Aristotle's ethics were not foundationalist. They were descriptive.
Morality has nothing to do with metaphysics. Except in your febrile Calvinist imagination.
--- On Fri, 3/20/09,
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>