Abstract
Javier Tallifer’s lively philosophical contribution emphasises the importance of an approach to ‘truthfulness’ rooted in relationality. The chapter discusses the problematic relation between universalistic ethics and subjectivity from a psychosocial perspective, arguing that an authentic ethical choice is only viable when rooted in the particularities of the subject and its relation with the Other. Relationality, understood and mediated through psychosocial studies, becomes central to ethical philosophy, as Taillefer develops a powerful argument to insist that ethical behaviour is to be attained in successive encounters with the Other, not through a body of knowledge, but a body of practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Arguably, in an attempt to surpass or avoid hypothetical/contextual imperatives: ‘If you don’t want others to steal from you, don’t steal from others.’
- 2.
It should be noted that, in order to prove his point, Kant has to provide the potential scapegoat with at least one relatable quality.
- 3.
In this regard, academic ethical thought and the law fail at the exact same place: in their encounters with subjectivity and contingency. They can judge past actions or tear themselves apart thinking about future possibilities, but it cannot account for a decision that needs to be taken immediately, right away, in relation to a particular other faced with an equally particular set of circumstances (Taillefer 2017).
- 4.
In the original article, Hao Changchi refers to the unbridgeable gap that separates God as an object of study in philosophy, and God as a matter of faith: arguing convincingly for the existence of God will not convert anyone, since it is not the subject’s knowledge of God but the person’s will that would need to be changed in order to make them religious. The argument appears to be relatively easy to adapt to this study of ethics and subjectivity. However, I would argue that it is not our will but our disposition that may need to be changed when it comes to ethics—this may be entirely different in the field of the philosophy of religion.
- 5.
Dating back to the fourth-century BCE, Daoism appeared in China around the same time as Platonism took root in Greece, and it is as foundational to Eastern philosophy as Platonism is to Western philosophy. However, some of its main themes remained largely overlooked in the West until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: the division introduced in the subject by the subject’s own ego, the problematic relation between theory and praxis in the field of ethics, or the dangers of trying to impose our metanarratives on the world—in stark contrast with Plato’s ‘philosopher king.’ In view of this, it seems safe to assume that Daoism may yet provide us with some valuable insight on the relation between ethics and subjectivity.
- 6.
This is not to say that the narrative we choose to tell ourselves about this encounter does not play a role in the transformation process. On the one hand, it acts as a bridge, allowing us to cross the chasm between the person we used to be and the person that we have become. On the other, and due to the very sense of continuity that it provides, our account of the encounter with the Other becomes an indispensable part of our new subjectivity.
- 7.
My emphasis.
References
Davies, T. (1997). Humanism. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless Speech. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Frosh, S. (2019). Psychosocial Studies with Psychoanalysis. Journal of Psychosocial Studies, 12(1), forthcoming.
Fung, Y. (1933\1964). Chuang·Tzu: A New Selected Translation with an Exposition of the Philosophy of Kuo Hsiang. New York: Paragon Book.
Hao, C. (2011). Lao-Zhuang and Augustin on the Issue of the Suspension in the Philosophy of Religion. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 6(1), 75–99.
Lévinas, E. (1979). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Luxon, N. (2008). Ethics and Subjectivity: Practices of Self-Governance in the Late Lectures of Michel Foucault. Political Theory, 36(3), 377–402.
Shepherd, R. J. (2007). Perpetual Unease or Being at Ease?—Derrida, Daoism, and the Metaphysics of Presence. Philosophy East and West, 57(2), 227–243.
Taillefer, J. (2017). Just-Is: Contingency, Desire and Temporality—An Inquiry on the Relation Between Law and Justice (PhD dissertation). Birkbeck, University of London.
Zhuangzi, Z. (2013). The Complete Works of Zhuangzi (B. Watson, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Žižek, S. (2007). How to Read Lacan. New York: W. W. Norton.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taillefer, J. (2019). Alone with the Law: Ethics and Subjectivity. In: Frosh, S. (eds) New Voices in Psychosocial Studies. Studies in the Psychosocial. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32758-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32758-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32757-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32758-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)