Serving the Promise of Your Future Self
Here at Demystifying Science, we aspire to greatness. We want to bring you higher and higher quality articles, animations, and podcasts. In that sense, we can outdo our former selves, but will this actually lead us to greatness? Dr. Agnes Callard, a philosopher at the University of Chicago points out in her latest book Aspiration: the Agency of Becoming that in aspiring to greatness, we are in some sense hamstrung by the fact that we don’t know greatness until we’ve achieved it. So, how do we know what we’re actually aiming at?
The solution, in some part, according to Dr. Callard in Aspiration is that
“from the fact that people can create themselves, it does not follow that they have no need of parents, teachers, coaches, and, more generally, helpers. Aspirants are characteristically needy people, since (they see that) their own conceptions of value are insufficient.”
In other words, when we aspire to become better, while we are searching to value something we do not yet know, we intuit reasons from our experience with those who do know — or at the very least, have more experience than us and are closer to comprehending the form we aspire toward. Dr. Callard refers to this intuitive reasoning as proleptic – as in, a sense occurring before being seized by the actual event. While the acquisition of our intuitions from our surroundings may seem itself intuitive and obvious, other contemporary philosophers have formerly made compelling arguments against the reliability of these second-hand messages.
L.A. Paul famously argues a case against the solidity of such proleptic reasoning through the parable of the Vampire in her book, Transformative Experience. She considers the decision to become a vampire a sort of impossibility. The only way to know whether being a vampire is a good trade-off, is to go through the transformative experience of becoming one, yourself. In effect, there are blind spots in any theory of decision-making that we might adopt, which prevent us from being able to make the most valuable choice.
Dr. Paul argues, by extension, that it is not rational for infertile would-be parents to feel bereaved of their inability to have children. Since the would-be parents have no senses of what parenting’s true value is, they have lost nothing. Dr. Callard, on the other hand, argues that it is the getting-to-know-the-value-of-being-a-parent that is desirable but unavailable to the would-be parents. It is in fact the loss of that aspiration, which is the real loss. In this sense, the value of that transformative experience is the true prize of becoming.
Conceiving of aspiration as the process of attaining the value of knowing the outcome of the decision, separates it from the related idea of picking between two paths. Dr. Callard cites Ullmann-Margalit’s example of choosing between colleges as opposed to aspiration to college, in general. Missing out on the ability to come to value college is different and somehow less-damaging than missing out on the choice of once college versus the other. She writes,
“It is true that both aspirants and pickers are in a situation where they do not know what they are missing. The difference between them is that aspirants were in the process of trying to learn what they were missing. The fact that the erstwhile aspirant (knows that she) will never know what she is missing is a legitimate source of grief for her.”
Such proleptic, aspirational reasoning should
“not be confused with those of someone (if there could be such a person) who viewed those experiences as final ends, or as intrinsically valuable.”
To aspire is inherently to not know what we’re in for, but to move in that direction as matter of faith. A faith we intuit from our environments, the ones we love — our teachers and heroes. Dr. Callard sees the early stages of value-acquisition as beyond rational critique, while admitting that eventually such criticism does
“become appropriate. At some point on the way to her goal, the agent enters a space in which it becomes fitting for someone—though perhaps, not just anyone—to say either ‘try harder, you can do this’ or ‘give up, this isn’t working for you.’ These are the kinds of locutions by which we key someone in to the presence or absence of proleptic reasons. We can see the direction someone is heading, assessing her trajectory on the basis of the work she has done so far. We gauge whether she has it in her to make it to the endpoint, whether it is reasonable for her to proceed, or more reasonable for her to try something else. Or, rather, those of us with the relevant expertise and the relevant familiarity with the aspirant do this.”
The Fuzzy Line Between Ambition & Aspiration
Though we did not get a chance to put this particular example to her, Dr. Callard may have argued against my initial claim that we aspire to greatness here at Demystifying Science. Perhaps Callard would, were she feeling particularly generous, indicate that we are already well apprised of greatness and have indeed already attained a first-hand sense of value for the state we orient ourselves toward. Perhaps instead she would argue that the value of preparing great work is in some sense apparent without having experienced it. Were this the case, Dr. Callard would prefer the term ‘ambition’.
Ambition, for Dr. Callard, is always directed at successful completion of some known, valuable mission. The doctor bent on curing some mysterious disease, the lawyer fighting to overthrow an unjust law, or the apprentice banker seeking riches: in each of these cases is a priori apprehension of the sought-after terminal value. Similarly, the inherent value of wealth, power, and fame can all be appreciated in advance of experiencing them directly.
There is something courageous about aspiration that is less admirable than ambition. But at the same time, one may find that ambition and aspiration overlap significantly. Continuing from Aspiration, she notes
“Plausibly, the great achievers in human history have, for the most part, been both ambitious and aspirational. Nonetheless, it is possible to criticize someone for approaching some pursuit with too much ambition, too little aspiration. “
Dr. Callard picks out the example of the aspiring gangster versus the aspiring writer. She indicates that at the end of the day, the writer is the only one seeking the unknown, since the gangster’s primary motivation comes from the spoils of high-flying criminal life. For the writer, admonished by extant authors against pursuing the art as a means to those ends (“There are better ways to get rich, kid”), the value of becoming a writer remains forever out of sight. The only greatness we can truly aspire to is the greatness we do not yet know.
In the Hands of Our Future Selves
“A proleptic reasoner will have trouble explaining exactly why she is doing what she is doing, though once she gets to her destination she will say, “this was why.” Her current rational understanding of herself is predicated on the better understanding she looks forward to having one day. If we want the best justification for her actions, we have to turn to her future self”
This excerpt from her book really gets at the heart of the work: there is a curious aspect of being human that transcends space and time. And while science often seems ill-equipped to devour the topic, philosophy can provide the tools necessary.
For instance, in science we negotiate the cause of matters of existence. Often, we run up against a wall when we stop to ask whether we humans are, in fact, physical bodies. In a sense, yes atoms comprise your viscera. But is this physical substance actually you?
Strangely, when we look at the behavior of the physical atoms of our bodies, we find they are continually replaced. Like, on an annual basis. So the physical matter that constitutes your body is not the same material that it was a couple of years ago, and yet we very much identify that past self as ourselves. We have access to memories, and we experience no gap in the human being in becoming ourselves today.
Such a line of inquiry inevitably leads to the realization that humans are not mere physical bodies, but rather we are conceptual entities. We do not exist in the physical sense of atoms — as surface bound materials— but rather we occur. Dr. Callard’s work, by and large, seems to speak to this realization. The creator self today is not exclusively responsible for the seat of our ambition. Actually, it is our future selves, who really possess the knowledge of untold value, that are compelling our present selves into action. We intuit that there is real value in the urgings of our future selves, though we cannot say so at present.
The temporary, transient nature of being could put a lot of weight on the creator, hoping to satisfy their future self. Dr. Callard suggests,
“instead of imagining my future self as beholden to my past self, I suggest we imagine my past self as looking forward, trying to live up the person she hopes to become. The creator self doesn’t make a promise, she sees (to take up another facet of the concept of a promise) a promise of a better self.”
Even if we’re climbing a mountain in the dark, we are somehow aware that mountains necessarily have a summit and that reaching it is desirable. When we orient ourselves aspirationally, we are by definition seeking good, and therefore virtually assuring a better future.
Our book reviews contain links to external sites where readers can purchase the titles in question. Any purchase made by clicking through will result in a small commission for us. Thanks!
