Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, love
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:26:30 -0000


Is it possible that some motives are also acts as some speech is also its
own construct?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, love


> Hi Dick
>
> If we don't keep motives distinct from acts, causes from effects, the
> real from the empirical, don't we have an actualist collapse?
>
> Gotta rush,
>
> Mervyn
>
>  "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> writes
> >Hi Mervyn,
> >
> >There is an important issue, here, and I am not convinced by Bhaskar's
> >words.  I am not convinced that it is wrong to speak of "acts of love."
I
> >agree that love is a motive, even a "ground-state" motive (insofar as I
> >grasp what B means by this).  But I don't agree that it is "nothing but"
a
> >motive.  Copulation can be "making love," both as an expression of a
> >motive and as a way of making that motive stronger.  It can also be an
> >act of aggression, of hate, of domination and subjugation, or a sale of a
> >commodity.  Not only does the motive qualify the act, so also does the
> >relationship qualify the act.
> >
> >It seems to me that Bhasker's argument for the ontological priority of
> >love sneaks God into the argument.  How is it different to say that love
is
> >the ontologically prior "motive," and saying that it is the "prime
mover"?
> >
> >Further, how is this consistent with Carrol's characterization of the
> >universe as being essentially indifferent?
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Dick
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mervyn Hartwig [mailto:mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk]
> >Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:44 AM
> >To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
> >
> >
> >No I'm not saying that. The same kind of issue came up in the
> >Bhaskar-Callinicos debate, and since I'm out of time, here's what
> >transpired:
> >
> >CALLINICOS
> >Sure, capitalism depends on free creativity, and I think that Roy is
> >absolutely right that every human act has a creative dimension, that it
> >goes beyond the established routines. Enterprises couldn't function for
> >a moment without the creative intervention of the workers they exploit.
> >But there's a huge leap from saying that to saying that every social
> >phenomenon involves an act of love. Take the case of the Einsatzgruppen,
> >the SS death-squads who machine-gunned to death 1,500,000 Soviet Jews
> >during the summer and autumn of 1941. Sure there's solidarity between
> >the soldiers involved in these obscenities--but love? To suggest that
> >all the acts of violence in the world are in some sense acts of love is
> >to enchant reality in an ideologically mystifying way.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >BHASKAR
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Let's talk now specifically about love. Actually it's wrong to talk
> >about an act of love. Love is a motive, a ground-state motive, not a
> >quality of an act. If I say something, I may manifest my love, but at
> >that level of that act, it's not an act of love or not. The act of what
> >we call 'making love' may or may not manifest love. Everything in some
> >way depends on love, it will use love in a certain form, but we must be
> >very careful when we use terms like 'love'. If you take the case of the
> >bank robbers, it's not insignificant that no bank robbery could ever
> >occur without a degree of solidarity between the bank robbers. You can
> >engage the bank robbers in a conversation. They might of course have a
> >perfectly coherent understanding of what they are doing, they might be
> >Robin Hoods--they might have a social rationale, a justification of it.
> >In which case you might say it's not to the point to engage them in an
> >understanding, but you can show them perhaps how the capitalist mode of
> >production depends on systematic analogues of what they are doing, the
> >forms of collusion it makes use of; and you can perhaps orient their
> >imposed anti-socialness in a more positive direction. I think it's not
> >fair game at all to talk about horrendous acts because no one is going
> >to say that they are acts of love.
> >
> >********
> >
> >Bhaskar's general point is that love sustains evil, but not vice versa
> >(an ontological, not an empirical point, following from a transcendental
> >argument).  At least in the human world, *it's possible that there could
> >be just love but not that there could be just evil.*  (Cf. the complex
> >argument in DPF about the ontological priority of absence over
> >presence). There's much else to be said, including at the level of
> >scientific research Jamie invokes; but philosophical arguments are
> >something, it's important engage at all levels.
> >
> >Mervyn
> >
> >"Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> writes
> >>Hi Mervyn,
> >>
> >>Are you saying that the eaten cooperate with the eaters in the food
> >>chain?  That these acts of eating and being eaten are acts of mutual
> >>love?  I do not ask these questions in the spirit of reductio ad
> >>absurdum, but with a real openness to this as a possible interpretation.
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>Dick
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Mervyn Hartwig [mailto:mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk]
> >>Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 4:16 PM
> >>To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> >>Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >>OK, one could equally argue that competion and aggression have been
> >>necessary for biological evolution to proceed, and a eudaimonian
> >>society might well want to retain competition in various forms. But I
> >>think it remains the case that co-operation is ontologically prior
> >>within communities. The ability of the wolf to successfully attack the
> >>deer derives from co-operation and social love--if they spent most of
> >>their time fighting each other they couldn't do it, and what fighting
> >>they do do with each other is sustained by co-operation in a way that
> >>doesn't apply vice versa.
> >>
> >>Mervyn
> >>
> >>
> >>jamie morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >>>Might it not be that competition and aggression has proved successful
> >>>within evolution as much as cooperation and thus both have had their
> >>>place in species evolution and also in human social development -
> >>>implying that both are aspects of nature and of society where the
> >>>concept of primacy or triumph is not necessarily the best way of think
> >>>about what we want to take from each?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
> >>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:18 PM
> >>>Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Dick,
> >>>>
> >>>> But it hasn't, i.e. notwithstanding inter-(and intra-)specific
> >>>> aggression, species have proliferated and flourished. If aggression
> >>>> dominated both inter- and intra- the whole show would come to a halt
> >>>> (as of course it might yet owing to contingent aggression within a
> >>>> contingently powerful species, i.e. ours; it would remain the case
> >>>> that there could be no process of biological evolution if love did
> >>>> not triumph over evil, Eros over Thanatos).
> >>>>
> >>>> Mervyn
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> writes
> >>>> >Hi Mervyn,
> >>>> >
> >>>> >You wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >"One can argue that, given that biological evolution proceeds, it
> >>>> >must be the case that co-operation, care etc prevails over
> >>>> >self-preservation, aggression etc within species."
> >>>> >
> >>>> >But isn't it possible that conflict among (between)different
> >>>> >communities may prevail over co-operation among (between)them, even
> >>>> >as this conflict requires high degrees of co-operation within each
> >>>> >of these communities?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I don't write this out of any basic disagreement with the other
> >>>> >arguments for the either the existence or the fundamental goodness
> >>>> >of something (not yet fully specified, perhaps) that we can point
> >>>> >to with the
> >>>heuristic
> >>>> >concept, "human nature."
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Regards,
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >>
> >>
> >>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---