Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 13:38:47 -0400
From: shawn wilbur <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Re: Clarifying essentialism


pj, the confusion of the two senses is really what's at issue here. I've been
working around the question of whether anti-essentialism has a coherent
concept of essence. i agree that, if Spinoza's approach was used, then things
would be simpler, but it seems fairly clear to me that many of the projects of
anti-essentialism as it exists could not be grounded on Spinoza's criteria.
The various responses to my queries, and the wealth of stuff Jesse has posted,
certainly suggest that recourse to Spinoza won't answer some of the important
questions.

Consider four claims about humans and what is natural to/for them:

1. I have instincts of cooperation and/or rebellion.
2. I have hungers which must be sated.
3. I fall when dropped.
4. I think, therefore I am.

There appears to be a difference in the ways folks are treating the first
definition
and the next two, and the difference has been framed in terms of this
opposition
between "nature" and "human nature." One plausible explanation for the division

is that 2 & 3 are taken to involve involuntary responses in realms where even
strong free will proponents and social constructionists will tolerate a bit of
necessity, but that 1 impinges somehow on the proper field of human agency. It
is also the most potentially spurious of the claims, though, given the place in

classical anarchist thought accorded to opposing instincts, it is also the
weakest.
least universal claim of the bunch. But consider the fact that nearly all of us

have treated claim 1 as needing special consideration or criticism, and then
decide
for yourself if it is not plausible to see this special consideration rising
from a
sense that 1 in some way contradicts or limits 4, the basic tenet of a certain
kind of
humanism.

If we approach these claims from the point of view of simply of their validity
or the
reifications they are implicated in, can we perhaps steer clearer of some kinds
of
philosophical pitfalls than we're managing following an anti-essentialist line?

-shawn

pj wrote:

> >but
> >only if we hold "nature" and "human nature" apart, i think, which already
> >has us in "Cartesian territory." Right?
>
> No not at all. You confuse two senses of the world nature. The first
> refering the totality of the natural environment or material world,
> the total extent of the universe and everything that exists within it
> - as opposed to an earth-cenetric interpretation.
>
> The second sense, or the first if you refer to the Oxford dictionary,
> is "a thing's or person's innate or essential qualities or
> character".  Spinoza discussing essence writes "... that what
> necessarily constitues the essence of a thing is that which , if it
> is given, the thing is posited, and if it is taken away, the thing is
> taken away, that is, the essence is what the thing can neither be nor
> be concieved without, and vice versa, what can neither be or be
> concieved without the the thing." (Ethics II, 10, schol.)
>
> >>The generalization about hunger is a little harder to treat in this way.
>
> Using Spinoza's definition, if we remove the quality of hunger from a
> person by giving them food, the person still remains, so hunger is
> not part of the essence of a human being. The second part of
> Spinoza's definition is more stringent: if we posit the quality of
> hunger, we can also concieve of a wide range of animals that feel
> hunger, so it does not follow that hunger makes us essentially human.
>
> >If we can sort out the
> >"essentialist" generalizations from other appeals to persistent
> >characteristics on the basis of their factual validity, then "essentialism"
> >as a category may just confuse the issue. We have accurate generalizations
> >or we have inaccurate ones.
>
> In political philosophy systems are built on assumptions about what
> constitues the essential human nature. In 'The Republic' Plato
> describes the character of citizens of different systems of political
> organisation, arguing that each political system creates a specfic
> type of character. Marx followed this line of thinking but shifted
> the focus from the type of political system to the relations of
> production as the determining factor. Liberalism is founded on the
> belief that humans are essentially self-interested and seek to
> maximise benefit to themselves.
>
> have to leave it there...
>
> peace
>
> pj