Friday's quiz was a bit of a challenge, as I expect you'll agree. Patrick's standard-form interpretation of the first argument was perhaps the cleanest of the bunch (including my own). Here's a close paraphrase:
A valet deals with a man as a normal person
No man is a hero to his valet
A judging consciousness can always take into account personal and individual meaning, which tempers
the universal aspect of any action
Here the second premise evidently follows as a sub-conclusion from the first, and the general conclusion follows from the second premise, at least if we allow Hegel's analogy to resonate a little. Of course, supplying premises making that analogy explicit would be of some help: the "moral valet" represents our capacity to judge -- to interpret the world on both a quotidian and a historical scale. Heroism is clearly an example of the "universal aspect" of an action -- its wider significance. Hegel is not denying that an action can have such world-historical significance, that there are heroes; he is only reminding us that in some sense heroes are no better than us, for like us they have smelly socks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Is Hegel saying that all human actions have meaning but they are not necessarily heroic?
A "bit of a challenge?" Can hardly wait to see what a very challenging quiz looks like. PLEASE DO NOT RUSH.
On the contrary, Christopher, I suspect Hegel is saying that (some) human actions ARE heroic, but that those actions are also, and at the same time, mundane.
Robin, I'll do what I can to satisfy your thirst for a challenge!
How about getting me started on "the paper?" Please. I need to be pointed in a direction, or I will waste way too much time staring at my navel wondering what topic will be "good enough" to write about. And something tells me that you won't let me get away with writing a paper about why I didn't write a paper.
Sure, Robin. Let's talk about a paper topic that suits you!
Post a Comment