File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0311, message 48


Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:47:54 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Todorov and humanism


Eric

Actually the problem for Anon is not simply to explain 'freedom' but 
rather to explain the simple fact of  'awareness'.  Why can't our bodies 
(human and non-human obviously)  function as the kind of  unconscious 
and unaware machine, like the Toshiba i am typing this on, or indeed 
like my monkey puzzle tree at the bottom of my garden ?  Assuming that 
we all accept that consciousness ignores most of our sensory input then 
I presume that the question must be why awareness/consciousness is 
required at all in order to support the distribution of our selfish 
genes... (actually did anon agree with this reductionsit understanding 
of Dawkins - i can't remember.  )  Anyway the point about 
awareness/consciousness and then freedom is that they are a strange 
supplement that simply cannot be explained away through the use of  such 
discourse -  often it seems as if the closer they attempt to get the 
greater the problem/mystery becomes!!! (see for example dennett's recent 
book)... The mystery becomes bigger because even as an existential 
phantasm then why this specific phantasm?

As Zizek would say:  (to invent a (mis)quote) 'Hegel would have had a 
good time laughing at this...'  Referring to the hegelian contempt for 
the idea of  spirit as a meaningless formula....

I think your summarisation is correct - i think what I especially like 
is that Todorov's reading is like Levi's is 'warts and all' version of 
humanism. There is no foolish idealisation of the human, if anything the 
reverse...  Even as someone who is if anything to anti-humanist I can't 
help but agree with the sentiments expressed here: "... humanist thought 
proposes a practical choice: a wager. Men are free it says; they are 
capable of the best and the worst. Better to wager that they are capable 
of acting willfully, loving purely and treating one another as equals 
than the contrary..."   Not to engage in this wager is to make the 
opposite wager and there is nothing to gan by presuming the worst...

regards
steve

Eric wrote:

>Steve,
>
>Summarizing, it seems that Todorov in your reading postulates humanism
>as a fourth interpretation of freedom beyond that offered in the context
>of religion, community and the individual. Since anon's version of the
>posthuman explicitly denied freedom, I wonder to what extent the issue
>may center on this concept. 
>
>Is humanism linked to the idea of freedom and what form might this take,
>beyond the usual structuring in terms of positive and negative freedoms?
>
>eric
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>[mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On Behalf Of
>steve.devos
>Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 5:03 AM
>To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: Todorov and humanism
>
>Eric/all
>
>Todorov is a fascinating case - he begins as a structuralist 
>literary/linguistic theorist - 'The theory of prose' , 'The Fantastic' 
>and the 'dictionary of the sciences of language'. At some stage around 
>1987 he makes the final shift towards a different engagement with the 
>world, liberal democratic and deeply humanist, and directly political. 
>Though arguably the text 'The Conquest of America' which is a fine 
>revisionist historical text, which mediates on the self/other relation 
>on a vast genocidal invasion of the Americas. 1492 is the date he 
>chooses as the first lesson of modernity (Venn quotes: 'for it is the 
>conquest of america that establishes our present identity it marks the 
>beginning of the modern era...' ).
>
>The book which strikes me as the most useful in relation to our own 
>issues is the recent Imperfect Garden: the legacy of humanism. It is a 
>study of the early French enlightenment humanists Montaigne, Rousseau, 
>Constant - he does this as part of a continuing defence of humanist 
>values against those intellectuals who would claim that they are 
>unworkable. The book is a sequel to his 'On Human Diversity' which made 
>the case for universal human values. The three key humanists are 
>discussed in a sructure that includes Descartes, La Rochefoucauld, 
>Pascal, Montesquieu, Helvétius, Sade, Baudelaire and Tocqueville, which 
>places it firmly in the French socio-historical context (but still). He 
>does not make a comparative analysis, refusing, critiquing the 
>anti-humanists or others views. Todorov argues that the universalism of 
>humanism makes it "almost invisible or insipid" and the original and 
>classical authors have a "rejoinder to the 'dark prophets' even before 
>the prophecy  had been formulated..."  They are never directly named but
>
>he argues that they claimed that price of human freedom is 1) initially 
>from God, 2) from our fellow humans, 3) finally from one's self. Todorov
>
>defines three 'sects' that are a response to these three: Conservatism 
>which accepts the humanist prophecy and admits there is no going back 
>but they slow the rate of change; scientism which denies that freedom 
>and choice exists, all things are determined by external forces and the 
>only goal is greater knowledge and understanding. Individualism: which 
>argues that only individuals matter and that any loss in the collective 
>and solidarity is a good thing.  These three 'families' of thought are 
>countered he argues by a fourth group 'humanists'  who work to 
>understand the negative prophecies and develop answers. The  answers 
>according to Todorov are flexible, middle ground compromises - what an 
>old leftist like me would think of as social-democractic - we are 
>Todorov suggests between slavery and freedom,  we can make choices but 
>not about everything, constrained as we are. We have autonomy but not 
>absolute freedom (he is a wide range determinist) and should work 
>towards the maximum possible "self-direction".  In the same way we are 
>socially determined creatures, (animals) halfway between "rigidly 
>defined social beings and isolated savages" having instinctual, evolved 
>needs for fellowship and comunnity and we negotiate our positions within
>
>the field of our contempories maximising our oppurtunites for 
>sociability. As such then we are  between our "universal human nature" 
>and the "collection of impulses" in between this we have an ability to 
>recognise our moral values, can understand our own subjecthood and our 
>relations with others and as humans should endaevor to work towards a 
>notional goodness that can be accepted by everyone. Humanist moral 
>philosophy is Todorov states "the universality of the they, the finality
>
>of the you, and the autonomy of the 'I'" All persons are autonomous 
>subjects and a moral choice/decision always involves the requirement 
>that we grant the others welfare a high priority, as such then all 
>persons (by which Todorov means humans) are equally entitles to the 
>humanists regard. Todorov forcefully notes that the 'families' of modern
>
>thought do normally exist in parallel with ne another in most 
>civilisations, there is a caveat however they must not force their views
>
>and positions on one another. Todorov argues that ideologies with 
>scientifc pretensions by which he means facism and stalinist varieities 
>of communism have heaped misery on humanity.  However his statements 
>that conservatives and individualists have done very little other than 
>demoralise polticis and morality and themselves... is frankly rubbish - 
>located in a suspiciously liberal-democratic worldview,  (remember that 
>he has only partially addressed the miseries of colonialism which has 
>been the most terrible destructive issue in human history elsewhere - 
>compared to this facism/communsm are minor leagure murderous events). 
>However notwithstanding this; it is interesting to read a good defense 
>of liberal-humanism, Todorov is a tolerant and intelligent writer,  he 
>argues that humanists were correct all along and that critics of 
>humanism whether it is 'liberal humanism' or some other variety, i.e. 
>anti-humanists, evolutionary-anti-humanists, scientific-marxists , 
>post-colonialists, post-modernists, fascists, 
>conservative-anti-humanists etcetera are all wrong. Todorov argues that 
>humanists and their view of humanity, of the social and politics, 
>morality, ethics remains the best way towards human happiness. I think 
>it would have been interesting if he'd worked more on recent, say 20th 
>Century humanisms but it's not hard to see how you can place Levi, 
>Grossman, perhaps Kristeva and even Virillo into the stream of humanism.
>
>Does he have a means out of the morass we are in ? No of course not, but
>
>he does place an interesting "humanist wager" before us. That needs to 
>be thought through. Because if the alternative is the probability that 
>the techno-scientific domain continues its path towards a new 
>techno-scientific fascism founded probably on the things that 'anon' has
>
>been writing on, and Todorov's pluralistic humanism then...
>
>(I hope I don't misrepresent Todorov to badly in what is after mainly a 
>review of the book ) errors and misrepresentations are of course mine...
>
>regards
>steve
>
>Eric wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Steve,
>>
>>There are certainly limits to being too inclusive as well as too
>>exclusive, if we speak in such abstract terms.  The issue for me,
>>however, is that you are also critiquing Hayles in a very abstract way
>>without first really grappling with what she has to say, and therefore
>>your dismissal seems more like a prejudice than an informed decision. 
>>
>>When you say the following:
>>
>>"you are no longer human, perhaps you never were. The person standing
>>next to you is a cyborg and the man of the year is a computer. Gender
>>    
>>
>is
>  
>
>>just a memory, while futures past are here and now. Do not be alarmed
>>you have entered the space of posthumanism...."
>>
>>I think you are just reducing the issue to a kind a 'straw cyborg'
>>argument.  Hayles is far more nuanced than you are giving her credit
>>for. I also think the arguments made by others here at this site are
>>certainly not that simplistic. You are just making things easy for
>>yourself. 
>>
>>What I would really like to discuss with you is Todorov's humanism.
>>    
>>
>I've
>  
>
>>never read him at all and so far know him only as a vague and distant
>>name, somehow affiliated with literary theory. I would like to know the
>>gist of the argument he is making and how it impacts on
>>poststructuralism, posthumanism and the whole ball of wax. 
>>
>>I think you know I certainly don't buy into posthumanism as a kind of
>>soteriological doctrine. I also think we are in basic agreement that
>>    
>>
>the
>  
>
>>politics of this situation remains an important consideration. 
>>
>>Does Todorov show us a potential way out of the Matrix or even
>>Capitalism, for that matter?
>>
>>Eric  
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
>multipart/alternative
>  text/plain (text body -- kept)
>  text/html
>---
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
> 
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
> 
>
>  
>


--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005