[PEN-L:9735] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mumford

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Dorman wrote:
>Actually, [Nussbaum's] list [of the objective conditions needed for human
flourishing] is pretty good, as far as it goes.  Any such list, however,
puts people in the position of objects: we will give you this set of
conditions and you will have the opportunity to liberate/fulfill yourself.
It is this posture that I would regard as sterile. ...

>I am more in tune with Dewey's notion that the concrete conditions for
human fulfillment are unknown in any specific historical moment, and that
only a democratic process of trial and error, along with respectful
dialogue among equals, can approach them.  This is an activist conception,
and it avoids the political problems that inevitably arise when one group
decides what is in the "objective" interests of another.<

but Peter, couldn't a list of objective conditions needed to allow human
flourishing be _part of_ the respectful dialogue among equals, helping to
inform the democratic process of trial and error? Just because one has a
list of things that one things are wonderful doesn't mean that the list
never changes due to experience and debate. In fact, didn't Marx write that
what distinguishes people from even the best of bees is that we raise
pictures of what we want in our imaginations before we erect them in
reality? wasn't he right on this one?

In that case, Nussmbaum's list _need not_ put people in the position of
being mere objects. Instead, the list is itself an object that can be used
by subjects educating and organizing themselves.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html