Rob Schaap wrote: > G'day Ajit, > > You write: > > >There are no "individuals" Rod, only subjects. Think about your own > >'individuality'. Who are you? Your own ego is associated with your name, which > >was given to you by others, and you learnt what it means only in the relations > >with those others. Your nationality, your gender, your race, your > >ethnicity, you > >being a son, a father, a brother, a husband, etc. etc. are all nothing but > >various relationships that define your so-called individuality to yourself. If > >you think that there is somewhere a pure you, independent of all these > >relations, then try finding that pure self and let us know who it is and > >how is > >it significant to anybody else. First of all, I would suggest, try to see if > >your pure self is a 'Man' or a 'Woman'? > > What would be wrong with the observation that we are, each and everyone of > us, exclusively the product of relations (I'll leave physiological > variability out of it for the purposes of the argument - I am surely who I > am partly because I've a dick, testosterone, a typically male brain, and a > big body that's good at lifting and shoving) and we are also individuals? > None of you is the product of the particular relations that produced me, > surely? Doesn't that make me an individual right now? I 'will' things, > and I will different things in different ways than you do. And I > experience my peculiar will and my ways of willing as 'that who I am'. A > very fundamental part of human being indeed, I'd've thought. One to bear > in mind in one's politics, no? > > Or do I miss the point? > > Cheers, > Rob. ____________G'day Rob! I think you are missing something. Let's suppose you are patriot who wills to fight and die for his country. Where does this willing of yours come from, where you a born patriot? The point is that the will has no meaning independent of action, and your actions can only be understood in the context of a web of relations. So at the epistemological level, what good is will for? Its existence or non-existence has no meaning. We are not denying that people are different. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > > >> Rod: > >> > >> It is hard to argue against a philosophy that no one believes in enough to > >> act upon it. Everyone believes in the theory of the human will. The burden > >> of proof is on those who would deny it. Explain consciousness as the result > >> of relations, or as the result of material processes. No one else has done > >> it. > > > >______________ > > > >This is nothing but an example of bad rhetoric. How come I'm not a part of > >your > >"everybody"? Most of the scientists don't believe in "a theory of human will", > >as far as i know. And what is it by the way? The burden of proof must be on > >those who claim that something exists. If I claim that ghosts don't exist, > >then > >the other party has the burden to come up with some evidence to show that they > >do exist. You are the other party in this game, Rod. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > >> > >> > >> Rod Hay > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> The History of Economic Thought Archives > >> http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html > >> Batoche Books > >> http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html > >> http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ > >> > >> ______________________________________________________ > >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
