While, for other people, things are a pretty smooth ride a lot of the time. What would make me feel better about the human condition would be to find some evidence that we can control which of these two very different sorts of situations we find ourselves in.
I actually tend to agree with your last point. My particular interest in the emotions is largely powered by the idea that we don't view them as the contingent, changeable things that they are. Down with love, I say.
P.S. qualifactions and all about the human condition, what about this quote as capturing a struggle that's persistent, that we can't get away from, that's none too pleasant, from Manhattan:
"But you're too easy on yourself. Don't you see that that's your problem: you rationalize everything; you're not honest with yourself. What are future generations going to say about us? Some day we're going to be like him [motions towards skeleton] - this is what happens to us. It's very important to have some kind of personal integrity. I'll be hanging in a classroom some day and I want to make sure that when I've thinned out, I'm well thought of."
5 comments:
Being human as opposed to being an alien? I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't fully understand the nature of your question. The idea is, I guess, that by learning something about humanity, I'll have a better picture of it. Better than my earlier picture of it, that is; but what if I don't have much of a picture of it to begin with? Hmmm, let me think. I guess I think people are sometimes great, sometimes horrible, and by and large too concerned with themselves to be given much credit for being really great or really (intentionally) horrible.
I don't know what would change my mind about this vague view of things. I mean, our response to Hurricane Katrina pretty much sums it up for me: some people before and after the hurricane really made an effort to help others. Some people pretended to care for a little why after. But most people don't really give a shit, and would rather not think about it. And some people are blameworthy. I don't see much of a common human nature there, at least not enough to say that learning something new would radically revise my picture of things.
What would revise your picture? Or, more to the point, what picture are you starting with?
Good questions. Admittedly, I was being vague, and you're right to wonder how being human can be made more or less attractive by anything, given the absence of alternatives.
The point, I think was not about human nature (a dubious notion the way it gets used) but about the human condition (somewhat less dubious). In the latter category I place such platitudes as: "life is lonely", "we are can't know what our true motivations are" and so forth. I take it that there are such facts about the nature of our agency, that they are generally dissonant with the view we like to have of ourselves, and in that sense, make being human seem less attractive.
I think I understand better now, thanks.
I have a very vivid memory of once trying, really hard, to make my appreciation of blues records coincide with my appreciation of Kierkegaard. I remember thinking to myself that the problem with blues records was that rather than identifying something internal to the human condition, as Kierkegaard does, and lamenting it, they tend to focus on contingent aspects of life, such as losing your woman or house. I remember thinking that this was a real weakness in blues records because it wasn't locating the problem deep enough. After all, if you didn't lose your woman or house, then there wouldn't be any problem.
But then I sat down and listened again to some of my blues records, and my attitude shifted completely. Rather than finding their focus on contingent problems a weakness, I decided it was a better depiction of the human condition than Kierkegaard's a priori insistence that it is impossible to be happy.
So, to return to your topic, as I now understand it, I think the reality is that the loneliness of life, or the level of transparency we have with regard to our real motivations, depends, a lot, on how things are for each of us in the particular situations we find ourselves in. I wasn't lonely at all this past summer, hanging out all the time with you and Ms. Bossy. But now I'm pretty damn lonely. And I think the point generalizes.
What sucks is that things really suck for a lot of people a lot of the time. While, for other people, things are a pretty smooth ride a lot of the time. What would make me feel better about the human condition would be to find some evidence that we can control which of these two very different sorts of situations we find ourselves in.
I actually tend to agree with your last point. My particular interest in the emotions is largely powered by the idea that we don't view them as the contingent, changeable things that they are. Down with love, I say.
P.S. qualifactions and all about the human condition, what about this quote as capturing a struggle that's persistent, that we can't get away from, that's none too pleasant, from Manhattan:
"But you're too easy on yourself. Don't you see that that's your problem: you rationalize everything; you're not honest with yourself. What are future generations going to say about us? Some day we're going to be like him [motions towards skeleton] - this is what happens to us. It's very important to have some kind of personal integrity. I'll be hanging in a classroom some day and I want to make sure that when I've thinned out, I'm well thought of."
Post a Comment