Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:15:25 -0000


Is the free flourishing of all really a CONDITION of the free flourishing of
each as an ontological imperative to ethical action conditioned by the
nature of reality?

1. Is it the condition because another's oppression occurs or because
another's oppression is known?
2. Is it a condition because another's oppression is caused by the society
in which another who may feel 'free' lives?
3. Are 1 & 2 both important (causation and knowledge)?
4. If MR is RB's current positiion and there is a fundamental level of
connecitivity does MR imply that:
a) my free flourishing is conditioned on the free flourishing of all
sentient creatures joined by the 'cosmic envelope'? Am I free if martians
are bound?
b) my free flourishing is conditioned on the free flourishing of all
matter-energy - sticks and stones and bones and bunnies?

What is the status of a basic ontological drive towards freedom expressed
beyond the self?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


> Hi Tobin, Howard,
>
> If the flourishing of each is indeed a condition of the flourishing of
> all, then it is in everyone's interest that everyone else flourishes,
> and an ethic of social responsibility is in fact entrained. This is at
> the heart of the dialectics of freedom as I understand them in the
> second half of DPF.
>
> Mervyn
>
>  Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> writes
> >Hi Howard--
> >
> >I certainly agree that the thrust of Marx's philosophical and economic
> >thought in this area is to supplant the concept of the autonomous
individual
> >with a deeply social concept of the human being.  That orientation
appears
> >all over in Marx -- but not in the statement that "the free development
of
> >each is the condition of the free development of all," where we have to
> >interpolate it (just as you did).  So taken out of context, it sits
rather
> >oddly.  From an ethical perspective, it validates the idea that
> >individuality will remain vital in a socialist society (contra those who
> >claim that socialism would force a faceless conformity on everyone); yet
> >it's also possible read it as legitimizing the idea that if I personally
am
> >doing well, that trickles down into something good for everyone else so I
> >needn't worry about them -- writ large, "What's good for GM is good for
the
> >country."  Which has its appeal, I'm sure.  In any case, the statement
> >doesn't press an ethical responsibility to one's fellow human beings,
even
> >though that is (I think) part of Marx's ethical intent.  So there may be
> >some need to integrate the converse ("the free development of all is the
> >condition of the free development of each") into our thinking about the
road
> >to a eudaimonistic world.
> >
> >Anyway, I don't think I'm raising a major point of debate, just pointing
out
> >a quirk in the language that's worth noticing and thinking through.
> >
> >Cheers, T.
> >
> >---
> >Tobin Nellhaus
> >nellhaus-AT-mail.com
> >"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Howard Engelskirchen" <howarde-AT-twcny.rr.com>
> >To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> >Sent: Tuesday, 04 November 2003 3:20 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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