Doug Henwood wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >There is a fine point here of some importance: Do we want to talk about
> >"desire" or "desires"? The latter would be an empirical and historical
> >investigation of some interest though not great theoretical importance.
> >The former should be left to the theologians.
>
> Carrol, I don't think I'd like to live in your utopia. Cue the
> Stooges, "No Fun."
When have, ever, said one word
a) About the sort of future I envisage
or
b) In opposition to anyone having fun; pleasure, enjoyment, et cetera?
You seem to believe that human pleasure is not allowed unless it can be theoretically justified in advance?
That empirical investigation of desireS would probably uncover quite a big pile of them. Most of them would doubtless be found legitimate on a case by case basis under concrete condtitions. In fact it would probably never occur to anyone to think they had to be justified. I just deny that one can establish any theological position (such as positing an abstract Desire) from such an investigation.
Carrol