In Taylor’s argument for the vice of arrogance, she states in premise three to have a self is to have desires that one acts on and with which he engages the real world. The arrogant desire to be desireless. She believes that to be desireless would be a self that does not engage the world at all, and so the self does not have an identity. Thus, they do not have a self at all (81).
She attempts to refute a counterargument, the desire to be desireless is still a desire, in saying it is impossible to have total self-sufficiency, that is to be desireless. Even if there was an object of desire it cannot be clearly characterized and explained (81). Taylor completely bushes the argument aside. If we go back to Taylor’s logic, we can easily see that this argument is not completely addressed:
1)Every person wants to have what he/she sees as a worthwhile life.
2)For any life one can really want and see as a worthwhile life, one needs a self.
3)To have a self is to have desires that one acts on and with which one engages the real world.
4)The arrogant have the desire to be God-like and self-sufficient; he engages the world to ensure he continues to keep up his image that he is superior, God-like to others. For example, Mr. Casaubon, who Taylor says is arrogant worries about maintaining his scholarly image(80). This is depended upon the real world.
5)The arrogant see one’s self as having a worthwhile life, and is not inhibiting one’s own flourishing.
And so we can see that Taylor’s own line of reasoning shows that the arrogant do not harm themselves through self-deception. They have created a self, and it is not a false one. Within her reasoning there is no mention about how plausible it is to reach a goal, nor the difficult of identifying an object of desire. It is sufficient for her to know there exists desires to act on and to engage the world with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I find a flaw with your claims about Taylors argument. When you outline her argument, you seem to make the mistake of thinking that the arrogant engage with the world to ensure their superiority (your 4th premise) It seems to me that Taylor would claim that the arrogant find themselves superior based upon their own understanding, not based on the approval of the world. They need not go back into the world seeking confirmation of their superiority. Rather, they are convinced of it themselves. Further, she argues that even if the arrogant went back into the world and found that the world did not find them superior they would not care because they would find the opinion of the world to be under them and wrong. Mr.Casaubon does not actually go back into the world seeking approval. Actually, Mr.Casaubon avoids the world in order that he can maintain his image. He knows that if he were to publish his works the world would knock him off his pedastal. Rather, he has his wife help him maintain his image without having to actually engage in the world and let the world see him as a fraud. It is enough for the arrogant that they find themselves to be god-like. They need not engage with the world to have them agree. Thus, since the arrogant do not engage with the world, Taylor can maintain that they do not have a self.
Post a Comment