Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 07:50:29 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Hi Tobin, Howard,

If the flourishing of each is indeed a condition of the flourishing of
all, then it is in everyone's interest that everyone else flourishes,
and an ethic of social responsibility is in fact entrained. This is at
the heart of the dialectics of freedom as I understand them in the
second half of DPF.

Mervyn

 Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> writes
>Hi Howard--
>
>I certainly agree that the thrust of Marx's philosophical and economic
>thought in this area is to supplant the concept of the autonomous individual
>with a deeply social concept of the human being.  That orientation appears
>all over in Marx -- but not in the statement that "the free development of
>each is the condition of the free development of all," where we have to
>interpolate it (just as you did).  So taken out of context, it sits rather
>oddly.  From an ethical perspective, it validates the idea that
>individuality will remain vital in a socialist society (contra those who
>claim that socialism would force a faceless conformity on everyone); yet
>it's also possible read it as legitimizing the idea that if I personally am
>doing well, that trickles down into something good for everyone else so I
>needn't worry about them -- writ large, "What's good for GM is good for the
>country."  Which has its appeal, I'm sure.  In any case, the statement
>doesn't press an ethical responsibility to one's fellow human beings, even
>though that is (I think) part of Marx's ethical intent.  So there may be
>some need to integrate the converse ("the free development of all is the
>condition of the free development of each") into our thinking about the road
>to a eudaimonistic world.
>
>Anyway, I don't think I'm raising a major point of debate, just pointing out
>a quirk in the language that's worth noticing and thinking through.
>
>Cheers, T.
>
>---
>Tobin Nellhaus
>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Howard Engelskirchen" <howarde-AT-twcny.rr.com>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>Sent: Tuesday, 04 November 2003 3:20 AM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
>
>
>> Hi Tobin,
>>
>> I take the opportunity to withdraw my use of the term "individualist" in
>my
>> last post and to clarify.  I look at the issue from two perspectives --
>(1)
>> from each, (2) getting beyond bourgeois right.
>>
>> First, the object of Marx's analysis is "individuals producing in
>> society" -- this is the second sentence of the Grundrisse.  Remember that
>it
>> is only individuals that do anything, and society exists in virtue of the
>> activity of individuals.
>>
>> Second, the idea is to get beyond the idea of the autonomous individual
>> marked off by private property and bourgeois right and thereby reduced to
>> undifferentiated and homogeneous abstractions of equality.  From each, to
>> each places a radical emphasis on concrete individuals -- it looks to the
>> unlimited unfolding of the capacity and potential of each.  It is this
>> wealth that is the foundation of social wealth.
>>
>> But you are right.  If association generates more wealth than the simple
>> aggregate sum of its parts, then social wealth is not just a question of
>> individual unfolding but a question of more or less rich social
>arrangements
>> as well.  So this too has to be taken into account in thinking of the
>> flourishing of all as a condition for the flourishing of each.
>>
>> Howard
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---