| OCR Text |
Show Rationality and the Structure of the Self, Volume I: The Humean Conception 11 better .... [Woolf] was better at producing the effect that it was useless to argue with him than at crushing you .... In practice it was a kind of combat in which strength of character was really much more valuable than subtlety of mind.5 Here the writer is John Maynard Keynes. Where Hampshire saw the character dispositions of transpersonal rationality in full flourishing, Keynes sees psychological and emotional intimidation. Where Hampshire saw the flowering of a moral virtue of high civilization - the flowering, in Nietzsche's terms, of "slave morality," Keynes sees little more than a less-than-subtle power struggle among Übermenschen, driven by the instinct to win social status, even at the cost of philosophical integrity. Where Hampshire saw selftranscendence, Keynes sees egocentric rationality in full force. Who saw more clearly? The answer is important for answering the question as to whether the character dispositions of transpersonal rationality are as central to philosophical practice as they are purported to be; and so, more generally, whether the character dispositions of transpersonal rationality can be as central to the structure of the self as I, in this project, argue they are. The answer to this more general question bears on the import and implications of my thesis. If philosophical practice is about the exercise of transpersonal rationality, as Hampshire suggests, and transpersonal rationality is central in the structure of the self, then philosophical practice exercises the capacity that centrally structures the self; and we cultivate and strengthen the rational dispositions of the self through philosophical practice. This confers on the philosophically inclined not special moral knowledge, but rather the special moral responsibilities of cultivating those capacities wisely and exercising them judiciously - i.e. the moral responsibilities of Plato's philosopher-king. If, on the other hand, philosophical practice has nothing to do with transpersonal rationality and everything to do with the egocentric rationality of mutual intimidation, as Keynes seems to argue, then philosophical practice is little more than a struggle for power; and the branches of philosophy we practice are mere means to that end - no better, nobler or more indispensable than any other. Determining the type and strength of rationality in the structure of the self sheds light on the extent of our capacity for rationality in our philosophical practice, and on the legitimacy of its claim to be the "queen of the disciplines," providing method, wisdom and guidance for the process of reflection on any subject. Both of these familiar, aristocratic descriptions of philosophy convey the traditional understanding of philosophy as a noble pursuit, and impose on philosophers the moral burden of noblesse oblige. John Maynard Keynes, "My Early Beliefs," in Two Memoirs (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1949), 85 and 88; quoted in Elizabeth Anderson, Value in Ethics and Economics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), 121. 5 © Adrian Piper Research Archive Foundation Berlin |
