From: "jamie morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Fw: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:16:10 -0000



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jamie morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


> Is the free flourishing of all really a CONDITION of the free flourishing
of
> each as an ontological imperative to ethical action conditioned by the
> nature of reality?
>
> 1. Is it the condition because another's oppression occurs or because
> another's oppression is known?
> 2. Is it a condition because another's oppression is caused by the society
> in which another who may feel 'free' lives?
> 3. Are 1 & 2 both important (causation and knowledge)?
> 4. If MR is RB's current positiion and there is a fundamental level of
> connecitivity does MR imply that:
> a) my free flourishing is conditioned on the free flourishing of all
> sentient creatures joined by the 'cosmic envelope'? Am I free if martians
> are bound?
> b) my free flourishing is conditioned on the free flourishing of all
> matter-energy - sticks and stones and bones and bunnies?
>
> What is the status of a basic ontological drive towards freedom expressed
> beyond the self?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 7:50 AM
> 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 ---
> >
>



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