Doug wrote:
> "Transformed from beings who work into beings who speak." Oh really? When
> did this transformation happen? When the share of women in the paid labor
> force nearly doubled, as it has over the last 40-50 years in the U.S.? When
> the power of money over our innermost lives increased markedly over the
> last 20-30?
Well, the statement is about philosophy, not about labor statistics.
It's been quoted several times before, so I abbreved it; but the full
quote is: "... the appearance of sexuality as a fundamental problem
marks the transformation of a philosophy of man as worker to a
philosophy based on a being who speaks". So some of the questions that
come to mind: In what sense (if any) is this true? And if it is true,
why this disparity between philosophy and labor statistics?
> And since when are person-to-person relationships prior to "articulated
> systems of morality"? As infants we are plugged into a larger society
> through our families, who inculate in most of us a socially derived moral
> code from almost our first breath. I don't know about you, but that moral
> code was hardly "estranged" from my lived experience; the nuns' tales of
> the hellish torments reserved for sinners shaped my lived experience from
> an early age.
I didn't mean "prior" in a chronological sense. I meant it in the same sense
in which you say that the reason you think people won't murder each other
is because you're a kind of humanist; it doesn't mean that your humanism
precedes the belief chronologically. But I am also curious: if your
early lived experience was shaped by tales of hell, then isn't humanism
a kind of estrangement from that?
-m
> "Transformed from beings who work into beings who speak." Oh really? When
> did this transformation happen? When the share of women in the paid labor
> force nearly doubled, as it has over the last 40-50 years in the U.S.? When
> the power of money over our innermost lives increased markedly over the
> last 20-30?
Well, the statement is about philosophy, not about labor statistics.
It's been quoted several times before, so I abbreved it; but the full
quote is: "... the appearance of sexuality as a fundamental problem
marks the transformation of a philosophy of man as worker to a
philosophy based on a being who speaks". So some of the questions that
come to mind: In what sense (if any) is this true? And if it is true,
why this disparity between philosophy and labor statistics?
> And since when are person-to-person relationships prior to "articulated
> systems of morality"? As infants we are plugged into a larger society
> through our families, who inculate in most of us a socially derived moral
> code from almost our first breath. I don't know about you, but that moral
> code was hardly "estranged" from my lived experience; the nuns' tales of
> the hellish torments reserved for sinners shaped my lived experience from
> an early age.
I didn't mean "prior" in a chronological sense. I meant it in the same sense
in which you say that the reason you think people won't murder each other
is because you're a kind of humanist; it doesn't mean that your humanism
precedes the belief chronologically. But I am also curious: if your
early lived experience was shaped by tales of hell, then isn't humanism
a kind of estrangement from that?
-m