Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:35:16 +0000
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Hi James, all,

I'm glad you've come out of your cage, and basically agree with instead 
of biting me. Of course the reality of a universal human essence (a core 
universal human nature) as anything other than an empty abstraction is 
precisely what those who take their distance from the spiritual turn 
tend to deny, and this will have to be argued out. What worries people I 
think is that Geist might be behind the conception and so working behind 
our backs to determine our fate.

Mervyn

James Daly <james.irldaly-AT-ntlworld.com> writes
>Dear Mervyn, Carroll, Richard, Ruth, Howard, Tobin
>
>Mervyn's tactic of rattling our cages seems to have worked. From
>(valid and important) discussions of Roy's long words, sentences and
>paragraphs, and of honoraria for gurus and the language in which to
>solicit them, we are converging, in my humble opinion, on interrelated
>core issues: spirituality and spoiled solidarity, Aristotle and
>flourishing, "from each, to each", "the free development of each as
>the condition of the free development of all" (which is found not only
>in the Communist Manifesto but e.g. in Capital vol. 1, chapter 24
>section 3, Dona Torr edition, p. 603 ), and "the free development of
>all as the condition of the free development of each".
>
>It seems to me that "individualism" in the sense of MacPherson's
>"possessive individualism" is egoism, selfishness, the hypertrophy of
>the particular, and is what is intended in the term "methodological
>individualism". But Marx and Kierkegaard followed Hegel (using
>concepts which in this sense originate in Kant) in defining the
>individual as the reconciliation of the particular and the universal.
>Marx was in the classical philosophical tradition which saw (Isaiah
>Berlin's "negative") freedom as the bourgeois "Right of Man" to
>exploit, but (Berlin's) "positive" freedom as both individual and
>communal self-government by (not instrumental but spiritual) reason,
>directed to the common good (justice), which includes individual
>rights. That would require Aristotle's philia or friendship between
>the citizens. For Athenians that did not include metics (immigrants
>from other Greek city states, often merchants), women or slaves. The
>idea of total human inclusiveness in moral equality was a spiritual
>(rational) achievement of stoicism, and the idea of justice as
>requiring political equality for all (democracy) is a spiritual
>achievement of modernity, but one corrupted by the very rights of
>possessive individualism of capitalist property relations in terms of
>which it arrived (and which Proudhon wished to extend and equalise
>materially).
>
>
>There is a parallel between the usage of the terms "individual" and
>"individualism" and the terms "nation" and "nationalism". Competitive
>nationalism was particularistic great power chauvinism, but Marx saw
>the freeing of oppressed nations, of Poland from Russia and Ireland
>from England (including of the Irish working class from domination by
>the English working class -- even in the First International itself),
>as particular parts of the universalist (spiritual) international
>struggle for emancipation from capitalism.
>
>Each individual's quest for discovery of the universal essence which
>is our reality is part of the work and struggle for humanity's
>enlightenment and emancipation which must include relations of
>production from each according to ability and to each according to
>need. Roy makes this clear in all his latest books.
>
>I don't have the computer skills for a web site, but I took advantage
>of the MSN Groups facility to publish some of my stuff on the subject.
>It can be found at
>
>http://groups.msn.com/JamesDalyandFriends
>
>
>http://groups.msn.com/JamesDalyandFriends
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Howard Engelskirchen" <howarde-AT-twcny.rr.com>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 8:20 AM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
>
>
>> Hi Tobin,
>>
>> I take the opportunity to withdraw my use of the term
>"individualist" in my
>> last post and to clarify.  I look at the issue from two
>perspectives -- (1)
>> from each, (2) getting beyond bourgeois right.
>>
>> First, the object of Marx's analysis is "individuals producing in
>> society" -- this is the second sentence of the Grundrisse.  Remember
>that it
>> is only individuals that do anything, and society exists in virtue
>of the
>> activity of individuals.
>>
>> Second, the idea is to get beyond the idea of the autonomous
>individual
>> marked off by private property and bourgeois right and thereby
>reduced to
>> undifferentiated and homogeneous abstractions of equality.  From
>each, to
>> each places a radical emphasis on concrete individuals -- it looks
>to the
>> unlimited unfolding of the capacity and potential of each.  It is
>this
>> wealth that is the foundation of social wealth.
>>
>> But you are right.  If association generates more wealth than the
>simple
>> aggregate sum of its parts, then social wealth is not just a
>question of
>> individual unfolding but a question of more or less rich social
>arrangements
>> as well.  So this too has to be taken into account in thinking of
>the
>> flourishing of all as a condition for the flourishing of each.
>>
>> Howard
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net>
>> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
>>
>>
>> > > In urging that we 'follow our daimon' I'm not of course invoking
>a
>> > > bourgeois individualistic attitude but rather the rich kind of
>> > > individuality presupposed by 'the free development of each as a
>> > > condition of the free development of all' which fully recognizes
>our
>> > > social interconnection but insists on the right (need) to freely
>> > > flourish providing it doesn't interfere with the free
>flourishing of
>> > > others.
>> >
>> > Hm, it's interesting that Marx conceptualized free development in
>terms of
>> > individuals.  I wonder, does this perhaps run athwart his social
>analyses?
>> > In other words, is it not also true that the free develoment of
>all is the
>> > condition for the free development of each?  Or that my own
>development is
>> > freer if I contribute to the development of someone else?  (Would
>that be
>> a
>> > "dialectic of love"?)  Why exactly is it that each individual's
>own
>> personal
>> > self-development is the foundation, and is this not
>methodologically
>> > individualistic?
>> >
>> > Jus' askin'.
>> >
>> > T.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Tobin Nellhaus
>> > nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>> > "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S.
>Peirce
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >      --- 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 ---