On page 136 Taylor states that it is near impossible to find value without the validation of another person. I feel that is incorrect as it means that one cannot be valued without another person. Imagine a person who feels so fully that his style of life is the objectivly perfect one. That person could find value in their life by trying to spread their own ideology. While obviously that kind of validation in life cannot respond to you the way a person can, i still believe that even without others one can find value in their life.
I may be "untying" half my brain here but i do not belive that if a person believes they are following the right path in life then they need others to tell them that they are doing so.
4 comments:
I think that a further review of how Taylor is defining validation and the role it plays to an individual.
To use the example that you have provided, one where a person finds value in their life by speading their own ideology. Would this person not be seeking validation of his claims and his work through his efforts to spread his knowledge? The individual is, in effect, seeking to spread his ideology in hopes to better the knowledge and lives of others. Here is where meaning is developed within the individual's and the communities living and interactions.
In Plato's analogy of the cave, the philosopher, once enlightened, should go back to the community and elevate the minds of others, allowing the community to break free of ignorance and thus help them lead a more worthwhile life. Thus, I would think that one needs validation to trulely flourish. Just as one needs engagement in the world in order to flourish.
However, take the imagined person, where does he find his value in life?
Values in life do not appear from nowhere, it comes from a culture, a book, any place where ideas are formed. And if this person does create his own ideology, ideology are based off of values. Values are other ideas which have been validated. These ideas come from or are a critique of other ideas. Even the creation of an ideology comes from something else. Other ideas are the building blocks of your own idea. Thus, you cannot get away from the validation of other people.
Also, I think you are misreading Taylor, if I’ve found the same sentence you are referencing. It says, “It is hardly possible to value one’s self without the belief that one is valued by others.” And so, if an individual has unfounded belief in one’s self then they would be found to be slightly arrogant. By placing a value on one’s self, there needs to be a realistic understanding of the world, and one’s place in the world. Otherwise, the value you place on yourself might as well be based off of your own imagination. Because value is something to be judged compared with to something else. So can value be placed upon something if there is nothing to compare it to?
Maybe Taylor's claim that "it seems psychologically hardly possible to value oneself without the belief that one is valued by others" is false. But I still take it that there are other arguments for needing input from others to flourish (which is a little different than finding value, but I think they are related if we think finding value is necessary for flourishing). What about needing to know how to bring about desired ends? I take it that for most people this will involve having views based on objectively available information and making value judgments. Otherwise the agent will probably not be able to connect a proper means with an end. Often this will have to do with how the agent relates to others. If she is unaware of how she is perceived, this will cause problems for flourishing. I think this is true for any case where an agent is perceived by other beings and the achievement of goals can be affected by these perceptions.
I do agree with what you’re saying and see where you are coming from. Why should another person have to be involved in one’s life in order for that person to flourish? Vices like sloth fall into this category in a way because if the vicious person wants to sit on a couch alone and not do anything then he or she doesn’t need validation from someone else. The slothful person can live a life he or she believes is flourishing based on their idea of a happy or flourishing life. In which case, the argument you have against Taylor is valid. However, the word Taylor uses in the sentence you are talking about on page 136 is “value,” not “flourish.” Value requires a certain amount of work, effort and contribution to another factor or force. Something only has value if it can be related to something else without value or with more value. In which case, you need someone else to validate and determine your (or the vicious person’s) value. If a slothful person just sits on a couch and plays video games all day then he or she could be happy and flourishing, but I’m not necessarily sure if that person has any value. A mother might say that the slothful person has value because a child has some intrinsic property of love that he or she could be slothful and still have, but a roommate might say the slothful person does not have any value because he or she doesn’t contribute to their lifestyle and living situation in the form of food, rent, etc. So as far as flourishing goes, people don’t need someone else to tell them what it is, but when it comes to value, I think for the most part Taylor is right by saying you need someone else to determine what has value and what doesn’t.
Post a Comment