[Bups-dis] adios..

[Sophie Erskine]

Hello!
 
David:
 
I agree totally with what you say about individual transformation as opposed
to social transformation. I think, of course, there is a distinction to be
made between the two; philosophy COULD transform one particular individual,
or even various disparate individuals, without affecting society as a whole.
However, I don't think it's helpful to make sense of social transformation
without individual transformation on a grand scale (or even on a small
scale, in terms of the individuals who matter) - so it's only in situations
in which isolated individuals change but their environment and other people
are not affected by this change that the distinction matters. But I think
you hint at this when you say that one sort of transformation necessitates
the other.. 
 
Luis:
 
The point I was making earlier was not, as you think, that ethics is somehow
about 'living well' but NOT about goodness and badness in themselves. How,
as you yourself asked, could that even make sense? Inquiring into the notion
of living well necessarily involves an inquiry into the nature of goodness
and badness. We cannot, as you say, state what living well consists in until
we know what goodness is. But rather than a pseudo-metaphysical
investigation of the nature of goodness-in-itself, as if it were an entity
apart from actions, I think ethics is about right action and the kinds of
behaviour which CONSTITUTE goodness. What I mean is that ethics is always an
investigation of goodness RELATED TO action; it is not detached from the act
of living. 
 
I understand what you're saying about relations to the world now; thanks for
explaining. 
 
Is your point about feelings that feelings determine our experience of the
world (and we cannot get past our feelings to check what the world is really
like) and since feelings change, the 'fact of the matter' for us also
changes?
 
I suppose the significance of a lot of this debate centres around your views
on the objecivity or subjectivity of the world. I'm so far unconvinced of
the objectivity of 'THE WORLD', and so am intrigued and even encouraged by
views which allow the world to be subjectively determined (like your view
that our feelings necessarily determine our experience). I also think it's
an exciting prospect to consider dissolving the distinction entirely,
although I accept that we may need the concept of objectivity to make sense
of the world and to understand our place in it.
 
I'm going cycling in the himalayas tomorow morning; bye bye everyone!
 
Soph xxx