"Metaphors of Self and Some Implications for Travel: Confucius and Descartes" Area: Constructions of the “Other” “IV International and Interdisciplinary Conference: Alexander von Humboldt and Zheng He, 2006” Mary I. Bockover Professor Humboldt State University Philosophy Arcata, California USA

The Communal Self: Confucius

Confucius’ view of “self”: defined by one’s relations to others

The Communal Self: Confucius Confucius’ view of “self”: defined by one’s relations to others The main moral implication: in the extreme, one’s personhood depends on her social status, and if one has no significant relations, then she is less of a person

The Communal Self: Confucius Confucius’ view of “self”: defined by one’s relations to others The main moral implication: in the extreme, one’s personhood depends on her social status, and if one has no significant relations, then she is less of a person Why this view is not literally true: because the self also entails individualistic features, e.g., rational free agency, that distinguishes persons as self-aware individuals

The Solitary Self: Descartes

Descartes’ view of “self”: defined as a “thing which thinks”

The Solitary Self: Descartes Descartes’ view of “self”: defined as a “thing which thinks” The main moral implication: in the extreme, one’s social roles and responsibilities are not considered essential to being a person

The Solitary Self: Descartes Descartes’ view of “self”: defined as a “thing which thinks” The main moral implication: in the extreme, one’s social roles and responsibilities are not considered essential to being a person Why this view is not literally true: because the self is also essentially social in nature – thinking requires proper social cultivation to be virtuous (wisdom); so does freedom (of will and action), to be responsible

Comparative Views of Self: Confucius and Descartes Neither the Communal Self of traditional China, nor the Solitary Self of the West, present adequate views of “self” The Communal Self (of Confucius) errs in one direction, by excluding individualistic features of personhood The Solitary Self (of Descartes) errs in the other direction, by excluding social features of personhood Because of the nature of human consciousness, the “self” and “other” are mutually entailing Consciousness is directed, so every act of consciousness presents an object for some subject; one cannot be conscious without being conscious of something (including the “self” consciousness of one’s own “subjectivity”) That is, an object of consciousness is an object exactly for some subject having the experience It is the nature of consciousness to have context; for subject and object to be necessarily connected and therefore, for self and other to be mutually entailing This is also what makes us moral persons; that we experience ourselves in connection with others -- persons, places, things, events, etc.

DISTINGUISHING SELF AND OTHER POSES A FALSE DICHOTOMY

The “self” and “other” are not mutually exclusive concepts, but are mutually defining

DISTINGUISHING SELF AND OTHER POSES A FALSE DICHOTOMY The “self” and “other” are not mutually exclusive concepts, but are mutually defining What is vital in being a “self” requires social connection and learning – e.g., through the cultural conditions that make us who we are, as well as the experience of cultural difference made possible by travel – and what is vital about being an “other” is that we learn as much about who we are in experiencing our “otherness” as we do about the other (the culture we visit)

DISTINGUISHING SELF AND OTHER POSES A FALSE DICHOTOMY The “self” and “other” are not mutually exclusive concepts, but are mutually defining What is vital in being a “self” requires social connection and learning – e.g., through the cultural conditions that make us who we are, as well as the experience of cultural difference made possible by travel – and what is vital about being an “other” is that we learn as much about who we are in experiencing our “otherness” as we do about the other (the culture we visit) metaphor of a “mirror”

DISTINGUISHING SELF AND OTHER POSES A FALSE DICHOTOMY The “self” and “other” are not mutually exclusive concepts, but are mutually defining What is vital in being a “self” requires social connection and learning – e.g., through the cultural conditions that make us who we are, as well as the experience of cultural difference made possible by travel – and what is vital about being an “other” is that we learn as much about who we are in experiencing our “otherness” as we do about the other (the culture we visit) metaphor of a “mirror” individuality is enhanced by the social contact that travel allows us to have

Speculative Application to travel: Chinese in the United States Americans in China