I want to present a new ethics that responds to biological and cultural drives. I don't believe that an appeal to nature justifies human behavior. We stand outside nature, though our shadows are sucked into it. Culture with a history that stands outside of our genes, culture that involves planning and reflecting, is possible only when we forget much of our animal being. Animals are not peaceful. Animals are not wise. Animals do not settle for a reasonable amount. Animals simply are: there is no point assigning emotional descriptors to them.
I also want to appeal to scholars to remember that every document is produced for a different audience and with a different attitude toward that document. People who study books and words too often forget that it is extremely difficult to compare a book Virginia Woolf wrote when she was young to one she wrote when she was no longer young: not only had Woolf changed, her attitude toward what she was writing and who was reading it changed. This must be considered at every turn.
1 comment:
I agree with your ideas, and what is also remarkable is that each relationship between people is mysteriously individual to that dynamic between the two people. We are different with each person, it is sort of the inverse of what you are saying. Just as you imply that we read or write each story allowing for circumstances, so we take each person in, in the same way and then voilá there you have something alive.
Ya it is me again, I am still here.
Post a Comment