Expository Paper on Charles Taylor’s Sources of the Self

Taylor believes that the self and identity can only be known through a hermeneutical approach of understanding ethics. The hermeneutical approach is, one of four approaches to philosophical thinking. It is a romantic approach and second person. This means that it is dialogical, relational, interpersonal and a necessity for an I –you relationship.  It is a holistic approach where one understands all of the parts. It is circular in reasoning and not linear as in some of the other approaches that go from axiom to theory, observation to hypothesis and meaning that is reduced to facts. The latter represents a scientific aspect for which Taylor’s disagrees. Morality can never be a science in that science tends towards an inductive or deductive approach. It is from the perspective of a disinterested observer and impartial. Sciences are confirmed by logic and morality is not.

The hermeneutical approach is circular where the meaning becomes clearer and clearer around the circle as one interprets and evaluates the values, facts and morals. Taylor says that we are already in this hermeneutical circle as we discern our lives and in fact, we are born into. In this approach, facts and values are to be interpreted for clarification and evaluation. Morality is not a science but is about meaning that can only come about through interpretation of the data, facts or values in question. Values are discovered with what has been implicit all the time. Moral arguments are of two types; dispute over the facts and what do the facts mean. For example, did we get the facts right with the war in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction or are the facts relevant or irrelevant. Facts are assertions or imperatives, but they never decide issues because it is always necessary to evaluate and decide what the facts means. This is what the tool of hermeneutic does.

In moral judgments and arguments there is a statement of the facts and a moral evaluation to determine a good or greater good. Theses moral evaluations and orientations are located within a moral space that includes justice, what it is good to be and what is the right thing to do or be. The hermeneutical approach is quite different from the first person approach which is an expression of the subject, artistic or creating the situation. These ideas are represented in the philosophical dimensions of naturalism, existentialism and phenomenology. This notion of science is contrary to Taylor’s understanding of an ethics of identity. For example in naturalism two of the main theories are (1) we create the meaning in our own lives and therefore our identity and that (2)  science is the basis for knowing, even knowing our moral selves. In existentialism, self consciousness is I; I choose to be whoever I want to be, what I prefer, my values and probably most important, I am at the center of the universe. This is a first person approach.

This interpersonal approach of developing an identity and knowing self is an ethics of recognition. Other persons have a voice in determining who I am and I do not decide all by myself. I choose something because it is good and good to be. These goods are inspired and discovered through interpersonal relationships. I may often disagree with many of the things that are discussed interpersonally. They can be facts, truths or lies, but they are essential for interpretation and evaluation. Through the dialogue, I may or may not be motivated to change something about my character as I assent to a higher moral good. Who I am, what is my identity, what I should be, what I should strive to be are questions of morality for Taylor. These are questions that science can not answer. We find the answers from interpersonal relationships and from within.  Identity is the story that one tells in spatial orientation and this story can reflect the past, present and future. This space is defined by justice, good and the right. This moral space is somewhat of an axis going from worse to better. There should be proximity towards an ideal that is the moral source. These ideals are necessary bonds for individuals and communities. These bonds are found in reality; beings dependent upon other beings and self relating to other selves. For Taylor, we evaluate goods and purposes in relation to the ultimate good. We don’t chose but rather we discover what is good. We must always evaluate our goals and this is not done through reason, formalized, intentions, preferences or self consciousness as “I”.

 Moral orientation as a necessary condition for being a person is an idea that Taylor approaches with the major concepts of inescapable moral frameworks, higher evaluations, values, meta-values, hyper-values and the tool of hermeneutic discussed earlier. As one gains or achieves an identity, it is within a moral framework of a good and ascent towards the hyper-good. One’s understanding of the good is only known through interpersonal relationships, dialogue and conversation, interpretations and evaluations.  Within the circle of interpersonal relationships, a mother is a formidable proponent or opponent of one’s identity. There are situations where 80 year old mothers are yet trying to shape the identity of their middle aged children towards a higher ethic or morality. An example of a value, meta-value and hyper-value is seen in the ideals of Eros, philosophical love and agape love. Many ministers would assert that agape love, i.e., love from God is the hyper value towards which one should ascribe. This is the kind of love a man should lay down his life for another and even love his enemy. Enemies also help to give us an identity in that there is an interpersonal relationship, though not an admirable one. But within the context of this relationship one can learn about his behaviors, values and attitudes that shape his identity, personality and character. One can then reflect, think, meditate and decide upon the interpretations and evaluations. I would speculate that Eros would be the hyper-value for naturalists and existentialists and philosophical love for some philosophers and others with different moral frameworks.

Taylor points out that moral frameworks and higher evaluation interact because they are the structure of our moral life. A moral framework should possess a hyper-value though some may not. He implies also that there is a place for a hyper-good to be replaced by another as one considers the goods, meta-goods and hyper-goods within one’s moral space. He acknowledges that the hyper-good is central in discerning a person’s identity, yet a hyper-good can impose imperious demands as one fails to live up to the demands. The image of the self in moral space is motivated by the ascent to the hyper-good and provides a narrative for one’s life as one interprets the events, changes, moments and so forth. These moments may arise out of conflict, unhappiness, and the like that cause for a deep reflection. These moments inspire one to travel in a moral space and hopefully in the direction of the hyper-value. One sees and unfolding story that gives meaning to the past, present and future. Human beings are self-interpreting embodied presences with the gift of language. Language and articulation are very important for the self-interpreting being because they are necessary for self expression as an embodied agent. Taylor posits that the existence of an unexamined background is the precondition for reflective knowing. The notion of the un-examined background was posited by Socrates. Morality has to make some contact with the way people experience their moral lives. Moral theory should explain people’s attitudes, values and behaviors that make sense to them and others. It is not through science that we seek to understand people’s moral lives.

As I agree with Taylor in his understanding of the self and identity through interpersonal relationships, I become aware of what others have thought and shown me as important values in my identity, character and personality. There have been times that I have disagreed with the interpretations of what they thought I should be or in fact was, but I engaged in further self-interpretation to see if I was headed in the direction of the hyper-good that I have chosen for my life. It is necessary to say that the hyper-good that I have chosen to aspire to is the love of God. This is reflected in the sayings, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart mind body and soul” and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”. Upon these two, Jesus hung all the law and commandments. He made an improvement upon the latter understanding that if men loved others as they love themselves, this could result in hatred seeing that men do not always love themselves. “A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another”, John 13:34.

The strength of the Taylor’s argument lies primarily in the old adage, “no man lives alone”. The ethics of recognition plays an important part in our lives. It is true that even our enemies and foes have a role in determining our identity and who we. They help us to not only recognize them as others with identity, but also to recognize our hyper-good and evaluations for them. This negative personal interaction may take us further away from or bring us closer to the hyper-value. It is through others that we see a reflection or image of ourselves and possibly what we don’t want to be. In watching documentaries of inmates, it is quite disturbing to watch men who have been on death row or lock down for an extended period of time. It appears that they have lost much of themselves and have become quite unattached. A major strength in this theory about discovery of the self and identity through ethics is one of major significance for Christians who see God as the hyper-value. It is through interpersonal interactions and especially that of Christian ministers who always points us to the hyper- value and what is expected of us as we interpret our lives and develop identity.

A major criticism that I have for Taylor’s necessity of interpersonal relationships to discover identity is directly related to my theological persuasion of the omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience features of the hyper-value in my moral framework. My hyper-value, in and of itself, is in fact interpersonal. Must I have a relationship with others to discover him and thereafter develop my identity?  Has there ever been an instance when some someone discovered who he really was, without interpersonal interactions?  For Christians the Torah informs us that this is true. Genesis 17:1-5(KJV), “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me , and be thou perfect……..Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made thee”. Subject to interpretation, it appears that identity can be formed without human interaction. This was a conversation between a human and the hyper-value itself. There are many other conversions in the bible where one’s identity has been changed as result of contact with the hyper-value itself, e.g., Saul of Tarsus. This argument may have weaknesses for Taylor, but within a religious context, there may be another reality that exists that needs further interpretation for the development of the person and identity.