Habit was an important concept for Felix Ravaisson, so much so that his most notable piece of work was an essay concerning the phenomenon of habit (Essay De l'habitude 1838). To understand Ravaisson’s conception of habit it is important to make the distinction between two differing lines of thought on the subject. The first can be sourced back to the work of Immanuel Kant who saw habit as mere routine; Kant dismissed habit as being mechanistic. Habit by its very nature is seen as an inauthentic imitation of virtue. Kant therefore cuts any association with habit and human freedom. However the second school of thought on habit dates back to Aristotle and is built upon by Ravaisson; it opposes the Kantian view in that habit is seen as a ‘primary ontological phenomenon’, it is an ontological law. Habit is a way of being which is directly related to change and time:
For Ravaisson habit is a result of change (it is the ‘residue of repetition’) and because we are beings that are subject to change then we naturally inhabit the law of being (habit). Habit, for Ravaisson, works on a ‘double law’; this can be seen in the distinction between voluntary movement and the sensation of touch or in a more general sense through the difference in passivity and activity. Repeated sensation will weaken over time however repeated movement will strengthen. This can be transposed directly to the moral sphere; just as repeated sensation will fade so will the ‘feelings of the soul’ and in contrast as movement will strengthen, moral activity becomes more accessible and easier to the individual through habit.
Perhaps there is substance in the idea that habit, when correctly understood is the foundation behind our moral actions. Ravaisson was an Aristotelian and his ideas on habit were built upon the basis of virtue ethics in which Aristotle proposed in ‘Nicomachean ethics’; therefore it may remain that “Moral goodness is the child of habit, for we acquire the moral virtues by first exercising them.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics)
Daniel Burden N0212236
References:
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2, Chapter 1.
Ravaisson F, Of Habit (new translated edition), Continuum International Publishing, 2008.
Thank you Dan for this post on Ravaisson. The only Ravaisson post we have!! I think what is valuable in your outline is the link between being, habit and morality. If we are to understand Ravaisson this is where we have to begin. As you say precisely because we are subject to change the we must participate in habit. In a way, this also relates to Tom's previous post. Ravaisson presents a middle ground between repetition and change. Since we are subject to change we cannot be change all the way, otherwise we would not have any minimal structure over time. It is precisely habit which allows us to build up response mechanisms to to the world around us. It is a nice way of putting this problem, we change only insofar as we habituate ourselves to our environment as we relate to it. This is why habits are of such importance because our habits are our being, or who we are.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that interests me in Ravaisson is the question of grace. When Ravaisson talks about the question of morality and its link to Aristotelian habit, there is a sense that morality is actually easy. I think this is a stark contrast to many of the existentialist conceptions of ethics, and also Kantian ethics who see ethics as fully of serious duty, or angst ridden deliberation. In Ravaisson, as in Aristotle ethics is easy and graceful, the more you do it the easier it gets!!
Thank you ! What about habit, being and resistance ....
ReplyDelete