Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:47:03 +0000
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Dear Smith,

Evidently so. Delighted.

Robert

James Daly <james.irldaly-AT-ntlworld.com> writes
>Dear Merton
>I have been following your posts with interest.
>Jones
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:36 PM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
>
>
>> Hi Carrol,
>>
>> >Perhaps we are naturally free. Perhaps we are
>> >naturally slaves. Who knows? And I would add, seriously and not
>> >flippantly, who (outside the philosophy seminar room) cares or
>should
>> >care?
>>
>> As I pointed out before, but you ignored it, it is a presupposition
>of
>> your own emancipatory discourse that we aren't slaves by nature. So
>we
>> have a performative contradiction -- unseriousness in fact: what you
>> affirm in theory you deny in your own practice.
>>
>> >this freedom that
>> >Melvin (and/or Bhaskar) claims exists prior to history. (To argue
>that
>> >it is _mediated_ historically is to argue that it _exists_
>> >ahistorically.)
>>
>> Nonsense. We carry our human nature with us, in history, where else
>> could it be? Since you don't accept a notion of a common human
>nature,
>> take our common biology, I'm sure you don't deny that (well grounded
>in
>> genetics as it is). That is socio-culturally 'mediated' is it not?
>It is
>> however always ontologically distinct from that which is
>> historico-specifically constructed (even when the social shapes our
>very
>> brains) and has evolved and continues to evolve at a different (much
>> slower) rhythm than the socio-cultural. It is the 'without which
>not' of
>> any society, just as socio-cultural is the 'without which not' of
>it, so
>> the shoe is on both feet -- you don't say that the socio-cultural
>> doesn't exist or is ahistorical (let alone asocial!) because it
>always
>> depends for its existence on the human biological organism.
>>
>> Now the notion of a core universal human nature is grounded
>precisely in
>> the notion of our common biology plus common practical engagement
>with
>> the (enduring) laws of nature (without which we wouldn't be able to
>> communicate cross-culturally) plus philosophical and theoretical
>> arguments about basic human needs and potentials, among which the
>need
>> for some kind of autonomy is well recognized.
>>
>> Freedom now!
>>
>> Marvell
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Marshall Feldman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mervyn,
>> >>
>> >> This argument worries me. If we turn it around and note that some
>people
>> >> support their own subordination -- as slaves, serfs, or
>housewives -- would
>> >> this be a legitimate argument against treating equality as a
>right? Some
>> >> people do struggle for the "return of the King." I read yesterday
>that
>> >> there's a political tendency in Guatemala hoping to return a
>former dictator
>> >> to power by electing him President. Paraphrasing Marx's comment
>on Adam
>> >> Smith, could we not turn this argument around and equally well
>maintain that
>> >> humans are essentially unfree, classed, etc.? Surely history
>makes this
>> >> argument plausible.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This is better than the reply I was considering. It is also another
>way
>> >of expressing Hannah Arendt's argument that if there _is_ a human
>nature
>> >we can never know it. Perhaps we are naturally free. Perhaps we are
>> >naturally slaves. Who knows? And I would add, seriously and not
>> >flippantly, who (outside the philosophy seminar room) cares or
>should
>> >care?
>> >
>> >Moreover, I do not see how we can reach any shared agreement (by we
>I
>> >mean the number of people whose collective action is the necessary
>> >precondition of enhanced freedom at any given time) -- I do not see
>how
>> >we can reach any shared agreement on the nature of this freedom
>that
>> >Melvin (and/or Bhaskar) claims exists prior to history. (To argue
>that
>> >it is _mediated_ historically is to argue that it _exists_
>> >ahistorically.) And the collective action that is a precondition of
>> >enhanced freedom requires such shared agreement on the freedom that
>is
>> >being fought for.
>> >
>> >And the next seems to me profoundly wrong: 'To collapse a right to
>the
>> >historical conditions of its recognition, realization or exercise
>is to
>> >commit some ethical form ... of the epistemic fallacy, grounded in
>the
>> >actualist collapse of anthropology.' I don't claim that freedom is
>> >_discovered_ (known) in history. I claim that it is _created_
>through
>> >human action, and that it has no existence in abstraction from that
>> >activity. (Human freedom certainly would never have come into
>existence
>> >had that asteroid not destroyed the dinosaurs, for then there would
>have
>> >been no humans to be either free or unfree.)
>> >
>> >In fact, it now occurs to me that I really don't have the slightest
>idea
>> >what Melvin even means by the _word_ "freedom" as he has used it in
>this
>> >thread. Consider the phrase that started or appeared early in this
>> >thread, "the free development of each as a condition of the free
>> >development of all." That is part of Marx's _very_ scattered and
>_very_
>> >brief discussion of the "communist future," and in Melvin's terms
>> >(freedom as existing prior to its creat
>> >ion in history), I suspect we
>> >would have to make that the goal (i.e., motive) of struggle. But
>the
>> >very difficulty encountered in its construal marks it as an
>unacceptable
>> >_motive_ for struggle. (And after all, no one on this list is ever
>going
>> >to live in a classless society, and only the youngest have much of
>a
>> >chance, though slight, of living to see even the preliminary
>collapse of
>> >capitalism.) Marx's slight etching of a future classless society
>was not
>> >to posit a motive but to offer a perspective for the understanding
>of
>> >the present. And that perspective is useless to anyone who is not
>> >already, in some sense, involved in a struggle to destroy
>capitalism,
>> >for only involvement in that struggle can generate the need to see
>the
>> >present as history, that is, to look back on it from a communist
>future.
>> >
>> >I really don't see where the notion of freedom posited by Melvin is
>of
>> >use either to understand or to change the world. Any attempt to
>define
>> >that freedom will either be a mere echo of capitalist notions of
>the
>> >free and abstract individual existing prior to and autonomously of
>> >history, or it will be utopian in the negative sense, of imposing
>an
>> >abstract "good" on a humanity too stupid to realize what they
>really
>> >want.
>> >
>> >None of us knows what we really want except as that goal flows from
>out
>> >present collective action.
>> >
>> >Carrol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --- 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 ---