Ethical Self Concept

@Reconstructo,

Is it the case that a person has only one ideal of himself or a related cluster of ideals or several clusters of possibly contradictory ideals?

We realise that these ideals can change over time, just as a ten year-old boy wants to be a fireman and by eighteen wants to become a philosopher.

Man is, as Heidegger makes clear, always involved in the future, and he continually projects many future states of being some of which are goals with various "completion dates." Many people make an honest effort to follow their New Year's Resolutions; others make them in order to feel good about themselves knowing there is little chance they will really make an effort.

In place of "ethical instinct" perhaps it is a matter of our involvement in time-as-future that naturally leads us to have Sartrean projects, ranging from washing the car tomorrow to stop smoking to becoming an author to being a "better person" in the future. And are there not very specific goals and also very general ones both operating at the same time, and could these not (at least from an outsider's view) always be in harmony?

A phenomenological examination might start by considering all the various instances of goal-setting and find something like "family resemblances" between the various types (time-frame, seriousness, realistic possibility, authenticity, and so on); these distinctions and gradations might drastically change the original question.

@jgweed,

jgweed;127431 wrote:

Is it the case that a person has only one ideal of himself or a related cluster of ideals or several clusters of possibly contradictory ideals?

We realise that these ideals can change over time, just as a ten year-old boy wants to be a fireman and by eighteen wants to become a philosopher.

Man is, as Heidegger makes clear, always involved in the future, and he continually projects many future states of being some of which are goals with various "completion dates." Many people make an honest effort to follow their New Year's Resolutions; others make them in order to feel good about themselves knowing there is little chance they will really make an effort.

In place of "ethical instinct" perhaps it is a matter of our involvement in time-as-future that naturally leads us to have Sartrean projects, ranging from washing the car tomorrow to stop smoking to becoming an author to being a "better person" in the future. And are there not very specific goals and also very general ones both operating at the same time, and could these not (at least from an outsider's view) always be in harmony?

A phenomenological examination might start by considering all the various instances of goal-setting and find something like "family resemblances" between the various types (time-frame, seriousness, realistic possibility, authenticity, and so on); these distinctions and gradations might drastically change the original question.

Yes, indeed. Some people think about what they are going to do tomorrow, or even next year, and do things to prepare for it, like buy detergent if they are going to wash clothes, or they go to law school if they are thinking of a law career. And Heidegger knew all of this, and he pointed it out too? I really have to get back to reading him. He is so wise.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do all humans have some concept or ideal that they try to live up to?

All humans have some concept and or ideal. Yes they do, what they are for is different for everyone.

Whether they are trying to live up to something is not always the case.
Some are trying to live up to their own defeat, and if the defeat is a concept or an ideal i have no idea at this time.
Concept and ideal are two different things, an ideal concept and a concept ideal have not weight but upon the bearers shoulders, is to the bearers, it is what they try to do with them and what they try to unload upload their burden on, rather than off.
So it depends upon translation here.
Is a concept or ideal contingent upon the need for it to be good ethical?
Again ethical is dependant upon translation.
Because if it is ethical and good then there are many who live without concept or ideal and as many as who live with it.
Are you trying to teach or to learn these concepts or ideals?
Are you trying to be known by them? is an important question.
Are you with these concepts and ideals trying to prove something or to deny soemthing?

Live up to is to vague.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do some of us have several clashing self-concepts?

Is there one governing concept? are you asking?
Is by being a self-conceptualised-being make you one or a consortium?
Because surly a concept is as ever unprdicatable as your dreams?
It changes or there are many.
But one self to govern them.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Where do such concepts come from?

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

How do they evolve or change?

They evolve and change by seeing them born in others.
We need proof and this is what we are trying to do by concepting or idealing, we are trying to proove ourselves so that others will have our same ideals and sometimes conceptualise as we would.
But to say this means that our own idealings and conceptings are changable and evolvable.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do we have a sort of ethical instinct that causes us to construct an ideal self?

Yes we idealise, yes we conceptualise this is in some sense an instinct.
Is it ever ethical instinct? Good question, dont know but what i can teach and maybe learn.
Was I born ethical?
Again what does ethical mean here? Translate please.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

How does this ideal self or self-ideal connect to philosophical views?

What came first the thought or the thinker?

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 11:46 PM ----------

jgweed;127431 wrote:

Is it the case that a person has only one ideal of himself or a related cluster of ideals or several clusters of possibly contradictory ideals?

One ideal or many ideals, which is it?

jgweed;127431 wrote:

We realise that these ideals can change over time, just as a ten year-old boy wants to be a fireman and by eighteen wants to become a philosopher.

Not true, could always want ot be a fireman but has learne dthat he is better as a philosopher.
We certainly dont realise it, not at least until we are it.
And Not that many people realise what they are, not at least until they are shown it.
Which makes them less a fireman as it does a less philosopher.
Realsiing the slef through concepts and ideal is either immpossible to do, or the only way we do.

jgweed;127431 wrote:

Man is, as Heidegger makes clear, always involved in the future, and he continually projects many future states of being some of which are goals with various "completion dates." Many people make an honest effort to follow their New Year's Resolutions; others make them in order to feel good about themselves knowing there is little chance they will really make an effort.

Can defeat feel good?

jgweed;127431 wrote:

In place of "ethical instinct" perhaps it is a matter of our involvement in time-as-future that naturally leads us to have Sartrean projects, ranging from washing the car tomorrow to stop smoking to becoming an author to being a "better person" in the future. And are there not very specific goals and also very general ones both operating at the same time, and could these not (at least from an outsider's view) always be in harmony?

A phenomenological examination might start by considering all the various instances of goal-setting and find something like "family resemblances" between the various types (time-frame, seriousness, realistic possibility, authenticity, and so on); these distinctions and gradations might drastically change the original question.

The "better person" here is the only concept and ideal you named.
The rest is about identity.
And we all should know that our identities are not concepts or ideals.
They are what we deal with, the present.
The future like the ideal and concept may not even exist until they are indeed identity, future reached which would be a present.
Is you identity your concept or your ideal? I doubt it.
Keep learning and teaching for a future to become your present.
My identity is usually wrong, my ideal and my concept are trying to be correct.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do all humans have some concept or ideal that they try to live up to? Do some of us have several clashing self-concepts?

Where do such concepts come from? How do they evolve or change? Do we have a sort of ethical instinct that causes us to construct an ideal self? How does this ideal self or self-ideal connect to philosophical views?

I don't know if all humans have a concept or ideal that they try to live up to, but I believe that they do whether they consciously realize it or not. However, some humans may not have the will to live up to that ideal.

When you say several self clashing concepts I assume that you mean mutually exclusive ideals. I think that some people do have mutually exclusive ideals that clash. It's like a battle between separate drives. For example, some people may want fortune and fame but they don't want to 'cut throats' to get there. However, some times may call for ruthlessness to achieve the goal of fortune and fame, and so the person ends up in an intrapersonal battle of wills.

The concept of the self has probably evolved due to its utility as a life preserving state of mind. It reinforces the agent's will to survival and power. I don't believe in ethical instinct in the sense that ethical concepts are innate to human beings, but emotional instincts are innate, and those emotional instincts are the driving forces behind morality. The concept of the self or the individual is useful in axiological philosophic views mainly because the axiological fields are primarily concerned with subjective human experience as opposed to objective facts of the world.

@jgweed,

jgweed;127431 wrote:

Is it the case that a person has only one ideal of himself or a related cluster of ideals or several clusters of possibly contradictory ideals?

All of these statements are good response. Let me concentrate on your first point. I think that "cluster" is a good description and also that contradictory ideals are possible. I would think that a self-conscious ironist (Nietzsche? Rorty? You and I?) would be especially cluster-f*cked. Some seem to make it their project to streamline or simplify themselves. To think one thought. Rorty used the phrase "purity versus self-enlargement."

Indeed, these ideas change. One need look only at one's own development as a thinker. As Nietzsche said: one starts by being ashamed of one's immorality and ends by being ashamed of one's morality. He also (in so many words) said that his own type evolved from the priest, another example of the higher emerging from the lower (at least in his eyes and mine).

---------- Post added 02-13-2010 at 05:46 PM ----------

sometime sun;127683 wrote:

And we all should know that our identities are not concepts or ideals.
T

A bigger reply later. But what about this? Isn't your "should" statement above an ideal? Isn't it part of your identity (at the moment)?

---------- Post added 02-13-2010 at 06:34 PM ----------

sometime sun;127683 wrote:

Is a concept or ideal contingent upon the need for it to be good ethical?
Again ethical is dependant upon translation.
Because if it is ethical and good then there are many who live without concept or ideal and as many as who live with it.
Are you trying to teach or to learn these concepts or ideals?

I'm coming from a psychological angle. If what we are dealing with is a Jungian archetype, then "good" and "ethical" are not the same. For instance, in Paradise Lost, Satan says "Evil, be thou my good." He self-consciously adopting a new ethical self-ideal. (Whatever it is he means by "Evil.")

I've been thru a series of these ideals myself. I suspect we all have. We change our minds as to what type a person we should strive to be. I would guess that even (or especially) junkies and criminals wrestle with such an instinct. This all ties in to both self-justification and self-glorification. There are some who might call this self-consciousness wrong or imprudent. Is this just the rhetoric of their self-concept? I feel that much of the debate on this forum and in the world is the clashing of self-concepts. While one's self-concept can be or include the pursuit of truth, this is by no means the only possible conception of virtue. And then pursuers of truth are no identical enough to be biased toward the same truth.

---------- Post added 02-13-2010 at 06:36 PM ----------

hue-man;127854 wrote:

However, some humans may not have the will to live up to that ideal.

Perhaps the ideal is always a step ahead of us, except for those little triumphant moments where we do feel victory. Does the goal change as we near it? Yeats had an interesting system (see "A Vision"). Our ideals are often so grand that it requires a bit of faith to interpret the evidence in one's own favor.

I wrote a thread called Donkey and Carrot about this, but it didn't catch on. Maybe my analogy didn't appeal to them. But if the donkey chases a carrot tied to his back, he chases a projection (Heidegger's project --> Jung's projection?). The present is a trotting after the could-be and should-be. Is is usually almost. (That last line was indulgent.)

@Reconstructo,

Every ethical self concept includes opportunity costs.

@Deckard,

Deckard;127994 wrote:

Every ethical self concept includes opportunity costs.

Could you elaborate? I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127996 wrote:

Could you elaborate? I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

Opportunity cost is a business/economic term. If you put you invest your money one place you loose the opportunity of investing it somewhere else. This is certainly true when choosing a profession. William James says something about murdering other future possible selves. You murder the future fireman in order to become the future philosopher.

How much does this really apply to an ethical self-concept? In Zarathustra's virtues fought like scorpions until there was only one left and then that scorpion stabbed itself. What? This last part confuses me. But I read it as the final step before the rebirth into a new ethical self concept that is beyond good and evil.

Nietzsche talks a lot about metamorphoses of various kinds. His ethical self concept is very dynamic. Like a tree growing or a butterfly. Are the caterpillar and the butterfly two different ethical self-concepts or can they be taken together as one dynamic whole?

Kierkegaard's Either/Or is a choice rather than a process. The aesthetic life or the ethical life. The dialectic does not result in a metamorphosis into a synthesis that negates the negation but rather there is a choice either/or. One does not give birth to the other as a matter of course but must be chosen. There is then an opportunity cost.

Plato's ethical concept gets dragged out of the cave and is made to see the Sun which suggests that it is less than chosen.

Virtue is cultivated by the Thomists and Aristotelians but the ethical self-concept is always compared to some preconceived ideal so of the ones I've listed so far this one seems the least dynamic. Yet the inability to recognize this goal suggests a deficiency in the virtue of discernment and how does one cultivate that virtue? However for the Thomists, insofar as he is an ideal roll model, Jesus is static and never changing. We can't make too much of the metamorphic subtext of the crucifixion; Jesus qua ethical ideal roll model was the same before and after Calgary. Just as the mean between extremes is ever the same.

So really we need to take a couple steps back since this idea of warring virtues and hate of immorality transmuting into hate of morality is a part of Nietzsche's dynamic ethical self concept as a whole.

There is an opportunity cost to adjusting ones ethical ideals to more resemble Nietzsche's dynamism or Kierkegaard's choice or Aristotle's mean or etc. etc. But to say that is to suggest that ones ethical self-concept is ultimately a choice. Invest wisely.

@hue-man,

hue-man;127854 wrote:

The concept of the self has probably evolved due to its utility as a life preserving state of mind. It reinforces the agent's will to survival and power. I don't believe in ethical instinct in the sense that ethical concepts are innate to human beings, but emotional instincts are innate, and those emotional instincts are the driving forces behind morality. The concept of the self or the individual is useful in axiological philosophic views mainly because the axiological fields are primarily concerned with subjective human experience as opposed to objective facts of the world.

Our morality is our pain doing things or being something, so our morality is our way of understanding translatiing our pain.
And some people cant understand their own pain.
All people may have a 'morality' but it may not be an ethical morality.
Can you understand others pain if you dont understand your own?
And is this misunderstanding (presuming pain can be understood, this may be the biggest lie we tell ourselves and thus morality is born and possibly morality like the understanding even solving of pain does not exist, transferance) is this misunderstanding why how or why we hurt others?
Is the only way we can come to understand pain by seeing it in others? and the reason we cause pain only because we do not understand our own?

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 03:39 AM ----------

Reconstructo;127981 wrote:

A bigger reply later. But what about this? Isn't your "should" statement above an ideal? Isn't it part of your identity (at the moment)?

I have always seen shoulds as ideals and yes even above ideals even though a should achieved is as much an ideal as total fulfillment.
A should is something one knows they ought,
ideal may be reaching nought.
Yes it is an ideal because ideals are not achievments. Not yet any way
Your identity is an achievement.
Achievements are not always ideals now are they?
We are afraid of our ideals i think which is why we make them a should, because a should is a sharing.
An ideal is more personal. Self belief
A should is more communicable. Relgion
All religion starts with self belief?
It could even be self denial?

Reconstructo;127981 wrote:

I'm coming from a psychological angle. If what we are dealing with is a Jungian archetype, then "good" and "ethical" are not the same. For instance, in Paradise Lost, Satan says "Evil, be thou my good." He self-consciously adopting a new ethical self-ideal. (Whatever it is he means by "Evil.")

So ethical is an ideal as much as a should as a concept.
But the ethical starts by saying what is not, good is all about what nots?
Good not good is evil, evil not evil is good?
(Something in there i cant quite get out, sorry but not.)
It does say that good is that from which all comes from all is and that the only way to be evil is to make it a good.
Good is not an ideal here, good is the identity.
(There that is a little better)

Reconstructo;127981 wrote:

I've been thru a series of these ideals myself. I suspect we all have. We change our minds as to what type a person we should strive to be. I would guess that even (or especially) junkies and criminals wrestle with such an instinct. This all ties in to both self-justification and self-glorification. There are some who might call this self-consciousness wrong or imprudent. Is this just the rhetoric of their self-concept? I feel that much of the debate on this forum and in the world is the clashing of self-concepts. While one's self-concept can be or include the pursuit of truth, this is by no means the only possible conception of virtue. And then pursuers of truth are no identical enough to be biased toward the same truth.

You had to learn to be a junkie and a criminal, there was an induction, i am not sure what you mean by instinct here, but presuming that instinct can be leanred, can you be a better junkie or criminal, can you be better at being bad? Knowing or learning the self is more than possession which is adiction, the possessed are adicted which is that which thinks they have learned all they need to live which believes their self comes first, full of them selves and will kill themselves because they end up starving, feeding the possession not the true self, the true self being that which needs the food and truth and ideals and justice of others.
Can one only be good for themselves?
Good is not a possession, it is a gift it must be given to be good. But you can sertainly be bad just for the self.
Is an instinct an ideal then?
Is it instinctual to be good, must we learn to be good? or is it always that we have unlearned good before to be bad? Does the instinct to be good remain? Because if it doesn't maybe it was never natural in the nature to just be good? Only good? Can we only define concpetualise identify good by bads definition concept identity?
Self justification is an ideal is a concept for the identity to be a because of something.
Which is why we need justice just for such as because, justice needs to be identity, justice needs to be more than a should more than a concept and more than an ideal but at the same time all these things to be shared, believed, trusted and understood. Understanding is experience is identity.
The things we need to be identity.
First we must identify, do we only identify by knowing both?
Is the law to teach the good or is it to defy the bad?
Is law open to interpretation?
Enforced idealism is law?
Religion is law is identity?
Are we no longer teaching law justice by no longer teaching religion?
How else are we teaching this before we simply insist upon it?

Something about self gratification being a law unto the self.
And all laws needing to be good, all good needs to be en mass, ergo religion is good.
Religion which is universal idealism, coming from the root of the ideal all the way up and into justice. But only if enforced?
Religion then may become the lost art of turning the self into justice all for the sake of good of more than just self. Universal good? Not always but could be the closest we can come to a worldly good.
But how is one to know which religion is good, or more good for more?
One for all and all for one, no room then for self?
(sorry but not for the mess indulgence of this, for you as much as not for me, for me as much as not for you, both not just one) Smile

@Deckard,

Deckard;128042 wrote:

There is an opportunity cost to adjusting ones ethical ideals to more resemble Nietzsche's dynamism or Kierkegaard's choice or Aristotle's mean or etc. etc. But to say that is to suggest that ones ethical self-concept is ultimately a choice. Invest wisely.

I agree. Kojeve writes about man as a free historical being is dependent on man being mortal. Because man is mortal, he cannot realize all of his potential. If all of us lived to be 10000, perhaps we would all end up the same, or nearly the same.

Some of us do experience a sense of a choice. This may be an illusion. At some point self-consciousness and self-creation become a vortex. If ironist adopts an oxymoronic dynamic position, he also negates this position. If self-subversion is the ideal, then self-subversion isn't the ideal. "Continuing doubts about one's final vocabulary." That's Rorty on ironism. I think these continuing doubts are sand in the oyster. Ironism is a necessarily ironic self-description for the position of the ironist. (If it were a torment, I would settle down. F. Schlegel called himself a "transcendental buffoon." Is this ludic? Tragicomic? Golden laughter? Light feet? The infinite game?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128077 wrote:

I agree. Kojeve writes about man as a free historical being is dependent on man being mortal. Because man is mortal, he cannot realize all of his potential. If all of us lived to be 10000, perhaps we would all end up the same, or nearly the same.

Some of us do experience a sense of a choice. This may be an illusion. At some point self-consciousness and self-creation become a vortex. If ironist adopts an oxymoronic dynamic position, he also negates this position. If self-subversion is the ideal, then self-subversion isn't the ideal. "Continuing doubts about one's final vocabulary." That's Rorty on ironism. I think these continuing doubts are sand in the oyster. Ironism is a necessarily ironic self-description for the position of the ironist. (If it were a torment, I would settle down. F. Schlegel called himself a "transcendental buffoon." Is this ludic? Tragicomic? Golden laughter? Light feet? The infinite game?

There is a vortex or perhaps something like a knifes edge that is very difficult to balance on. One side is self-consciousness and one side is self-creation. It's as if we are looking for a third surface. What would it be? Self-control?

I spit upon hearing of the Duad but I have lost faith in the One so I seek out trinities. The Good, the Beautiful and the True.

@Deckard,

Deckard;128091 wrote:

There is a vortex or perhaps something like a knifes edge that is very difficult to balance on. One side is self-consciousness and one side is self-creation. It's as if we are looking for a third surface. What would it be? Self-control?

I spit upon hearing of the Duad but I have lost faith in the One so I seek out trinities. The Good, the Beautiful and the True.

Then there is also self-consciousness conceived of as self-creation. If self-consciousness is made of words, then self-consciousness is poetry -- in the older broader sense of the word.

Is self-control due in some measure to the force exerted by the ethical self concept? Assuming (for the moment) its a Jungian archetype, archetypes are numinous. They are instincts with semi-determinate forms. I once liked the word "spirit" for this less-animal instinct, the instinct associated for me with culture.

I also like trinities.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128119 wrote:

Then there is also self-consciousness conceived of as self-creation. If self-consciousness is made of words, then self-consciousness is poetry -- in the older broader sense of the word.

Is self-control due in some measure to the force exerted by the ethical self concept? Assuming (for the moment) its a Jungian archetype, archetypes are numinous. They are instincts with semi-determinate forms. I once liked the word "spirit" for this less-animal instinct, the instinct associated for me with culture.

I also like trinities.

If we go with this trinity self-/=creation/control/consciousness in an archetypal game rock/papers/scissors. Ummm...
Control checks creation before it becomes chaos.
Creation checks consciousness before it becomes stagnant. Consciousness checks control before it becomes ummm... authoritarian.

I don't know but maybe that works. I'm sure how attached I am to this particular trinity but the pieces sort of fall into place.

Creation is obviously Aesthetic and concerned with the Beautiful. Control is obviously ethical and concerned with the Good
Consciousness is obviously ummm... epistemological? or logical? (or what's the best word for that last one, the one that is centered around being conscious of the Truth? Scientific?... Philosophical?)

Of course they all blur into each other into a single unity like any good/beautiful/true trinity should.

I really like that Rorty quote by the way. Seems very apt at the moment although I'm not being all that ironic.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do all humans have some concept or ideal that they try to live up to? Do some of us have several clashing self-concepts?

Some people do. They either try to find some role model to incorporate into their life as a method for motivation or inspiration. I however think it demeans you to do that. If you set not standards then you have the most freedom to be how ever you are. You can't really fail with this outlook either because you are not setting a standard to weigh your success by.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Where do such concepts come from?

I would say most of it comes from clever marketing. People who are successful try to sell their success for more success and gullible people buy into it thinking if they only had the secrets of success they could be successful too. It doesn't work like that, yet it doesn't stop people from trying.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

How do they evolve or change?

Lots of ways but mostly through fads or economic stimulation. Like the housing bubble was always a push for real estate.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

Do we have a sort of ethical instinct that causes us to construct an ideal self?

Ideal self? Ethics are so subjective, that real self would also be subjective. So this is only kidding yourself if you are trying to find the ideal self. Then my question is, are you faking it? If you have to pretend to be nice to people because it's the "ethical" thing to do, then are you really ethical? Not in my opinion. You are only playing one.

Reconstructo;127377 wrote:

How does this ideal self or self-ideal connect to philosophical views?

Ideal self? Still I don't know what you are wanting to get by determining what the ideal self is. Sounds boring, cookie cutter, controlled and manipulated. All the things I try to avoid personally.

@Deckard,

Deckard;128130 wrote:

If we go with this trinity self-/=creation/control/consciousness in an archetypal game rock/papers/scissors. Ummm...
Control checks creation before it becomes chaos.
Creation checks consciousness before it becomes stagnant. Consciousness checks control before it becomes ummm... authoritarian.

I don't know but maybe that works. I'm sure how attached I am to this particular trinity but the pieces sort of fall into place.

Creation is obviously Aesthetic and concerned with the Beautiful. Control is obviously ethical and concerned with the Good
Consciousness is obviously ummm... epistemological? or logical? (or what's the best word for that last one, the one that is centered around being conscious of the Truth? Scientific?... Philosophical?)

Of course they all blur into each other into a single unity like any good/beautiful/true trinity should.

I really like that Rorty quote by the way. Seems very apt at the moment although I'm not being all that ironic.

I do think it's a workable trinity. Yes, we could probably slice the pizza in different ways as well, but three is a nice slim prime. (Creation being aesthetic, you might say.)

I also agree that when the vivisection is done, the three should be re-assembled as the one.

I'm glad to get someone else's feedback on Rorty. His writing style is as likable as his subject matter. I hate writers that waste my time. His Essays kick out the jam efficiently.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128356 wrote:

I'm glad to get someone else's feedback on Rorty. His writing style is as likable as his subject matter. I hate writers that waste my time. His Essays kick out the jam efficiently.

You said the quote was "Rorty on ironism" yet it seems that the ever-incomplete vocabulary applies to any final vocabulary that can be doubted. Can you supply a little more context for that quote being related to irony?

Back to the OP. After this digression on trinities we can say something like Ethical Self Concept can be classed with the Aesthetic (?) Self Concept and the Analytical/objective (?) Self Concept. Why do I have so much trouble naming this last one?

@Deckard,

Deckard;128366 wrote:

You said the quote was "Rorty on ironism" yet it seems that the ever-incomplete vocabulary applies to any final vocabulary that can be doubted. Can you supply a little more context for that quote being related to irony?

Back to the OP. After this digression on trinities we can say something like Ethical Self Concept can be classed with the Aesthetic (?) Self Concept and the Analytical/objective (?) Self Concept. Why do I have so much trouble naming this last one?

See Page xv
Contingency, irony, and solidarity - Google Books

He stopped using the term after this book. I suppose I should stress that final vocabularies for Rorty are largely about self-justification in regards to the most important matters. Ironism is tied into self-creation for Rorty. The ironist is often justifying himself to himself. This ties in to "first-science." If a person has a dynamic notion of "truth," then any statement they make in the present is necessarily potentially deceptive. They may abandon it tomorrow. They may abandon ironism itself tomorrow. It's a vortex. But Rorty wants to keep such ironism private (optimistic of him, isn't it?). Private ironist, public liberal.

For me the Ethical Self Concept ties into all the issues in the first-science thread. Is the creation of the concept of an Ethical Self Concept motivated by a particular sort of Ethical Self Concept? I also like the phrase "hero myth" but it never goes over well. Is the philosopher just one more hero-game for humans to play? The intellectual as hero. Truth-seeker as hero. He stays home and writes a book. His brother goes to war to create a classless society. His sister signs Opera. His cousin strives not to strive. Does the analytic-epistemological rest on the aesthetic? Then of course we must have a concept or mental model of objective reality. Does this include a God? Is this reality singular in the first place?

I guess I see the aesthetic and the epistemology as all tied up. To quote Rorty again: the self is a network of beliefs and desires. Including the belief that the self is a network of beliefs and desires.

@Krumple,

Krumple;128156 wrote:

Ideal self? Still I don't know what you are wanting to get by determining what the ideal self is. Sounds boring, cookie cutter, controlled and manipulated. All the things I try to avoid personally.

This is a fine example of an Ideal Self. Krumpl as the opposite of "boring, cookie cutter, controlled and manipulated. " By the way, I relate to these values.

This ideal self is a custom fit. Our ideal selves are like fingerprints. That's my theory. We assimilate pieces from here and there. We develope a private concept of the heroic/decent/virtuous/honorable. I can't it narrow it don't too much because the instinct/archetype is flexible, presumably thanks to our neocortex.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 05:19 PM ----------

Krumple;128156 wrote:

Some people do. They either try to find some role model to incorporate into their life as a method for motivation or inspiration. I however think it demeans you to do that. If you set not standards then you have the most freedom to be how ever you are. You can't really fail with this outlook either because you are not setting a standard to weigh your success by.

To me, this response of yours is a manifestation of your personal ethical self-concept.

I think you took a reductive view of my theory. This theory makes plenty of room for ironic, cynical, self-creating philosophers. It's very easy indeed for a person to adopt irony, cynicism, and self-creation as their ethical ideals. But "ethical" isn't the perfect word here. I've also used "hero myth." But the word "hero" is so taboo in this democratic age where most pretend to think of themselves as merely equal to the general populace.

I think we are all naturally elitist. Our elitism can take clever forms. We can feel like part of the club that is above elitism -- which is of course elitism.

@Reconstructo,

I just want to add that "ethical" is not the perfect word here. If one takes a holistic view on this, man's epistemology is connected to his aesthetics is connected to his hip bone is connected to his ethics. Vivisection deceives.

Philosophy Forum

Ethical Self Concept

Quick Links

My Account

able2know