Walter O. asks whether is is > that nobody else finds [the nature of autonomy] > philosophically intriguing, pedagogically valuable, or at least > politically important for all of us today? It may be to overstate the case, but why not add some French flavour by way of a quote from Bourdieu, who -- to perhaps simplify matters --considers autonomy as an aspect of fields rather than agents or actions: "Paradoxically, it is precisely because thee exist relatively autonomous fields, functioning in accordance with rigorous mechanisms capable of imposing their necessity on the agents, that those who are in a position to command these mechanisms and to appropriate the material and/or symbolic profits accruing from their functioning are able to _dispense with_ strategies aimed _expressly_ (which does not mean manifestly) and directly (i.e. without being mediated by the mechanisms) at the domination of individuals..." (Outline of a Theory of Practice, p.184) Put more simply, it is because _fields_ are relatively autonomous that those in dominant positions may impose its necessity on the dominated. Bourdieu's perspective may be differentiated from two possible fallacies: i) the view that a field may be completely autonomous, which could produce the notion that agents impose their free will on dominated actors. To Bourdieu what is imposed is the necessity of fields, not the will of individuals. and ii) the view that a field may be completely subsumed by other spheres of operations, say the economic field, productive of the idea that actions in any field would be determined by states and events outside it. Best regards, Torgeir Fjeld wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote: > A very interesting and important thread transpired over the weekend of August > 3-4 between McCreery, Wager, Enns and "The Sage of the Rock." All this while I > was in the throes of grading final exams and papers. I now emerge free, > footloose and (relatively) unscathed. > > The question was: What did Kant mean by "autonomy"? > And more importantly, what should WE mean by it if we posit it as an > educational and philosophical ideal for multiculturally pluralist democracies. > I would like to respond to that discussion and am wondering whether I have all > the relevant posts on this thread. Under the thread "Ethnic Pride, Black Truck > Style" I have: > > 1. Aug.3: Enns to Okshevsky > 2. Aug.4: Enns to McCreery > 3. Aug.4: Wager to Enns > 4. Aug.4: Enns to Wager > > Have there been other posts on this thread that I have missed? > > The general issue seems to be whether "autonomy" (for Kant and/or for "us") is > primarily a predicate of an agent's will or motive, or essentially > a feature of > action itself. If the latter, then the autonomous agent is one who acts in > accordance with a criterion of publicity (as per Kant's later political > writings.) The Wagerian view, in keeping with Kant's moral theory, understands > autonomy to comprise a property of an agent's will or motive rather than, as > per the Ennsian take, the action itself. > > As Phil has nicely put it, "This is all pretty slippery." And > indeed it is. But > so is the very idea of a multiculturally pluralist constitutional democracy > (with a dash of Nussbaumian/Arendtian cosmopolitanism sprinkled in.) > > What is also intriguing about this thread is that no other contributions to it > have been made after Saturday, Aug.4. Is it that nobody else finds > these issues > philosophically intriguing, pedagogically valuable, or at least politically > important for all of us today? This issue surely must be open to > "discourse" in > Habermas's sense. > > Returning to his wonderously sun-splashed deck in the east end, > > Walter O. > MUN -- _______________________________________________ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html