> It's odd that some cannot imagine anger or delight except in the
> context
> of a full affirmation of Aristotle's or Calvin's ethics! I'm trying to
> imagine someone viewing the film CIA agents torturing a suspect but
> before reacting quic kly turns the pages of his/her favorite book of
> ethics to see if there is cosmic foundation for being pissed off. The
> so-called "post-moderns" had a lot to say abut foundationalism, and
> that
> is the issue at stake in deciding whether only a moral metaphysics can
> found a rejection of capitalism.
What anti-foundationalism claims is that there are no rational grounds for evaluating "thinking" and "feeling", no basis, for instance, for judging Glenn Beck's tears and anger as examples of "feeling wrongly".
The tradition deriving from Aristotle disputes this, but it elaborates rational thinking and feeling as "virtue", as the expression of a "second nature". So an individiual trying to reach the right feeling by consulting a book hasn't understood Aristotle's ethics.
Marx, sublating Aristotle, claimed that those who think and feel wrongly couldn't create "socialism". It couldn't, for example, be created by the individuals enjoying the activity captured in the postcards collected together here.
<http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/>
They're thinking and feeling wrongly.
Ted