Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:31:18 -0500


Hi James,

Thanks for the link to your papers on these topics.  

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: James Daly [mailto:james.irldaly-AT-ntlworld.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 8:26 AM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


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 ---