Dear Klaus,
Your response to Keith [below] seems quite agreeable to me. This what
I partly intended when I raised the question of issues worth
considering whatever they are labeled. (Questions 5 on September 27
and questions 13, and 14 on September 30.)
Let us dispense with the label "false consciousness" to consider
issues and conditions. This leaves several issues open. These are all
connected in some way to Terry's initial question.
Terry inquires about situations. Whatever labels these are given in
different frames of inquiry, the labels are less important than the
consideration. There is an issue or consideration of some kind to be
examined.
Terry's inquiry and several of Keith's notes raise questions you do
not address. These include - without being limited to - several kinds
of issues.
Recent examples from Martin (1995: 262): "1 Lack of clear awareness
of the source and significance of one's beliefs and attitudes
concerning society, religion, or values; 2 objectionable forms of
ignorance and false belief; 3 dishonest forms of self-deception" as
well as "[4] self-corrupting untruthfulness in disowning one's
emotions and ideas."
In another example, Berger and Luckmann (1967: 6) describe a
condition involving "thought that is alienated from the real social
being of the thinkers." While they use the label "false
consciousness" [quotation marks theirs] for this condition, they seem
to place the label in quotation marks to suggest that they are not
attached to the term. Nevertheless, they find the condition
significant. (Their view on what Marx meant by the term is also
different than the view others hold.)
Another example is an interesting question that follows from your
interpretation of Aristotle. If you cannot consciously contradict
yourself, what occurs when you contradict yourself without intending
to do so and without knowing that you have done so?
The windows opened by these kinds of questions remain interesting
without regard to labels.
Establishing useful labels enables us to consider issues: the words
we use to describe these issues are labels of some kind, and if one
set of labels does not work, another may. Perhaps we should simply
describe conditions without applying labels for the moment. (I am not
speaking for Keith, who may prefer, as philosophers sometimes do, to
retain the label he has chosen to use.)
To me, these kinds of issues and others like them make the thread
intriguing. People continue to pursue these questions. Some do so
under problematic labels. Some use unethical methods. Sorting out
these kinds of issues makes the thread worth pursing. The point is
not the labels, but the issues.
At any rate, I enjoyed your note. I prefer this line of inquiry to a
line in which we impose truth claims on each other or attribute
beliefs and motives to one another.
Yours,
Ken
--
References
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction
of Reality. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Martin, Mike W. 1995. "False Consciousness." The Cambridge Dictionary
of Philosophy. Robert Audi, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 262.
--
Klaus wrote
-snip-
so, keith, you are suggesting that consciousness is a matter of what
we are considering at any one moment. this is very much to my liking.
accordingly, my consciousness cannot be false but is always limited.
we cannot be conscious of everything. we cannot be conscious of what
we are not conscious of, including of its limitation -- except in
hindsight, when the effects of our conscious actions fail a criterion
for success that we have adopted for ourselves. to me this opens a
lot of interesting conceptions. for example, mistakes would not be
the product of consciousness, rather of its absence. good old
aristotle is still right: you can't (consciously) contradict
yourself. when you lie you know the difference between what you say
and what you believe to be true nobody makes mistakes, you realize
only afterwards when it turns out that you did not get what you
expected. feeling an amputated limb has much to do with habituated
kinesthetic sensory motor coordination. when you open your eyes, you
know whether the limb is there. consciousness begins when you reflect
on where that difference comes from, not from the feeling.
-snip-
--
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
Faculty of Art, Media, and Design
Staffordshire University
|