Response to Emerson and Cavell- on "Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome"

Stanley Cavell quotes Emerson in the beginning of the book, "Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome" to frame his discussion of "Emersonian Perfectionism":

"I take this evanescence and lubricity of all objects, which lets them slip through our fingers then when we clutch hardest, to be the most unhandsome part of our condition".

My reply is: Emerson misspeaks because he loves the evanescence of ‘new things’ too much.

1) ”Culture” is not meant to tell us how to live, but to use art to provide small insights about how others have lived or want to live. So in the sense that Emerson speaks of being self-reliant, of not needing culture to live- to make decisions by, he is right, a man in the end must stand for himself and his actions. But Emerson is also wrong, because in the end he "does for himself" by using the wisdom and insight of those that have come before. Emerson is also wrong if he thought he had come to a point where he could not be instructed or inspired by the wisdom, performances, and actions of others. He can play ‘little wing’ like srv or Hendricks?!

This is an attitude I would characterize as "wanting or expecting" too much from the world while also being full of one's own power. It is the false hope that never-ending ‘new things’ can provide joy and satisfaction, and the disappointment that they do not.

If Emerson makes the switch to creating for others he can constantly create real beauty, and there is real joy in that.

2) It’s funny that Cavell titles the book about the Emerson evanescence quote but doesn’t address the dynamics of it in the book at all. Look to the 'Critique of Judgment', about the reordering of the cognitive faculties that constitutes the feeling of beauty. Then apply that to the evanescence of ‘new things’…all ‘new things’ are in essence a small reordering of the faculties- a reordering of ‘our world’- and thus carry with them the ‘aura’ of beauty, however small, however large. The affect of this reordering fades, but how we approach treating this in our lives is more attitude. If we take these instances as additions that help us, that we carry with us to look at the world, we can find more beauty in it- in the everyday.(see 'Synthesis in Kant's Aesthetical Idea')

3) The part concerning moral perfectionism is mislabeled by Cavell. It is in error. Where Emerson words portray an "elitism", this isn’t moral perfectionism. Moral perfectionism focuses on one’s self, and what one can do to try to perfect his own character. This would be characterized in the dictum…”I will try to give the best of myself to my family, my work, and my neighbors”, and then living it.

The quote Cavell refers to is what is called the attitude of “moral superiority”, which is quite different because it has to do with the comparison with others. This is found in Kant’s ‘Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone’- where the ‘better man’ wins the kingdom of god. This is properly a type of practical catholic theology or philosophy of religious morality. It is what I call ‘identity justification’- to justify the sense of worth of the individual in relation- as "above"- others.

There’s nothing ‘perfectionist’ about this attitude. It is merely a sublimated degradation of the other.

That’s why I’ve always found this kind of book to be a little ‘whiny'. If you want the world to be better, don’t complain about how bad others are, (and then foist horrible things upon them because you’ve justified it)go live your life and help people when you can. That would be more in line with the ‘thinking’ espoused in Heidegger's 'What is Called Thinking', and more in line with a corresponding ‘acting’ from this 'thinking'.

Then again, from the 911 phone calls, the expressions were not of hate or vengeance, they were about love.

4) The chance is there to really change things for the better. First just to stop working against, and then by working in the right direction. The map is in the word.