From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 16:39:36 BST
Hi Sam,
>Hi Johnny,
>
>First a question. When addressing a post, what is the proper convention -
>to address everyone who is
>participating, or to address the comments specifically? Twice I put your
>name on the 'Hi... ' bit,
>twice I took it off, because I realised that I hadn't said anything
>directly to you! I didn't mean
>any disrespect by that.
Thanks. I've surely done the same thing too to people, and likewise didn't
mean any disrespect to whoever else was participating. I don't know what is
proper. I have felt snubbed on occasion, but maybe people wanted to snub me
on occasion. I think a little bit of selectivity in necessary, and maybe
sometimes you just don't want to have to be stuck in a conversation with an
person who's opinion your not valueing at the moment, or maybe you just
don't have any questions about it. So they get left out to save them the
trouble of responding.
> > Me too, but I want to point out that there is an internal contradiction
> > there. If the intellectual level love is all about individualization,
>or
> > personal, each person seeing themselves as the person to please, their
>own
> > eudaimonia the highest goal, how does that relate to loving someone
>else?
>
>This is somewhere that I would want to refer to Aristotle, specifically his
>discussion of friendship
>in the Nicomachean Ethics. The highest form comes when there is a shared
>conception of the good; in
>a marriage, there can be a shared commitment to various levels of Quality
>(eg raising a family) but
>I see no contradiction between a pursuit of human flourishing and a
>(genuine?) love for another
>person - ie a commitment to *their* flourishing. And 'using' another person
>for our own pleasure is
>perhaps as far from eudaimonia, as I understand it, as it is possible to
>get.
So, because the social level is strong (and the shared conception of the
good probably comes from the social level, right?) then personal good of the
fourth level would be consistent with it? Unfortunately I think the lowest
common denominator of common good is pretty low.
>The way I see level 4 is that it is only at this point that there comes to
>be a 'person' in the
>relevant sense, so person to person relationships are the fruit and realm
>of that DQ innovation.
>"Seeing themselves as the person to please" - that would be placing level 4
>in isolation from level
>3, undercutting it, and thereby following a path of self-destruction, as I
>see things.
Me too
> > Here is one of my favorite poems, please tell me what you think about
>it:
> >
> > XIV. If thou must love me, let it be for nought - Elizabeth Barrett
> > Browning
> >
> > If thou must love me, let it be for nought
> > Except for love's sake only. Do not say
> > "I love her for her smile---her look---her way
> > Of speaking gently,---for a trick of thought
> > That falls in well with mine, and certes brought
> > A sense of pleasant ease on such a day"---
> > For these things in themselves, Belovèd, may
> > Be changed, or change for thee,---and love, so wrought,
> > May be unwrought so. Neither love me for
> > Thine own dear pity's wiping my cheeks dry,---
> > A creature might forget to weep, who bore
> > Thy comfort long, and lose thy love thereby!
> > But love me for love's sake, that evermore
> > Thou mayst love on, through love's eternity.
> >
> > I nominate this poem for the "everything I'm trying to say about
>morality"
> > award :-)
>
>So the person is the end in themselves, and not instrumental for a separate
>good? I'm *very* happy
>with that - it's exactly what I'm banging on about!
Yes, OK, that could be what she's saying. Don't love me for any of these
things that make you feel good about yourself, love me for me. I thought
there was something to "love me for love's sake", as if love itself,
everywhere, were in danger of withering away if the love itself wasn't seen
as the end, the reason to love her. But now I think she's saying that love
is eternal, and that eternal love is also the means, by tapping into "love's
eternity", for love to last forever.
>Cheers
>
>Sam
Cheers
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 16:40:44 BST