Print

Print


On 26/02/2013, at 9:20 PM, Peter Dillane wrote:

Thanks Carrol,

I think I'm more understanding. I certainly find it more reliable to see relations than a construct  of parties to the relations because I falter when I try to characterise the " ahistorical nature of man".
I am not making a pretence of profundity I just can't imagine how I would perceive this.
Nancy observes about the 1917 poems in her book on Time in Eliot that for Eliot an ultimate purpose was necessary for meaning and that he asserted a willed belief in an experience beyond the temporal. (I'm ready to be corrected if I have it wrong sorry Nancy)
I wonder how one wills belief but I think  it is the basis of much of the scholastic tradition with which  I was indoctrinated early.
Thank you for the reply, I'll give you leave on the free will issue.


cheers Pete
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> Of Carrol Cox 
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 February 2013 7:45 AM 
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: The " abstract - isolated - human individual" was Can less be more? 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the concept of "the individual" in the modern sense that is at issue. 
> 
> ... it is not meaningful to think of ourselves as existing independently of 
> those relations. .


> The context is provided by the sixth Thesis on Feuerbach: 
> 
> ***Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the 
> human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. 
> 
> In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations. ...
> 
> Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence, is 
> consequently compelled: 
> 
> 1. To abstract from the historical process and to fix the religious 
> sentiment as something by itself and to presuppose an abstract - isolated - 
> human individual. 
> 
> ...
> Carrol