Ive decided to use an example from this chapter as an example for what i find wrong with Taylors general perspective. On page 112 she claims that physical pain is likely to interfere with living the kind of life you have to lead. I find that to be totally false. While it may be true that getting hit by a car can hospitalize you, or potentially kill you, it is too general a statement to say that pain is most likely detremental to life. While the general attitude towards pain is to avoid it at all costs, many people who have endured hardships find that they grow from them.
It is not the point itself that i find incorrect, but rather her attitude of not adressing valid points which fall outside our usual understanding. When coming up with an opinion about something Taylor seems to base her opinions around preconceptions that most people have for it. In this example she sees pain as only a detrement and not a possible aid. i find that the way she does not analyze a point from all angles detremental to her arguments. i have read things claiming the opposite of what she has said, some as extreme as the idea that "one will only grow through pain". While i dont believe that point i still think that if she cannot touch on the possibility then her standpoint has no value.
I once read a book about a girl who has terrible parents. It was terribly depressing and from neglect and abuse she turns to cutting herself to relive her tension. There are very long monologues in the book about how the pain makes her feel and about how she could not do without it. Eventually the character becomes somewhat addicted to pain and almost kills herself. However the book ended with a happy ending for the character as she learned that this time in her life in only temporary and the final pages summarize the time covered in the book as just a point in time that she only made her way through with her self inflicted pain.
I have no idea if that had any truth to it or it could work for certain people, however the point is that if Taylor cannot cover all these points it leaves her argument flat.
1 comment:
Here I take your point to be that Taylor is relying on common sense understandings of phenomena and not being careful in considering other possibilities and how they might create potential problems for her overall theory. Even if this is true in other cases, I think the example you mention of pain fails to show this. On 112 Taylor says "physical injury and the infliction of physical pain are likely to interfere, at least temporarily, with the person's ability to lead the sort of life she had planned for herself." I agree that a poorly thought out view based on preconceptions might be something like what you suggested, "pain as only a detrement and not a possible aid." I just do not think this is what is going on. What Taylor actually says seems sensitive to cases where pain seems to be an aid: she says the range and degree of harm in both central and marginal cases are debatable. Furthermore, I think the example you offer is one of these cases where the harm is debatable and not a pure aid. In a sense, being addicted to anything seems problematic for true agency and planning of a life. So in this sense there is a some degree of harm in cutting. What makes this case debatable is that overall cutting is enjoyable and that the enjoyment allows the agent to survive until her situation changes and she can overcome her addiction. I think Taylor is not covering these kinds of stories in detail in the chapter 'capital vices' because there are other things to discuss, but I do not think she is being careless or failing to recognize them based on her actual language on 112.
Post a Comment