SYMPATHY FOR TODAY

Today is Adam Smith day at Paris I, with Monsieur Paul Rateau

Paul RATEAU

Maître de conférences [Philosophie]

Curriculum Vitae :

I. TITRES ET DIPLÔMES - Maître de conférences à l’Université Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne) (depuis 2008). - Thèse de doctorat : « La question du mal chez Leibniz : fondements et élaboration de la   Théodicée »,    soutenue à l’Université de Strasbourg (2005).    Directrice de thèse: Mme Martine de Gaudemar (Paris X-Nanterre).  -Agrégé de philosophie (1998).  -Ancien élève de l’École Normale Supérieure de Fontenay-Saint-Cloud (1994). II. FONCTIONS ANTÉRIEURES    2008-2007 : Assistant post-doctorant à l’Université de Neuchâtel (Suisse).    2006-2004 : ATER (attaché temporaire d’enseignement et de recherche) à l’Université de Strasbourg.    2003-2000 : AMN (allocataire moniteur normalien) à l’Université de Strasbourg. So far M. Rateau has been the clearest of the lecturer's I have encountered. He is part of the CHSPM - Centre d'histoire des systèmes de pensée moderne.

I have been musing on the stuff we have been reading so far. I do hope it makes sense. At least you can be sympathetic.

Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments is written in seven parts. He begins the first part with “Of the Propriety of Actions”, Section I ‘Of the sense of propriety”. Chapter I, Of Sympathy. He then goes on at some length to discuss how he believes relationships between individuals work. How do ordinary individuals relate to each other in society and what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. Does that behaviour arise naturally, from within, or artificially, of necessity through education and convention?

He appears to be suggesting that in order for individuals to survive there must be a certain degree of ‘sympathy’ between them, that there is some sort of harmony or agreement between them, or on the part of one person with respect to another.  The premise is that there is an universal sympathy between persons arising through the senses of the body, in that every human understands pain and pleasure from their own experience, e.g. by being hit, or injuring oneself through accident, suffering from cold or heat, the loss of a loved one, anxieties of love, jealousy and hate, resentments, in short any number of ‘feelings’ which are viewed as part of the ‘human condition’.

How a person displays those feelings, and how others react to those feelings is dependent on the degree of closeness between them, e.g. wife, child, cousin, friend, casual acquaintance, stranger… The extent and character of the behaviour displayed by the individual exhibiting those feelings, will of course vary in degree and proportion according to circumstances.  Similarly the response, and the extent and character of the behaviour, of the person for whom the display is intended, will vary in some degree depending on circumstances. It is the same for the casual observer of the display. Whether that display is appropriate or inappropriate in the particular circumstances depends on the ‘conventions’ society has accepted as being appropriate or inappropriate in the circumstances. The behaviour can be viewed as an over reaction or woefully lacking in feeling.  Again it is a matter of degree and circumstance. In addition, because of the nature of human sympathy in respect of certain matters, e.g. the death of a loved one, the birth of a child, there is an expectation, by others, that the person concerned will react in a certain way. Whether that is the result of education and convention or indeed natural sympathy, might well depend on the individual concerned. It is a matter of propriety and not just a question of mimicry.

The matter of sympathy, then, is a vital condition in understanding communication between individuals in society, and fundamental to the languages we use. The nature of sympathy will remain unchanged no matter what the situation, where-so-ever we are. The matter of propriety, however, is entirely dependent on the situation and the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

After todays lecture there is more to come on this subject - Adam Smith is a problem or perhaps it is M. Rateau.