YES!
For weeks now I've been struggling with the scepter of a paper I feel ill-equipped to produce. I cannot tell you how many nights I've spent lying awake in bed with my heart racing for sheer panic about the assignment. I've been paralyzed by fear to the point that I was only able to begin actual progress on the paper yesterday. By actual progress, I mean an extensive outline of the first two main points of the paper. The outline of the first two main points alone is 3 pages. This is serious academic stuff, people!
Anyway, when I feel overwhelmed and panicked my self-defense is to scream "I HATE THIS PAPER! I HATE THE TOPIC! I HATE GRAD SCHOOL and I HATE MY LIFE!" Then, Joshua lovingly coaxes me back into a slightly more realistic frame of mind and I try to be a productive person again the next day.
Yesterday, while outlining, I came upon this quote from Charles Taylor (who the paper is about.) It was one of those wonderful moments where you realize that someone else has perfectly articulated something you've been trying to say all along. It was particularly refreshing to me because it reminded me of why I embarked on this maniacal endeavor in the first place. Here's where Taylor takes "scientific" sociology to town:
For there can be no absolute understanding of what we are as persons, and this in two obvious respects. A being who exists only in self-interpretation cannot be understood absolutely; and one who can only be understood against the background of distinctions of worth cannot be captured by language which essentially aspires to neutrality. Our personhood cannot be treated scientifically in exactly the same way we approach our organic being.
Thank you, Mr. Taylor for being so incredible! Now, let's go see if I can actually write 35 pages about your incredibleness.
4 comments:
I don't even know what Charles Taylor said here:
and one who can only be understood against the background of distinctions of worth cannot be captured by language which essentially aspires to neutrality.
I tried and tried to understand this mumbo jumbo, reading it over and over again, but alas, I am ignorant.
What a money quote! I'll have to sneak a peak at your paper when you're done. That is, if you'll let my amateur brain near it! Miss you!
Alright, Daddio, here's my shot at translating it to everyday language:
"...and one who can only be understood against the background of distinctions of worth cannot be captured by language which essentially aspires to neutrality."
We define ourselves in relation to the "good." We make judgements about what the "good" is and what constitutes a good, full life. We made distinctions between things on the basis of "worth" - in that some desires, wishes, motivations are judged to be better or more important than others. At the very root of it, we even define ourselves and our identities in these "distinctions of worth." So - the natural sciences aspire to approach the world through a stance of "disengaged reason" and they use a language which does not allow for discussion of the good - or for distinctions of worth. The neutrality present in the natural sciences is perfectly acceptable and useful for studying the organic aspects of our world - nature, the body, etc. BUT - when it comes to the study of human personhood and agency, the natural science model is inadequate because it doesn't allow for a language of the "good." It cannot help us understand humans because the self-understandings we all have are unavoidably rooted in distinctions of worth.
Does that make sense?
Oh - and E.A.P, you are far less amatuer than I when it comes to philosophy. This Taylor project is my first real engagement with the stuff. BUT, if you really wish to subject yourself to 35 pages of my attempt at tackling one of the greatest philosophers of our day, it would be my honor. (That's assuming I finish the paper before I crack-up and get thrown in the nuthouse).
Post a Comment