thanks for this

yes, that’s the theme of the OP stated very eloquently. so you say what i recognize as a potential failing is actually a -virtue- just by using a different sense of the word. neat trick.

but i still have a dilemma. it’s in my structure to have an idea about right and wrong, and a desire to do good. it’s also in my structure to be aware of the tensions between conflicting drives, desires and intuitions in the face of limitations brought on by circumstance. is the awareness and consideration of these things the emotional disorder (neurosis)? or does that diagnosis come only in acting against one’s nature?

Merton may be right in speaking about humility specifically, but i call bullshit on the notion that people who are perfect by nature are ethically superior, while people who have to work at doing good are obsessed or emotionally disturbed in some way. shit, the latter may deserve extra credit for both intending to do good, and actually producing a good result.

What does that mean?

It means that, in this case humility (or substitute your virtue of choice) is an attribute, not something that is arrived at by mental obsession or even practice [Merton lived in a cloister of monks who practiced humility constantly, yet humility was often a practice and rarely a virtue.]

As wetness is an attribute of water -by virtue- of its structure, hardness an attribute of steel – by virtue – of its structure, so whatever positive attribute we’re talking about must exist -by virtue- of a basic structure. Thus you recognize that your aspiration of being impartial is trumped by your real genetic attributes, ie. to reproduce and to favor your particular genetic offspring. You protect and favor your young -by virtue- of your structure. It is, as we say, in our nature.

We have adapted and adopted the word -virtue- to mean an ethically positive attribute. To be real, a virtue must be present in the subject as an attribute of its structure, and if this is the case, it will be naturally be displayed in obvious form, like the redness of a rose. It is not a neurosis, and especially not a neurotic behavior, no matter how laudible.

I too, have procreated, and do love my children in a most irrational way. My anarchism is a bit of fluff compared to my sense of absolute responsibility and devotion to my children. But, having said that, I recognize that the philosophical trifles that I struggle with, that pull me away from my family, are ultimately more important than my particular little life. Knowing that won’t change my own priorities (ordered as they are by, I’m not sure what, but it seems more important to me).

Anyway, I was so delighted to see your post today. I have yet to entirely digest all that you have proffered, in your generosity, to us.

I agree about the dilemma and I’m happy you formulated it. I’ll try to follow the evolution of this series and whatever the next venture is. Ping me if I fail in this….

That paragraph should prolly have read:

Well, following Badiou, who says “truth-procedures” “are always universal,” and if I read him correctly, would characterize virtue as taking part in a truth-process, through militant fidelity to an event, and through this fidelity illustrating and propelling a truth forward in the situation. To be principled is virtue.

though i’m certain you’re right, there has to be merit in honoring my affection for my kids, as a truth-event. how to reconcile this with participation in, say, a political truth-process, “radical egalitarianism,” without betrayal is the dilemma.