Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc. Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:08:50 -0500 From: "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> 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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005