Hurray for Funerals

            In Camus’ The Fall, Clamence believes that people are compelled to behave in certain ways to fill the void left by a lack of excitement; essentially as a response to boredom.  These behaviors may be expressed by crimes, or through abuses of others, or even in very benign acts, like death, which are no one’s fault, exactly.  However, we are all to blame somewhat for our ravenous need for such events to occur around us.  He says towards the end of the chapter: “Something must happen- and that explains most human commitments.  Something must happen, even loveless slavery, even war or death” (The Fall 37). 

            He goes on throughout his conversation with a fellow bar patron to discuss his profession as a judge-penitent.  He appears to have an almost fanatical need to help people that he satisfies professionally by assisting widows and orphans to receive proper care by law (17).  However, he also expresses a need to help the elderly or blind cross the street- among a multitude of other behaviors- that he seems to perform compulsively (21).  Clamence seems very confident in his good deeds for others, both professionally and recreationally.  He also repeatedly mentions how satisfied he feels having found such a fulfilling vocation, knowing that he is really changing people’s lives for the better, yet it seems that he spends every night in the bar where his story begins, describing gin as the only comfort he has in the dark city (12).  He looks to other people both as ants, which he can only look down on from above, and as silhouettes dreamily walking through life (14). He even describes his position in the justice system as one where he does not need to be punished or punish others, so he remains in a position of power, untouched (27).  He seems to want to believe he loves helping people as much as he claims, yet it may be just something to fill the void just like all other events in life.

            Clamence explains that after living a life where he is constantly stimulated, the only thing that can excite him anymore is death.  He believes that when being notified of an acquaintance’s death, although one is momentarily saddened, there is more of an excitement awakened in them.  This death, and the presence of a funeral create drama and a narrative in the monotony of their life.  There is somewhere to go, a prospect that is hardly ever ignored.  Even if the recently deceased was not important to them, they still must visit, to witness the event (34).

            He describes funerals and death as those things that satisfy people’s cravings; things which need to happen in life in order to keep people living, otherwise people need to create an event, be it war or slavery, or the beating of their spouse (37).  Why is it that a simple life cannot suffice in any culture in any time?  Clearly, the repetition of those three examples Clamence gives exist time and time again, so why is it that we must create excitement where boredom exists, even when it seems to perpetuate more pain?

Self-Interpreting Animals?

Charles Taylor defines man as a “self-interpreting animal”, a being who exists only in self-interpretation, who comes to know itself, bringing all of its knowledge to its self, meaning, humans are subjects of experience. What we learn or know of objects is because of our experience with it, and describe them as such, which he calls the subjective nature and or properties. He states to understand the term, self-interpreting animal, we must also look at it from another side, which “requires that we think of it objectively, that is, as an object among other objects” (Taylor, 46). The objects are separate from our conceptions of it, properties it has without our conceptions of it, and are not dependant upon things.

Taylor further distinguishes objects and subjects into primary and secondary qualities in which he associates primary qualities with objects that are extensions or substances that belong to the thing itself, but separate from our relationship to it. Secondary qualities, which are subjective, are things like colors or qualities that we use as a result of an encounter we had with it, and are only concerned with our experience with that particular object. The set qualities are what further help us to understand our memory of the object.

            He understands the counterargument to his claim of judgments about our experience to an object and therefore is unable to reduce judgments to what we perceive an object to be. There will be experiences that we cannot attribute to anything else, but only to our experience of the thing, in such a case when we are dealing with emotions and feelings. He speaks of a “nameless fear” and “unfocused anxiety” where there is no object of reference (48). It is not the matter of there not being an object to reference but rather that an object is not needed for the direct cause of the emotion. Also our experience with an object may not reciprocate a similar response the second or third time of being in contact with it. His example of the water that feels cold now may feel warm later (46).

            Everyone’s experience of an object will be different because different people see things certain ways, so is it safe to say that humans are self-interpreting when we view things as we know them for the moment and not for a lifetime? As time goes by so does our memory of an object until it is brought back and viewed again. 

Is Man Self-Interpreting?

        

Charles Taylor argues that man is a self-interpreting animal. In order to understand this, he states that we have look at it from two points of views, objectively and subjectively. The objective view is seen “as an object among other objects” and the subjective is describing their properties according to our experience of them (Humans, 46). He says that one who is independent of such experiences would not be able to grasp why our senses such as sight enables us to see things in color (46). This is because as human beings, we can see the properties of certain objects through our experience of them and through repetition. Taylor creates a fable, where humans communicates with gaseous clouds called Alpha Centaurans and that it is possible for us to come to agreement with them, but they lack what we have which we know as “sense organs” (46). 

         It is through our experience and the interpretation of ourselves that makes us who we are and therefore cannot be seen as just a view on reality. When we experience thing with emotions or with desire as Taylor calls “experienced motivation,” we make judgments about the objects they are directed towards (47). These emotions allow us to be aware of certain situations and it gives us a better understanding of it. He says “Describing properly what these emotions are like involves making explicit the sense of the situation… gives the emotion its character” (48). This helps us to understand the meaning of such emotions and their properties. 

         Taylor describes this as an “import” and that it is related to certain aspirations or feelings (48). An import can stimulate emotions like fear or shame. In some cases, one is able to recognize the judgment or “import ascriptions” that one makes on a certain situation, even if it doesn’t correspond with the import. He uses an example of feeling ashamed even when he thought that there was nothing to be ashamed of (50). The imports are dependent on experience, so this would be impossible for Alpha Centaurans to understand because they see us from an objective view point. Taylor then uses himself as an example and that his effeminate voice and hands lacks masculinity and lowers his dignity, since he aspires to be respected among other men (53). The meanings of such emotions are only taken into account by those who are affected by it most, whereas it wouldn’t make sense to those that aren’t. 

         In contrast he describes the properties of physically menacing and that they are independent from experience, so that any living animal that lacked sense would understand the meaning of it (54). The Alpha Centaurans wouldn’t get why humans feel shame or humiliation, but they would understand the meaning of something dangerous or menacing. 

The Distinction Between Impressions and Ideas

                Within “An Abstract of a Book Lately Published; Entituled, A Treatise of Human Nature” the author seeks to make clarifications concerning topics presented in David Hume’s aforementioned text. The initial statement he wishes to examine concerns the source of all our “ideas, or weak perceptions” (6).  Hume wishes to create this distinction between the different types of perceptions as he believes that other philosophers have failed to do so. To accomplish this task, a distinction between ideas and impressions is necessary. Hume claims that all ideas originate from our impressions; or feelings of emotion and passion or the interpretation of external objects through the senses (5). Therefore, these impressions which are based upon feelings are strong perceptions that form the building block of thought and experience. In comparison, ideas are merely copies of these impressions as a result of thinking. Ideas are then the weaker of the two concepts presented. He continues to say that these impressions inevitably precede all ideas within the mind as they are the stronger of the two concepts (7). For example, the idea of a book derives from our initial impression of the object. Therefore the idea of the book cannot exist without this first impression as it is simply a copy.

                The author continues to delve into Hume’s definition of impressions more thoroughly throughout the text. For example, he states that on the occasion an idea is called to mind but is shrouded in ambiguity; the impression may provide a “clear and precise” (6) explanation. So, if all ideas are based upon impression and those that are even culled from the imagination originate from the source; then all ideas are reducible to things we have perceived through direct experience (6). Even if the mind has conjured an image that appears abstract and difficult to understand, we may ultimately return to the impression for understanding. As the author of the abstract summarizes, “All our ideas…are derived from our impressions, and we can never think of anything we have not seen...” (5). These definitions further exemplify that impressions provide greater clarity and ideas can only be weaker copies of these impressions.

                The author clarifies Hume’s reasoning for introducing this differentiation and applies the concepts of impressions and ideas to philosophical terms. He states that when an idea is not attached to the term, then it begs the question of what impression the idea is based off of. If these connections cannot be made, the philosophical term is then deemed “insignificant” (6). Through this passage it is apparent that Hume believes that in order for philosophical words to carry weight, they must initially arise from these ideas or copies of impressions. This is integral since it seems that Hume would dismiss any philosophical debate that is not grounded in this concept.  

Conscious Experience: Subjective vs. Objective

In Thomas Nagel’s “What Is It Like To Be a Bat?”, he states that for one to be aware of  conscious experience, one must know the difference between two types of conception, subjective and objective. Nagel says that for an animal to have conscious experience at all means that there is something that is like to be that animal (“Bat” 1). Not only is being that animal enough, but also what the experience is like for the animal itself. This is known as the subjective character of experience (“Bat” 1).

When one tries to comprehend another species experience they are only using one point of view, which is usually what they imagine the animal would feel or be like in that experience. However simply imagining the behaviors that a certain species does, doesn’t necessarily mean that you know what it is really like to be that animal and the experience they face. Nagel says, “…every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view” (“Bat” 2). For a human to truly understand another species experience, they need to stop imagining what it would be like for them if they were in a situation and focus on what it is like for the actual animal going through it. To clearly show this Nagel uses the example of a bat. He says that if a human really wants to understand what it is like to be a bat, they must stop thinking what would it be like if they were a bat, but instead focus on what it is like for a bat to be a bat. This is how the objective view comes into play because we would have difficulty understanding another species’ experiences without taking up their point of view. Nagel says that even though species have different point of views, certain concepts can still be apprehended because even though we comprehend things differently, we can still get some basic idea of the experience if we shift from using properties only known to human senses and expanding beyond that  (“Bat” 5). He says, “The less it depends on a specifically human viewpoint, the more objective is our description (“Bat” 5). And if humans were to use a more objective approach they would understand more what is it is like to be another species, and not just them as another species.

However do you think it is possible to truly get an objective point of view on an experience for another species, if there is no similarity between the two species at all?