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.
Taylor clarifies that an emotion like shame can only exist in the context of a society’s norms or because of the expectations of others. If a man possesses feminine features and that is viewed by society us emasculating, that reflects badly on him and he feels ashamed of having those features. If society did not have those norms, and if being masculine were not seen as a positive attribute for men, he would not necessarily feel shameful for possessing qualities that do not accord with those norms.
ReplyDeleteNice post Nara, but to clarify your statement, “meanings of such emotions are only taken into account by those who are affected…,whereas it wouldn’t make sense to those that aren’t.” I may be wrong and it is a fine point, but I believe that Taylor goes a step further in saying that the term ‘shameful’ would have “no sense outside of a world in which there is a subject for whom things have certain (emotional) meanings”(p. 53). In other words that the concept of ‘shameful’ would not exist at all with out subjects experience it and giving it a quality.
ReplyDeleteFor one to see something in the objective point of view, one has to remember that in this point of view the object of consideration has to be separated from our conception of it. All of its properties have got to be something we agree on, but nothing has to be connected. However doesn’t being self-interpreting violate objectivity? When something is said to be self-interpreting, it is coming to know itself through its own experiences also and that is how it gets it meaning.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Alpha Centaurans and their understanding of danger or menacing Taylor states that, "we are dealing with factors which can only be explicated with reference to human experience, and hence for all of these a reductive account along the lines of the physically menacing above is impossible" (55). Taylor is suggesting that they can grasp this idea of danger and menacing because it is not reducible to human experience like shame. Shame is associated with things such as our sense of dignity and how others view us so it is dependent on this human experience.(54)
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to imagine a world without subjectivity. We would not have consciences.People in power might have no fear of lying, but do they now? What would happen if an objective world existed? Taylor describes his "shrill voice..effeminate hands" as an example of subjectivity to what society expects from a man.The Alpha Centaurans would not call him effeminate as its a subjective term, they might describe a man with a high octave voice and hands that are small and soft.
ReplyDeleteAs Taylor describes human response to secondary causes, it seems to me like he is describing mainly psychological responses to the imports and import-ascriptions. While he does touch on the idea that people from different cultures may have a different import-ascription, he goes on to say that it is through language that we essentially self-interpret (56). He says; "because our subject-referring import-attributing emotions are shaped by the way we see the imports, and the way we see the imports is shaped by the language...language shapes these emotions" (72). I was surprised that Taylor limited his discussion to how humans shape themselves (psychologically) through language without getting into how the language itself may be pre-ascribed and can shape humans' idea of themselves to create psychological states (as he mentions, shame, etc.). Some theorists that came to mind are Althusser (regarding language interpellation) and Gramsci (regarding hegemony in language), in particular. I guess what I'm saying is that I only partially agree with Taylor's theory that humans are entirely self-identifying, in that I see our existence as reflexve of the world (or culture) that we live in, as well as the language that we speak.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to me how Taylor has to make up something to look at humans objectively and we as humans live in such a subjective world. The part that you mention about the fact that only when objects are brought to our attention, is when humans realize what everyone else is seeing. I agree with Lea and see this as a social norm situation. If someone is self interpreting and is fine with their emotions, then who are we to be subjective?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lianas' post, we do not have the right to be subjective of someone else's view or emotions. I must say that we all experience things differently and can not then be judged by how we perceive something to be because there is no set view that holds truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Afiya but then again, there is a certain type of norm and standard to how something is to be viewed. It cannot be completely and wholly up to the individual to form their own opinions because even those are biased and can be damaging.
ReplyDelete