Skip to main content

"Us versus them" versus "we": the desire for the infinite as the source of solidarity

If our identity with other members as members of the same group is a function of our sharing desires together, then there is always the danger that we will find it impossible to identify at all with those whose goals seem to differ from ours entirely.  If they seem to differ from in their desires, then why not treat them as either threatening or useful to our attainment of goals that we share in common with each other but not with them, but not as possible friends, compatriots or cosmopolitans. Without common desire, there is no common life, and without a common life, there is no justice.

There is only one basis that guarantees that we can truly identify with others, regardless of how very different their world may be from ours (think of science fantasy scenarios): that is a regard for the other as not only desiring specific goods that differ from yours, but as having a more basic desire for what cannot be specified to being of "this kind" rather than "that kind" because it is inherently unlimited.  The desire for what is beyond all imagining, the desire that animates our imagination to create new things: the desire for the infinite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more