Self Care
According to Wikipedia, self-care in philosophy is described as follows:
Quoting Wikipedia
Self-care can be tied together with positive psychology in that the Socratic saying that the unexamined life is not worth living is indeed in some way beneficial to one's wellbeing, thus leading to eudaimonia. Or in other words, self-care is beneficial to not only oneself; but, to others around them. Namely, no Cynic ever engaged in the promotion of social good.
The philosophy of self-care seems most closely related to Aristotelianism. In that Aristotle advocated a virtue theory of ethics. This idea got carried onto feminist ethics with a female slant in that "care" is the highest good for the ethics of care.
However, I am somewhat enamored by the positive psychology inherent in self-care ethics. Namely, that positive psychology is an end goal for self-care ethics. Thus leading to a virtuous circle.
What are your thoughts about the import self-care has in the realm of philosophy?
Comments, thoughts, criticisms welcome.
Quoting Wikipedia
Michel Foucault understood the art of living (French art de vivre, Latin ars vivendi) and the care of self (French le souci de soi) to be central to philosophy. The third volume of his three-volume study The History of Sexuality is dedicated to this notion. For Foucault, the notion of care of self (epimeleia heautou) of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy comprises an attitude towards the self, others and the world, as well as a certain form of attention. For Foucault, the pursuit of the care for one's own well-being also comprises self-knowledge (gn?thi seauton).
Self-care can be tied together with positive psychology in that the Socratic saying that the unexamined life is not worth living is indeed in some way beneficial to one's wellbeing, thus leading to eudaimonia. Or in other words, self-care is beneficial to not only oneself; but, to others around them. Namely, no Cynic ever engaged in the promotion of social good.
The philosophy of self-care seems most closely related to Aristotelianism. In that Aristotle advocated a virtue theory of ethics. This idea got carried onto feminist ethics with a female slant in that "care" is the highest good for the ethics of care.
However, I am somewhat enamored by the positive psychology inherent in self-care ethics. Namely, that positive psychology is an end goal for self-care ethics. Thus leading to a virtuous circle.
What are your thoughts about the import self-care has in the realm of philosophy?
Comments, thoughts, criticisms welcome.
Comments (7)
"Care" as noted here, means to fulfill self-interests, needs and wants -- intentions. Remarkably, many philosophers had to say something about intentions.
I find Maslow to be the most clear cut when it comes to self-care.
It's also markedly important to note how self-care is the opposite of self harm. One is a creative expression the other destructive. I think most intentions will fit into the interests of self, harm or care, and can be judged from these in this value.
I think Thoreau went a step further saying, "A government that governs least governs best." Why? Supposedly the less you need government the more rational, self-caring, the members are.
As an add-on to your mention of "A government that governs the least". Here in North America, California from a moral standpoint is degrading very rapidly and thus we find ourselves being imposed upon by more regulations, social intervention rules, surveillance and an undefined & abstract PC culture.
While doing a good job of distinguishing the "ancients" from the "Christian" points of view regarding the art of living, he also does the rare turn of seeing them together in their different ways calling for both a private and social means of care.
He also draws a line between the ownership of a self to an idea of leverage in a community. What is clear cut to an "aristocratic" person becomes more complicated for a "democratic" one. What makes Foucault unique is that he doesn't place those types on different planets.
I am not sure what philosophy is or would be apart from the problem of learning who we are and what helps us live.
There is a lot of interest in psychology because it is based upon an idea of health and well being that is expressed in terms of how a person lives and experiences this life. But that point of view, as exemplary as it may be, needs to be understood. Or not if it cannot be.
Looks like we need to keep thinking about fundamental things.
It depends on what's meant by the term 'philosophy.' Logical positivism, for example, seemed relatively unconcerned with the problems of living. And, just so I'm not just picking on analytic philosophy, Husserl didn't spill too much ink over those problems either. It's that way with any thought that focuses primarily on logos and dialectic. Philosophy lends itself to this tendency, even if it doesn't necessitate it.
The nature of logos, and the way it is presented as having a life of its own, may not include the psychological as something that it explains but it becomes a behavior through reflection. That is the whole Kant thing that lead to the Husserl thing.
Perception as perceived.