dan (4) - the last word (for now)
here is dan's fourth post. i think this is going to be the last in this series of posts on friendship -in part because the discussion seems to have reached a nice break, and in part because i'm going to be very busy in the next few weeks. so, i give to last word to dan, who has written another excellent post:
This is the third time I’ve started writing this post and I’m having tremendous difficulty in finding something to say. And the reason, I think, might be that there is, from my point of view, very little to say by way of a constructive explanation of the friendship I have with Micah. It is true that I’m the one that initially raised the puzzle about the possibility of friendship between atheists and theists. But, to lay my cards on the table, I think that the puzzle presents a greater theoretical difficulty to the theist than it does the atheist. I would like to think that my life, commitments etc. are close to not-at-all theory driven. That is, I like to think that I, indeed we as people, form our characters from the ground up so to speak; from what we might call simple saliences that arise in our everyday interactions with each other. By ‘simple saliences’ I simply mean basic facts about what people do and don’t like; about the kinds of ways people do and don’t like to be treated; about the kinds of goals and hopes most people have. I take the content of these things to be relatively non-theory, non-ideology guided even if huge theories and ideologies build themselves up from these simple saliences. And, as far I’m concerned, Micah and I find the same kinds of things very salient, even if the theoretical apparatus that flows from our basic commitments varies dramatically in some ways. So, I do think that we share a substantial number of what we’ve been calling practical values. I see, though, that put like this, I am committed to denying that Micah’s own understanding of the role religion plays in his life is right and, admittedly, this doesn’t make me very comfortable. But, when push comes to shove, I suppose I am committed to something like this.
But push doesn’t come to shove very often. And that brings to me to what I really want to say. There’s a way in which the puzzle I’ve presented can itself be seen as furnishing an explanation for our friendship. When I say that push doesn’t come to shove very often I mean that I don’t see myself as deeply entrenched in a theoretical view about the possibility of our friendship. Instead, the fact, the very important fact, that we get along so well provides the occasion for a sense of wonder – wonder about how two people that are so similar in many ways can also be very different; wonder about how my basic commitments and responses to the world hook up with my more theoretical commitments; wonder about the role thick, theoretical, philosophical ideas do, and ought to, play in my life; wonder about how something that seems so obvious to me can seem quite the opposite to someone else. And, if I’m not mistaken, I think the same kind of wonder appeals to Micah as well. It’s important to see that this is not mere intellectual curiosity, but a kind of engagement with one’s very self. And to find someone who, in being so different, is able to engage in these same questions is immensely gratifying and stimulating.
Another way of putting this idea might be to note that to this point, both Micah and myself have been presenting ourselves, albeit implicitly, as two people more or less fixed in their ideas. But what I’m trying to say now is that even if there’s little chance that I will become a theist or Micah an atheist, that still leaves a tremendous amount of room for one’s self understanding to shift. And I think that Micah and I, perhaps, find in each other an occasion for such shifting. We destabilize each other in a very fruitful way. And this way of putting things clearly connects up with Micah’s and Natalie’s ideas about a commitment to truth and the like.
On last thing, and I’m not sure that this shows anything, but there seems something striking in the fact that Micah and I have (I think) very similar, certainly highly compatible, senses of humor. The intuitive way to think of this would be to explain our shared sense of humor in terms of shared deeper commitments, which would result in the shared sense of humor being another manifestation, or prong, of the puzzle. But maybe this isn’t right. Perhaps finding certain things funny is one of the basic saliences I mentioned above out of which character and friendship are built.
This is the third time I’ve started writing this post and I’m having tremendous difficulty in finding something to say. And the reason, I think, might be that there is, from my point of view, very little to say by way of a constructive explanation of the friendship I have with Micah. It is true that I’m the one that initially raised the puzzle about the possibility of friendship between atheists and theists. But, to lay my cards on the table, I think that the puzzle presents a greater theoretical difficulty to the theist than it does the atheist. I would like to think that my life, commitments etc. are close to not-at-all theory driven. That is, I like to think that I, indeed we as people, form our characters from the ground up so to speak; from what we might call simple saliences that arise in our everyday interactions with each other. By ‘simple saliences’ I simply mean basic facts about what people do and don’t like; about the kinds of ways people do and don’t like to be treated; about the kinds of goals and hopes most people have. I take the content of these things to be relatively non-theory, non-ideology guided even if huge theories and ideologies build themselves up from these simple saliences. And, as far I’m concerned, Micah and I find the same kinds of things very salient, even if the theoretical apparatus that flows from our basic commitments varies dramatically in some ways. So, I do think that we share a substantial number of what we’ve been calling practical values. I see, though, that put like this, I am committed to denying that Micah’s own understanding of the role religion plays in his life is right and, admittedly, this doesn’t make me very comfortable. But, when push comes to shove, I suppose I am committed to something like this.
But push doesn’t come to shove very often. And that brings to me to what I really want to say. There’s a way in which the puzzle I’ve presented can itself be seen as furnishing an explanation for our friendship. When I say that push doesn’t come to shove very often I mean that I don’t see myself as deeply entrenched in a theoretical view about the possibility of our friendship. Instead, the fact, the very important fact, that we get along so well provides the occasion for a sense of wonder – wonder about how two people that are so similar in many ways can also be very different; wonder about how my basic commitments and responses to the world hook up with my more theoretical commitments; wonder about the role thick, theoretical, philosophical ideas do, and ought to, play in my life; wonder about how something that seems so obvious to me can seem quite the opposite to someone else. And, if I’m not mistaken, I think the same kind of wonder appeals to Micah as well. It’s important to see that this is not mere intellectual curiosity, but a kind of engagement with one’s very self. And to find someone who, in being so different, is able to engage in these same questions is immensely gratifying and stimulating.
Another way of putting this idea might be to note that to this point, both Micah and myself have been presenting ourselves, albeit implicitly, as two people more or less fixed in their ideas. But what I’m trying to say now is that even if there’s little chance that I will become a theist or Micah an atheist, that still leaves a tremendous amount of room for one’s self understanding to shift. And I think that Micah and I, perhaps, find in each other an occasion for such shifting. We destabilize each other in a very fruitful way. And this way of putting things clearly connects up with Micah’s and Natalie’s ideas about a commitment to truth and the like.
On last thing, and I’m not sure that this shows anything, but there seems something striking in the fact that Micah and I have (I think) very similar, certainly highly compatible, senses of humor. The intuitive way to think of this would be to explain our shared sense of humor in terms of shared deeper commitments, which would result in the shared sense of humor being another manifestation, or prong, of the puzzle. But maybe this isn’t right. Perhaps finding certain things funny is one of the basic saliences I mentioned above out of which character and friendship are built.
posted by micah at 7:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home