Fascism and Dreadful Argument Construction in 'The Fragility of Goodness'

1) The Central argument of Martha Nussbaum's 'The Fragility of Goodness' is in chapter 10, which restates Leo Strauss' fascist interpretation of Plato from his 'History of Political Philosophy'. Chapter 10 performs this restatement by flipping the traditional arguments for systematic practical reason and law on their heads.

The argument in chapter 10 is that the experience of life is too arbitrary and complex for a system of practical reason, and depends rather on training and experience. Strauss says that the self sufficient individual rises above convention. This is ridiculous logic. The whole notion of law is that it serves as a guide to practical reason by common prohibition by checking the arbitrary actions of individual desire and in doing so institutes freedom through order. The system thus utilizes the best common wisdom of experts developed over time, and the spectrum of individual behavior then falls within the categories of the system of penal code.

The thrust of the argument in chapter 10 is to persuade to rely on authority only- that the ability to choose practically is an "art" of the most sophisticated- rather than the ordinary person utilizing and being guided by the authority of knowledge accumulated. This is nothing less than pure fascism.

"Practical insight is like perceiving in the sense that is is non-inferential, non-deductive; it is, centrally, the ability to recognize, acknowledge, respond to, pick out certain salient features of a complex situation. And just as the theoretical nous comes only out of a long experience with first principles and a sense, gained gradually in and through experience, of the fundamental role played by these principles in discourse and explanation, so too practical perception, which Aristotle calls nous, is gained only through a long process of living and choosing that develops the agent's resourcefullness and responsiveness:" pg 305

2) There are some that object that "luck" is not treated in Kantian morality. This is not true. Pg. 54 of the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Beck) "it is nothing less than the participation it affords the rational being in giving universal law. He is thus....for, as an end in himself, he is destined to be legislative in the realm of ends, free from all laws of nature, and obedient only to those which he himself gives".

The restraint of law upon the behavior of the individual serves as a guide for practical decision making, and provides freedom through order. See also A.E. Dick Howard 'Magna Carta', introductory comment by English official..that the magna carta was formed to overcome the arbitrary fiat of the sovereign.

Consistency Problems in Argument Construction
3) The Attack on commensurability of values contradicts the common condition of the "reach of need" mentioned at the end of chapter 9, and also contradicts the common basis of natural law in Strauss- the fear of death from violent attack.

4) The need for training and experience for the "art" of
practical reason contradicts the "superiority by birth" theory of "Pearls before swine". The need for training presupposes that there is no innate superiority.

5)The reading of chapter 13 of Hecuba is merely rationale to justify revenge, and the conclusion of Nussbaum that "nothing human is trustworthy" is a restatement derived from Strauss' John Calvin interpretation that "man is totally depraved".

Other problems
6) When I first read 'The Fragility of Goodness' I stopped at the Schopenhauer comment in the 3rd chapter because that comment is a ridiculous conclusion to the "wisdom" that greek tragedy teaches us. The person who concludes, through the experience of tragedy, that all there is in life is pain and death has learned nothing. The "wisdom that drips on the heart from suffering" in the experience of the tragic stems from the root of communication from suffering in Adorno- "The physical moment says that suffering ought not to be", connected with the beauty of the need of others. The fact that because we die, teaches us that the love of others is a precious gift, and that the wise in life therefore organize and direct the activities of life away from war and death. The "wisdom" learned through the tragic is the "fragility of life", and because of this fragility, life, especially the life of those we love, is precious.

(the quote from Schopenhauer-pg. 79: "The purpose of this highest poetical achievement is the description of the terrible side of life. The unspeakable pain, the wretchedness and misery of mankind, the triumph of wickedness, the scornful mastery of chance, and the irretriveable fall of the good and the innocent are all here presented to us; and here is to be found a significant hint as to the anture of the world and of existence...The motives that were previously so powerful now lose their force, and instead of them the complete knowledge of the real nature of the world, acting as a quieter of the will, produces resignation, the giving up not merely of life, but of the whole will-to-live itself".)

7) The Schopenhauer comment and the "nothing human is trustworthy" comment, reflect the abyss of self pity of the fatalism of Strauss raised to a fatalism. This thinking is no better whatsoever than that of Jim Jones.

8) The reading of Aristotle that good character will not fail under adversity, therefore that Sophie's choice victims will commit suicide, contradicts Strauss Basic claim of natural right directly. This reading in itself is then contradicted by the Hecuba conclusion that anything human can be debased by adversity. Which is it people? If anything and everything human can be debased, why hold the sophie's choice people accountable to a standard that does not exist?

9) Another poor construction is in the transposition of the greek notion of "self-sufficiency". There is no such thing, as the motivation of action, correctly depicted by Ms. Nussbaum as "reaching"- for others, things etc.. This notion of "self-sufficiency" was pretty much dispensed with after Hegel's description of the "master-slave dialectic", where Hegel shows conclusively that the master is as much dependent on subordinates or more, than the subordinate is on the master. This is because this "reaching" means that man is mutually dependent. This is evident every time earnings of a company go down. Those that depend on "sales", depend on people- both customers and employees.

10) The book is therefore a total mess with regard to consistency of construction.

11) Contradictions

A) The most glaring set of contradictions in the doctrines of fascism have to do with the "moral luck" argument in Nussbaum's 'Fragility of Goodness'. This is because the argument; that extraneous factors outside our control effect our success or failure, our victories or our tragedies; undermines the whole notion that there is such a thing as "innate superiority". It is a complaint that implies that "superiority" loses because of "luck".(and loses quite often because of "luck", or otherwise why make the complaint)

B) If an individual is "innately superior" in function, intelligence, etc., then they don't need "luck". They also then shouldn't feel the need, or even want, to be protected from "luck". Free legitimate contests would prove their "superiority", over and over again.

C) "Chance favors the prepared mind"(see Dutch) is an argument that "luck" favors the "superior"; where the "bad luck" argument in 'Fragility..' argues with equal strengthTHE OPPOSITE.

Which is it folks?

D) So much for belief in the "will-to-power". They don't really believe in that, or really in their own "superiority". If they had belief, they would relish free untarnished contest.

12) Things Already Learned Before Age 6

2) The "grand lessons" of suffering are learned by the great majority(Patterson) by age 6- "don't do that it hurts", "stop that it makes...". Because these are learned by age 6, we learn to not hit but help, to not hurt but heal. This is what has led my life, and the lives of all our family members.

That is why if an administration violates this basic principle learned from the common phenomenon of human suffering, those opposing based on the "injustice" should do the opposite when in power.

It is precisely why the method in 'the Folly of..' is foolish in the extreme, because it is a "teaching" of something already learned.

Those that use that method identify the wrong opponent. It is not the public that violates the basic learning of a 6 year old, it is those in power or those going for power that violate it. The public doesn't do the harm, and didn't in 47'-48'.

Because we know this, it is not the emotional element of man- the "affective fragility" that is to blame. Because we are in control of what we choose to do, this is why we are culpable for our actions in a just and equitable system of law.

That is why it is so ridiculous to constantly "reprove"; through the "justification drama" of torture; the basic affective fragility of a human being. Doing so proves nothing. It only proves what we already know by age 6. There is that emotion, yes, and there is a psychological "cycle" that it is contained in(suffering, release, anger). So what..we are "human". It's what we do in our relations with others that counts.

Because of this it is not what an individual does at the point of a gun, or under imposed suffering that is the measure of his/her character. It is what we do when free, when we have power, that determines an individual's character. As Lincoln said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power".

There are points of hope though.

13) In the chapter that features the Schopenhauer quote that I oppose here, I couldn't help but notice that the modifier that describes the quote- i.e. "dreadful"- is somewhat equivocal and therefore unclear.

On the one hand the way this word appears can read to mean "dread filled", and on the other hand it can read to mean "terrible"- as in "inaccurate". It was very strange reading the book after meeting her at the Paul Ricoeur conference at the University of Chicago in 1998, as the arguments and construction for me convey such a dark view, while her personal presentation (at least to me) in public, did not convey such pessimism. In fact I found her manner and disposition to be the opposite.

It is because of her pleasant disposition that I therefore choose the latter meaning of the word as the intended meaning of that modifier, until the time I hear otherwise from her in person.

14) Ms. Nussbaum acts contrary to one of the central false observations in the book- that "nothing human is trustworthy", in her dedication in the very beginning of the book. The fact that she dedicates the book in an admiring way to a former classmate that committed suicide undermines this very dictum of her own view of others. For Ms. Nussbaum there was a person worthy enough the loss of which she mourned. If indeed she really believed that "nothing human is trustworthy", there would be noone worthy of her love. Such a dedication says much more about the truth of Ms. Nussbaum and what she believes, than any of the observations presented in the book.