Martha Nussbaum lectures @ UCD, 5 & 6 June

Thanks for the notice on this. I really enjoyed it....

Curious to know was that a boardsie either asking the question on Fury’s or the last question?

I have to admit I found it heavy at times but I think I got the general narrative. .... when my head unmelts a bit and I can reflect on it!

If somebody is going tomorrow my suggestion is not to use the nobel prize as some sort of qualification for a person you respect!!!

Black Swan wrote: »

Please do comment here on the "general narrative," and especially any philosophical implications.

I'm not educated in the field of Philosophy so my ability to interact and discuss it is limited.

However I understood that the elementary idea was that anger appeased through retribution is not a sound guiding principles to achieve justice. I really enjoyed the history of where the concept of legal system came from and how its core reason (to address law of vengeance) is sort of corrupted now in the eye for an eye mantra. "I demand justice".

I wanted to ask a question but to be frank was kind of worried that my lack of experience in this field would make my question out of place, wasting the time of such a respected Philosopher. Particularly when people were quoting all sorts of historical literature when asking their questions.

I felt that at the core of her lecture was the suggestion that regulation, responsibility and self reflection are important individually and in movements. Her examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King in contrast to Malcom X was actually a really good way of explaining her point. For me, its a good example of where movements (through violence, animosity, hate, bring others down) can be toxic and people can get lost in the "equality by any means" instead of how to stick to the core goal of everybody being equal.

Again, perhaps I am interpreting the lecture totally wrong but I heard that Love, compassion and empathy should be the cornerstone of all movements and justice systems. The legal system helping to usher in a more equal society as opposed to being the sledgehammer that bashes its way through inequality.

For what its worth that's what I took out of the lecture. I still haven't fully digested everything cause I found some of it heavy going. I am reading a very light hearted Philosophy book "The age of absurdity" very very slowly so I can ingest the information better. I found the lecture enlightening and very interesting but at times I found it hard to pay attention as I tried to digest some of the stories and points being made.

Edit: Just reflecting on it more i think the issue of resentment was also an underlieing point being made. How unhelpful resentment can be when trying to resolve an issue and get balanced retribution for a perceived crime. “Bankers got away with it”. Is it helpful to demonize them and over simplify the financial crisis to the solution equating to a mob with pitchforks burning the “witches”.