Response to Athens Dialogues: Quality of Life;
Scheidel and Rubidge
So, my task is to respond to the
papers of Walter Scheidel and Sarah Rubidge. I
would like to start with Walter Scheidel’s
observations which concern groups and provide a
macro view of the human condition. More
specifically, Professor Scheidel said: “It shows
that the problems we currently face in determining
quality of life are not new: we also encounter
them in engaging with the distant past. They are
not merely empirical problems – of how to find out
or how to measure – but methodological ones, of
how to weigh different aspects of the human
existence”.
Sarah Rubidge, however, suggests that:
Quality of Life is addressed from the
‘subjective’ level of an individual’s lived
experience and that this lived experience is
situated in an embodied response to the
world . Her approach is a micro view of the
human condition, focused on individuals.
Although the approach for these two papers is
from a different perspective what we can extract
is that: a mixing of quantitative and qualitative
methods in a single research design would provide
the researcher with a multi-viewpoint regarding
the process and the outcome which can lay the
foundation for an integrated data discussion. This
approach is linked directly and can be supported
by the
two basic modes for the brain :
strong feeling versus thinking dominant, sensory/
cognitive, here and now/ past present, external
/fantasy, environment/ internal personality and I
am not going to refer to all of them, as Baroness
Susan Greenfield refers too extensively, yesterday
in her presentation.
At this point, I will draw mainly from the
qualitative and not the quantitative methodologies
which can contribute to collecting information on
the subjective human experience.
Neuroscientists have long been using methods and
tools such as brain imaging techniques to study
emotional behavior. Antonio Damasio (1994)
emphasizes the need of scientific studies on
emotions and feelings, and not just only on
cognition and rational appraisal of what causes
the emotion. He also stresses that the study of
the process of judging and decision making has
enlightened the chain of
deliberation-choice-action in contemporary life.
Sarah Rubidge implies the above in her use of
Deleuze’s notions of “sensation” and “affect”. As
Reid (1986) suggests the direct concrete
experience of an individual, in the arts, always
involves feeling which is the immediate awareness
from the inside of a conscious human experience
both somato-sensory and cognitive. I would like to
emphasize here that this process, both for the
creators and the audience, is not an irrational
response, or a work of genius, as David Elmer, in
the second day, mentioned in his response. Instead
it is a logical process which accommodates degrees
of consciousness. According to Sifakis, these
notions are directly linked to Aristotle’s
Rhetoric (the treatise on “the
art of shaping the opinion of political and
juridical decision makers”) and to his method of
logical reasoning. Aristotle discusses the complex
correlation between emotions on the one hand and
understanding and learning on the other; he also
ties deliberating and decision-making, emotional
temperance and moral excellence.
Logic and emotion are interrelated in
Rhetoric and are used to arrive
at the definition of the
ergon (function duty). For Aristotle,
to be able to deliberate (
vouleuesthai ), we need prudence -
practical wisdom (
phronesis ); deliberation precedes
choice (
prohairesis ); choice results in
decision-making and leads to action.
But to be able to deliberate properly and in
order to make the right choice, we also need
virtue or “moral excellence” (
aretê ). Aristotle
trusted that by arousing the proper kind as well
as measure (degree) of emotion in his listeners,
speakers could and should facilitate their
deliberation and their arriving at the right
decision with truth and justice (Sifakis
2001:115-129).
However, we cannot re-live the ancient Athens
experience. As Ryan Balot said yesterday, we
cannot always develop monological rhetories. Our
modern openness gives us the opportunity, right
now, to borrow fragments from Greek past in order
to explain our selves to our selves and rich for
new methods to achieve highest human
potentiality.
After considering all of these approaches, the
question we can ask is whether we can achieve a
higher quality of life in today’s changing and
disparate societies. It is a matter of fact that
we can continue to develop teaching methods and
research strategies through an increasingly
interdisciplinary approach by investigating
the individual’s lived experience , in
various art expressions, science and cultures that
will make us fully understand the nature of human
happiness, “
eudemonia ”, and its relationship to
virtue, “
aretê ”
and consequently their potential value in
deliberation, choice and action in today’s life.
I suggest that this is a possible way that we can
begin to bridging the gap created by a fragmented
perception of the world, and thus arrive at unity
and harmony, through shared knowledge which will
offer us the bases to develop.
References
Bibliography
Damasio, A. 1994. The
Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the
Making of Consciousness.
London.
Fortenbaugh, W. 1975. Aristotle on Emotion. London.
McKeon, R. 1941. The
Basic Works of Aristotle. New
York.
Reid, L. A. 1986. Ways
of Knowing and Understanding.
London.
Rossman, G. B. and B. L. Wilson. 1985.
“Numbers and Words: Combining Quantitative and
Qualitative Methods in a Single Large-Scale
Evaluation Study.” Evaluation
Review 9:627–643.
Ross, W. 2010. Aristotle. Rhetoric. New York.
Sifakis, G. 2001. Aristotle on the Function of Tragic
Poetry. Crete.
Solomon, R. 1993. The
Passions, Emotions and the Meaning of
Life. Indianapolis and
Cambridge.