Searching for an essay by Annette Baier you come across scores of websites which have summaries or analyses of her work in general or of the particular chapter you're looking for. Invariably the post starts of with "what I expect to learn" and quickly proceeds to a number of questions: "Who is Annette Baier?", "Why does she reject Kantian universalism? " and so on.
Everything is out there: notes, commentaries, links, references, quotes, fragments of the essay..everything, that is, bar the actual bloody thing! I'm sure the chapter and the book actually exists in tangible form somewhere in the real world, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an online version floating around amongst the trillions and trillions of blogs and webpages. But what I learn is that what I expect to learn cannot be found-no matter how powerful a "search engine" you have. The simple notion of a book, the possibility of being able to slowly read something in one's hands and not be ceaselessly and frantically always searching for it...this seems like a skill that will be lost on future generations.
Instead, we grasp at-almost in desperation- some quick fix, some immediate illumination, or easy to swallow sugar-coated palliative, as if we could become wise with better technology, greater "access", quicker fingers and eyes: glancing, skimming, dipping into, this huge accumulation of data and information. We 'grasp at', but rarely grasp. Why should I always expect to learn, understand? Yes, but also: why should I expect when there is no effort? Thirdly, what can I expect given the levels of distraction and sensory overload, the lack of stillness in one's life?
~~~
What do women want from moral theory? Do they even want theory? Has ethics narrowed its vision by focusing on a particular set of questions and approaches: what obligations do I have to other people and what are the grounds for them? Can we still, today, talk coherently about the good life, and do we need a shared notion of it or is a purely subjective assessment all we can reasonably expect and/or all we should really aim for?
What is the role of love, friendship, sociability, dependencies, relationships, and care in the good life? Is this an area of 'thought' that has traditionally been neglected by men? Is there another form of cleverness and is it gendered?
Iris M., P. Foot, A. Baier, S. Wolf, M. Nussbaum....
Is there an underlying anti-Utilitarianism in their thought?
Something that is perhaps related: Carol Gilligan-whose book looks fascinating- on the distortion produced by men thinking about relationships (Freud, for example).
The limits of abstraction, of "theory", of seeing things in the cold light of the day.
The lone, isolated (heroic) man, fighting against everyone, against the world, pitting himself against the elements, negative space, time and dissolution, the entropy of the world. The searcher, the hunter, the man of few words, impassive, resolute, the mystic-seeker-who will find God on his (His) own.
Western man, who must climb a mountain, escape from himself to find himself.
"Why?"
"Because it was there"
Freedom = freedom from.
But what of the gatherers? What of those who acknowledge there is mystery in life itself. Natality.
Everything is out there: notes, commentaries, links, references, quotes, fragments of the essay..everything, that is, bar the actual bloody thing! I'm sure the chapter and the book actually exists in tangible form somewhere in the real world, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's an online version floating around amongst the trillions and trillions of blogs and webpages. But what I learn is that what I expect to learn cannot be found-no matter how powerful a "search engine" you have. The simple notion of a book, the possibility of being able to slowly read something in one's hands and not be ceaselessly and frantically always searching for it...this seems like a skill that will be lost on future generations.
Instead, we grasp at-almost in desperation- some quick fix, some immediate illumination, or easy to swallow sugar-coated palliative, as if we could become wise with better technology, greater "access", quicker fingers and eyes: glancing, skimming, dipping into, this huge accumulation of data and information. We 'grasp at', but rarely grasp. Why should I always expect to learn, understand? Yes, but also: why should I expect when there is no effort? Thirdly, what can I expect given the levels of distraction and sensory overload, the lack of stillness in one's life?
~~~
What do women want from moral theory? Do they even want theory? Has ethics narrowed its vision by focusing on a particular set of questions and approaches: what obligations do I have to other people and what are the grounds for them? Can we still, today, talk coherently about the good life, and do we need a shared notion of it or is a purely subjective assessment all we can reasonably expect and/or all we should really aim for?
What is the role of love, friendship, sociability, dependencies, relationships, and care in the good life? Is this an area of 'thought' that has traditionally been neglected by men? Is there another form of cleverness and is it gendered?
Iris M., P. Foot, A. Baier, S. Wolf, M. Nussbaum....
Is there an underlying anti-Utilitarianism in their thought?
Something that is perhaps related: Carol Gilligan-whose book looks fascinating- on the distortion produced by men thinking about relationships (Freud, for example).
The limits of abstraction, of "theory", of seeing things in the cold light of the day.
The lone, isolated (heroic) man, fighting against everyone, against the world, pitting himself against the elements, negative space, time and dissolution, the entropy of the world. The searcher, the hunter, the man of few words, impassive, resolute, the mystic-seeker-who will find God on his (His) own.
Western man, who must climb a mountain, escape from himself to find himself.
"Why?"
"Because it was there"
Freedom = freedom from.
But what of the gatherers? What of those who acknowledge there is mystery in life itself. Natality.
No comments:
Post a Comment