Commonplace 39 George & Egoism. PART ONE
George claimed to be and was an egoist. He was also an egotist, but that's another post.
I can't define egoism any better than this, which I lift gratefully from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy click and so you should rush there for all sorts of interesting things after reading this post. I've kept their links for your edification.
'In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. Egoism has two variants, descriptive or normative. The descriptive (or positive) variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. The normative variant proposes that people should be so motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behaviour Altruism is the opposite of egoism. The term “egoism” derives from “ego,” the Latin term for “I” in English. Egoism should be distinguished from egotism, which means a psychological overvaluation of one’s own importance, or of one’s own activities.
People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for others’ interests? Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will. Some philosophers argue that an individual has no choice in these matters, claiming that a person’s acts are determined by prior events which make illusory any belief in choice. Nevertheless, if an element of choice is permitted against the great causal impetus from nature, or God, it follows that a person possesses some control over her next action, and, that, therefore, one may inquire as to whether the individual does, or, should choose a self-or-other-oriented action. Morally speaking, one can ask whether the individual should pursue her own interests, or, whether she should reject self-interest and pursue others’ interest instead: to what extent are other-regarding acts morally praiseworthy compared to self-regarding acts?' click
There are many examples of egoism in George's life - that is, of George acting to satisfy his own needs with disregard of how others might be affected. Here are some of the most significant egoistic choices he made:
Stealing money at Owens (see next post)
Choosing semi poverty as a writer over a regular paying job
The treatment of his first wife, Marianne aka Nell
Abandoning Marianne
Marrying Edith
The treatment of Edith
Sending Walter to his sisters and mother in Wakefield
Abandoning Edith and Alfred
Pursuing Gabrielle despite being a married man and a father
Going to live in France beyond the reach of his children
The key issues here are that George acted to satisfy his own needs and to solve his own problems, with scant concern for the way the fallout of these actions would impact on others. The Diaries and Letters are records of his predicament or how he felt, and hardly anything at all about how the other was affected or the consequences of his actions. His capacity for changing horses midstream and never looking back is almost sociopathic, as was his capacity for not owning his mistakes, and, yet, he was a man crippled by concern for how the world saw him. He seems to have fretted over the tiny, insignificant things of life that he could be visibly judged by (regional accent, correct dress form, social climbing, class, etiquette) and been completely blind to the momentous things (honesty, truth, being true to the promises he made - as in the sanctity of marriage - paternal responsibility) that would define him as a human being. This is one of the contradictions of George Gissing: he set himself high standards in low subjects and succeeded, and low standards in high subjects and triumphed. A case of win win?
Now, if we follow the definitions of descriptive and normative variants of egoism, it is clear George's tendency to a personal philosophy always held fast to the descriptive view that individuals should, for want of a better term originating in the twentieth century, 'self-actualize'. This is a concept associated with the psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), who famously said, 'What a man can be, he should be' (I think he forgot to mention us females but probably intended to include us). Now, this is all very well with the majority of humankind (!) but what about psychopaths? Or serial killers? Or Adolf Hitler? Should they be encouraged to self-actualize? You see how difficult the problem gets if morality isn't factored in to regulate actions and behaviour.
Can we live without a personal morality? Some, of course, abdicate their free will (see above link for very good definition) to a form of theistic leadership which comes with a readymade morality, but those with no god to guide them have to take responsibility for their own actions with no-one to blame or forgive them for their trespasses.
This was the sort of debate that raged in the nineteenth century when religion was losing its vice-like grip on western minds, and people were fashioning a personal morality to live by. George was deeply concerned with the issue, but failed to make the leap into what might be termed pure egoism (free will) because he constantly deferred to Fate, a form of lack of free action. For example, when he wrote about his own religious beliefs he said he was (when pushed to define it) a Manichean. Which is basically someone who believes light/dark; good/evil; spiritual/materialistic forces balance the world. A typical path for one so steeped in reading about ancient civilizations, but not much help when it comes to exercising nineteenth century developments in ontology and epistemology!
As usual, George allowed his characters to contemplate these ideas not to any great conclusion (George doesn't do endings half as good as his beginnings so things often peter out rather than climax in his books). His narrow social life meant he needed these characters to discus ideas with, as much as to have fully-formed things for them to say - Harvey Rolfe is an example with the education debate George was having with himself about Walter and Alfred's learning. As George set the bar very low for both these boys and had no ambition for them to achieve academically (another egregious abuse of his own free will as a parent) this debate seems to have been fruitless. Both boys were cast adrift to make their own way in the social class war, and if either achieved any self-actualization, it would not be with the help of their father or Oxbridge. Was it a case of, well, if he couldn't go to university, why should his boys?????!!!!
I can't define egoism any better than this, which I lift gratefully from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy click and so you should rush there for all sorts of interesting things after reading this post. I've kept their links for your edification.
'In philosophy, egoism is the theory that one’s self is, or should be, the motivation and the goal of one’s own action. Egoism has two variants, descriptive or normative. The descriptive (or positive) variant conceives egoism as a factual description of human affairs. That is, people are motivated by their own interests and desires, and they cannot be described otherwise. The normative variant proposes that people should be so motivated, regardless of what presently motivates their behaviour Altruism is the opposite of egoism. The term “egoism” derives from “ego,” the Latin term for “I” in English. Egoism should be distinguished from egotism, which means a psychological overvaluation of one’s own importance, or of one’s own activities.
People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for others’ interests? Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will. Some philosophers argue that an individual has no choice in these matters, claiming that a person’s acts are determined by prior events which make illusory any belief in choice. Nevertheless, if an element of choice is permitted against the great causal impetus from nature, or God, it follows that a person possesses some control over her next action, and, that, therefore, one may inquire as to whether the individual does, or, should choose a self-or-other-oriented action. Morally speaking, one can ask whether the individual should pursue her own interests, or, whether she should reject self-interest and pursue others’ interest instead: to what extent are other-regarding acts morally praiseworthy compared to self-regarding acts?' click
 |
| Woman in Beret and Checked Dress by Picasso 1937 |
Stealing money at Owens (see next post)
Choosing semi poverty as a writer over a regular paying job
The treatment of his first wife, Marianne aka Nell
Abandoning Marianne
Marrying Edith
The treatment of Edith
Sending Walter to his sisters and mother in Wakefield
Abandoning Edith and Alfred
Pursuing Gabrielle despite being a married man and a father
Going to live in France beyond the reach of his children
The key issues here are that George acted to satisfy his own needs and to solve his own problems, with scant concern for the way the fallout of these actions would impact on others. The Diaries and Letters are records of his predicament or how he felt, and hardly anything at all about how the other was affected or the consequences of his actions. His capacity for changing horses midstream and never looking back is almost sociopathic, as was his capacity for not owning his mistakes, and, yet, he was a man crippled by concern for how the world saw him. He seems to have fretted over the tiny, insignificant things of life that he could be visibly judged by (regional accent, correct dress form, social climbing, class, etiquette) and been completely blind to the momentous things (honesty, truth, being true to the promises he made - as in the sanctity of marriage - paternal responsibility) that would define him as a human being. This is one of the contradictions of George Gissing: he set himself high standards in low subjects and succeeded, and low standards in high subjects and triumphed. A case of win win?
 |
| Portrait of a Woman by Picasso 1936 |
Can we live without a personal morality? Some, of course, abdicate their free will (see above link for very good definition) to a form of theistic leadership which comes with a readymade morality, but those with no god to guide them have to take responsibility for their own actions with no-one to blame or forgive them for their trespasses.
 |
| Head of a Woman (Olga) by Picasso 1935 |
Egoism is always a balance of free will and free action - I am free to make a choice and I choose to act this way. Free will means I am free to murder but will be penalised for it - so there is a lack of free action because of the laws against homicide. But, I am still free to murder if I choose it. If we assume we are all capable of the act of murder (I know I am!) what stops us? Do we choose not to murder because we don't want to be deprived of freedom, or because we believe it is morally wrong? If it's the latter, what about murdering Hitler before he became powerful and saving millions of lives? Morality, then, is mutable.
This was the sort of debate that raged in the nineteenth century when religion was losing its vice-like grip on western minds, and people were fashioning a personal morality to live by. George was deeply concerned with the issue, but failed to make the leap into what might be termed pure egoism (free will) because he constantly deferred to Fate, a form of lack of free action. For example, when he wrote about his own religious beliefs he said he was (when pushed to define it) a Manichean. Which is basically someone who believes light/dark; good/evil; spiritual/materialistic forces balance the world. A typical path for one so steeped in reading about ancient civilizations, but not much help when it comes to exercising nineteenth century developments in ontology and epistemology!
 |
| Seated woman (Marie-Therese) by Picasso 1937 |
 |
| Portrait of a Woman by Picasso 1937 |
JOIN ME IN PART TWO FOR MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment