From: "jamie morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:18:49 -0000


by conclusion follows from premsie I did not mean the classical test of
deductive logic I meant the construction of argument that predicates
persuasion from premsie to conclusion - any argument starts from possits and
moves to conclusion in this way

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bailey,DJ (pgr)" <D.J.Bailey-AT-lse.ac.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


as far as I'm aware, the conclusion need never follow from the premise - to
argue otherwise implies determinism and the removal of human agency.  can't
we simply argue that in order to achieve anything, cooperation is necessary,
so whilst it is possible that division and split may develop in the future,
this will inevitably constrain and restrict human flourishing; whereas the
pursuit of human achievement inevitably requires love/cooperation.  Bhaskar
made a big effort in DPF to argue that there is nothing automatic in the
unfolding of dialectical contradictions, and indeed, that dialectical
contradictions can quite plausibly be expected to REFOLD.  Thus, the search
for complete philosophical statements appears as a kind of rationalist
search to remove humans from human affairs - in reality a philosophical
statement can never be understood as a complete and universal statement (at
least until a eudaimonic society has been created) - isn't that the point of
dialectically critical realist thought?

-----Original Message-----
From: jamie morgan [mailto:jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 14 November 2003 12:13
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


I don't disaggree - the point at issue as I saw it was whetehr one can
ground eudamonia through transcendental argument that shows love/cooperation
to be prior to other aspects of interaction i.e. that they then became
subject to it - or in later CR deformed social ills that misuse it - I'm
just suggesting that it may be possible to argue from the same positions
used to make the transcendental argument that the conclusion need not
follow - in which case the argumewnt in philoosphy may not be complete or
sufficient. I don't have a posiiton on all of this really I'm just
interested in the possibile limits of the argument.

jamie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bailey,DJ (pgr)" <D.J.Bailey-AT-lse.ac.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:56 AM
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Dear Jamie,

I was interested in the point you made about the possibility of social
cohesion having come about through domination, rather than cooperation.

One point - domination itself requires cooperation between the dominaters
over those that are dominated.  It also requires (conscious or otherwise)
acquiescence to that domination by at least some of those that are
dominated.  In a hierarchical society (like ours), which coheres by virtue
of its hierarchy and the domination that implies, there also exists a high
degree of cooperation.  Surely the point of believing in a transcendentally
dialectical critically realist pursuit of a eudaimonic society is that we
seek to build on the cooperation that already exists within our society; and
eradicate the domination, divisions, splits and constraints that limit the
possibility of total cooperation (or unconditional and universal love).

David

-----Original Message-----
From: jamie morgan [mailto:jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 14 November 2003 09:35
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Perhaps cooperation is ontologically constituting but prior is an
ontological assertion that cannot be confirmed non-empirically only posed
logically - since we have no access to the pre-chicken egg situation logic
remains a reasonable approach in one sense but to some degree you seem to
conflate primacy (in the sense of more important and to be fostered for a
better rational society) and prior as though the latter were the best way to
argue for the former - perhaps since it provides a transcendental warrant in
the form of later CR philosophy - it doesn't seem necessary to me to argue
from prior to primacy. Primacy can be argued from other directions. And the
argument that wolves must cooperate like any animal does not in itself
indicate that it is prior to competition this entails a further assumption
about how the possibility of social cohesion is derived - it is equally
plausible that social cohesion flowed from domination rather than
cooperation and thus rather than some cocnept of generic love underpinning
mutuality one could have quite different power dynamics - this is equally
feasible - again which is true (perhaps some combination of both) is an
empirical issue of the development of the human - one cannot easily move
past this on a purely philosophical basis that seeks to show from philosophy
that basic to ourselves is love and cooperation (though I'd be no less
pleased than any other to find out that such a basic state was the case).

jamie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:15 PM
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 ---


     --- 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 ---