So I guess I blog about work too much. I only do it because work takes up so much time. Better I should write about stuff that I like to think about, because work doesn’t take up as much brain-time as you might think, regardless of how much body-time it takes up.

So here’s what I’ve been thinking about lately:

Michel Foucault talks about an aesthetics of existence, were morality becomes, not an effort to rationally distinguish good things from bad things, but a way of deciding what kind of shape one’s life should take, with the goal of making ourselves into the kind of people we would like to be. In relation to this, he talks about Jacob Burckhardt - a very famous, often controversial, historian - who described archetypal ‘hero’ (in terms of both historical figures and subjects of myth and legend, I’m guessing) as ‘his [the heroe’s] own work of art’. That is, what makes a hero truly a hero is that they have created of themselves a particular persona; exemplary, noble, and embodying what is best about people. This is important to Foucault because, on some level, Foucault wants us to be heroic figures as a way of carrying out the aesthetics of existence - although, of course, we might not all agree on what is exemplary, or even acceptable in human characteristics.

So we’re fine up to that point, but I think you have to realise that Burckhardt is talking about the heroes of antiquity and the Renaissance. Nowadays we don’t have the same kind of heroes. At least in my humble opinion, a great deal of our exemplary figures (both mythical and factual(tm)) are antiheroes, ie. people who we sympathise with even though they represent a flawed humanity. Think of, say, James Dean, Hunter S. Thompson, Shinji Ikari and so on. They, who are our role models and our exemplary standards, are all seriously pathological people. Does this mean that morality should become an art of self-destruction, rather than self-creation? Or is wholeness and goodness in humanity something that appears on a higher level than the aspects that give rise to antiheroism; and if so what use is a morality of self-change that doesn’t help us with such major issues as those facing the aforementioned people?

At least part of the issue here is that what counts for relevant characteristics to be formed by an aesthetics of extistence is not the same for every person. It is thus not necessary to devalue the basic aspects of personal wellbeing if we are using a model that also applies to anitheroes. We would, however, do well, to explore than distinction which makes some characteristics relevant and others not. How is it formed, and how can we be justified in leaving some very important things on the other side (how were antiheroes justified in doing so?)

To put it in perspective (knowing that I haven’t said anything very clearly), it’s all about ethics, creativity and culture; with culture as the weird part. I don’t know what the conclusion is yet, but it should be fun.