why agapastic ecosocialism

Of my proposed three projects, the agapastic-ecosocialism feels like the most difficult. First, it seems like a bad title for a ‘philosophy of nature’, as it seems clear that the core of the ecosocialist relationship is the relationship between nature and culture. Second, beginning the inquiry with what seems to be a strongly idealistic premise may seem too predetermined. The notion of agapism was Peirce at his most idealistic, and he never developed it as a central part of his philosophy. Third, I’m not sure that I believe the ‘necessatarian’ charges against Hegel and Marx by Peirce and Apel as much as I did. The ‘systematic dialectic’ reconstruction points to a complementatry notion of ‘aufheben’. Arthur discusses that the historical dialectic viewpoint often reduces ‘aufheben’ to efficient causation. However, Arthur argues that there is a complementary notion of ‘pull’, or final causation, by the next level. (There is a similar notion of top-down and bottom-up causation). Now the synchronous perspective of systematic dialectic removes some of the angst about top-down causation when interpreted in time (how does the future affect the present), but there is a chance that this perspective can lessen the charges of ‘necessitarian’.

Given my current unemployed state, it seems like it would be a good time to put together a more general ecosocialist course/video series/reading list/whatever, without getting too bogged down on coming up with an exact philosophical perspective. So what about ‘democratic-ecosocialism’? I’d be totally comfortable advertising a class with this title.