#Martha nussbaum

[philosophybits]

You should care about things in a way that makes it a possibility that tragedy will happen to you. If you hold your commitments lightly, in such a way that you can always divest yourself from one or the other of them if they conflict, then it doesn’t hurt you when things go badly. But you want people to live their lives with a deep seriousness of commitment: not to adjust their desires to the way the world actually goes, but rather to try to wrest from the world the good life that they desire. And sometimes that does lead them into tragedy.

Martha Nussbaum, in A World of Ideas, by Bill Moyers

[feministdragon]

here's a satisfying takedown of postmodern writing:

"Butler suggests to her readers that this sly send-up of the status quo is the only script for resistance that life offers. Well, no. Besides offering many other ways to be human in one's personal life, beyond traditional norms of domination and subservience, life also offers many scripts for resistance that do not focus narcissistically on personal self-presentation. Such scripts involve feminists (and others, of course) in building laws and institutions, without much concern for how a woman displays her own body and its gendered nature: in short, they involve working for others who are suffering.

The great tragedy in the new feminist theory in America is the loss of a sense of public commitment. In this sense, Butler's self-involved feminism is extremely American, and it is not surprising that it has caught on here, where successful middle-class people prefer to focus on cultivating the self rather than thinking in a way that helps the material condition of others. Even in America, however, it is possible for theorists to be dedicated to the public good and to achieve something through that effort.

Many feminists in America are still theorizing in a way that supports material change and responds to the situation of the most oppressed. Increasingly, however, the academic and cultural trend is toward the pessimistic flirtatiousness represented by the theorizing of Butler and her followers. Butlerian feminism is in many ways easier than the old feminism. It tells scores of talented young women that they need not work on changing the law, or feeding the hungry, or assailing power through theory harnessed to material politics.

They can do politics in safety of their campuses, remaining on the symbolic level, making subversive gestures at power through speech and gesture. This, the theory says, is pretty much all that is available to us anyway, by way of political action, and isn't it exciting and sexy?

In its small way, of course, this is a hopeful politics. It instructs people that they can, right now, without compromising their security, do something bold. But the boldness is entirely gestural, and insofar as Butler's ideal suggests that these symbolic gestures really are political change, it offers only a false hope. Hungry women are not fed by this, battered women are not sheltered by it, raped women do not find justice in it, gays and lesbians do not achieve legal protections through it.

Finally there is despair at the heart of the cheerful Butlerian enterprise. The big hope, the hope for a world of real justice, where laws and institutions protect the equality and the dignity of all citizens, has been banished, even perhaps mocked as sexually tedious. Judith Butler's hip quietism is a comprehensible response to the difficulty of realizing justice in America. But it is a bad response. It collaborates with evil. Feminism demands more and women deserve better."

[studyingwithjay]

“you want to tell them to live their lives with such a seriousness of commitment that they’re not adjusting their desires to the way the world actually goes, but they’re trying to wrest from the world a good life, the good life that they desire, and sometimes that does lead them into tragedy”

— martha nussbaum (from an interview with bill moyers)

[virgin-martyr]

Tragedy happens only when you are trying to live well. Because for a heedless person who doesn’t have deep commitments to others, Agamemnon��s conflict isn’t a tragedy. Somebody who’s a bad person would, could go in and slaughter that child with equanimity, or could desert all the men and let them die. But it’s when you are trying to live well, and you deeply care about the things you’re trying to do, that the world enters in in a particularly painful way. And it’s in that struggle with recalcitrant circumstances that a lot of the value of the moral life comes in.

Martha Nussbaum: Applying the Lessons of Ancient Greece

[kebriones]

I'M FINE ACTUALLY

[philosophybitmaps]

[radykalny-feminizm]

Martha Nussbaum is so based. She's an extremely well educated philosopher who believes that philosophy should not be limited to academic discourse and it is supposed to actually change the world for the better. She fought for women's rights in India, not giving a shit about people calling her a "white savior". She cares about animal rights. She's pro LGB. She criticised gender ideology within feminism, saying that it's focusing on non important matters instead of actually helping women who suffer from the real oppression. She's super strong both mentally and physically. She believes in discipline. She always goes like a bomb and is so full of dignity, it's truly inspiring. Her intellect is extremely admirable.

All hail this queen!

[luxe-pauvre]

Do not despise your inner world. That is the first and most general piece of advice I would offer… Our society is very outward-looking, very taken up with the latest new object, the latest piece of gossip, the latest opportunity for self-assertion and status. But we all begin our lives as helpless babies, dependent on others for comfort, food, and survival itself. And even though we develop a degree of mastery and independence, we always remain alarmingly weak and incomplete, dependent on others and on an uncertain world for whatever we are able to achieve. As we grow, we all develop a wide range of emotions responding to this predicament: fear that bad things will happen and that we will be powerless to ward them off; love for those who help and support us; grief when a loved one is lost; hope for good things in the future; anger when someone else damages something we care about. Our emotional life maps our incompleteness: A creature without any needs would never have reasons for fear, or grief, or hope, or anger. But for that very reason we are often ashamed of our emotions, and of the relations of need and dependency bound up with them. Perhaps males, in our society, are especially likely to be ashamed of being incomplete and dependent, because a dominant image of masculinity tells them that they should be self-sufficient and dominant. So people flee from their inner world of feeling, and from articulate mastery of their own emotional experiences. The current psychological literature on the life of boys in America indicates that a large proportion of boys are quite unable to talk about how they feel and how others feel — because they have learned to be ashamed of feelings and needs, and to push them underground. But that means that they don’t know how to deal with their own emotions, or to communicate them to others. When they are frightened, they don’t know how to say it, or even to become fully aware of it. Often they turn their own fear into aggression. Often, too, this lack of a rich inner life catapults them into depression in later life. We are all going to encounter illness, loss, and aging, and we’re not well prepared for these inevitable events by a culture that directs us to think of externals only, and to measure ourselves in terms of our possessions of externals. What is the remedy of these ills? A kind of self-love that does not shrink from the needy and incomplete parts of the self, but accepts those with interest and curiosity, and tries to develop a language with which to talk about needs and feelings. Storytelling plays a big role in the process of development. As we tell stories about the lives of others, we learn how to imagine what another creature might feel in response to various events. At the same time, we identify with the other creature and learn something about ourselves. As we grow older, we encounter more and more complex stories — in literature, film, visual art, music — that give us a richer and more subtle grasp of human emotions and of our own inner world. So my second piece of advice, closely related to the first, is: Read a lot of stories, listen to a lot of music, and think about what the stories you encounter mean for your own life and lives of those you love. In that way, you will not be alone with an empty self; you will have a newly rich life with yourself, and enhanced possibilities of real communication with others.

Martha Nussbaum, Do Not Despise Your Inner World: Advice on a Full Life from Philosopher Martha Nussbaum

[cor-ardens-archive]

Angela Carter | Martha Nussbaum

[stargir1z]

Martha Nussbaum

[v-ividus]

21. The Hollow Charade: Unmasking Codependency and Social Parasitism

“Human beings appear to be the only mortal finite beings who wish to transcend their finitude. Thus they are the only emotional beings who wish not to be emotional, who wish to withhold these acknowledgments of neediness and to design for themselves a life in which these acknowledgments have no place. This means that they frequently learn to reject their own vulnerability and to suppress awareness of the attachments that entail it.” — Martha Nussbaum

In an era defined by unparalleled connectivity, we find ourselves ensnared in a web woven from the delicate threads of codependence and social parasitism, both of which stealthily undermine the foundations of ethical relationships. This entanglement reveals a haunting paradox: as finite beings bound by the specter of mortality, we are driven by an insatiable desire to transcend our limitations, crafting illusions of invulnerability to shield ourselves from vulnerability. Yet, it is within this façade that our moral fabric begins to unravel, leading us to a twisted reality where, in our desperate quest for stoic self-sufficiency, we suppress the very emotional needs that bind us to one another. Thus unfolds a disturbing culture of codependency, where individuals don the masks of self-reliant titans while clinging, in desperation, to the crumbling remnants of attachment, trapped in a theater of deceit that distorts genuine connection and selfhood.

This retreat from vulnerability transcends mere personal folly; it is a collective myopia that cultivates a social milieu ripe for exploitation. By dismissing our fundamental need for connection, we unwittingly become magnets for parasitic personalities—those emotional vampires who feed off our denial. In this grotesque ballet of twisted interdependence, the irony is almost laughable: in our desperate bid to escape our emotional realities, we inadvertently invite the very toxic attachments we seek to evade.

Through this lens, we must acknowledge that our aspirations for autonomy are laced with moral dissonance. How tragically ironic it is that in our quest to embody an ideal of emotional resilience, we strip away the qualities that serve as our ethical compass. Both poetry and philosophy extol the virtues of emotional truth; yet we persist in erecting grand fortifications, only to find ourselves ensnared within the frigid, echoing confines of isolation.

The allure of emotional invulnerability is seductive, but in reality, it is a mirage. Such posturing serves only to mask our profound human needs. The irony, however, is palpable: as we immure ourselves behind these walls, we invite manipulation and exploitation. The emotional leeches, lurking in the shadows, thrive in the very soil of our denial, feasting on the remnants of our suppressed vulnerabilities.

To reconstruct a more authentic and ethical human experience, we must not shy away from embracing vulnerability in its rawest form. It is essential to recognize that we are not the lone wolves we pretend to be; rather, we are relational beings entwined in a complex web of interdependence. True strength emerges not from the façade of invulnerability but from the audacious act of confronting our weaknesses and seeking genuine connection.

In shifting our perspective, we create landscapes where emotional authenticity is not only accepted but celebrated. By dismantling the barriers that cultivate disconnection, we foster a culture rich in empathy and understanding. With intentionality, we can transcend the isolation bred by self-imposed fortresses, finally acknowledging that vulnerability is the very bedrock of our humanity.

Thus, we arrive at a crucial juncture: to transcend our limitations is to embrace our shared human experience, recognizing that vulnerability is fundamental to our moral integrity and relational depth. By relinquishing the façade of stoic resilience, we weave connections steeped in emotional truth, forging a society that honors the very essence of our humanity.

The Moral and Ethical Dilemma of Codependency

In today's hyper-paced, achievement-oriented society, the rise of codependency presents a profound moral and ethical dilemma that resonates far beyond individual relationships, challenging our collective conscience. This dynamic, characterized by an unhealthy reliance on others for self-worth, poses critical questions about personal autonomy, emotional responsibility, and the societal pressures that shape our interactions.

At its core, codependency emerges in a context where societal expectations glorify independence and self-sufficiency, yet simultaneously foster a climate of emotional vulnerability. As individuals navigate these contradictory pressures, they often find themselves engaging in relationships marked by imbalanced power dynamics. The ethical quandary arises when one person's need for validation leads them to sacrifice their own well-being, perpetuating a cycle of emotional manipulation and neglect. Is it morally justifiable to prioritize another's emotional stability at the expense of one's own mental health?

Clinically, codependency reveals deep-rooted issues related to identity and self-worth, compelling us to reflect on the broader implications of our relational choices. The dependent individual may believe they are fulfilling a nurturing role, yet in doing so, they may enable a partner's unhealthy behavior, undermining both parties' growth. This moral ambiguity raises critical questions: Are we ethically obligated to protect ourselves in relationships, or does true love demand self-sacrifice for another's sake?

Additionally, the implications of codependency permeate our communities, reflecting a concerning trend where emotional needs are eclipsed by the persistent pursuit of individual success. In an era defined by self-interest, we must confront the ethical responsibility to foster supportive relationships that promote mutual well-being rather than cultivate environments where emotional exploitation thrives.

The Digital Dilemma: Codependency, Social Parasitism, and Emotional Attachment in the Age of Social Media

The emergence of social media has transformed the landscape of human relationships, amplifying the effects of codependency and social parasitism to unprecedented levels. In this digital sphere, where curated personas reign supreme, individuals often seek validation and connection from online personalities who may not genuinely reciprocate those feelings. This results in parasocial relationships that echo the destructiveness of codependency, leaving users feeling emotionally drained and further disconnected from their real selves.

Moreover, social media platforms serve as breeding grounds for social parasitism—where users appear to form connections but instead become entrapped in a cycle of emotional exploitation. Users post, like, and comment, craving validation through likes and shares while neglecting their own emotional well-being. This mechanism distorts the understanding of relationships, where the pursuit of individual success and online popularity often eclipses genuine emotional connections, exacerbating feelings of isolation and inadequacy as individuals anchor their self-worth to their online presence.

As concerns about emotional well-being mount, it is imperative to recognize that the implications of codependency and social parasitism extend far beyond the individual, affecting entire communities. In an age dominated by self-interest, we must confront our ethical responsibility to cultivate supportive relationships that prioritize mutual well-being over superficial interactions. Social media has made it all too easy to overlook this need in favor of pursuing the next big like or follow, leading to a culture that often celebrates emotional exploitation rather than fostering authentic connection.

To effectively address this moral dilemma, individuals must engage in meaningful conversations about the values that underpin our digital interactions. Therapeutic interventions can play a crucial role in helping users recognize their emotional needs and dismantle harmful beliefs that perpetuate codependency. Through self-reflection and open dialogue, we can question our collective assumptions: How do we create digital spaces that champion emotional honesty, autonomy, and accountability rather than mere performance?

Ultimately, the modern dilemma of codependency and its impact on our emotional landscapes invites us to re-evaluate the ethics of our interpersonal connections, both in-person and online. As we navigate these complexities, we must collectively confront the uncomfortable truths about the sacrifices we make for love and belonging. This process calls for a shift in focus from superficial validation to cultivating deeper, more meaningful relationships that honor both personal care and communal support. By fostering environments where individuals can thrive together, we not only reclaim our emotional health but also enrich the fabric of our communities, moving toward a future where authentic connections and emotional well-being take precedence over the fleeting allure of online recognition.

Emotional Honesty as an Ethical Imperative

To address the detrimental effects of codependency, we must embrace emotional honesty as a fundamental principle of all truly ethical interpersonal dynamics. Acknowledging our vulnerabilities enriches our relationships and serves as an act of defiance against a society that often promotes emotional suppression. Practicing emotional honesty requires immense courage; it urges individuals to confront their innate need for connection and to embrace the authenticity that vulnerability brings.

Ironically, disclosing our needs cultivates a sense of agency, liberating us from cycles of dependency. By recognizing our emotional requirements, we take responsibility for cultivating relationships based on reciprocity rather than reliance. True intimacy emerges not from avoiding emotions but from openly acknowledging our shared human frailty and the mutual vulnerability that leads to genuine connection.

Prioritizing emotional honesty offers a profound recalibration of interpersonal dynamics, particularly in environments habitually marred by power imbalances characteristic of codependent relationships. At the heart of this analysis lies the recognition that emotional honesty is not merely an individual virtue but a vital social construct. When we actively engage in open dialogues about our experiences and emotional needs, we initiate a transformative process that fundamentally alters the relational ecosystem.

In a psychological context, emotional honesty serves as a catalyst for relational equity. By fostering open communication, individuals begin to dismantle rigid hierarchies that often perpetuate cycles of dependency and manipulation. In codependent relationships, the asymmetry of power may manifest through one party's excessive caretaking, often at the cost of their own emotional well-being. Emotional honesty disrupts this dynamic by allowing both individuals to claim rightful ownership over their emotional landscapes, thus creating a platform for shared understanding.

From a sociological perspective, this reclamation of emotional narrative illustrates a shift from individualism to relational ethics. Here, the emphasis on mutual respect and empathy emerges as a necessary counter to societal norms that valorize stoicism and emotional suppression. The recognition of emotional needs becomes a collective endeavor, bridging individual experiences with broader social expectations. This interconnectedness fosters a culture of vulnerability and authenticity in relationships, positioning emotional landscapes as communal rather than isolated.

Navigating this newly created emotional landscape demands a high level of relational intelligence. Emotional honesty invites both parties to engage in a reflexive dialogue about their vulnerabilities, desires, and fears. Through this lens, we observe the emergence of a more balanced relational dynamic, wherein the focus shifts from fear-driven attachments—often rooted in the anxiety of abandonment or loss—to a grounded understanding of each other’s emotional realities.

This kind transformation leads to the meaningful cultivation of deeper emotional intelligence—an awareness and skillful management of one’s own emotions, coupled with an ability to empathize with the feelings of others. By welcoming vulnerability into conversations, individuals can express their true needs and fears without the fear of judgment or rejection. Consequently, the willingness to show one’s vulnerabilities not only strengthens personal integrity but also serves as a barrier against manipulation and emotional coercion, establishing a solid foundation for mutual respect.

Prioritizing emotional honesty fosters a culture that values authenticity. It challenges traditional societal narratives that promote emotional suppression and encourages a deeper, more nuanced understanding of human interactions. By reframing emotional vulnerability as a strength rather than a weakness, this ethical framework motivates individuals to engage more wholeheartedly in their relationships. In this way, emotional honesty acts as a transformative force, dismantling power dynamics while nurturing a more compassionate and empathetic social environment where genuine connections can thrive. Ultimately, embracing emotional honesty reshapes our relationships, guiding us toward a richer understanding of our shared humanity, where vulnerability serves as a source of connection rather than a sign of weakness.

Reclaiming Relationships Through The Redefinition of Interpersonal Ethics

In the intricate web of human relationships, reclaiming our interactions necessitates an essential reevaluation of interpersonal ethics—one that deviates from the self-serving, hyper-individualistic mindset and instead embraces the profound truth of our interconnected existence. The key to mastery in this domain lies in recognizing that true power and influence are inseparable from our emotional capacities; they form the foundation of genuine human connection.

To reclaim this profound influence, one must first embark on the path of self-awareness—an imperative that involves confronting the uncomfortable truths of our emotional vulnerabilities. Many exist in cycles of codependency, tethered to the needs and expectations of others, but this dependence is a cage that holds us back from authentic power. By cultivating emotional intelligence, we gain the ability to navigate relationships with strategic acumen, allowing us to foster bonds that are free from the toxic undercurrents of manipulation and exploitation. This is the essence of interpersonal mastery: forging connections steeped in mutual respect and profound understanding.

No longer can we afford to accept societal narratives that shame vulnerability. In the grand theater of human interaction, vulnerability may be construed as a weakness—but those who wield it wisely understand its true potential as a source of power. Creating environments that honor emotional expression and candid discourse is critical. We must dismantle the façade of invulnerability, embracing instead a communal ethos that champions the value of authentic engagement, grounding our relationships in trust and shared experience.

This ethical reconfiguration is not merely a grand ideal—it is a deliberate strategy to shape our relational landscape. The art of interpersonal relations rests on a bedrock of emotional honesty, trust, and empathy. By prioritizing these elements, we construct an ethical framework capable of navigating the complexities of human nature. Such a framework grants us the means to cultivate relationships imbued with depth and resilience—each connection a pillar supporting both personal mastery and collective strength.

As we harness these interpersonal ethics, we create fertile ground for the flourishing of our communities. In doing so, we empower each individual to thrive while forging deeper connections that reflect the intricate tapestry of our shared humanity. This profound shift in how we engage with each other not only paves the way for personal growth but transforms the very fabric of our relational culture, ultimately securing our place in this dynamic interplay of power and vulnerability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we find ourselves at a pivotal juncture, awakening to the profound truth that our emotional vulnerabilities are not signs of weakness but essential bridges to authentic connection. In a world that often encourages us to suppress our feelings, it can be daunting to embrace our emotional selves. Yet, as Martha Nussbaum highlights, our deep-seated desire to transcend our finitude often leads us to overlook the very human aspects of our nature. Let us acknowledge that our vulnerabilities can unite us, offering gateways to meaningful relationships that empower us, rather than confining us.

By choosing to confront the uncomfortable truths of our emotional lives together, we create space for growth and healing. This courageous act of vulnerability not only strengthens our individual spirits but fosters a sense of collective responsibility. Our willingness to share our struggles and fears serves as a reminder that we are not alone in our experiences. As we weave a tapestry of understanding and compassion, we cultivate relationships rooted in trust, illuminating the beauty that arises when we allow ourselves to be fully seen and understood.

As we embark on this transformative journey, let us redefine what it means to be strong and courageous. Embracing our humanity in all its complexity enriches our shared existence and reinforces the bonds we share. Every moment we spend acknowledging our emotional landscapes is a testament to our resilience and interconnectedness. Together, we celebrate the richness of our experiences and the deep connections that emerge, transforming our collective journey into a powerful narrative of support, love, and understanding.

[philosophybits]

People are adept rationalizers, so insecure people seeking control are good at coming up with a rational account of what the other person has done wrong.

Martha Nussbaum, Anger and Forgiveness

[coruscatingdust]

Omg, I'm doing my PhD on Arendt! Saw her name mentioned in your bio. Also citing Nussbaum in my diss.

that’s so great!! I cite Nussbaum a lot in my diss too (mainly to defend the platonic moralists from her critique of them) but I do love her work on emotions and philosophy & literature. Love’s Knowledge is sooo well written. Also, I was supposed to teach an undergrad course on arendt (and some other female philosophers) this term!! I wrote some papers on her for my masters

[fourdramas]

Martha Nussbaum, 'Why Practice Needs Theory'

[virgin-martyr]

MARTHA NUSSBAUM: I wake up at night thinking about Euripides’ Hecuba. That to me is a story that says so much about what it is to be a human being in the middle of a world of unreliable things and people. Do you know the story?

BILL MOYERS: Well, from a long time ago. She was the queen of Troy, whose country was destroyed by war, and her whole life was changed. She fell from here to here.

MARTHA NUSSBAUM: Right, right. She lost her husband, she’s lost most of her children, she’s lost her political power. She’s been made a slave. But up to that point, she remains absolutely firm morally. And she even says she believes that human good character is something extremely stable in adversity and can’t be shaken. But then, her one deepest hope is pulled away from her. She left her youngest child with her best friend, who was supposed to watch over him and watch his money, too, and then bring him back when the war was over. And when she gets to the shore of Thrace, she sees a naked body that’s been washed up on the beach. And she looks at it more closely, and then she notices that it’s the body of her child.

And she realizes right away that what this friend has done is to murder the child for his money, and to do it in a callous, heedless way, without even taking thought for burying the child, just has tossed it out into the waves. And all of a sudden, the roots of her moral life are undone. She looks around, and she says, “Everything is untrustworthy. Everything that I see is untrustworthy,” because her moral life had been based on the ability to trust things and people that were not under her own control. And if this deepest and best friendship proves untrustworthy, then it seems to her that nothing can be trusted, and she bas to turn to a life of solitary revenge.

BILL MOYERS: Against the friend.

MARTHA NUSSBAUM: And we see her at the end of the play putting out the eyes of this former best friend, and turning herself into, what the chorus says is in effect, a dog. I mean, they predict that she will literally turn into a dog. But we know that the story of metamorphosis from the human to something less than human has really taken place before our very eyes.

No, I think it’s pretty clear that this comes about not because she’s a bad person, but in a sense because she’s a good person, because she has had deep friendships on which she staked her moral life. And So what this play says that’s so disturbing, is that the condition of being good is such that it should always possible for you to be morally destroyed by something that you couldn’t prevent. To be a good human being is to have a kind of openness to the world, an ability to trust certain things beyond your own control that can lead you to be shattered in very extreme circumstances, in circumstances for which you are not yourself to blame.

And I think that says something very important about the condition of the ethical life. That it is based on a trust in the uncertain, a willingness to be exposed. It’s based on being more like a plant than like a jewel, something rather fragile, but whose very particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.

Martha Nussbaum: Applying the Lessons of Ancient Greece

[esarkaye]

on nonhuman animal capabilities and flourishing