on being in history

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

From Irrational Man by William Barrett:

…time reveals itself for Heidegger as being essentially historical. We are not born at some moment in general, but at that moment in that particular milieu and in entering the world we also enter…into its historical destiny. The more concretely and humanly we grasp the temporal roots of human existence, the more clearly we see that this existence is, in and of itself, through and through, historical.

And:

World history, for Hegel and Marx, is like a mighty river that carries individuals and nations in its flow. But this meaning of history, says Heidegger, really derives from the more basic sense in which man is temporal simply through being a creature whose very existence stands temporally open. Man is an historical creature, true; but not merely because he wears such and such clothes…has such and such ‘historical customs’, or is decisively shaped by the class conflicts of the time. All these things derive their significance from a more basic fact: namely that man is the being who, however dimly and half-consciously, always understands and must understand, his own being historically.

Marcuse, perhaps, is the best known thinker regarding attempts to fuse the views of Marx and Heidegger. And it is important that they be fused because one without the other is, philosophically and politically, impotent. And did we not see, more or less, just how impotent when this recurring conflict [the relationship between “the individual” and “society”] was manifested in the “feud” between Camus and Sartre regarding “authentic human behavior” and political commitment? The rebel…or the revolutionary?

More to the point, however, is how it exposes the impotence of all philosophical and political idealism, rationalism and ideology. After all, what else is metaphysical and/or transcendental gibberish but the futile attempt to anchor ideas to other ideas rather than to ground them in the historical flow of actual human interaction.

There have, however, been any number of attempts to have it both ways…to situate ideas in the historical flow and then yank your own analysis out of history as though to transcend history altogether.

Take, for example, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Isn’t this what she did with the capitalist political ecconomy? Her ethos is a reflection of the internal mechanisms of the free enterprise sysetem. But the free enterprise system is historically grounded through and through. It evolved out of mercantilism [and burgeoning world trade] which evolved out of feudalism. Feudalism evolved out of yet more primitive political economies going back over the millenia. Yet when pressed as to why slash and burn, hunter and gatherer, nomadic etc. cultures did not embrace the ethos of capitalism apologists for Rand will tell you this was true only becasue it took a genius like Rand to discover and/or invent Objectivism. And when it is suggested that a hundred thousand years from now the existing political economy will almost certainly bear no resemblance to our own today some have claimed this can only be true because our descendents will still have not grapsed the truth of Objectivism.

Can there be a more naive frame of mind than one that insists human reality is actually more about what we are able to deduce philosophically as true rather than in how “I” and “we” and “they”, over the centuries, have, historically [and culturally], forged instead a series of existential “truths” predicated by and large on those who had the power to enforce one set of behaviors over another?

Communism, Fascism, Objectivism. Marx, Hitler, Rand. As different as they are what they all [and many others] share in common is the attempt to freeze history right on the spot. To make it stop flowing so that those at any particular historical juncture can then subsume “I” in “all”. And thus render their own individual existence [the tiniest of specks in a cosmological vastness] less ultimately meaningless and absurd.

Psychological defense mechanisms in a nutshell.

2

Human existence is historical at a very supericial level. The way in which every society manifests itself is an attempt to satisfy the needs and inclinations of creatures such as us—and these needs and inclinations are quite pre-historical, given that they are rooted in our species: our physiology, our biology, our genetics, and such-like. At this deep level, we all have the same sort of needs and basic desires, which have been ingrained in us for hundreds of thousands of years.

Given that we are all human, and that we are talking about human existence, we can see that a focus on historical and cultural contingencies is a relatively superficial way of examining who we are, and what we should do, together.

3

I certainly agree we all have basic needs and desires that form a foundation – rooted in the evolution of life on earth – for human interaction.

But even a cursory view of human history divulges the many, many, many diverse circumstantial contexts that any particulatar one of us might find ourselves “thrown” into at birth. The social, political and economic permutations here are vast and varied. And they evolve over time in layer upon layer of contingency, chance vand change. Thus how we think about gender, race, ethnicity, freedom, beauty, government, religion, parenting, sex, moral obligation, justice etc. etc. are [and always have been] all over the map.

One might argue we are all predisposed biologically to acquire a “sense of justice” about “I” and “we” and “other than I and we” out in the world. But existentially – historically, culturally, experientially – that has come to mean lots and lots and lots of conflicting and contradictory things.

Will that stop here and now? Has history “ended”—ended with what you or I or Francis Fukuyama think about these things? I suspect not.

And more to my point: There has not emerged a philosophical or scientific argument sufficient to end it once and for all.

What is justice?
What is justice?
What is justice

After the “physiological” presumptions it’s all dasein. Or so it seems to me.

Same with all the other value judgments.

But, of course, I will never be as certain of my argument here as you always seem to be of yours.

4

Stop right there. We just agreed that that was a superficial way of looking at things. Pardon me, but I am a deep person.

I am a river.

5

Double post

6

I will leave it to others following this exchange to judge for themselves the extent to which 1] Mo and and I are in agreement about what is and what is not superficial in examining human history and 2] the extent to which this rebuttal reflects the mind of a “deep person”.

And I am a dam. Well, at this historical juncture, anyway.

7

It’s the focus on history itself that is superficial. What is deep is the human. The past few thousand years of recorded history is the film on the surface of deep water…

8

I would say history affects it a lot, and by history I suppose I am thinking culture, rather than a line of events. IOW nurture. But then nature is very strong also. What we are as specific, individual primates with those awkwardly large baby brains on up. Of course this nature is affected by or really is the result of history, but not the history, I think, H is referring to.

Though perhaps H means something else by historical here.

Since this makes me think he is talking more about us as entities that develop over time. Still I get the sense it is the culturally affected portions of the self and to whatever degree he is talking about, here via Marx. Given that existentialists have a tendency towards blank slate ideas of human nature.

I couldn’t get the logical necessity here.

Is this the old great ‘men’ vs. cultural changes at a whole disagreement within history issue? Rand’s ethos would seem to be highlighting certain facets of the capitalist political economy and trying to shift the priorities of a complicated, mixed paradigm society in a direction she liked. I dislike Rand, but she did find a way to be pretty damn effective - compared to most of us - at tweaking people’s ideas. Do we have to choose between the great woman and history on this one? can’t we use both models of change?

But Marx certainly looked at what was happening. Das kapital has some really quite insightful analysis of what is happening to people within capitalism. His prescriptions have not worked well, but his analysis to me often seems spot on. And when I later went and working a factory, I was surprised at how well it fit. When I read him I was skeptical, rereads after a little life experience impressed me. Rand I have to admit I haven’t been able to read. I have tried many times so that when I ended up in an argument with someone about Rand I could participate well or at all. But I just can’t get far. As a novelist she just struck me as abstract. I was reading about archetypes not people.

How does this differ from a liberal or a conservative or any other ‘party’.

9

What goes deeper than that perhaps is the seeming futility embedded in the idea that we can “learn from history”. After all, if humans value historical events from a point of view [shared or not shared with others situated out in particular worlds] how can we ever hope to establish which particular point of view is the optimal one?

Sure, you can note how men and women interacting in Ancient Greece, medieval France, dynastic China, 20th century America etc. all share the same basic wants, needs, drives, instincts. That’s nature. Nurture on the other hand – through countless actual communities – continues to pump out an endless variety of moral and political and aesthetic narratives.

And if there is something analogous to “deep water” – like, say, deep matter? – lurking below the surface of our fiercely conflicted planet why are philosophers not able to expose it substantively?

Marx and Engels at least provided ample evidence for the existence of political economy. As have I regarding the existence of dasein.

But that’s just my point of view. It wasn’t always. And it may not be again.

10

How is it, pray tell, that you are able to satisfy your basic desires in this ahistorical world which you inhabit? When the primal hunger rumbles up from your gut, what process do you set in motion to satiate its urging? I’d wager you don’t go crashing off into the local woodland to throw rocks at some small, furry creature or crouch over a nearby stream waiting for a juicy fish to swim by. That we are beings of a particular biological type is a rather superficial statement until you start to explain it, and you won’t get particularly far in that endeavour before you realize that what you’ve produced is a history.

11

And then there is the whole radical changes in the conception of the self - the modern WEIRD person - western educated industrialized rich democratic person has a conception of this separated, independent self that is a very recent phenomenon. One almost inconceivable in earlier periods of time. Greeks seem to have viewed what we think of as our individual moods as moments of participation in this or that deity. And their morals came out of rather different notions of self and the good. I would guess that if we were to suddenly experience the world of a member of even some cultures currently in the world, we would think we had suddenly gone insane. They literally do not see the same things when looking at a scene and describe images differently - t hinking now of comparisons between observers in the East and WEIRD people.

I found the term Weird in The Righteous Mind: why good people are divided over politics and religion. the book is a kind of neuroscience/cognitive of morality and suprised me, so far, a number times.
The author is also a self-proclaimed WEIRD person, but found after long research to have more respect for non-Weird moralities.

12

matty, I don’t know what you are trying to say, or what you thought I said that prompted it. My only claim was that there is a far deeper subject matter than unites people even from the most far away and different cultures. Different cultures are partly attempts to satisfy the needs of creatures such as us—they don’t create the needs of creatues such as us, ex nihilo. Oh so you need an XBox… superficial, there’s a deeper need going on that you would share even with someone from a time and place that didn’t have electricity. And we can use this subject matter to think about questions in ethics, politics, and so on. And please, never fucking say “pray tell” to me again, or any archaic pretentious dressed-up flash… just because you think history is important, doesn’t mean you can vote yourself into Jane Austen’s.

13

You’re evidently being wilfully provocative for the sake of your ongoing efforts to look “deeper” than the rest of us - and you’ve the temerity to call me pretentious…

And I didn’t say I thought history was important, I said it is, undisputably.

14

Yes. “Evidently”.

Yes, clearly.

No matter what you say, it’s assumed that you think true whatever it is, unless otherwise indicated that you don’t.

15

Politeness, gentlemen, please.

16

Nature and nurture are inextricably fused throughout human history. But where does one begin and the other end in the mind of any particular man or woman? And where does “I” begin and “we” end when any particular man or woman is confronting any particular circumstantial context?

For me, these ideas always revolve around the relationship between “subjective points of view” and “objective truths”; both ever intertwined in complex historical narratives. What can we demonstrate as true for all and what will more reasonably be construed as true only for some?

Barrett:

World history, for Hegel and Marx, is like a mighty river that dimly and half-consciously, always understands and must understand, his own being historically.

But it seems apparent to me the slates are hardly blank at all. That, in fact, they could only be truly blank for, say, “feral children”. Here nature would prevail unequivocally. But the “wild child” is extremely rare.

The rest of us are thrown at birth into a particular historical and cultural narrative.

Then I think: Okay, suppose I come to acknowledge this. What then can I know to be true so as to facilitate the most rational and ethical behaviors? Or, if not that, the least dysfunctional ones? Always acknowledging the role political and economic power plays in enforcing any particular set.

There will always be “greater” men and women who move history in new directions. And there is always that [ultimately] mysterious relationship between “I” and “we” immersed in the historical currents with all that are perceived as “other”. In this regard, I always emphasize the extent to which this cannot be wholly understood or controlled. Here [especially] dasein seems more likely to prevail.

It depends [to me] on the extent to which someone tries to fit the world into the Word. As you noted, reading Rand is one thing, trying to live her “metaphysical truths” in a considerably less abstract world, another thing altogether.

There are liberals who are just as rigid as conservatives regarding particular issues. But [given my own experiences] many more liberals tend to focus as much attention on a creating political frameworks in which the emphasis is placed on an open-minded toleration of diverse opinions, on the rule of law, on democracy.

On [wherever possible] moderation, negociation and compromise. I’m just more cynical than most in noting the inevitable gaps.

17

Oh sure, not easy to tell. Interestingly I was just reading about adoptions studies and twin studies. Same egg twin adopted separately often share very specific interests, political opinions, hobbies, religious attitudes…In fact in the studies I was reading genetics played a strong role in political choice than the political attitudes of the parents.

conservatives tend to see more threats and dislike change - at least in the studies I was reading about. liberals see less threats and are more open to change and these correlate with genes.

Disturbing, eh.

It’s not like there is a gene for belief in low taxation, but generalized priorities and tempermental differences that tend towards having the set of qualities we associate with liberals and conservatives.

Barrett:

Blank slates from the beginning. Tabula rasa theory of mind.

Right and the existentialists tended to as free at any moment not to be affected by nurture.

How does the rest of you react to this kind of top down management of self?

I would say both teams are equally rigid actually. The tricky part is the liberal is rigid about compromise. This may seem oxymoronic, but it isn’t really, since it will aim towards specific lifestyles, specfic legislation, and a specific experiencing of the world. One which they are just as unwilling to give up as conservatives are theirs. And then both liberals and conservatives gang up with with extreme proxied violence even when ideas outside their positions come on the table. Anyone else is an insane or evil extremist that history has proven wrong.

Sure and conservatives focus on ethical areas that liberals have tended to ignore: morals around sacredness, disgust or wrongness where not harm is done to others.

As a non-liberal (also non-conservative) I find liberals absolutely as rigid as conservatives. But they will discuss things with you without labeling you. The momentum of society goes on as it has and they ‘consider’ alteratives, and respect other voices, while the machine goes on as usual. I see this both on the individual level, say in families and on the societal level. There is mental swing room, but no real flexibility on the ground. And remember liberals do not tolerate many things conservatives do. I tend to agree with this lack of tolerance, but still, they are quite willing to enact laws controlling all sorts of behavior. Once you step out to communists and then the other way to fascists, you can see that left and right do not correlate with flexibility on the ground. Flexibility in the entertaining of ideas, yes.

18

Again, to me, values relating to things like taxation are rooted largely in dasein. There is a difference of course between individuals who think about taxes in depth and those who barely scratch the surface. But, in the end, there is no moral or political perspective one can come to that is necessarily better than any other. Just more or less sophisticated. Here, in my view, Barrett’s “conflicting goods” argument prevails.

Blank, perhaps, at birth, but there are always folks – situated out in particular worlds – ready, willing and able to change that. The illusion some harbor is that once we are free of them we can then choose our own values more autonomously and derive the most rational and ethical perspectives. Rooted, generally, in one or another rendition of ideology or enlightenment. This I don’t believe. Not even from the “enlightened” perspective of the existentialists.

Liberals and conservatives are of course also included in this assumption.

What then can we argue that transcends a mere point of view and, instead, is relevant to all of us?

Always, it seems, to a greater or a lesser extent.