k-punk said:
rhetoric aside, isn't self-determination the guiding principle of liberal democracy -- i.e., give people scope to determine the nature and course of their own lives, which necessarily involves placing limits on what they can do with respect to others
so w/ an iraqi liberal democracy, the majority would be given scope to make law and forge a modern culture, though constrained by limits designed to protect the interests and rights of minority groups in iraq -- which might in the end rule out a sectarian shiite state, even if this is what majority wants
or is self-determination not a principle???
k-punk said:
so you don't think there's such a thing as human nature or at least certain basic human drives and passions, as well as certain basic human types (each type determined by the predominant passion in his psychological make-up), even if each person is ultimately a singularity
i certainly think we could have a much better society than what we're stuck with now -- one where people were given less scope to pursue financial profit, one where people did not have to work so much to no apparent end, etc -- but i think that an utopian project, to be desirable, would have to accommodate the complexity of human nature and not do undue violence to it -- there would need to be space for people to have a private dimension to their lives, their own lovers, own families -- there would need to be different kinds of social spaces, i.e., not everyone forced to go to same bowling alleys and pubs, i.e., you'd still need the rich variety that capitalism has on offer -- there would need to be some scope for the ambitious, etc, so long as they did not enslave others or acquire too much status at the expense of others (perilously close to protecting each person's self-esteem)
and what do you get??? something like john rawls??? -- and wouldn't such a world be rather vanilla and devoid of pain in the worst possible way?
wouldn't we be rather bored with utopia -- like people in heaven wishing they could die?
k-punk said:
what should the principles be?
presumably some combination of "liberty" and "equality"?
if so, aren't we still within the orbit of liberal democracy?
k-punk said:
yes, but badiou (like arendt) is too neat in separating political questions from economic questions
if the main issue is class conflict, then economic questions should be brought to the fore
apathetic public consensus is the result of false and unsustainable prosperity
k-punk said:
so are you proposing this alternative = EITHER limit men's capacity to do evil by exploiting their most powerfully felt passions (fear of death and grievious injury) OR take your bearings from their highest potential (for pursuit of knowledge, creation of art, or some such end, which require leisure)
don't both sides of this alternative imply that there's such a thing as human nature????
k-punk said:
yes, but how can you have a GOOD if you don't know "what" it's good for -- i.e., something is GOOD only if it's good FOR man (or perhaps only certain people?) -- which in turn implies that man has certain basic needs or purposes, i.e., a kind of nature
k-punk said:
TRUE
