11.19.2008

Ethics in Question



I've been reading, in turn, two books that address problems with Kantian ethics from very different standpoints.
One is Paul Churchland's Neurophilosophy at Work; the other is Theodore Adorno's Problems of Moral Philosophy.

Those of you familiar with my book will remember that I discussed Churchland's Moral Network Theory at length; while I found it useful, it ultimately fails to do everything he wants it to (or perhaps, everything I want it to). This collection of essays doesn't add anything that would challenge this evaluation, but it's interesting to see how he's extended and updated the theory over the years.

Adorno, on the other hand, is someone whom I've been reading on and off since taking a class with James Rolleston about 20 years ago. I always struggle with his writings, but unlike some other Continental theorists, I keep coming back for more. This book is based on lectures he gave in the early 60's with (I exaggerate) Nietzsche in one hand, Freud in the other, while standing on Marx.





I like the contrast between the two, since they are both critiquing Kant with very distinct agendas; for instance, Adorno isn't concerned with finding a biological ground for ethics, and Churchland doesn't acknowledge the tension between the "good life" of the individual and the good of the community. I have a hard time thinking outside of the field that Kant has defined; I've delved into his writings (and plunged into the vast secondary literature) more than any other philosopher's except Nietzsche, but I find him problematic and mistaken in ways that I have difficulty articulating (past the traditional critiques, first posed by Benjamin Constant)--even though that's more or less the topic of my book. As anyone who has read Nietzsche knows, his critiques of Kant tend more to the ad hominem than careful refutation (one of the reasons I like Robert Solomon's writings on Nietzsche is that he recognizes that a well executed ad hominem isn't necessarily a fallacy). However, I continue to find myself falling back into well-worn Kantian ruts, even though I know better.

My next book won't attempt to reconcile Churchland and Adorno; it will probably just be a collection of cartoons.


Gratuitous quote of the day:
"As with many lonely children, his problem was not solitude itself but that he was never left free to enjoy it."
Michael Chabon, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay

2 comments:

BrianY said...

<snark>Are you sure you're posting to the right blog?</snark>

I would, however, like to see Miro qua Adorno, "Nietzsche in one hand, Freud in the other, while standing on Marx." That would be a cool cartoon. About philosophy.

BrianY said...

Or maybe Miro, "Kenny G in one hand, David Sanborn in the other, while standing on George Winston."