Does ethics materialize in self-inquiry?, worried about himself?
M.F.: “Self-care was the way in the Greco-Roman world, in which individual freedom was reflected as ethics. If you take a whole bunch of texts, from the first platonic dialogues to the great texts of the late Stoics (The epic, Marc Aurel…), then see, that this theme of self-concern ran through all moral thinking. It's interesting to see, that in our societies caring for oneself became something at a certain point, which is a bit suspect. At a certain point, preoccupation with oneself became seen as a form of self-love, denounced a form of selfishness or individual interest, which is contrary to the interest, that is to be offered to others or the necessity of self-sacrifice. All of this happened in the course of Christianity, but I don't say, that we simply owe it to Christianity. The question is much more complex, for in Christianity the striving for salvation also means a way, to worry about yourself. In Christianity, however, salvation is realized through the renunciation of self. There is a paradox of self-concern in Christianity, but this is a different problem. To come back to your question, I believe, that it was with the Greeks and the Romans – especially among the Greeks – to behave properly and to make the right use of liberty was necessary, that you take care of yourself, that you take care of yourself, on the one hand to recognize themselves – this is the familiar aspect of gnothi seaton – and on the other hand to form, to improve yourself ….
… I do not say, that ethics consists in caring for oneself, rather, that in antiquity ethics as a reflected practice of freedom revolved around this fundamental imperative: worry about yourself”
An imperative, of the assimilation of the logoi, of truths implied?
M.F.: “Assuredly. You can't worry about yourself, without realizing. Self-care is, of course, self-awareness – this is the Socratic-Platonic side – , but it also consists in a knowledge of a certain number of rules of conduct and principles, which are at the same time truths and precepts. To take care of yourself means, to arm oneself with these truths: this is the point, where ethics is linked to the game of truth.”
If you say, that ethics is the reflected part of freedom, does that mean, that freedom can become aware of itself as an ethical practice? Is it a moralized freedom right away and at any time, so to speak, or does it require work on oneself, to discover this ethical dimension of freedom?
M.F.: “Indeed, the Greeks problematized their freedom and the freedom of the individual as an ethical problem. But ethics in that sense, in which they could understand the Greeks: The ethos was the way to be and behave. It was a subject's way of being, and a definite one, way of acting visible to others. … The man” …(youah!) “…who has a beautiful ethos, is someone, who practices freedom in a certain way. I do not think so, that conversion is required, to reflect freedom as an ethos; it is directly problematized as ethos. However, in order for this practice of freedom to take shape in an ethos, it takes a lot of work on yourself.”
Is not the danger, that worry about yourself “absolutizes”, when you free them from worrying about others? Could this absolutizing of caring for oneself not become a form of exercising power over others in the sense of dominating others??
M.F.: ” No, because the danger, to dominate and exercise tyrannical power over others, just because of that, that you didn't take care of yourself …. But if you take care of yourself in the right way, this means, if you know ontologically, what they are, if you know at the same time, what you are capable of … if you know, what things to fear and what things to hope for, which things, in contrast, must be completely indifferent to you, when you finally know, that you must not be afraid of death, then you cannot abuse your power over others in this moment …” (hm….) “…. This idea will appear much later, when love for oneself became suspect and considered the possible root of various moral flaws. In this new context, the first form of self-care will be self-denial …
You spoke of death. If you're not afraid of death, one cannot abuse one's power over others. This problem of finitude is very important, as it seems to us; the fear of death, before finitude, before the injury is the focus of concern for oneself….?
M.F.: “Assuredly. And this is where Christianity introduces salvation as afterlife salvation, throwing the whole issue of self-care out of balance … the Greeks and the Romans assume it, taking care of yourself in your own life … so the concern can be completely self-directed, on the, what to do and the space, that one takes in the midst of the others; it can be totally focused on accepting death – which will become very clear in the late Stoa – …. It is interesting to see, for example, in Seneca, how important the topic is: Let's hurry up with getting old, Hurry up, to get to the end. That moment just before death, in which nothing more can happen, is something other than the death wish, that one finds in Christians, who expect salvation from death. It's like a movement, with which one throws one's existence towards the point, where she has only the possibility of death before her.”
…etc.
(‘The ethics of self-care as a practice of freedom’ / Gespräch mit H.Becker, Raoul F. Betancourt, Alfred Gomez Müller/ Jan. 1984, appeared 1994 erstmals in Sayings and Writings, writings in 4 volumes.)
Let’s go back to school and restart to learn better and healthier… Terms and more or less large gaps in knowledge from autodidact MJS for googling: Stoa, Ethics as meaning vs. Moral … etc., the Romans interest me little so far …. )
….