I talked last week about the various different aspects or levels of human life in society:
International
↑
State
↑
Civil society
↑
Family
↑
Individual
This coming week we'll focus on that foundation of the individual.
One common narrative about how society and culture has changed in the West over history is that there was a 'subjective turn' in the early modern period. On this account, modernity is characterized in part by starting from the 'inner' perspective of the individual. Perhaps the most striking example of this would be in the work of the philosopher, Descartes (1596-1650), who tried to achieve certain knowledge of the external world on the basis of the certainty of our own thought: 'I think, therefore I am.' In general, it might be argued that modernity is characterized by an (over?) emphasis on the individual: my rights; what I want.
From this perspective, some Catholic social teaching can be seen as trying to provide a corrective to this emphasis on the individual and a reminder that we live in relationships with others. On the other hand, other aspects of social teaching are a warning against the sort of collectivization characteristic of twentieth century Nazi and Communist totalitarianism, and in favour of individuals and their freedom.
Moving on to post modernity, one aspect of this period has been a suspicion of the very idea of the individual. One area this can be seen is in the idea of the 'death of the author': literary texts are no longer to be seen as the intentional communicative creation of an individual, but rather as creations which reflect impersonal social or cultural forces.
The aim of Catholic social teaching on the individual might therefore be seen as trying to do justice to the reality and value of the individual against those movements which try to undermine it in favour of collective entities such as the state or the economy. On the other hand, Catholic teaching also warns against views which reduce reality simply to the individual's perspective or will: individuals exist within a reality they have to take account of, in particular, a reality consisting both of other human beings, but also of God and nature.
If you're interested, it might be worth reading an article by Cardinal Avery Dulles on St John Paul II's personalism which brings out both the importance of the individual but also the need for the individual to reflect and live within the truth of nature and God (link here).
See you Wednesday!
This is a test comment just to check if everything's working properly!! I'll post up material from last night (1 Oct) in due course.
ReplyDeleteStephen
And another test! The easiest way to post comments (unless you already have an online identity through Google + etc which you want to use) is to select from the drop down menu either anonymous (which I did above and include your name in the comment) or else 'Name/URL' and just include your name when prompted (no need for a URL unless you have one!).
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the Dulles article; I was intrigued that JP2 referred to the crushing of a person as being 'of the metaphysical, rather than moral order'. This seems to imply that those who do evil to persons have made 'a category mistake' as philosophers say - they haven't recognised that the person is a person, This would explain JP2's pressing project to reconceptualise personhood so that people don't make this mistake.
ReplyDeleteI meant to mention this last night...we didn't discuss the personhood of those who don't have rational faculties for whatever reason (although Stephen did refer to the education of very young children )e.g. those who are in a coma, have mental illness, dementia etc. CST presumably wants to make sure that everyone is regarded as a person.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I'm a bit hesitant about using the term 'persons' rather than 'individuals' is because a lot of non-Catholic Anglo-American philosophy regards personhood as dependent on rational autonomy (or at least some sort of mental complexity): hence those debates on abortion that try to describe the unborn as 'non-persons' and thus not really bearers of moral rights. (The Catholic view, I take it, as being that moral rights are dependent on our status simply as human beings rather than any particular attributes we may or may not have.) Found this by St J-PII: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040108_handicap-mentale_en.html
ReplyDeleteYes, that's right. although it is good to note that philosophers regularly get quite a bit of stick if they over-emphasise the rationality - even in the Anglo-American non-Catholic world - and the non-persons brigade don't have a huge fan base because they drag with them the idea that non-persons include the senile, handicapped and so on. But of course assigning human beings a special value from a non religious point of view is always tricky,
Delete