> What the Philosopher glibly overlooks is that it may be impossible
> not to have been born.
> Joe F
No not "glibly," not glibly at all. Sophokles and all the Hellenes were
intensely aware of the impossibility "not to have been born." They called it
'moira' which we very inappropriately translate as "fate". In the Western
Christian culture, having a "fate", a 'destiny' is a grand thing because it
means you have been specially picked out even if things end badly, which,
strangely enough in Western fate, often turns out NOT to have been
completely inevitable. Hellenic "moira," on the other hand, applied as much
to the lowliest thrall as to the highest king equally. It meant all of their
efforts regardless were utterly worthless, trash. Instead of a grand thing,
it was a very nasty thing, exactly expressed by my generations' sayings,
"Life is a bitch and then you die,' and "Eat shit and die." Heidegger
usually seems to have a grand view of "destiny" and "fate" in B &T, and
touches on birth in only a few pages - but extremely interesting pages.
Sartre says nothing, or next to nothing that I know of, but his friend
Maurice Merleau-Ponty goes into the meaning of being born in great depth in
PHENOMENOLOGY OF PERCEPTION. It fully develops all Heidegger has to say
about being born and "throwness" which definitely does have some of the
nasty aspect of "moira" to the point it seems that understanding this is
really what philosophy is ALL about. No, not glibly. Rather, extremely
complex, mostly unthought and unknowable, and therefore being essentially
what I am that I cannot fundamentally ever understand, terrifying.
Gary C. Moore
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.