Comte-Sponville raises many interesting points in this chapter on fidelity. He states that fidelity is “memory itself as a virtue”(19) and that “there is no virtue without fidelity” (19). This is a very powerful introduction to what I would have to agree is a very important virtue. Comte-Sponville raises the argument that if there is no fidelity then there is no trust and all other virtues would be rendered meaningless. You can only remain faithful to what you remember and promises cannot be broken if that promise is not remembered. Comte-Sponville proposes that there are three different kinds of fidelity: the fidelity of thought, morality and the couple. The connection between fidelity and memory explored in this chapter is that fidelity is what causes us to remain faithful to the same person years later even though you are no longer the same and your partner is no longer the same. It is out of faithfulness that we remain faithful to the same moral teachings and the same thoughts and ideas. According to Comte-Sponville fidelity means nothing and is only meaningful when taking into account the object that one is being loyal to. If you are loyal to your friends, your fidelity is considered honorable and respected. But if loyal to someone or something evil, your fidelity is no longer honorable but potentially damning (Comte-Sponville references here how the Nazi’s fidelity to Hitler caused them to be loyal to murder and crime). What struck me the most when reading this chapter is that while fidelity is clearly an admirable quality and something one should pledge to others, it is not something that should be pledged without thought, as discussed on page 19. If you pledge fidelity to one that will not be faithful back (in any area of life: a business deal; a friendship; a relationship) then you are opening yourself up to be hurt or taken advantage of. I think this is a powerful lesson that I will concede I do not always follow in my own life. To pledge fidelity to someone who will not return the pledge is to be naive. So the question that I pose to you is, is blind loyalty to one’s friends and partners something that is to be admired? Should we pledge loyalty to a new friend or partner automatically and remain loyal until shown that our fidelity is one sided? Is that necessary, admirable, or folly? If it is unwise to blindly pledge loyalty, then what is the alternative?
Before reading Comte-Sponville’s chapter on fidelity, I somewhat blindly assumed that fidelity was nothing more than faithfulness. If his book on the virtues continues in the same fashion as these first two chapters, I will hopefully come to recognize that all of my presuppositions about the virtues are pretty near-sighted; I’ve been pleasantly surprised thus far about how many new and interesting concepts the author has introduced in only two chapters. In the last chapter, Comte-Sponville stated that morality begins with politeness. He carries on this theme in ‘Fidelity,’ and references politeness on page 26 when he mentions that fidelity is the naturally- following descendant of politeness. Once we learn to respect good manners, it is natural for us to learn to respect good deeds; we grow loyal to these deeds and the values behind them, and thus continue them through fidelity. It can thus be said that fidelity, at its very core, is memory. Now to answer Holly’s questions. I feel that, upon reading this chapter, there is really no such thing as blind fidelity at all. There is, of course, blind loyalty; but Comte-Sponville states that blind loyalty is nothing more than traditionalism, small-mindedness, and fanaticism. Loyalty, however, is not a virtue. Fidelity encompasses so much more than simple loyalty; it involves the desire to be loyal and the active thought process and memory required to do so. The question “Should we pledge loyalty to a new friend or partner automatically and remain loyal until shown that our fidelity is one-sided,” is, I feel, in complete contradiction to this concept. If we are pledging loyalty to a new friend or partner automatically, we are not pledging fidelity. Fidelity evolves ultimately through faithful love (page 22), which cannot happen automatically. Furthermore, even if we were shown that our fidelity is “one-sided,” this should not end our fidelity to a person. My favorite part of this chapter is the section on fidelity for the couple (pages 27-29), and in this section Comte-Sponville makes the very interesting point that we cannot remain faithful to love alone. Love lasts only if passion lasts, but fidelity—because it’s very essence is memory—is unending and unchanging. Perhaps this is unromantic, but I feel that the author makes a valid point. When the author says “I swear to you, not that I will love you forever, but that I will remain forever faithful to the love we know now (page 29)”, he is essentially saying that all we can promise to one another is our fidelity, and nothing more. In my eyes, this makes fidelity an incredibly important virtue.
"Fidelity is not one value or one virtue among others; it is the how and wherefore of all values and virtues." (19) Comte-Sponville places quite a weight on this second virtue, and after reading this section, I am convinced that this is without fault. Comte-Sponville seems to suggest that fidelity is, in fact, what holds all the other virtues together. Love without fidelity will fade, peace without faithfulness will be peace no more. Fidelity, I have taken from this passage, is the glue that holds us to our virtues and cements who we are. Without fidelity, we have no true identity or unwavering self.
In agreement with Holly, I love the idea that fidelity itself however, is not valuable. "What gives it value, is above all, its object." (19) If we are faithful to poor habits or people, fidelity is doing us more harm that good. Fidelity is only virtuous if it is attached to virtuous objects.
Holly brings up a very interesting point that "To pledge fidelity to someone who will not return the pledge is to be naive." I honestly believe I probably am naive, but I grant trust and fidelity to any new face that I meet unless proven unworthy. Should we simply practice politeness to a new partner until they prove that they "deserve" our fidelity? Or should love and compassion override all other virtues so that we pledge fidelity in the realization that we are all quite unworthy at times?
Andrea reaches the heart of the chapter in her blog post. An incredibly interesting point in the "Fidelity" chapter is that Comte-Sponville barely touches fidelity as we think of it in the traditional sense, sexual or romantic fidelity. Instead he focuses far more on the fidelity of thought. So, I will clarify and further extend the question that I posed in my original post to fidelity of thought or principle, not merely to that of a partner or friend. Does blind fidelity exist in this area?
I would argue that there are many out there who pledge fidelity to their religion wihtout even really questioning it, based on what they grew up being taught. Regarless of what is learned or studied after, certain views will never be due to principle and how a person was raised. There are beliefs in people that are rooted so far down they are unchanging. While fidelity is more than blind loyalty can it not still be blind? But as Andrea argues, this may simply be blind loyalty and not fidelity. Thoughts?...
I will admit that when I start a new relationship, whether that is friendship or a relationship, I do not pledge loyalty at first. I have been burned too man times to trust someone that fully without knowing them first. In my eyes it’s not so much that people have to earn my loyalty, but that I have to decide that it is worth the possibility that I might get hurt before I am willing to commit. As Holly said, “If you pledge fidelity to one that will not be faithful back then you are opening yourself up to be hurt or taken advantage of.” And for me, I have just been hurt too many times to pledge before they do.
One statement in this chapter that stuck out to me was on page 18: “The mind, by definition, is the faithful mind.” I immediately took this in terms of relationships. It is most natural for humans to be monogamists. And that monogamy is one person staying faithful and pledging to be truthful to one person. Naturally the next thing I thought about was polygamy. Well, polygamists aren’t faithful to one person, but they are faithful to their belief system. And really, aren’t monogamists being faithful to their beliefs too? They are being faithful to their natural beliefs. And then, aren’t we all doing the same things? Aren’t we all being faithful to our belief system, no matter what that is? Thus, I find that there are different degrees of faithfulness depending on who is being faithful and what the situation is. (And this is what I get for typing as I read. Comte-Sponville goes on to say that being faithful “means refusing to change one’s ideas in the absence of strong, valid reasons…” (pg. 23). What Comte-Sponville is saying here is that faithfulness is knowing one’s beliefs and being faithful to those, and only changing those when it suits the belief holder.)
This doesn’t directly pertain to fidelity, but Comte-Sponville on page 24 says: “Science lives in the present and is always forgetting its first steps. Philosophy, to the contrary, is always trying to retrace its first steps and has been from the very beginning.” He goes on to say that no physicists reread Newton, etc. This was insulting to me. Scientists build on what they have learned before. Mathematicians can’t multiply and divide before they can add and subtract. Physicists can calculate 3-D scenarios without first learning how to calculate 2-D ones. Scientists cannot do anything moving forward and looking toward the future without remembering the steps that were taken in the past to get them to what they are researching or calculating now. Mathematicians, Physicists and Chemists all use calculus to do their work, and they couldn’t do this is if Newton hadn’t made the steps that he did in calculus. It is close to impossible to do an advanced level problem without using calculus. Thus all of those scientists aren’t “forgetting its first steps” as Comte-Sponville suggests, but using them daily to achieve more in their fields. How many philosophers quote Aristotle daily? (I honestly do not know. That was not meant in a snarky way.)
Random side note: On page 17, Comte-Sponville says, “The fact of the matter is that we scarcely ever forget the future, and our ignorance of it makes it all the more difficult for us to put it out of our minds.” This, while not directly pertaining to fidelity, I found possibly the most interesting thing in this chapter on a personal level. I often find myself laying awake at night thinking about all of the things I need to do tomorrow, or the next day, and sometimes even find myself getting up in the middle of the night to write something down so that I don’t forget. And this statement made me somewhat comforted in the fact that I’m not alone in never forgetting the future and that it is quite common.
I loved the connection in this chapter that C-S makes between fidelity and memory. I don’t think he directly talks about this, but the connection to memory immediately made me think of the connection to identity (I think someone mentioned this in one of the above posts.) You can’t have any kind of identity without memory. You are what you remember. And after reading this chapter, I realize that a part of your identity is also who and what you choose to be faithful to. And hopefully, you choose to be faithful to the right things, giving you fidelity. What I mean is that I didn’t realize that fidelity isn’t just about other people and other ideas that you choose to be faithful to. Of course, necessarily, fidelity has to be about your own identity. I like the idea that fidelity is also about being faithful to yourself.
Another thing that struck me about this chapter is the very little time that C-S gives to the type of fidelity that we usually mean when we talk about fidelity—sexual faithfulness to one partner. The belief in monogamy. In fact, C-S does not seem to believe that monogamy is for everyone. He brings up the fact that you can have more than one idea—believe in more than one idea even, and still have a fidelity to your body of ideas. But with couples, I don’t think this same reasoning will fly. Most people wouldn’t be too happy with “I simply desired him, but my fidelity is intact because I only love you.” Or even worse—“I love him but, but my fidelity to you is intact because I remember when I used to love you.” This is not what we agree to when we get married—not in the Catholic church anyway. I felt like C-S didn’t want to talk too much about this kind of fidelity because his reasoning doesn’t work like it does with the other examples. He admits that monogamy probably helps families be happier and more stable, but he doesn’t really go into the philosophical reasoning behind this. Why indeed should we only desire and love one person our whole lives, when pretty much all of us agree that our freedom should not be so limited in any other way? Is it simply a practical matter? Is it only because we’re naturally jealous and we can’t help but want to own another person?
Just think how much power we Americans, at least, give to monogamy. Politicians can be ruined for breaking their monogamy. If your unfaithful to your husband/wife, many Americans automatically consider that person a bad, immoral person, and in America, people tend to believe that that also makes you unfit to rule. Again, to me this seems to come back to stability. If you can’t keep your family stable, how can you be capable of ruling a city, a state, or a nation? (On the other hand, why should everyone have to make this same decision? Shouldn’t this be a religious decision that every individual is free to make on his/her own? Why should monogamy have anything to do with how well you can rule?) Even though I agree with C-S that monogamy probably isn’t for everyone and that it is definitely a choice that everyone shouldn’t have to make, I believe that it does have value other than the practical. How I see it in monogamy: there’s fidelity in love and fidelity in sex. I of course agree with what C-S seems to be saying in that fidelity in love is vastly more important than fidelity in sex. And I think there’s a lot of value in choosing to love someone forever. Even though you don’t know who that person will be thirty years in the future, I think that’s a type of faith that has a lot of value for both parties. When you agree to love someone forever, you’re agreeing that you have enough faith in how you are right now, as well as how your partner is right now, that you believe that they will grow and age in ways that you will still love. I think this mutual faith in the future has to be blind. How can it not be? That is the nature of faith. So in the end Andrea in this area, I disagree. Even though perhaps C-S would agree with you. I think that it is fidelity to choose to love someone forever. Granted, it can’t be fidelity without knowing the person (because I don’t believe you can truly love someone without knowing them for at least awhile) so it’s not blind at the outset. (Although I also believe that you can’t even know a person in the present fully—so there’s faith involved just in loving a person in the present.) But it’s definitely blind where the “forever” is concerned because you just can’t know what’s going to happen. I think that there is more than practical value in the sexual aspect as well. Most people agree that to be in a committed relationship, sexual exclusiveness is a must. Not only is sex a powerful physical symbol, it’s a true physical joining that has real consequences. Despite all our efforts, there are still accidental pregnancies and STDs still spread, etc. So there are the practical reasons, but I think it’s something more than that. You’re choosing one person above all others to spend the rest of your life with, and I think most people want the physical exclusivity to match this spiritual exclusivity. It just bothered me that C-S seemed to deemphasize this aspect, when most people give it so much value.
Comte-Sponville first likens fidelity to memory, asserting thatno virtue would have value without the virtue of fidelity. I believe that, and I think that theraw idea of loyalty allows for much more than virtues to functionproperly. Loyalty is taking thesame stand and holding it day after day after day. However, fidelity does not equal no growth; rather, ideas orpeople to which one is loyal must be reasoned through carefully andoccasionally reexamined. Insociety, we depend on the predictability of others' loyalty. It provides the structure around whichwe can socially interact, work in groups, and simply live as individuals. We need to trust that if one personsays he will do something, he will do it. If he or she promises to turn the lights out after he or she has leftthe room, we will believe his or her word. We expect people to be loyal to their word, and withoutthose expectations, a complex society would not function. Comte-Sponville adds, "And whatwould truth itself be worth wihout the fidelity of the truthful? It would still be true, but it wouldhave no value and thus could not give rise to virtue." In other words, if we understand the virtueof honesty and proclaim that we are honest, but are not loyal to the idea ofhonesty, then we will only be honest when it is convenient or easy. Does that not mean that honesty forthat person was never virtue in the first place? When Comte-Sponville first talked about virtues, he likenedthem to habits that we learn and take to heart. It becomes a part of us, and loyalty to that virtue becomessecond-nature - loyalty to being honest is a prerequisite for the truly honestperson. Or in Sponville's words,honesty would have no "value," if it were not expected all thetime. Then after it is expected,it must be practiced to have "value."
Comte-Sponville cites Jankélévitch in saying that fidelity isthe "virtue of Sameness." Comte-Sponville then replies that the world is always changing and thattrue sameness only exists in the mind. Therefore, perhaps we should not be loyal to particular people, who dochange. We should only be loyal topeople, including our friends, when they expect virtue of themselves andpractice it, and we expect them to expect of themselves. Because we cannot get inside them, thiswould come out in their words, actions, and behaviors. This is why "blind" loyaltyto friends, I think, is not to be admired. "Blind" implies that we turn our eyes away fromour friends and walk with them without knowing where we are going. If, according to Kant, people must"admit" to be the same today as they were yesterday, then every bitof our friends' personalities, too, must be a choice. Do we want to automatically cast our life's dice in withthem without, at least, contemplating the odds? I am not saying that in practical situations we should letfear keep us from doing anything with our friends, but we should always havethe power to make our own decisions, so that if the situation arises where youdo not agree, you have enough will to walk away from your friend. We can trust our friends, but thattrust must be earned, and if a friend is doing something that breaks thattrust, that expectation, we should not blindly dismiss it. We should analyze it and make our owndecision about it. This leads intothe second question. If we removeour loyalties one by one, slowly, as we have reason to think our friend is nolonger living up to the expectations of that friendship, then perhaps we end upmore loyal to the ideas and principles upon which that friendship was builtthan to the actual person. It isnot that we are disloyal to the person; rather, we have a responsibility tochoose our friends wisely. I thinkthat "pledge" might not be the right word to use in a friendshipbecause it implies a contract, a bond, and a special relationship. The expectations seem to becomeofficial and, therefore, binding. It could be broken, but there would might consequences that may not beeasily foreseen. I would avoid"pledging" a friendship to a person, especially automatically. The friendship should be constructed,built piece by piece, and the finished product emerges on its own without anyofficial, binding stamp. By doingit piece by piece, it would become clear that there are certain expectationsand principles involved in this frienship. The best word to describe an "automatic pledge," Ithink, is folly. A pledge is toobig of a risk, and friendships should not be built on risks and chances. Friendships are not business contracts,nor are they meant to be.
Since the relationship with a partner is a contract, that onlymeans that more intensive care should be taken in constructing the relationshipbefore "pledging." In amarriage, the "pledge" is necessary because two individuals arecombining of not just time, but every part of one's being and livelihood isgiven to the other. You cannotmove in and out of it. If this onebreaks, its consequences may be far bigger. By constructing the foundation well, hopefully things can betaken apart piece by piece and rebuilt together, rather than demolish themarriage entirely.
The alternative to pledging loyalties to people is to pledgeloyalties to principles, which remain more constant than people. Such was the mindset of Saint ThomasMore. By not pledging oneself to aperson but to a set of standards, the most loyal and trusting friends may staywith you.
"'The foundation of my being and identity is purely moral; it consists in the fidelity to the faith I swore to myself. I am not really the same as yesterday; I am the same only because I admit to being the same, because I take the responsibility of a certain past as my own, and because I intend to recognize my present commitment as still my own in the future."' I love this quote by Montaigne that C-S includes on page 21. What is it that makes us faithful to who we were the previous day, week, month or year? I believe that people change, it's just a part of life, however why do we remain faithful to ourselves. It is our choice. That's what makes it a virtue. We either can choose to maintain who we are and remain true, or we can choose to be unfaithful to ourselves and change who we are, for whatever reason. This quote talks about how it is our responsibility to keep our past the same as our present and maintain that sameness in the future.
My favorite section in this part of the book was when C-S related fidelity to couples. He had some interesting concepts and aspects that I had never considered before. "[. . .] [E]ach couple must choose for itself: truth is a higher value than exclusiveness, and it seems to me that love is betrayed less by love (the other love) than by lying" (27). While a couple may be exclusive with each other, fidelity is more than just that. I also couldn't agree more when he mentions that love is betrayed more by lying. I find such incredible truth in that statement.
"Fidelity means preserving love for the sake of what once took place, love for love in this case, love in the present, willing and willingly maintained, for love in the past. Fidelity is faithful love, and faithful first to love" (28). C-S mentions how fidelity to love is important whether it be past relationships or present. There is something that we still share with old lovers that should not be lost because that would be unfaithful of us. I think this is a wonderful concept. No matter what happened in the past, I feel like it's important to still share some fidelity with old lovers in the sense of keeping the memories and not trying to forget everything. By honoring this, I feel like it makes present relationships better because the past made you who you are today. If you are not faithful to the love in the past, what's stopping you from being unfaithful to love in the present?
Kelsey brings up a very interesting point made by the author in regards to fidelity. I suppose I had always simply thought that to have fidelity in a relationship, you must try to abandon the memories you may have for a former partner, because by having fond memories and thoughts of that particular relationship you are not giving yourself completely to the present relationship. But through the explanation that C-S provides for fidelity, I can see this issue a bit differently. By simply remembering fondly a love that once was, you are not denying the love that presently exists. You are appreciating and remembering love for love's sake. Furthermore, if you are ever going to be faithful, or have fidelity, with the love you share with your current partner, you shouldn't be practicing unfaithfulness to a love that you shared in the past, if it was just as real.
C-S makes a strong connection, as many people have said, between fidelity and memory in this chapter. '"The past, on the other hand, is in need of our compassion and gratitude; for the past cannot stand up for itself as can the present and the future.' Such is the duty of memory: compassion and gratitude for the past. The difficult, demanding, imprescriptible duty of fidelity!" (21) This quote really struck me as quite true. It was a very interesting way to look at the memory in a way I never had before. I personally spend a lot of time just thinking about the past and reflecting. I never thought of it as giving my past compassion and gratitude. However, that is what we all do when we remember...we take time out to think about events, people, things that have existed in our previous life encounters and we are experiencing them over again, giving them another chance to affect us and giving ourselves another chance to understand them. The present and the future constantly demand our attention, so in ways we are "made" to have fidelity toward them. But the past CAN be forgotten, and therefore we have to consciously decide that it is worthy of our remembrance, our compassion, and in doing so we practice true, willing fidelity.
So if fidelity is so closely tied to remembrance, is it unfaithful to purposefully forget? I believe Kelsey and Kaylan both brought up the point about being faithful to the memory of love and that was something that got me thinking. I know for a fact that, in the past, I have chosen to purposefully forget (or "destroy" as I like to word it in my head) pieces of my memory in hopes of purging some kind of pain or regret from it. I naturally have a poor memory, I was born, or perhaps grown into it (legitimately knocked in the noggin once or twice as a child, by accident mind you)and when asked the question, "Do you have any regrets?" my most common response is, "I cannot regret what I cannot remember." Despite my lack of an ability to always remember, as well as my choice to not remember, I feel as though fidelity can still be achieved. Can one not be actively faithful and therefore have the virtue of fidelity in the present? I'm not saying that there is no memory involved (obviously, I wouldn't even be able to finish my sentence if there was no memo...), but a faith and conviction to something you believe in can be dynamic and ever changing, just like you, the faithful one.
To go along with your question, John, I think, at least according to Compte-Sponville's definition of fidelity, that it would be unfaithful to purposefully forget. I mean, if there is someone or some thought that one wanted to be faithful to, he or she simply would not forget that person or thought. In fact, he or she would probably devote a great number of his or her personal resources to make sure that the person or thing was surely not forgotten.
I like the point that Montaigne makes about fidelity being the basis of a person's true identity. "The foundation of my being and identity is purely moral; it consists in the fidelity to the faith I swore to myself. I am not really the same as yesterday; I am the same only because I admit to being the same, because I intend to recognize my present commitment as still my own in the future" (21). I think this addresses John's question about it being unfaithful to yourself to purposefully forget things. It is unfaithful to who you are. I suppose if you do not like who you are, then it might not be a big deal to be unfaithful. But, if you like who you are, and you are working on building your character and becoming a good person, then it would probably be best to be fidelious to who you are. However, in some situations, it might be beneficial, and not infidelious to lose some memories. For example, an alcoholic who is starting AA and is getting clean is forming a new identity for himself doesn't necessarily want or need to be burdened with memories of the bad times. While he should have some awareness of what he is moving on from, it is probably better to create new memories of who he is. I do not think that that is a case of infidelity. People should have the goal to make themselves the best that they can be. And as people strive to achieve that goal, changes will be made, and their memory of who they are will change. And every time something changes, so should their memory of themselves, and they will admit to being the same person in essence, but slightly better. JJ Ruwe
Comte-Sponville raises many interesting points in this chapter on fidelity. He states that fidelity is “memory itself as a virtue”(19) and that “there is no virtue without fidelity” (19). This is a very powerful introduction to what I would have to agree is a very important virtue. Comte-Sponville raises the argument that if there is no fidelity then there is no trust and all other virtues would be rendered meaningless. You can only remain faithful to what you remember and promises cannot be broken if that promise is not remembered. Comte-Sponville proposes that there are three different kinds of fidelity: the fidelity of thought, morality and the couple.
ReplyDeleteThe connection between fidelity and memory explored in this chapter is that fidelity is what causes us to remain faithful to the same person years later even though you are no longer the same and your partner is no longer the same. It is out of faithfulness that we remain faithful to the same moral teachings and the same thoughts and ideas.
According to Comte-Sponville fidelity means nothing and is only meaningful when taking into account the object that one is being loyal to. If you are loyal to your friends, your fidelity is considered honorable and respected. But if loyal to someone or something evil, your fidelity is no longer honorable but potentially damning (Comte-Sponville references here how the Nazi’s fidelity to Hitler caused them to be loyal to murder and crime). What struck me the most when reading this chapter is that while fidelity is clearly an admirable quality and something one should pledge to others, it is not something that should be pledged without thought, as discussed on page 19. If you pledge fidelity to one that will not be faithful back (in any area of life: a business deal; a friendship; a relationship) then you are opening yourself up to be hurt or taken advantage of. I think this is a powerful lesson that I will concede I do not always follow in my own life. To pledge fidelity to someone who will not return the pledge is to be naive. So the question that I pose to you is, is blind loyalty to one’s friends and partners something that is to be admired? Should we pledge loyalty to a new friend or partner automatically and remain loyal until shown that our fidelity is one sided? Is that necessary, admirable, or folly? If it is unwise to blindly pledge loyalty, then what is the alternative?
Before reading Comte-Sponville’s chapter on fidelity, I somewhat blindly assumed that fidelity was nothing more than faithfulness. If his book on the virtues continues in the same fashion as these first two chapters, I will hopefully come to recognize that all of my presuppositions about the virtues are pretty near-sighted; I’ve been pleasantly surprised thus far about how many new and interesting concepts the author has introduced in only two chapters. In the last chapter, Comte-Sponville stated that morality begins with politeness. He carries on this theme in ‘Fidelity,’ and references politeness on page 26 when he mentions that fidelity is the naturally- following descendant of politeness. Once we learn to respect good manners, it is natural for us to learn to respect good deeds; we grow loyal to these deeds and the values behind them, and thus continue them through fidelity. It can thus be said that fidelity, at its very core, is memory.
ReplyDeleteNow to answer Holly’s questions. I feel that, upon reading this chapter, there is really no such thing as blind fidelity at all. There is, of course, blind loyalty; but Comte-Sponville states that blind loyalty is nothing more than traditionalism, small-mindedness, and fanaticism. Loyalty, however, is not a virtue. Fidelity encompasses so much more than simple loyalty; it involves the desire to be loyal and the active thought process and memory required to do so. The question “Should we pledge loyalty to a new friend or partner automatically and remain loyal until shown that our fidelity is one-sided,” is, I feel, in complete contradiction to this concept. If we are pledging loyalty to a new friend or partner automatically, we are not pledging fidelity. Fidelity evolves ultimately through faithful love (page 22), which cannot happen automatically. Furthermore, even if we were shown that our fidelity is “one-sided,” this should not end our fidelity to a person. My favorite part of this chapter is the section on fidelity for the couple (pages 27-29), and in this section Comte-Sponville makes the very interesting point that we cannot remain faithful to love alone. Love lasts only if passion lasts, but fidelity—because it’s very essence is memory—is unending and unchanging. Perhaps this is unromantic, but I feel that the author makes a valid point. When the author says “I swear to you, not that I will love you forever, but that I will remain forever faithful to the love we know now (page 29)”, he is essentially saying that all we can promise to one another is our fidelity, and nothing more. In my eyes, this makes fidelity an incredibly important virtue.
"Fidelity is not one value or one virtue among others; it is the how and wherefore of all values and virtues." (19) Comte-Sponville places quite a weight on this second virtue, and after reading this section, I am convinced that this is without fault. Comte-Sponville seems to suggest that fidelity is, in fact, what holds all the other virtues together. Love without fidelity will fade, peace without faithfulness will be peace no more. Fidelity, I have taken from this passage, is the glue that holds us to our virtues and cements who we are. Without fidelity, we have no true identity or unwavering self.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with Holly, I love the idea that fidelity itself however, is not valuable. "What gives it value, is above all, its object." (19) If we are faithful to poor habits or people, fidelity is doing us more harm that good. Fidelity is only virtuous if it is attached to virtuous objects.
Holly brings up a very interesting point that "To pledge fidelity to someone who will not return the pledge is to be naive." I honestly believe I probably am naive, but I grant trust and fidelity to any new face that I meet unless proven unworthy. Should we simply practice politeness to a new partner until they prove that they "deserve" our fidelity? Or should love and compassion override all other virtues so that we pledge fidelity in the realization that we are all quite unworthy at times?
Andrea reaches the heart of the chapter in her blog post. An incredibly interesting point in the "Fidelity" chapter is that Comte-Sponville barely touches fidelity as we think of it in the traditional sense, sexual or romantic fidelity. Instead he focuses far more on the fidelity of thought. So, I will clarify and further extend the question that I posed in my original post to fidelity of thought or principle, not merely to that of a partner or friend. Does blind fidelity exist in this area?
ReplyDeleteI would argue that there are many out there who pledge fidelity to their religion wihtout even really questioning it, based on what they grew up being taught. Regarless of what is learned or studied after, certain views will never be due to principle and how a person was raised. There are beliefs in people that are rooted so far down they are unchanging. While fidelity is more than blind loyalty can it not still be blind? But as Andrea argues, this may simply be blind loyalty and not fidelity. Thoughts?...
I will admit that when I start a new relationship, whether that is friendship or a relationship, I do not pledge loyalty at first. I have been burned too man times to trust someone that fully without knowing them first. In my eyes it’s not so much that people have to earn my loyalty, but that I have to decide that it is worth the possibility that I might get hurt before I am willing to commit. As Holly said, “If you pledge fidelity to one that will not be faithful back then you are opening yourself up to be hurt or taken advantage of.” And for me, I have just been hurt too many times to pledge before they do.
ReplyDeleteOne statement in this chapter that stuck out to me was on page 18: “The mind, by definition, is the faithful mind.” I immediately took this in terms of relationships. It is most natural for humans to be monogamists. And that monogamy is one person staying faithful and pledging to be truthful to one person. Naturally the next thing I thought about was polygamy. Well, polygamists aren’t faithful to one person, but they are faithful to their belief system. And really, aren’t monogamists being faithful to their beliefs too? They are being faithful to their natural beliefs. And then, aren’t we all doing the same things? Aren’t we all being faithful to our belief system, no matter what that is? Thus, I find that there are different degrees of faithfulness depending on who is being faithful and what the situation is. (And this is what I get for typing as I read. Comte-Sponville goes on to say that being faithful “means refusing to change one’s ideas in the absence of strong, valid reasons…” (pg. 23). What Comte-Sponville is saying here is that faithfulness is knowing one’s beliefs and being faithful to those, and only changing those when it suits the belief holder.)
This doesn’t directly pertain to fidelity, but Comte-Sponville on page 24 says: “Science lives in the present and is always forgetting its first steps. Philosophy, to the contrary, is always trying to retrace its first steps and has been from the very beginning.” He goes on to say that no physicists reread Newton, etc. This was insulting to me. Scientists build on what they have learned before. Mathematicians can’t multiply and divide before they can add and subtract. Physicists can calculate 3-D scenarios without first learning how to calculate 2-D ones. Scientists cannot do anything moving forward and looking toward the future without remembering the steps that were taken in the past to get them to what they are researching or calculating now. Mathematicians, Physicists and Chemists all use calculus to do their work, and they couldn’t do this is if Newton hadn’t made the steps that he did in calculus. It is close to impossible to do an advanced level problem without using calculus. Thus all of those scientists aren’t “forgetting its first steps” as Comte-Sponville suggests, but using them daily to achieve more in their fields. How many philosophers quote Aristotle daily? (I honestly do not know. That was not meant in a snarky way.)
Random side note: On page 17, Comte-Sponville says, “The fact of the matter is that we scarcely ever forget the future, and our ignorance of it makes it all the more difficult for us to put it out of our minds.” This, while not directly pertaining to fidelity, I found possibly the most interesting thing in this chapter on a personal level. I often find myself laying awake at night thinking about all of the things I need to do tomorrow, or the next day, and sometimes even find myself getting up in the middle of the night to write something down so that I don’t forget. And this statement made me somewhat comforted in the fact that I’m not alone in never forgetting the future and that it is quite common.
I loved the connection in this chapter that C-S makes between fidelity and memory. I don’t think he directly talks about this, but the connection to memory immediately made me think of the connection to identity (I think someone mentioned this in one of the above posts.) You can’t have any kind of identity without memory. You are what you remember. And after reading this chapter, I realize that a part of your identity is also who and what you choose to be faithful to. And hopefully, you choose to be faithful to the right things, giving you fidelity. What I mean is that I didn’t realize that fidelity isn’t just about other people and other ideas that you choose to be faithful to. Of course, necessarily, fidelity has to be about your own identity. I like the idea that fidelity is also about being faithful to yourself.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that struck me about this chapter is the very little time that C-S gives to the type of fidelity that we usually mean when we talk about fidelity—sexual faithfulness to one partner. The belief in monogamy. In fact, C-S does not seem to believe that monogamy is for everyone. He brings up the fact that you can have more than one idea—believe in more than one idea even, and still have a fidelity to your body of ideas. But with couples, I don’t think this same reasoning will fly. Most people wouldn’t be too happy with “I simply desired him, but my fidelity is intact because I only love you.” Or even worse—“I love him but, but my fidelity to you is intact because I remember when I used to love you.” This is not what we agree to when we get married—not in the Catholic church anyway.
I felt like C-S didn’t want to talk too much about this kind of fidelity because his reasoning doesn’t work like it does with the other examples. He admits that monogamy probably helps families be happier and more stable, but he doesn’t really go into the philosophical reasoning behind this. Why indeed should we only desire and love one person our whole lives, when pretty much all of us agree that our freedom should not be so limited in any other way? Is it simply a practical matter? Is it only because we’re naturally jealous and we can’t help but want to own another person?
Just think how much power we Americans, at least, give to monogamy. Politicians can be ruined for breaking their monogamy. If your unfaithful to your husband/wife, many Americans automatically consider that person a bad, immoral person, and in America, people tend to believe that that also makes you unfit to rule. Again, to me this seems to come back to stability. If you can’t keep your family stable, how can you be capable of ruling a city, a state, or a nation? (On the other hand, why should everyone have to make this same decision? Shouldn’t this be a religious decision that every individual is free to make on his/her own? Why should monogamy have anything to do with how well you can rule?)
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree with C-S that monogamy probably isn’t for everyone and that it is definitely a choice that everyone shouldn’t have to make, I believe that it does have value other than the practical.
How I see it in monogamy: there’s fidelity in love and fidelity in sex. I of course agree with what C-S seems to be saying in that fidelity in love is vastly more important than fidelity in sex. And I think there’s a lot of value in choosing to love someone forever. Even though you don’t know who that person will be thirty years in the future, I think that’s a type of faith that has a lot of value for both parties. When you agree to love someone forever, you’re agreeing that you have enough faith in how you are right now, as well as how your partner is right now, that you believe that they will grow and age in ways that you will still love. I think this mutual faith in the future has to be blind. How can it not be? That is the nature of faith.
So in the end Andrea in this area, I disagree. Even though perhaps C-S would agree with you. I think that it is fidelity to choose to love someone forever. Granted, it can’t be fidelity without knowing the person (because I don’t believe you can truly love someone without knowing them for at least awhile) so it’s not blind at the outset. (Although I also believe that you can’t even know a person in the present fully—so there’s faith involved just in loving a person in the present.) But it’s definitely blind where the “forever” is concerned because you just can’t know what’s going to happen.
I think that there is more than practical value in the sexual aspect as well. Most people agree that to be in a committed relationship, sexual exclusiveness is a must. Not only is sex a powerful physical symbol, it’s a true physical joining that has real consequences. Despite all our efforts, there are still accidental pregnancies and STDs still spread, etc. So there are the practical reasons, but I think it’s something more than that. You’re choosing one person above all others to spend the rest of your life with, and I think most people want the physical exclusivity to match this spiritual exclusivity. It just bothered me that C-S seemed to deemphasize this aspect, when most people give it so much value.
from Michael
ReplyDeleteComte-Sponville first likens fidelity to memory, asserting thatno virtue would have value without the virtue of fidelity. I believe that, and I think that theraw idea of loyalty allows for much more than virtues to functionproperly. Loyalty is taking thesame stand and holding it day after day after day. However, fidelity does not equal no growth; rather, ideas orpeople to which one is loyal must be reasoned through carefully andoccasionally reexamined. Insociety, we depend on the predictability of others' loyalty. It provides the structure around whichwe can socially interact, work in groups, and simply live as individuals. We need to trust that if one personsays he will do something, he will do it. If he or she promises to turn the lights out after he or she has leftthe room, we will believe his or her word. We expect people to be loyal to their word, and withoutthose expectations, a complex society would not function. Comte-Sponville adds, "And whatwould truth itself be worth wihout the fidelity of the truthful? It would still be true, but it wouldhave no value and thus could not give rise to virtue." In other words, if we understand the virtueof honesty and proclaim that we are honest, but are not loyal to the idea ofhonesty, then we will only be honest when it is convenient or easy. Does that not mean that honesty forthat person was never virtue in the first place? When Comte-Sponville first talked about virtues, he likenedthem to habits that we learn and take to heart. It becomes a part of us, and loyalty to that virtue becomessecond-nature - loyalty to being honest is a prerequisite for the truly honestperson. Or in Sponville's words,honesty would have no "value," if it were not expected all thetime. Then after it is expected,it must be practiced to have "value."
from Michael (con't)
ReplyDeleteComte-Sponville cites Jankélévitch in saying that fidelity isthe "virtue of Sameness." Comte-Sponville then replies that the world is always changing and thattrue sameness only exists in the mind. Therefore, perhaps we should not be loyal to particular people, who dochange. We should only be loyal topeople, including our friends, when they expect virtue of themselves andpractice it, and we expect them to expect of themselves. Because we cannot get inside them, thiswould come out in their words, actions, and behaviors. This is why "blind" loyaltyto friends, I think, is not to be admired. "Blind" implies that we turn our eyes away fromour friends and walk with them without knowing where we are going. If, according to Kant, people must"admit" to be the same today as they were yesterday, then every bitof our friends' personalities, too, must be a choice. Do we want to automatically cast our life's dice in withthem without, at least, contemplating the odds? I am not saying that in practical situations we should letfear keep us from doing anything with our friends, but we should always havethe power to make our own decisions, so that if the situation arises where youdo not agree, you have enough will to walk away from your friend. We can trust our friends, but thattrust must be earned, and if a friend is doing something that breaks thattrust, that expectation, we should not blindly dismiss it. We should analyze it and make our owndecision about it. This leads intothe second question. If we removeour loyalties one by one, slowly, as we have reason to think our friend is nolonger living up to the expectations of that friendship, then perhaps we end upmore loyal to the ideas and principles upon which that friendship was builtthan to the actual person. It isnot that we are disloyal to the person; rather, we have a responsibility tochoose our friends wisely. I thinkthat "pledge" might not be the right word to use in a friendshipbecause it implies a contract, a bond, and a special relationship. The expectations seem to becomeofficial and, therefore, binding. It could be broken, but there would might consequences that may not beeasily foreseen. I would avoid"pledging" a friendship to a person, especially automatically. The friendship should be constructed,built piece by piece, and the finished product emerges on its own without anyofficial, binding stamp. By doingit piece by piece, it would become clear that there are certain expectationsand principles involved in this frienship. The best word to describe an "automatic pledge," Ithink, is folly. A pledge is toobig of a risk, and friendships should not be built on risks and chances. Friendships are not business contracts,nor are they meant to be.
Since the relationship with a partner is a contract, that onlymeans that more intensive care should be taken in constructing the relationshipbefore "pledging." In amarriage, the "pledge" is necessary because two individuals arecombining of not just time, but every part of one's being and livelihood isgiven to the other. You cannotmove in and out of it. If this onebreaks, its consequences may be far bigger. By constructing the foundation well, hopefully things can betaken apart piece by piece and rebuilt together, rather than demolish themarriage entirely.
The alternative to pledging loyalties to people is to pledgeloyalties to principles, which remain more constant than people. Such was the mindset of Saint ThomasMore. By not pledging oneself to aperson but to a set of standards, the most loyal and trusting friends may staywith you.
"'The foundation of my being and identity is purely moral; it consists in the fidelity to the faith I swore to myself. I am not really the same as yesterday; I am the same only because I admit to being the same, because I take the responsibility of a certain past as my own, and because I intend to recognize my present commitment as still my own in the future."' I love this quote by Montaigne that C-S includes on page 21. What is it that makes us faithful to who we were the previous day, week, month or year? I believe that people change, it's just a part of life, however why do we remain faithful to ourselves. It is our choice. That's what makes it a virtue. We either can choose to maintain who we are and remain true, or we can choose to be unfaithful to ourselves and change who we are, for whatever reason. This quote talks about how it is our responsibility to keep our past the same as our present and maintain that sameness in the future.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite section in this part of the book was when C-S related fidelity to couples. He had some interesting concepts and aspects that I had never considered before. "[. . .] [E]ach couple must choose for itself: truth is a higher value than exclusiveness, and it seems to me that love is betrayed less by love (the other love) than by lying" (27). While a couple may be exclusive with each other, fidelity is more than just that. I also couldn't agree more when he mentions that love is betrayed more by lying. I find such incredible truth in that statement.
"Fidelity means preserving love for the sake of what once took place, love for love in this case, love in the present, willing and willingly maintained, for love in the past. Fidelity is faithful love, and faithful first to love" (28). C-S mentions how fidelity to love is important whether it be past relationships or present. There is something that we still share with old lovers that should not be lost because that would be unfaithful of us. I think this is a wonderful concept. No matter what happened in the past, I feel like it's important to still share some fidelity with old lovers in the sense of keeping the memories and not trying to forget everything. By honoring this, I feel like it makes present relationships better because the past made you who you are today. If you are not faithful to the love in the past, what's stopping you from being unfaithful to love in the present?
Kelsey brings up a very interesting point made by the author in regards to fidelity. I suppose I had always simply thought that to have fidelity in a relationship, you must try to abandon the memories you may have for a former partner, because by having fond memories and thoughts of that particular relationship you are not giving yourself completely to the present relationship. But through the explanation that C-S provides for fidelity, I can see this issue a bit differently. By simply remembering fondly a love that once was, you are not denying the love that presently exists. You are appreciating and remembering love for love's sake. Furthermore, if you are ever going to be faithful, or have fidelity, with the love you share with your current partner, you shouldn't be practicing unfaithfulness to a love that you shared in the past, if it was just as real.
ReplyDeleteC-S makes a strong connection, as many people have said, between fidelity and memory in this chapter. '"The past, on the other hand, is in need of our compassion and gratitude; for the past cannot stand up for itself as can the present and the future.' Such is the duty of memory: compassion and gratitude for the past. The difficult, demanding, imprescriptible duty of fidelity!" (21) This quote really struck me as quite true. It was a very interesting way to look at the memory in a way I never had before. I personally spend a lot of time just thinking about the past and reflecting. I never thought of it as giving my past compassion and gratitude. However, that is what we all do when we remember...we take time out to think about events, people, things that have existed in our previous life encounters and we are experiencing them over again, giving them another chance to affect us and giving ourselves another chance to understand them. The present and the future constantly demand our attention, so in ways we are "made" to have fidelity toward them. But the past CAN be forgotten, and therefore we have to consciously decide that it is worthy of our remembrance, our compassion, and in doing so we practice true, willing fidelity.
So if fidelity is so closely tied to remembrance, is it unfaithful to purposefully forget? I believe Kelsey and Kaylan both brought up the point about being faithful to the memory of love and that was something that got me thinking. I know for a fact that, in the past, I have chosen to purposefully forget (or "destroy" as I like to word it in my head) pieces of my memory in hopes of purging some kind of pain or regret from it. I naturally have a poor memory, I was born, or perhaps grown into it (legitimately knocked in the noggin once or twice as a child, by accident mind you)and when asked the question, "Do you have any regrets?" my most common response is, "I cannot regret what I cannot remember." Despite my lack of an ability to always remember, as well as my choice to not remember, I feel as though fidelity can still be achieved. Can one not be actively faithful and therefore have the virtue of fidelity in the present? I'm not saying that there is no memory involved (obviously, I wouldn't even be able to finish my sentence if there was no memo...), but a faith and conviction to something you believe in can be dynamic and ever changing, just like you, the faithful one.
ReplyDeleteTo go along with your question, John, I think, at least according to Compte-Sponville's definition of fidelity, that it would be unfaithful to purposefully forget. I mean, if there is someone or some thought that one wanted to be faithful to, he or she simply would not forget that person or thought. In fact, he or she would probably devote a great number of his or her personal resources to make sure that the person or thing was surely not forgotten.
ReplyDeleteI like the point that Montaigne makes about fidelity being the basis of a person's true identity. "The foundation of my being and identity is purely moral; it consists in the fidelity to the faith I swore to myself. I am not really the same as yesterday; I am the same only because I admit to being the same, because I intend to recognize my present commitment as still my own in the future" (21). I think this addresses John's question about it being unfaithful to yourself to purposefully forget things. It is unfaithful to who you are. I suppose if you do not like who you are, then it might not be a big deal to be unfaithful. But, if you like who you are, and you are working on building your character and becoming a good person, then it would probably be best to be fidelious to who you are. However, in some situations, it might be beneficial, and not infidelious to lose some memories. For example, an alcoholic who is starting AA and is getting clean is forming a new identity for himself doesn't necessarily want or need to be burdened with memories of the bad times. While he should have some awareness of what he is moving on from, it is probably better to create new memories of who he is. I do not think that that is a case of infidelity. People should have the goal to make themselves the best that they can be. And as people strive to achieve that goal, changes will be made, and their memory of who they are will change. And every time something changes, so should their memory of themselves, and they will admit to being the same person in essence, but slightly better.
ReplyDeleteJJ Ruwe