File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0311, message 169


Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:01:48 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, love


Hi Jamie,

I don't know what you mean by speech as its own construct. Motiveless, 
disembodied, in the absence of a generative grammar....? Please explain, 
and pardon my ignorance if necessary.

Doubtless motives can be construed as (neuronal) events of some kind, 
but I doubt that they could ever be embodied human acts also for the 
reason that they could never exhaust them--many more powers are always 
in principle being deployed.

Mervyn




jamie morgan <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Is it possible that some motives are also acts as some speech is also its
>own construct?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:04 PM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, love
>
>
>> Hi Dick
>>
>> If we don't keep motives distinct from acts, causes from effects, the
>> real from the empirical, don't we have an actualist collapse?
>>
>> Gotta rush,
>>
>> Mervyn
>>
>>  "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> writes
>> >Hi Mervyn,
>> >
>> >There is an important issue, here, and I am not convinced by Bhaskar's
>> >words.  I am not convinced that it is wrong to speak of "acts of love."
>I
>> >agree that love is a motive, even a "ground-state" motive (insofar as I
>> >grasp what B means by this).  But I don't agree that it is "nothing but"
>a
>> >motive.  Copulation can be "making love," both as an expression of a
>> >motive and as a way of making that motive stronger.  It can also be an
>> >act of aggression, of hate, of domination and subjugation, or a sale of a
>> >commodity.  Not only does the motive qualify the act, so also does the
>> >relationship qualify the act.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that Bhasker's argument for the ontological priority of
>> >love sneaks God into the argument.  How is it different to say that love
>is
>> >the ontologically prior "motive," and saying that it is the "prime
>mover"?
>> >
>> >Further, how is this consistent with Carrol's characterization of the
>> >universe as being essentially indifferent?
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >
>> >Dick
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Mervyn Hartwig [mailto:mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk]
>> >Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 4:44 AM
>> >To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>> >Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >No I'm not saying that. The same kind of issue came up in the
>> >Bhaskar-Callinicos debate, and since I'm out of time, here's what
>> >transpired:
>> >
>> >CALLINICOS
>> >Sure, capitalism depends on free creativity, and I think that Roy is
>> >absolutely right that every human act has a creative dimension, that it
>> >goes beyond the established routines. Enterprises couldn't function for
>> >a moment without the creative intervention of the workers they exploit.
>> >But there's a huge leap from saying that to saying that every social
>> >phenomenon involves an act of love. Take the case of the Einsatzgruppen,
>> >the SS death-squads who machine-gunned to death 1,500,000 Soviet Jews
>> >during the summer and autumn of 1941. Sure there's solidarity between
>> >the soldiers involved in these obscenities--but love? To suggest that
>> >all the acts of violence in the world are in some sense acts of love is
>> >to enchant reality in an ideologically mystifying way.
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >BHASKAR
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >Let's talk now specifically about love. Actually it's wrong to talk
>> >about an act of love. Love is a motive, a ground-state motive, not a
>> >quality of an act. If I say something, I may manifest my love, but at
>> >that level of that act, it's not an act of love or not. The act of what
>> >we call 'making love' may or may not manifest love. Everything in some
>> >way depends on love, it will use love in a certain form, but we must be
>> >very careful when we use terms like 'love'. If you take the case of the
>> >bank robbers, it's not insignificant that no bank robbery could ever
>> >occur without a degree of solidarity between the bank robbers. You can
>> >engage the bank robbers in a conversation. They might of course have a
>> >perfectly coherent understanding of what they are doing, they might be
>> >Robin Hoods--they might have a social rationale, a justification of it.
>> >In which case you might say it's not to the point to engage them in an
>> >understanding, but you can show them perhaps how the capitalist mode of
>> >production depends on systematic analogues of what they are doing, the
>> >forms of collusion it makes use of; and you can perhaps orient their
>> >imposed anti-socialness in a more positive direction. I think it's not
>> >fair game at all to talk about horrendous acts because no one is going
>> >to say that they are acts of love.
>> >
>> >********
>> >
>> >Bhaskar's general point is that love sustains evil, but not vice versa
>> >(an ontological, not an empirical point, following from a transcendental
>> >argument).  At least in the human world, *it's possible that there could
>> >be just love but not that there could be just evil.*  (Cf. the complex
>> >argument in DPF about the ontological priority of absence over
>> >presence). There's much else to be said, including at the level of
>> >scientific research Jamie invokes; but philosophical arguments are
>> >something, it's important engage at all levels.
>> >
>> >Mervyn
>> >
>> >"Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> writes
>> >>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 ---
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --- 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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005