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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005