I lost my RMP words in red formatting. Cop:
It would, however, be a mistake to conclude that British idealism in the nineteenth century represented simply a retreat from the practical concerns of Bentham and Mill into [173] the metaphysics of the Absolute. For it had a part to play in the development of social philosophy. John: Yowza! Since these issues of social philosophy are how we got to where we are today, it's a fascinating subject to me. Cop: Generally speaking, the ethical theory of the idealists emphasized the idea of self-realization, of the perfecting of the human personality as an organic whole, RMP: This is true of the MOQ, although self-realization is an extremely vague and slippery word. an idea which had more in common with Aristotelianism than with Benthamism. John: Ok now, you know that saying about people who live in glass houses? I think a guy who centers his metaphysics on indefinable terms ought not to get too picky when chucking stones like "vauge and slippery". So let's just keep the pejorative fervor out of our tone, and stick with the essence - "This is true of the MOQ." I like it. It's got a ring to it. This IS true of the MoQ. Cop: And they looked on the function of the State as that of creating the conditions under which individuals could develop their potentialities as persons. RMP: In the MOQ the state is a social pattern, no more. John: Ok now we're gonna argue big time. The state is much, much more than a mere social pattern floating in isolation. The state has lots of powers over intellectual development, including the right to fry the brains of those that reject certain party lines. The state controls what kind of intellectual patterns will be allowed in the future. The state controls who will be encouraged to reproduce and carry it's patterns and defense of its patterns into the future. In fact, if there's anything bigger than the State, I'd like to know what it is. Thus the pejorative "no more" here really raises my hackles. I must dig deeper. What's Bob rejecting here? We'll revisit: Cop: And they looked on the function of the State as that of creating the conditions under which individuals could develop their potentialities as persons. John: Well there is certainly room for aversion there. All such utopian dreams ended around the late 40s. With the dropping of the bomb, and a new world-wide conceptualization of man holding his own doom and recognizing his impetus towards his doom, seeing how seemingly wonderful ideas, intelligent ideas, had taken over societies in horrible ways with millions upon millions of people dying. For sheer body counts, Mao and Stalin each killed so many more than Hitler, and of their own people! Their own nations! Sad results derived from intellectual striving to create the conditions under which individuals could develop their potential. There's objectionable and rejectable evidences of the futility of such attemps. And yet, this is, in the end, the only and ultimate task, of all philosophy and all endeavor. We exist, as individuals, to help create and nurture the kind of social patterns which foster individuality. Cop: As the idealists tended to interpret the creation of such conditions as a removal of hindrances, they could, of course, agree with the utilitarians that the State should interfere as little as possible with the liberty of the individual. They had no wish to replace freedom by servitude. But as they interpreted freedom as freedom to actualize the potentialities of the human personality, RMP: This is another vague phrase that could be the same as Dynamic Quality. John: Right. We all see the value of replacing one vague phrase with another. Cop: and as the removal of hindrances to freedom in this sense involved in their opinion a good deal of social legislation, they were prepared to advocate a measure of State-activity which went beyond anything contemplated by the more enthusiastic adherents of the policy of laissez faire. We can say, therefore, that in the latter part of the nineteenth century idealist social and political theory was more in tune with the perceived needs of the time than the position defended by Herbert Spencer. Benthamism or philosophical radicalism doubtless performed a useful task in the first part of the century. But the revised liberalism expounded by the idealists later in the century was by no means 'reactionary'. It looked forward rather than backward. John: Hmmm.. "more enthusiastic adherents of the policy of laissez faire" sounds like right up Platt's alley. And there is some attraction in that direction. To my thinking, it's what we most need at the moment. Laissez faire can't be the ultimate guide to value, across all political issues and times, but I think a good dose of it at certain times in history as a sort of corrective measure, can be just what the doctor ordered. In the timeframe of the discussion at hand, it wasn't. In fact, social control over industrialized power was the paramount issue. There was all this power falling into the hands of men. Mechanized industrys creating more industrious mechanization. It was giddy and exhalting and terrorizing. Practically everything we have, is from them and their time - the Victorians, as RMP aptly maintains in Lila. British Idealism drove a small island nation into an empire that was never in the dark. No wonder they believed in the power of "no more than" social patterns. And again, we come full circle, to a new time, where I believe we again need an Idealism that looks forward - toward DQ, rather than backwards at SQ. And I believe that the MoQ absolutely meets that need to a "t". Which stands for trouble, I guess. Right here in River City. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
