Re: Liberalism or Spirituality?

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Yoshie:
>
>>In the actually existing world, it is social individuals who have or
>  >have not practiced religion.  Pace some posters' fancy, religion --
>>or the lack of it -- has & will never be simply up to an abstract
>>individual with Kantian autonomy.  It has & will be inescapably a
>>social & political (not abstractly individual & merely private)
>  >question.
>
>The Iron Lady said: There is no such thing as society. There are only
>individuals. Yoshie F. says: There is no such thing as individuals (or
>privacy). There is only society.
>
>Two sides of the same counterfeit coin: neo-liberalism and POMOism (a
>dialectical pair).
>
>Mervyn

To regard individuals as ensembles of social relations, however, is
not at all the same as to proclaim that "there is no such thing as
individuals."

*****   VI

Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence.  But
the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single
individual.

In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.

Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence,
is consequently compelled:

1. To abstract from the historical process and to fix the religious
sentiment as something by itself and to presuppose an abstract --
isolated -- human individual.

2. Essence, therefore, can be comprehended only as "genus", as an
internal, dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals.

VII

Feuerbach, consequently, does not see that the "religious sentiment"
is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual whom he
analyses belongs to a particular form of society.

VIII

All social life is essentially practical.  All mysteries which lead
theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice
and in the comprehension of this practice.

IX

The highest point reached by contemplative materialism, that is,
materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical
activity, is contemplation of single individuals and of civil society.

X

The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the
standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity.

(http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1845-Theses/)   *****

Religion has & will be a social practice (as long as it continues to
exist), not a fancy of the isolated individual abstracted from the
historical process.  It is "single individuals and civil society"
that are "two sides of the same counterfeit coin."

As for privacy, the line between public and private can be only
socially and politically drawn, hence it is a contested terrain.
Women's right to abortion & other reproductive rights & freedoms has
been often defended with appeal to privacy.  Without publicly funded
access to abortion, contraception, etc., however, only those who can
afford to pay market prices enjoy the right to privacy.  Moreover,
those who are opposed to gender equality & women's reproductive
rights & freedoms on the religious grounds may also invoke "freedom
of conscience" -- related to the right to privacy -- in order _not_
to make public provisions for women's needs.  How do we sort out
contending & contradictory claims to privacy?  Through political
struggles.  This is what I mean when I say that "religion -- or the
lack of it -- has & will never be simply up to an abstract
individual with Kantian autonomy.  It has & will be inescapably a
social & political (not abstractly individual & merely private)
question."

Yoshie