[PEN-L:9748] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mumford

[Peter Dorman <dormanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, yes, exactly, and I think that was the point of my ps.  But that
is not how Nussbaum thinks about her list.  (That is also not how Marx
thought about creative/productive activity, either.)

Peter

Jim Devine wrote:
>
> 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