These chapters were very interesting to read. However, there were a couple points in chapter five that really caught my attention. On page 105, Brennan says “The twentieth century conclusion that the difference between good and bad is no more than the difference between ‘I like it’ and ‘I don’t like it’ follows logically from a situation in which human action has been explained in terms of a succession of passions and passionate judgment mediated by more or less deliberation. In these deliberations the guiding principle is self-interest.” I disagree with this discussion as I don’t feel that the difference between good and bad is no more than the difference between “I like it” and “I don’t like it.” There is also the difference between right and wrong which must be considered here. For example, someone can like something that is wrong but this doesn’t make it good.
On page 115, Brennan says “The decline of the generation is understood in relation to what he calls the ‘defining moment of Sinai,’ when those in touch with the direct revelations of Moses understood them through the heart as well as sight and sound.” Brennan goes on to say “In Abramson’s terms, as we move further and further away from the defining moment of Sinai, our hearts have become more and more 'sealed' – and less and less 'communicative' – to apprehending the affect which others transmit to us.” I thought this discussion was interesting as, personally, I feel that my heart is very sealed. It makes sense to think that people who were in touch with the direct revelations of Moses had more open hearts and minds than people today. They were much closer to Jesus than we could ever hope to be.
In regards to your first paragraph; I'm not sure that Brennan actually, personally, would advocate an ethical style/theory of rational self-interest(i.e. what my passions/affects want is the only proper moral guide for my behavior). I think she's just arguing from the evidence that this seems to be the predominate view (or practice, at least) in our society. I get this impression because on the preceding page she said that "passions as a site of struggle... fades... insofar as they succeed in presenting themselves sympathetically, as the constituents of our true nature, entitled to... rule". I interpret this as: we no longer have a notion that we balance our passions against our morals... in essence, that our passions now ARE our morals.
ReplyDeleteShould this be the case(that we should invariably let our passions dictate our actions)? I don't think so. And based on Brennan's call for us to convert them "back into living energy" (164), to make the world a better place, I don't think Brennan takes that kind of emotional self-interst approach either. So in essence, I agree with your assertion that morality is not equal to passion/inclination. It requires us to consider our actions in light of their consequences on others, on relationships, on our future selves, etc. But I would definitely assert that the average person often considers only their immediate passionate self-interest when making these sorts of decisions. Its regrettable, but its difficult to fix.
I think the reason why many people today have “sealed hearts” is because we are taught to be this way. In one of my earlier papers, I mentioned that many children are taught at a young age to not let words or emotions effect them. The classic example is the parent telling their child to ignore the school's bully's hurtful remarks. We are a society that thinks emotions make you a non rational person. While those in this class know this statement is false, there are still those who hold on to this notion. Our ancestors may have had more open hearts because they may have based their decisions on their emotions. People today tend to rely on science. It is interesting to think how about how different our emotions/ affects would be if we were to have grown up in a different era.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Gordon's analysis of morality, though I guess in a certain light it's possible to refine the thought process down to Facebookian "likes/dislikes". When asked whether or not I approve of someone's actions, I initially let my emotions dictate what I think, but quickly apply the various philosophies and moral codes I have picked up over the years and apply those to the situation, effectively setting another lens over the object. From there I can better understand the nuances of an issue and come to a logical conclusion...that I like, and decide whether or not I like what's being done about the issue.
ReplyDeleteIn short, Brennan is right, but only in a very general way.
As much as Brennan and The Transmission of Affect annoy me, I’m inclined to agree with what Brennan has written here. I believe that perceptions of “good” and “bad” are personally constructed and have no inherent meaning. How then do we conceive of “good” and “bad”? Morality. And where does morality come from? Morality comes from normative value judgments that our influenced by our affective reactions.
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t necessarily “rational,” and this should necessarily be the case, but I think this is truthfully how humans come to differentiate good from bad and right from wrong.