>Yoshie Furuhashi:
>> I think Carrol had our bete noir Plato in his mind. In contrast,
>> Aristotle's conception of ethics presents an interesting alternative
>> to the modern idea of morality as value judgments in light of "a
>> third artificially introduced Relation" (Marx), that is, "a social
>> relation [which] has become a thing in the form of a principle"
>> (Ollman), be it utilitarian calculus or categorical imperative.
>> According to Aristotle, "virtue" (arete) = excellence in fulfillment
>> of a particular function, & "happiness" (eudaimonia) = a sense of
>> well-being, resulting from achieving excellence in the fulfillment of
>> one's functions, including the "species-specific" functions of reason
>> (both theoretical and practical). To be virtuous, avoid the vices of
>> excess & deficiency, develop good habits, & cultivate friendship --
>> all while participating actively in a political community. In short,
>> virtue lies in the _exercise_ of one's powers (inseparable from
>> historically specific conditions), not in value judgements (according
>> to a reified principle). Read (creatively) in this way, eudaimonia =
>> "an association, in which the free development of each is the
>> condition for the free development of all." (Recall also
>> Machiavelli's reminder that the maintenance of liberty in a republic
>> depends upon the citizens' exercise of virtu.)
>
>I'm sure you're correct -- for me, it took a great deal of
>moral fortitude to wade through what of Plato and Aristotle
>I've been able to read, and my knowledge of them is mostly
>second- and third-hand. However I do think making out
>_eudaimonia_ to include the free development of all is _very_
>creative, given that Aristotle was a fan of slavery (of course).
>_Arete_ and _eudaimonia_ seem like later aristocratic virtues to
>me, which by the middle of the 20th century had thinned down
>to advisories to boys in posh prep schools preparing to lead
>their fathers' insurance companies.
There is no doubt that Aristotle's virtues were aristocratic (& manly to boot), and that is because Aristotle lived in the world in which freedom _& leisure_ were reserved for ruling-class men. The development of capitalism, however, has already created the level of productive forces that can make freedom & leisure available to _everyone_ in the world, _if_ we get around to abolishing the capitalist relations of production.
> > It is impossible for anyone to be virtuous in Aristotle's sense in
>> today's world, first of all because capitalism ("Accumulate,
>> accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!") doesn't allow us to
>> avoid the vices of excess & deficiency.
>
>-- which is a good thing if we want to get rid of slavery
>(and, I hope, Aristotle) -- the dyanamic, progressive
>instabilities of capitalism-liberalism regularly contradict
>its own powers of organization, domination and regulation, as
>Marx notes so poetically in the _Manifesto_. Or at least
>it'll have been a good thing if capitalism doesn't completely
>destroy the earth before it destroys itself. There's always
>that possibility.
I cannot agree more. The very same capitalism that has developed the forces of production so much that freedom & free time are objective possibilities for everyone also menaces all with its pollution & toxic waste. If we don't abolish capitalism soon, we may inherit the earth so drained of clean water, etc. that we can get neither socialism nor anarchism going! :-(
Yoshie