On Smith's Part 1 Section 1

By Anonymous

The line that stood out to me as a thesis of the first section of Part 1 was "society and conversation, therefore, are the most powerful remedies for restoring the mind to its tranquility, if at any time, it has unfortunately lost it" (Smith, 23). This is a way of viewing society and relationships that I hadn't thought about before. It is the emotional side. Whereas someone of the other philosophers we have read view the product, security, and freedoms that gets created by society (e.g. Locke), Smith views the emotional fulfillment that comes about with society. 

Though, it doesn't clarify how this emotional network which supposedly helps all reach equilibrium happiness fares with a larger society with more rules. If we take modern society, many people are willing to go out of their way and pay a therapist to gain emotional support. Loneliness is known as a high ranking challenge many face in America, as well as some other countries. Perhaps as societies get too big, there arises threats for such emotional networks to be corrupted. Technology, too, can threaten such social networks. 

In modern times, at least in my experience, many boys and men have learned to hide their emotions. Many, I believe, could benefit from Smith's account of how people share their emotions and relate to one another. A capitalist society may place a bigger emphasis on producing than emotional fulfillment. A patriarchal society may limit men from addressing their emotions and replace that need with the sacrifice to support one's family. In a homophobic and heteronormative society men may be taught to hide emotions to appear masculine. 

Smith, in a way, details what society may have looked like (at least the society he lived in in the 1700's), before technological advancement, growth in population size, and industrialization. Placing a direct value on emotions and happiness perhaps could be a better framework for a more emotionally healthy (but possibly less productive) society.

Comments

  1. Paul HurleyFebruary 9, 2023 at 10:51 AM

    A really interesting topic here -- the essential role, for Smith, of the rich emotional engagement with others in a life worth living. Smith certainly lived in a patriarchal society, and was advocating for the move to a capitalist society, but took himself to have the requisite rich attachments for a happy life. It would have been interesting to develop your point through the passages that Tutu focuses on -- about the distorting role of ambition in living a virtuous and happy life.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more