 |
 |
Hi Carrol. Russells' comments reminded me of Engels; "Only very exceptionally and by no means to his and other people's profit can an individual satisfy his urge towards happiness by preoccupation with himself" Pete On 24/02/2013, at 11:53 AM, Carrol Cox wrote: > 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. >> >>