[Xmca-l] Re: Thoughts on culture & liberty

[Larry Purss]

I accidently sent and will finish the fragment.

AND what makes the him *"really" *him is what we are mainly focussing on
discovering. For Hegel that has something to do with reason and thereby
with the establishment of mutuality.

We discover [on this expressive model] something about his intention *in
acting* to express the work, or acting  to alter the work *in the acting*.
This expressive model posits something not possible "on" the
reasons-functioning-as -causes model.

Therefore as I understand Pippen, he is reading Hegel as situating freedom
within mutual expression. Not standards or rules but places of mutual
expression leading to recognition.



On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am posting a fragment that I think may be relevant. It comes from
> Robert Pippen's article titled "What is the question for which Hegel's
> Theory of Recognition is the Answer?".
>
> The question is the nature of freedom?
> Pippen states that Hegel is rejecting any causal account of freedom.
> However Pippen cautions we should not go too far in any "objective" or
> "social theory" of freedom. Why?
> Pippen's answer is that Hegel never looses focus on the *relation between
> *my individual views of what I will or should ethically do [my intentions
> and reasons] *and* the actual action.
> Hegel acknowledges a person can have various reflective "attitudes
> towards" what I should do or about the claims that others have on me
> that should lead me to do. Hegel grants that I sometimes  act accordingly
> on such views and sometimes I do not act accordingly on such ethical views.
>
> But, and this is key, *this relation* is not a causal relation but an *expressive
> relation*.  An action is an expression of subjective will. Hegel gives
> the example of the relation of the artist to his/her art work.  In some
> "sense" the artist causes the work such as a statue to be made, but what
> makes the work "his" is that this work expresses "him" and his artistic
> intentions.
>
> AND what makes the the "him"
>