Commenting upon Michael's: A term that has been widely used (after Sartre)
to stand for "integrity" was 'authenticity'. I feel that this is deeply
important, but I would not exaggerate its connection to 'aloneness' so
much. As one who is much (by choice) alone, I realize that I am not REALLY
alone (here I am on this list!). Importantly, no one needs to be alone now
that the internet is upon us. As well, even as I -- following Candide --
'cultivate my own garden', I am connected (in my case) to the vanishing
world of woodland plants and wildflowers. These had a rich history --
believe it or not -- in the history of the United States (it IS hard to
believe!), where Jefferson among other important early worthies, discussed
them (in the sense of distinguising them from similar European species --
it was another way of distinguishing themselves as valid) animatedly. Who
in Bush's country can imagine a president who was seriously concerned with
wildflowers?!!!!!!. (There was in the Nineteen Fifties a senator from
Maine who also had such concerns.) Alone in my garden, the shadow of
Jefferson looms, and of the Indian peoples who made medicines from the
plants, and of Marquet and Joliet, who survived upon wild leeks (pushing up
through the soil here even now!) during their famous trip down the Ohio
River.
STAN
>Dear Pedro,
>
>I find your statement, that Robinson Crusoe did not need
>any ethics in his solitary island, very intellectually stimulating.
>
>I actually take the opposite view of ethics. I believe that
>the ethical individual is one who has INTEGRITY.
>Integrity means completeness. An individual's completeness
>is tested most by their capacity to be alone.
>If an individual can be alone, indeed prefers to be alone,
>then they are complete. This will mean that they have
>no need to use another person, steal from them, exploit them,
>and generally have an existence that is parasitic on
>another person.
>
>A complete individual, one with integrity, can enter society
>without the need to use others, exploit them, etc.
>
>I argue therefore that, paradoxically, ethics towards others
>actually begins with the capacity for aloneness.
>
>The unethical individual is empty - and strives always to
>maintain that emptiness, by avoiding internal growth,
>inward examination and self-understanding.
>This constant flight from self sends them continually
>in search for others upon whom they are entirely dependent.
>They have no identity other than what they can steal from others.
>
>It is the relation that an individual has to themselves,
>when alone, that determines their relation to others.
>
>By the way, Pedro, thank you so much for creating
>such an interesting debate on ethics.
>
>best
>Michael
>
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Apr 25 21:53:59 2006
