![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 1st, 2006 03:17 pmIt is time to confess the terrible truth.
I am updating this because and only because it's Wednesday, I just had seven hours of classes, I am exhausted (so early in the semester!) and I cannot bring myself to look at my homework just yet. I'm going to have to tackle the small stuff first and then work my way up to literature and physics, I think, or else I will take a nap in despair. A despairing nap. Is that not the most pathetic phrase yet?
Ungh... literature has moved from the Enlightenment to Romanticism, which should be fun and brain-twisting. Today we discussed Rousseau, and his policy of complete honesty, and we analyzed the ethos, or the pseudo-ethos, behind it. Pseudo-ethos is my opinion, mostly. I don't believe that perfect and complete honesty is moral, nor do I believe that self-focus is moral. Life is too complicated for that; we can't simply simplify society away in some economic theory of an invisible hand creating harmony from a myriad of perfect self-interests.
"But the best solution is often the simplest!" Yes, yes, but before we turn to epigrams let's admit that while a simple solution is better than a complex solution, a complex solution is still better than a simple nothing. Also there is the contradiction of this Egotist Honesty, wherein the Romantic ideals claim individual perception--that is, subjectivity--over the objective truths perceived by a group--but does this not then make honest representation of oneself impossible? The object and the subject are the same, we want the objectivity implied by 'honest', but the un-imitatable nature of the understanding makes it inherently subjective, and therefore inherently dishonest--or rather, incapable of knowing the difference between honesty and dishonesty.
And basically, if we were all honest with everyone all the time, I would in all likelihood end up bursting into tears every hour or so. Which would be unpleasant for all involved.
P.S. Animating icons is the best way to procrastinate.
I am updating this because and only because it's Wednesday, I just had seven hours of classes, I am exhausted (so early in the semester!) and I cannot bring myself to look at my homework just yet. I'm going to have to tackle the small stuff first and then work my way up to literature and physics, I think, or else I will take a nap in despair. A despairing nap. Is that not the most pathetic phrase yet?
Ungh... literature has moved from the Enlightenment to Romanticism, which should be fun and brain-twisting. Today we discussed Rousseau, and his policy of complete honesty, and we analyzed the ethos, or the pseudo-ethos, behind it. Pseudo-ethos is my opinion, mostly. I don't believe that perfect and complete honesty is moral, nor do I believe that self-focus is moral. Life is too complicated for that; we can't simply simplify society away in some economic theory of an invisible hand creating harmony from a myriad of perfect self-interests.
"But the best solution is often the simplest!" Yes, yes, but before we turn to epigrams let's admit that while a simple solution is better than a complex solution, a complex solution is still better than a simple nothing. Also there is the contradiction of this Egotist Honesty, wherein the Romantic ideals claim individual perception--that is, subjectivity--over the objective truths perceived by a group--but does this not then make honest representation of oneself impossible? The object and the subject are the same, we want the objectivity implied by 'honest', but the un-imitatable nature of the understanding makes it inherently subjective, and therefore inherently dishonest--or rather, incapable of knowing the difference between honesty and dishonesty.
And basically, if we were all honest with everyone all the time, I would in all likelihood end up bursting into tears every hour or so. Which would be unpleasant for all involved.
P.S. Animating icons is the best way to procrastinate.
