Stanislaw Barszczak, A struggle for esteem. On philosophical anthropology by Paul Ricoeur and Joseph Conrad (This is a continuation of the article)
5.From love to justice. A radical transformation of a subject
Conscience is an ability or a faculty that distinguishes whether one’s actions are right or wrong. It leads to feelings of remorse when one does things that go against his/her moral value, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when one’s actions conform to our moral values. It is also the attitude which informs one’s moral judgment before performing any action…Conscience etymologically means with-knowledge (science means knowledge). But the English word implies a moral standard of action in the mind as well as a consciousness of our own actions. Conscience is the reason, employed about questions of right and wrong, and accompanied with the sentiments of approbation and condemnation. Any consideration of conscience must consider the estimate or determination of conscience and the resulting conviction or right or duty. Conscience, in Catholic theology, is “a judgement of reason which at the appropriate moment enjoins him to do good and to avoid evil” Catholics are called to examine their conscience daily, and with special care before confession. In current Catholic teaching, “Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” This right of conscience does not, however, simply allow one to summarily disagree with a church teaching and claim that they are acting in accordance with conscience: “It can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed… This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility… In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” In certain situations involving individual personal decisions that are incompatible with church law, some pastors rely on the use of the internal forum solution. However, the Catholic Church has warned that “rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching…can be at the source of errors in judgment in moral conduct.” World conscience is the idea that with global communication we as a people will no longer be estranged from one another, whether it be culturally, ethnically, or geographically. Instead, we will approach the world as a place in which we all live, and with newly gained understanding of each other we will begin to make decisions based on what is beneficial for all people. Related to this idea is the idea of world consciousness. It too, looks at people in terms of the collective, but refers more to the universal ideas of the cosmos, instead of the interconnectedness of choice. In other words, conscience is like ‘inner voice’.
The understanding of the significance of conscience for human being is a weighty argument for searching new approaches to studying this phenomenon in spite of the skepticism concerning the vagueness inherent to the idea of conscience. Application of novel methods permits seeing conscience from earlier unknown perspectives, discovering its new aspects, and deepening our understanding of it. New and really original conception of conscience in the last century was proposed by Emmanuel Levinas. In his texts we may recognize the crucial role of conscience which is more “fundamental” than it was usually considered. We agree that traditionally the significance of conscience was underestimated and, hence, the theme has to be thought over anew…A radical transformation of a subject that becomes possibile only due to call of conscience is not initiated by the subject itself. Conscience is a factor that performs an interruptive function. Its call has to awaken from a “dogmatic slumber.” Being questioned, a Lévinasian subject, in turn, suddenly discovers the usurping nature and moral myopia of its perseverance in being and its naïve rights for “a place in the sun.” It has to curb its spontaneous egoism, and here lies a critical character of conscience. Awakening from a “dogmatic slumber,” conscience demand assuming responsibility. Metaphysical ethics develops the theme of responsibility as the ethical responsibility for the other. In Lévinas’s the issue of responsibility elucidates the meaning of subjectivity, which undergoes profound transformation, the meaning of authentic Self and ethical subject. Ethical subject finds itself responsible for “what the others do or suffer”(OBBE,112) It answers that is at issue here is absolute responsibility…Conscience, according to Lévinas, makes a subject concentrate itself on the demands proceeding from the Other and recognize the privileged position of this Other: “This is certainly not a philosopher’s invention, but the first given of moral consciousness, which could be defined as the consciousness of the privilege the other has relative to me.” A subject cannot control or master the event of the call, a Levinasian subject in “this non-mastering”, it has to deal with transcendence, meaning being it has a rapport with absolutely other, which is characterized be exteriority and height. A subject isn’t interpreted as being a basis of its own being. A subject is determined by factor that makes full control of its own being impossible. So, a Levinasian subject is constituted due to the relationship with the Other, due to the relationship with the Other, due to a dimension of infinity that exceeds its powers. The absolute experience granted by conscience plunges a subject into shame. But a positive aspect of conscience in Levinasian conception, there is an appeal to which the responsibility for the others comes to its core. Lévinas restores conscience to the plane of ethics, although it cannot be disputed it is an ethics that evolved after Heidegger. With the Levinasian theme of conscience, there is interwoven the motif of misery, vulnerability, and openness to suffering of the other human being. The other appears as one in need: a homeless stranger, a poor person, an orphan, a widow, or a cripple. In fact, this is one of the leitmotifs in the whole philosophy of Lévinas.
6. The creative Self
What does human destiny consist? We believe on the ultimate significance of life, so the quest for it is not a progressive discovery of a pre-established state of affairs or of a pre-installed route of development, but a personal creative activity. In the inner urge to forge a significant thread of our existence in response to the question of how to salvage from the fleetingness of life something of lasting value, at the point of our discovering the contingency of the life-world-existence, we direct our scrutinizing interrogatory to the Other. But since Man has already abolished the outer world, the inquiring subject turns toward his inward self. So the initial question here is: do we pursue the quest of our destiny within a soul alone and in isolation from other beings? Or, on the contrary, can we find a meaning of our lives, beyond its struggle for survival on the short waves transmitted between the self and the other, by entering with him a relation of “inward creative reciprocity”. Study of the various forms of communication in which human self-interpretation proceeds shows that, apart from the organic and vital interactions and strictly utilitarian types of involvements with other human beings, the specifically personal quest for the meaning of life proceeds in the dialogue between two persons (cfr. Eros, Agape). Mrs Prof. Tymieniecka said here about our transempirical destiny so transempirical dialogue of the persons and the transnatural destiny of the soul. However, there is more to this dialogue than Jaspers, Marcel, Buber, Nedoncelle, Ricoeur and even Lévinas have so well described.
In his later works, Emmanuel Lévinas in fact distinguishes the ego (le moi) from the self (le soi). The ego for Levinas is the site of consciousness, the site of thematization, order, knowledge. The self, on the other hand, refers to the ethical structure of subjectivity. Now, for Lévinas this “self” is not something we can assume and become. It is not a matter of becoming an ethical self. He consistently holds that this is a self with no identity, a self that is exiled, uprooted, with no homeland. But there are moments in human experience in which the ego is “driven back” or “driven beyond” the ego. This non-assumable movement is what Lévinas calls “recurrence”. The ego finds itself troubled or interrupted by a fundamental responsibility for the other. Once again, this interruption is not for Lévinas something we can hold onto and affirm as a state of mind. It is a pre-theoretical experience in which I find myself responsible for the other person prior to any act of the will. I find myself always already “substituted” for the Other, “obsessed” by the Other, in a “hostage” situation without having chosen it. For Lévinas, subjectivity is constituted by the fact that I find myself responsible not only for the person in front of me, but for all people and even their deeds as well! As for conscience, Lévinas rejects the idea of a Socratic daimon or a call of conscience. After all, such a “voice” comes from within the self. For Lévinas, the call to responsibility can only originate from the Face of the Other. It is interesting to note that the French term conscience, which Lévinas uses often, can be translated as either “consciousness” or “conscience”. This perhaps suggests that conscience is not primordial enough if we are to locate the origin of ethical subjectivity; it operates at the level of consciousness. I’m not too familiar with Buber, but your reference to the form of unity with the other; Emmanuel Levinas wants to preserve the absolute difference between Same and Other. Moreover, Lévinas often criticizes Buber’s I-Thou relationship as symmetrical. He reads Buber as maintaining that the self and the other are thous for each other. On Levinas’s account, I am responsible for the other, but the Other’s responsibility is his business, not mine. The self for Emmanuel Lévinas is not a construction, although he will constantly modify his account of selfhood over the course of forty years. For Lévinas in the the 1940s, the self is described as the relationship with existence. In On Escape (1935) and in From Existence to Existents, Emmanuel Lévinas complains that traditional philosophy has focused too much on the relationship with the world and has neglected the self’s relation to itself. On Lévinas’s account, the self is dual. To exist is to be a particular thing, but also to be in a suffocating relationship with the brutal fact of existence. As Elisabeth Louise Thomas would put it, selfhood is mixture of anonymity and particularity. The brutual fact of existence weighs down on the subject and reveals itself as the imperative to act, to begin, to take up being in a certain way. This act of “taking up Being” Lévinas calls “hypostasis”, which is a term that names the event in which pure being turns into an existent, an individual. Subjectivity, with its essential duality, is for Lévinas active. This “activity”, though, is not a struggle for survival or a concern for the future or one’s death, but roots the subject in the very instant in which an act of being or effort occurs. The self is not a construction. Rather, it is the brutal fact that I have to exist and that this commitment to existence reveals itself as a suffocating burden, awakening the need for escape. Now, the relationship with the Other in From Existence to Existents does present itself as an escape from the brutal fact of existence.
6. We have to choose ourselves again
Ontological issues from the beginning do not seem to solve. Let’s look at the problem of freedom. Everyone- except absolute being-God -is linked to other beings by ties of cause and effect-if it falls into the causal relationship cannot be free. To be free means to be beyond the violence, be sufficient itself. A man as a being cannot be free. This confirms the daily need for sleep, food, rest, etc. To preserve the freedom of human existence, J.-P. Sartre presents the concept of nothingness. Behind him first I want to find the determination of Hegel, that freedom is “the negativity, and as such must appear before us.” Be free to say: to be able to say “no.” Some “nothingness” permeates the man who, as “being-for-itself” is “self-consciousness.” Nothingness is the one which makes it possible to self-awareness. In the words of Father J. Tischner this nothingness is like a “gap”, which penetrates self-awareness and makes it earliest reflection’s presence for myself. It makes it possible to negation, and that freedom can say “no.” But such freedom’s being placed through the concept of nothingness, it seems to be its depletion. Well, the essence of freedom should be saying “yes.” Is the denial of freedom contained in the reverse side is not present in the “yes”? Ontological approach of freedom leads to a denial of freedom (determinism), or to confuse liberty with strength. According to the deterministic laws governing the behavior of man are essentially the same nature as the law governing the behavior of things. However, a man has limited an awareness and do not know what forces govern it. With this ignorance comes the illusion of freedom. Cited here understood as the freedom of human action-effect “understanding of freedom is a necessity” (historical materialism). Let’s see also TV freedom of contemporary: a desperate Leoncio, who lost Isaura, commits suicide. The feeling of freedom rules over tyranny. Well. Today, more than liberty shall be put up something more like a responsibility. But we must continually look for new solutions. Cited in one ontology is right: the human experience in the sphere of freedom is the experience of enslavement. A man finds his freedom as freedom for enslaved. His life goes on as the fight for freedom. This battle does not mean, however, learn the external value, but “becoming” what a man “really is.” The achievement of human freedom is back to himself. This is indicated by the formula of Hegel: Freedom is that to be “themselves at home.” To answer the question what it means to “be-in-itself ‘, we need to ask: what does” not be at home “? Let us follow Saint Paul: good I want I do not do, and I do the evil which I would not. ” I’m not “at home” when you come upon “foreign law.” The source of this right is beyond me-in some “foreignness.” However, this strangeness has some echo in me. Body is particularly susceptible to it. Strangeness is intertwined with the outside inside. In order to “be themselves at home”, I have to “overcome myself” and at the same time to confront someone “outside”. Who? Some principle of evil. An important limitation of freedom is so evil. Man is not running battle with the laws of nature, but evil, which significantly limits its freedom. Evil is not, father Joseph Tischner wrote, that man cannot outrun a horse, but that sometimes “must” tell a lie and it is also a restriction of his freedom. The classic description of slavery, we find in Hegel’s famous chapter “Phenomenology of the spirit” of the master and slave. Enslavement, according to him has a logical character: it is part of a rational system. Hence, it is so difficult to overcome. To escape from bondage, if you need to make the destruction of the entire system. Hegel believes-as we know-that the relation of man to man is primarily a relationship of struggle. “Man to man a wolf.” There is something of truth: if it were otherwise, you probably do not need to commandments-not that you would have to just heaven impelled people to love. The fight is a fight to the death, although its major purpose is not to kill but to force him to recognize. The player who first terrified of death. Who does not frighten those who will risk death, reaches freedom. Terrified of death go into slavery, informed risk becoming the masters of life. The task is to work for the slave master, task master-possession. We have two intertwined with one another freedom: the freedom of yourself and being in the shadow of that freedom, “freedom” of a slave. The freedom of a slave is surrounded by prohibitions. This is not the nature those prohibitions was born, but the will of master. Will enslaves the will, freedom restricts the freedom of one another. Loss of the freedom may not be made without profit. Slaves in exchange for recognition of saved lives. Maybe innocence, may and indeed should, “do not want to have a conscience.” On the other hand, the slave is the victim of delusion. It seems to him that you are deprived of liberty, that you are “to blame for everything.” Really, though it alone is the creator of a slave master and his enslavement. If it was not “found” someone else’s reign, there would be a slave. A slave has a “sin” and that is basic: the renunciation of freedom. Not being fully themselves, it is not at home. A different picture emerges from the enslavement of psychological analysis, which is due, inter alia, prof. A. Kępiński, who wrote about “psychopaths” – about people who have become slaves to various, more or less irrational fears. These fears undercut them hope. Fearful of people and the world, these people took refuge in the shelter. ” You can call them “people from their hiding places.” Father J. Tischner wrote: “A man in a hideout believed that carries within itself a treasury. Treasury is trying to hide deep. Sam becomes the clipboard we stipulate. Place, on which stands, surrounded by a wall of fear. For all people approaching the hideout he is directing suspicion that they approach to him in order to rob him and destroy. “Passage of the area hope the space is hiding the fall of man, as well as fall into sin, and in an informed and voluntary guilty. A man lives at the level of blandness, beyond good and evil, is neither guilty nor innocent, his responsibility was in a state of senility. And now the whole dignity of man comes to the value of suffering, which it is subject. A striking feature of hiding people is that they suffer and they can bring suffering to others. And, worst of all, their suffering is as great as unnecessary”. “People from their hiding places” are not themselves at home. I would put the argument here that our politicians, whose lives are interrupted by a disaster at Smolensk had fallen victim to the “people from their hiding places.” These people are enslaved. Where is their “lord”? The paradox is that the “master” is not really that only the vague idea fills their imagination. “Lord” is “someone” who can always come and do “something.” And they fear that. A quick summary of what we said here: slavery appears: at dialogical level as limiting or imprisonment of one by another, as slavery because of the recognized evils, is associated with the emergence of fear. The Catholic Church see the world as a gift of a loving Creator. Because God is for man, it is for human is a freedom in the world. The fall of the first people brings a burst into the world. Man no longer has a direct view of the gift. Takes against God, the world and ourselves. Hence his captivity was. Only faith restores the original vision of the blessed beginning. Reconstruction of freedom in the world can only be achieved by restoring relationship with God. That is why Hegel said: “God is the God of free people”. A man can “create itself” as a work of art, drawing with their “power of life”, he can overcome its weakness, can “take possession of himself,” and may “want of willing,” so he can bear itself. Now, freedom is missing one else: a guide to the good. Freedom is a way of being good. The latter is outside the structures of being. Awakening to good and our faithfulness to implement in us “a good will”, which is a subjective expression of human freedom. In so far as a good will is accompanied to a man in his way of being, man as a man becomes an expression of freedom. And here there is the text that I prepared for my reader. Sorry, yet not well. But at a time personally, I would like to join to the contemporary discussion about love, memory, identity, freedom and human responsibility.
7. The power of mere words
Joseph Conrad mentioned then: You perceive the force of a word. He who wants to persuade should put his trust, not in the right argument, but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than the power of sense. I don’t say this by way of disparagement. It is better for mankind to be impressionable than reflective…you cannot fail to see the power of mere words; such words as Glory, for instance, or Pity. I won’t mention any more. Don’t talk to me of your Archimedes’ lever. He was an absent-minded person with a mathematical imagination. Mathematics command all my respect, but I have no use for engines. Give me the right word and the right accent and I will move the world…Most of the working truths on this earth are humble, not heroic: and there have been times in the history of mankind when the accents of heroic truth have moved it to nothing but derision…I can’t imagine either amongst my enemies or my friends a being so hard up for something to do as to quarrel with me…Indeed a man who never wrote a line for print till he was thirty-six cannot bring himself to look upon his existence and his experience, upon the sum of his thoughts, sensations and emotions, upon his memories and his regrets, and the whole possession of his past, as only so much material for his hands…I wanted to pay my tribute to the sea, its ships and its men, to whom I remain indebted for so much which has gone to make me what I am. That seemed to me the only shape in which I could offer it to their shades. There could not be a question in my mind of anything else…I have tried with an almost filial regard to render the vibration of life in the great world of waters, in the hearts of the simple men who have for ages traversed its solitudes, and also that something sentient which seems to dwell in ships the creatures of their hands and the objects of their care…He is argued to respect for criticism, that fine flower of personal expression in the garden of letters…There can be nothing more humiliating than to see the shaft of one’s emotion miss the mark either of laughter or tears…No artist can be reproached for shrinking… Nothing more humiliating! And this for the reason that should the mark be missed, should the open display of emotion fail to move, then it must perish unavoidably in disgust or contempt. No artist can be reproached for shrinking from a risk which only fools run to meet and only genius dare confront with impunity. In a task which mainly consists in laying one’s soul more or less bare to the world, a regard for decency, even at the cost of success, is but the regard for one’s own dignity which is inseparably united with the dignity of one’s work. He is argued for critics of particular wisdom…I have a positive horror of losing even for one moving moment that full possession of myself which is the first condition of good service. And I have carried my notion of good service from my earlier into my later existence. I, who have never sought in the written word anything else but a form of the Beautiful…proceed in peace to declare that I have always suspected in the effort to bring into play the extremities of emotions the debasing touch of insincerity. In order to move others deeply we must deliberately allow ourselves to be carried away beyond the bounds of our normal sensibility. In that interior world where his thought and his emotions go seeking for the experience of imagined adventures, there are no policemen, no law, no pressure of circumstance or dread of opinion to keep him within bounds. Our awareness. Who then is going to say Nay to his temptations if not his conscience,? Joseph Conrad has mentioned that.(to be continued)