Perfectionist Philosophy as a (an Untaken) Way of Life

I am honored to respond to Paul Guyer’s elaboration on the role of examples of perfectionism in Cavell’s and Kant’s philosophies. Guyer’s appeal to Kant’s notion of freedom opens the way for suggestive readings of Cavell’s work on moral perfectionism but also, as I will show, for controversy. There are salient aspects of both Kant’s and Cavell’s philosophy that are crucial to understanding perfectionism and, let me call it, perfectionist education, that I wish to emphasize in response to Guyer. In responding to Guyer’s text, I shall do three things. First, I shall explain why I think it is misleading to speak of Cavell’s view that moral perfectionism is involved in a struggle to make oneself intelligible to oneself and others in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for moral perfection. Rather, I will suggest that the constant work on oneself that is at the core of Cavell’s moral perfectionism is a constant work for intelligibility. Second, I shall recall a feature of Cavell’s perfectionism that Guyer does not explicitly speak of: the idea that perfectionism is a theme, “outlook or dimension of thought embodied and developed in a set of texts.” Or, as Cavell goes on to say, “there is a place in mind where good books are in conversation. … [W]hat they often talk about … is how they can be, or sound, so much better than the people that compose them.” This involves what I would call a perfectionist conception of the history of philosophy and the kinds of texts we take to belong to such history. Third, I shall sketch out how the struggle for intelligibility and a perfectionist view of engagement with texts and philosophy can lead to a view of philosophy as a form of education in itself. In concluding these three “criticisms,” I reach a position that I think is quite close to Guyer’s, but with a slightly shifted emphasis on what it means to read Kant and Cavell from a perfectionist point of view.

A modest start, but a steady rise in research use : A longitudinal study of nurses during the first five years in professional life

Background: Newly graduated nurses are faced with a challenging work environment that may impede theirability to provide evidence-based practice. However, little is known about the trajectory of registered nurses’ use ofresearch during the first years of professional life. Thus, the aim of the current study was to prospectively examinethe extent of nurses’ use of research during the first five years after undergraduate education and specifically assesschanges over time.Method: Survey data from a prospective cohort of 1,501 Swedish newly graduated nurses within the nationalLANE study (Longitudinal Analyses of Nursing Education and Entry in Worklife) were used to investigate perceiveduse of research over the first five years as a nurse. The dependent variables consisted of three single itemsassessing instrumental, conceptual, and persuasive research use, where the nurses rated their use on a five-pointscale, from ‘never’ (1) to ‘on almost every shift’ (5). These data were collected annually and analyzed bothdescriptively and by longitudinal growth curve analysis.Results: Instrumental use of research was most frequently reported, closely followed by conceptual use, withpersuasive use occurring to a considerably lower extent. The development over time showed a substantial generalupward trend, which was most apparent for conceptual use, increasing from a mean of 2.6 at year one to 3.6 atyear five (unstandardized slope +0.25). However, the descriptive findings indicated that the increase started onlyafter the second year. Instrumental use had a year one mean of 2.8 and a year five mean of 3.5 (unstandardizedslope +0.19), and persuasive use showed a year one mean of 1.7 and a year five mean of 2.0 (unstandardized slope+0.09).Conclusion: There was a clear trend of increasing research use by nurses during their first five years of practice.The level of the initial ratings also indicated the level of research use in subsequent years. However, it took morethan two years of professional development before this increase ‘kicked in.’ These findings support previousresearch claiming that newly graduated nurses go through a ‘transition shock,’ reducing their ability to useresearch findings in clinical work.