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.
I don't think humans are a one-time-memory box. I think they are a never ending well of memories where they keep all experiences, even small incidents for keeps and so nothing is for a moment for humans because once the experience is inflicted, and emotions are self-referred, every experience that has some relation to the first will bring up emotions and interpretations based on the first. And so I agree, that as time goes by and the memory and experience comes back, it will only heighten and strengthen the interpretation that the self has made.
ReplyDelete