"Alain de Botton notes in his book Status Anxiety that many societies see a direct relationship between reputation and self-image. If others hold me in contempt, then I must either defend myself against their contempt or accept their contemptuous assessment. Philosophy introduces a mediator, reason, which assesses and judges reputation for its truth value. If reputation does not match reality, then one can maintain a good self-image in spite of the slings and arrows of society. Philosophy has thus also often been misanthropic, or at least skeptical of the wisdom of the crowd. This is a nice exercise if one wants to be protected from shame. But philosophy's approach is incoherent; for on what basis do I trust my judgment over that of others? Is it because I know myself better than others? Do I? Philosophers certainly assume that this is the case, but it's not at all clear that it's true.
There are undoubted benefits to philosophy. Philosophy limits or eliminates duelling and other violent resolutions of a shame-honor conflict. If someone throws down the gauntlet and calls me a cad, I can calmly and philosophically conclude that he is wrong, and walk away. I don't have to fight to prove it. Yet, ultimately, philosophy (in de Botton's setup) is a mechanism for self-justification, a method for putting the self in the position as judge of the self. And that, Barth saw, was a fundamental sin, for Christians confess that there is one Judge only. Our status, our honor or shame, is indeed dependent on another's assessment. But He is a merciful assessor. That is justification by faith."
Posted by Prop at February 11, 2005 04:39 PMIt's just like the moral arguement for the existence of God. The individual cannot be the source of morality if the assumptions of their morality inhibit the assumptions of another. In other words, if it is morally acceptable in my assumptions to kill someone then I should feel no guilt, but the act of murder inhibits someone from fulfilling their own moral code. Suddenly we realize that we are somehow responsible to each other as individuals and after a little circus of epistemies resposible to an Author of higher morality (since the judge has to have ultimate authority in order to operate justly).
I wonder if this is why some leaders of the past try to replace God with the state/government.
Posted by: timf at February 12, 2005 07:28 PMPlease note: Comments will not appear immediately. Your comment will appear upon approval by the blog's editor. We had to implement this to decrease the amount of spam that our site receives. Please forgive the inconvenience. We are looking into other, friendlier options.