Russell's comment makes sense. It's an explanation after the fact, however.
Moral principle as _cause_ of action implies a separation of act and thought
I find unacceptable. No one stops; formulates the abstract moral principle;
'applies' it to the situation; then acts. G. M. Tamás argues, " Marx does
not ‘oppose’ capitalism ideologically; but Rousseau does. For Marx, it is
history; for Rousseau, it is evil." I take an analogous position on
'individual' behavior.( On "the individual" see Carrol Cox: "Citizen Angels:
Civil Society and the Abstract Individual in Paradise Lost," Milton Studies
23, 1987). If a person _is_ rather than _has_ a history, we can't assume
clean breaks between the person and the act, between thought and action.
Even if Eliot felt "guilty," which he probably did, he would also work out
various self-exculpations. And as Peter observes, it only matters if it
helps us with the writing. Eliot's dead and our opinions mean nothing to
him.
Doesn't _The Cocktail Party_ posit something like different standards for
Leonard and Celia? They each assume the responsibilities their history has
created for them
Carrol
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Nancy Gish
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Can less be more? was Re: (something else.
>
> Dear Pete and Carrol,
>
> I actually quite like Bertrand Russell's comment that if you want to be
happy,
> you must resign yourself to letting others be happy also. I'm not sure if
that is
> a natural law, but it covers a lot of moral decisions.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
>
>
> >>> Peter Dillane 02/23/13 6:07 PM >>>
> Hi Carrol,
>
>
> I agree that it likely included Eliot himself.
> However I wonder about how he figured his suitors' responsibility….. ( by
> the way I think it only matters to the extent it might learn you something
> about the writing).
> Lyndall Gordon notes that Eliot said to Trevelyan that she had an
ingenious
> way of putting him in the wrong. ( I recall this because it is near one of
the
> several medically naive observations in the biography). This suggests
that he
> rejected that he was culpable or at least solely culpable in these
matters.
> My attitude is that if you ask someone to marry you and they say no even
> once you should not be troubling them in future - that's proper behaviour.
> My mother taught me this so I have to believe it - not that i lived up to
it
> entirely.
> There is a nice turn on that old saw which a Hell's Angel had on his T
shirt:
> "If you love something set it free.
> If it returns it is yours
> If it doesn't…Hunt it down and kill it."
> I expect Eiot felt hunted with no Odysseus to come home and put the
suitors
> on their way ( actually he fed their genitals to the dogs as I recall -
but then
> he did that to everyone)
> and Today's Gospel is the transfiguration where my namesake offered to
> build a block of flats for Jesus and the prophets to keep them just as
they
> were so he could adore them.
> But to be serious which as you may have noticed I find a challenge on a
lovely
> day. I agree with your proposition about the illusion but I respect on
principle
> those who theorise a Natural Law.
>
>
> Cheers Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/02/2013, at 6:59 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>
> Peter Dillane:
>
>
> Hi Nancy,
>
>
>
> by "we" I meant society.
>
>
>
> I did not mean to subsume you ( maybe not even me) in
> moral relativism.
>
>
>
> -------
>
> "Moral relativism" is an inevitable outcome of "moralism"; the
> remedy is to
> drop the illusion of an abstract set of principles prior to and
> independent
> of human activity.
>
> In reference to the particular behavior at issue here, we find it
> despicable, and "we" here almost certainly includes Eliot himself.
> And since
> he was also a moralist himself, the result was probably a good deal
> of
> internal conflict, perhaps finding expression in his writing.
>
> Carrol
>
> P.S. The interesting exchanges between you and Nancy are
> somewhat cluttered
> by trying to respond to the trolls on the list. Their attempts to
> "defend"
> what Eliot himself almost certainly did not lead nowhere but a
> buzzing
> confusion.
>
>
|
