Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
hegel
"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Links - weblogs
Links - Political Rationalities
Links - Resources: Philosophy
Public Discussion
Resources
Cafe Philosophy
Philosophy Centres
Links - Resources: Other
Links - Web Connections
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx

ethics and politics « Previous | |Next »
March 15, 2005

I was ploughing through an academic article on the political/legal philosophy of Jacques Derrida and Giorgoi Agamben and their relationship to Nietzsche on the plane to Canberra on Sunday night. The article by Adam Thurschwell is entitled ('Spectres of Nietzsche: Potential Futures for the Concept of the Political in Agamben and Derrida'. I was reading it because of this post, on Agamben's The State of Exception.

I cannot recall where I found Thurschwell article online. In The German Law Journal perhaps?

There was a passage in Thurschwell's article that I found both interesting and puzzling. It talked about the absolute break between the ethical and the political in, I presume, late modernity. I say absolute because the sense of the passage, and others similar to it, was of an unbridgeable gap between the ethical relationship and any given form of politics. Thurschwell says that this absolute break, gap or gulf is accepted as a given by both Derrida and Agamben and is the reason why they have embraced the vocabularly of messianism.

Why so I thought? Is the absolute gulf because of positivism? Or nihilism? It didn't make sense because positivism makes the gulf between scientific fact and emotivist ethics, and so both ethics and poltics are expressions of personal emotions. Nihilism says that our highest values have beeen devalued.

Hence my puzzlement about the assumption of an unbridgeable gap between ethical relationships or ethos and any given form of politics.

Then I recalled Robert Menzies collection of Wartime speeches, The Forgotten People, with its appeal to people in small business or who come into politics as individuals, bearing particular character qualities. This linked ethics and politics.

These people were of good character, they saw themselves as virtuous, and it was because they saw themselves as virtuous, as having particular character qualities that they believed that they were the backbone of the nation, and hence fit to govern and hold political power.

There is no great divide between ethics and politics in this continuous political tradition. It's appeal is to individualism, the virtues, and to the home as the place of the individual with their private aspirations and the ground ground of virtue ethics.The virtues draw deeply on Protestantism (Puritan ethic) and these are coupled to a self-realization ethic that every individual should have the opportunity to develop their personality and capacities to the fullest extent.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:00 AM | | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)
TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ethics and politics:

» interpreting Nietzsche's eternal return from philosophical conversations
Whilst reading Adam Thurschwell's article 'Spectres of Nietzsche: Potential Futures for the Concept of the Political in Agamben and Derrida'... [Read More]

 
Comments

Comments

Gary

This is a very good post. I think your insight is correct; there is not a necessary disconnect between ethics and politics.

But at least for Derrida, particularly in his later work, his notion of ethics is tied to the Levinasian idea of the infinite, the Good "beyond being," which is a "radical alterity." As such, it can not be reduced to ontology, or ontological subcategories such as "the political." I have to admit it has been many years since I have thought about this issue, but it seems that this distinction is very abstract, and it is hard to see the positive or practical implications of keeping the two categories separate.

In fact, by bifurcating ethics and politics it seems it gives us very little to justify our political decisions in the here and now.

Alain,

maybe you can help out here.

Why does Derrida accept "the necessary disconnect between ethics and politics"?

I realize that Derrda understands ethical relationships in Levinasian terms, as an absolute responsibility for the Other and that this is linked to a democracy to come.

Does the absolute gulf between ethical responsibility and political responsibility derive from Levinas? Does it derive from the way that Levinas understands ethics?

Gary

Your surmise is correct. It is because of the Levinasian assumption that the other is irreducible, that the trace can not be articulated in terms of ontological categories, that ethics is radically separate from the political. In that ethics is "first philosophy" for Levinas, it is the starting point. What Derrida believes is that ethics, understood in this way, solicits a response in the here and now, a response that is inevitably political. To bridge this gap, one must intervene politically without assurance, take a leap of faith as it were. Thus, all of his talk of a "democracy to come" and messianicity without messianism. For Derrida, this is a structural necessity.

I am not sure that I buy it because it does seem to ignore ethos and praxis. That our way of being-in-the-world starts from the culture and traditions we find ourself thrown into. Perhaps this is too Heideggarian, but Derrida's whole approach seems to ignore or downplay these fundamental ways of dwelling.