Julian Holmes Wilson 11/16/11 Phil 302 A Conversation for Moral Perfectionism The pressure of delving into a text

like Cities of Words puts us into a state of slipping. Cavell has obvious motivation when writing his text, but it is not out of the ease of understanding, but rather out of the need to converse. However, this conversation is with his students, and by text, with us. The trouble is receiving Cavell through second hand means, and not through the Tuition itself that the original class was so fortunate to spend. Yet there is still plenty to glean from the cities of words that Cavell places us within. This does not make it an easy philosophical task, as philosophy begins in loss, according to Cavell. Thus, we start our moral discussion with a dilemma; A philosophical problem has the form; I do not know my way about. While it is a dilemma to start at a loss, it clears up the understanding of the relationship between cities and words. As it is extremely easy to get lost within a city, (at least before GPS was developed) and it is just as easy to get lost within the words of your own thoughts. This gives us a clue as to why we become comfortable in the dependence of others words, just as we become comfortable with a map (or GPS). However, when one jumps right in without a map, the truest, most honest form of thought is found. I attest that Cavells need for digression is due to this lack of a map. Not a lack, as a deficit of something he needs, but a lack in the sense of not needing it. It is when he is able to write, or more accurately converse freely that he is able to develop his truest philosophies. So from here I hope to converse from my own intuition. The question then arises, why is it that Cavell relies on the readings of other philosophers and the medium of film? It is not that Cavell uses their words as his own, but rather converses about their thoughts, allowing him the ability for his own words. It is also important to note that Cavell does not simply steal their words (a problem the school system has with citing all their sources), but rather owns up to the ideas he takes. The need for film is a direct reference to the Allegory of the Cave, as film has a revealing quality of the illusions in the world. So then, through these two supplementary sources, Cavell is able to develop the concept of the attainable moral perfectionist. Therefore, in order to help my own conversing, I require the Cavellian understanding of Aristotle and the related film, The Awful Truth, as I find these to be the concluding factors of Cavells own understanding of Moral Perfectionism. Cavell wants to own every word. It is his own personality and we must deal with its nuances. He is his words, but even more, his words are his child. It is his own written performance. This requires a finding of his flow, making him very platonic in writing. Just as a person cannot passively read Plato, one cannot be passive with Cavell. Philosophy is about writing, and not for universality of readability and understanding, but rather in forming new boundaries. We can see the beginning of moral perfectionism being very rooted in the Nicomachean Ethics. This is because the ethics are founded upon, and while not stated directly by Aristotle, friends, or more accurately, the need to derive from real life experience. Only when we observe, whether through real life or through the metaphor of film, are we able to build up to a higher level of understanding. This can further be understood by Cavells, and also Heideggers, need for studying Aristotle, for only by understanding the prior thought can one build the higher understanding. This is out of the task to further the conversation, rather than take the words of

the stranger, or even of friends. However, friends, films, philosophers can all provide the ability to evaluate oneself. The evaluation of self is the key goal of moral perfectionism, but it is also an understanding of never fully knowing the other. For Cavell, the other is most well described by remarriage comedies. This is due to the interesting dynamic of marriage, and even further the dynamic of remarrying. It is an oddity that there is such a link between the husband and wife the friend and stranger, and by example, Jerry and Lucy. However, it is not truly odd when you consider the importance of both conversation and anxiety, which are highly contingent states in marriage and friendship; though marriage portrays it even louder due to the fact that husband and wife are destined to have to form the tightest of friendships, due to the fact that, and as Cavell quotes Jerry, Marriage is based on faith. When thats gone everythings gone. So then is the assignment to become each others dopplegangers? Or rather is it for each to have their own ego ideal which accumulates the whole of the relationship? So then it becomes a question of education. Then we find the fundamental aspect of friends for moral perfectionism, the education of each other and oneself. Only by being educated and educating another does a person gain any hope of moral perfectionism. Therefore, since conversation and writing is the root of knowledge, and education is the sharing of knowledge, we can see very simply why we live in cities of words. And so it would feel as though our journey is complete, all we have to do is conversate, make friends, and find a wife/husband. Except we have only figured out how to achieve moral perfectionism, not the issues in achieving this, nor truly what moral perfectionism would even be for the self. Thus we are forced to go back to film, for it is what delivers so clearly the illusions of our lives. Looking in from the third person (never to be interacted with by way of the marvel of projection), we are given the unique opportunity to follow the lives of others, of alter egos. In the case of Jerry and Lucy, we are allowed to view into the world of sexual tension and human psychology. The obvious need and desire for each other without the conversation to allow it to happen portrays an internal struggle within each individual. This internal struggle could very easily be described as the need for moral perfectionism. However, the nuance of human psychology stops the two from even being able to do it in a universally moral way, but maybe this doesnt even matter to begin with, as moral perfectionism doesnt want to rely on any universals. If we examine the way Jerry and Lucy dance in conversation, we see that they are actually playing off the moral ideals of each other. Every action is a response to the others, forming the basis for their own actions; as the plot thickens we see just how similar their motivations are and thus the quote, We are in so far as we are actualized, since we are in so far as we live and act, from Aristotle, holds more meaning as we now know where the act, or action, comes from, the transpiring of trauma and crisis. Therefore, we see how the example of remarriage comedy can be reimagined for other confrontations and Cavells work does not go in vein. This brings me to the idea that for Cavell, Philosophy, by way of the writing of words, allows for another way of actualizing through an individual means. As Cavells own philosophy reveals, even the tangential discourse of morality and film is the further actualization of the writer, providing new insights and meaning that only conversation could form. Though, has it accomplished its ability to portray moral perfectionism in the same way remarriage comedy has managed? This is a tough question to answer, though if we use Cavells logic we should start to be able to understand that Cavell succeeds simply by

finding one listener who heads his voice and in turn develops himself/herself, thus building toward the actualization of his/her moral perfectionism. Huzzah! Cavell has won again, as I find myself erasing an entire rant that I thought was a counter, but turned out to prove the essence of Cavells own moral perfectionism. How is it that he convinced me so easily? It appears through the cities of words. It strikes me unusual how he has done it; almost as if he has manipulated language to outsmart my own logic, to break my fundamental understanding of morality. However, even if I had left the rant and tried to describe exactly how he has enlightened me, I could not fully. I feel (and philosophy comes out of mood) that it came out of the essence of the William James Quote, but more specifically the second half, The impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community. I was lost in thinking it was fully up to the individual, when obviously conversation cannot happen without two; and what is written philosophy that has not been read but the useless diatribe of the unknown. Without the support (sympathy) of the community moral perfectionism cannot happen within the individual. If we find this to be the case then what do we do about a non-sympathetic community? What allows for the cultivation of new and unique ideas? How do we stop the conformity and embrace the changing tides? Though, does being a completely unique individual allow for the cultivation of the community? If everyone was unique and no one shared each others words, where would that put us? In complete disarray I would say, but I believe Cavell understands this by not pulling only from Emerson, but also those who portray the universal, as well as those who describe the importance of friends. As only by understanding the ones that conform does the individual become unique and as such the impulse of the individual stops the community from stagnating. I find myself questioning now, whether I have accomplished the conversation that Cavell was looking for. Will I touch a friend with my words? Have I allowed for the development of my own moral perfectionism (I argue yes) and will I by chance touch the soul of another listener allowing them to find their own stake in my claim? Have I built a work of genius, probably not, but I have I worked from my intuition and by the gods have I tried so hard to be myself. I have been influenced by Cavell, now for the second time, first by The World Viewed and now by Cities of Words, but I still strive for my own worldings, for if I do not own my words I have contributed nothing. The writing sticks out of the nothing through the anxious state of being, and through this mood I have gained new friends and drawn my own map to catch me from slipping out of time itself.