> Carrol writes:
>
> "You've got to be kidding. "Expressing one's individuality" is an
> essentially empty phrase. It names no intelligible human act."
>
> Agreed. Though, in this culture, the fact that one can do this and that
this is the very pinnacle of freedom, is an article of faith.
>
> When you look at "individual" artists, thinkers, writers, scientists, it
always winds up that they are standing on the shoulders of the culture
itself. By dint of hard work, training, practice, and a comprehending
audience...some outstanding "expressions" emerge. But, if you look at say,
the difference between Donatello and Bernini, it becomes clear that
although the talent is equal, the environment is not, and hence the
difference in their work. One emerges as a genius; the other, as a kind of
wasted genius.
>
> Joanna
===============
Standing on the shoulders of giants is not inconsistent with the conjunction of 'individuality' and 'expression' as intelligible when describing human behavior. Carrol seems to have forgotten his Susan K.Langer and her mentor [of a sorts] A N Whitehead. 'Essences' and 'essentially' are empty terms, neo-essentialist logicians notwithstanding. Of course, one could do to the term 'genius' what Carrol claims we should do to 'expression of individuality'..........
Ian