Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Sartre] Re: To be a real philosopher: mimics and imitators

Expand Messages
  • Elaine
    ... stone to philosophical thought Love & Hugs Elaine
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > "To be a real philosopher all that is necessary is to add another stepping
      stone to philosophical thought"

      Love & Hugs
      Elaine
    • Elaine
      All Philosophers transcend the world of sense to define reason. I believe new stepping stones in philosophical thought will be placed by conjoining latest
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        All Philosophers transcend the world of sense to define reason. I believe
        new stepping stones in philosophical thought will be placed by conjoining
        latest scientific discoveries and reason.

        Love & Hugs
        Elaine
      • Elaine
        ... Sorry i have to disagree. Man sees himself in relation to others, to things in the world, to nature and to the Cosmos. With major advancements in
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > From a purely existential standpoint, the emphasis is upon the fate
          > of the individual, while being modified by scientific advances
          > still remains grounded to basic primordial conditions; that is to
          > say, in our Being, we remain the Beings who are 1.) a self,
          > 2.) with others and 3.) in-the-world. These underlying
          > foundations are not eliminated by scientific advancement.

          Sorry i have to disagree. Man sees himself in relation to others, to things
          in the world, to nature and to the Cosmos. With major advancements in
          scientific understanding of these things, man perception of him/her self
          alters.

          > The same old problems still exist; people won't think for themself,
          > won't live sympathetic or empathetic lives of connecting, still won't
          > accept their own projecting possibilities and uniqueness to freedom,
          > and will learn an entirely new way of 'thinking inside the box'.

          Unfortunately, i agree with u on this one lol.
          >
          > What is needed today is not a grand social theory, but a radical
          > individualism theory on the authentic-self. In other words, an
          > existential theory that enables the individual to overcome the
          > domination of the mass movements; freeing the individual to
          > recognize their own freedom; through the various modes of
          > liberation that are grasped in the individual's own life; through
          > authentic communion, authentic individual uniqueness, and the power
          > of ones own creative liberation, to think outside the scope of the
          > familiar, proper, accepted, feasible and attainable limitations of
          > the-they-world.

          and i totally agree with u here ;))

          Love & Hugs
          Elaine
        • John Foster
          ... From: decker150 To: Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:11 PM Subject: [Sartre] To be a real philosopher ...
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            comments below:
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
            To: <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:11 PM
            Subject: [Sartre] To be a real philosopher


            >
            > William James said "To be a real philosopher all that is necessary is
            > to hate some one else's type of thinking."
            >
            > I thought this was an interesting quote.
            >
            > Joe

            The corrollary then is: "to be a poor philosopher all that is necessary is
            to like some one else's type of thinking."

            There is a true difference between 'imitation' and genuine 'emulation'
            (mimicry). There is a statement by Plato which states that a general who
            emulates (mimics) another famous general will fail at war. (paraphrased).
            The reason is that the 'enemy' should have learned from it's past mistakes
            and now have become able to plan for the same strategy that defeated them.

            In ecology there is also a difference between 'mimicry' and 'imitation'. A
            genuine imitation is 'just as good as the real thing'. For instance a
            non-poisonous insect which mimics a poisonous insect may be detected by a
            predator and that is what a mimic does; it only looks like the poisonous
            insect. It only fools it's predator. A genuine imitator actually 'imitates'
            the insect which poisons; it in fact emits poisons. And how can it emit a
            poison? Well it may actually 'eat' the poisonous insect or eat poisonous
            plants or on an evolutionary time scale develop poison glands....through
            differential selection.

            I think there still is something missing here. I think that for true
            philosophy it is necessary to 'develop critical thinking' prior to even
            being able to 'hate a style of thinking'. I don't hate many philosophers
            style's of thinking since I am not too keen on 'style', but more keen on
            'content'....And that requires a 'model' of thinking and most models of
            thinking are...in fact styles of thinking developed by a single philosopher.
            Philosophers then need to grow their own wings.....

            Was Sartre a real philosopher then. I like the style of thinking....but it
            is not all that I like.

            Finally to imitate a real general or philosopher then, it is necessary to
            think critically about how that general or philosopher succeeded in
            defeating an enemy or explaining knowledge.

            I don't know why I have used the war metaphor. I have to think critically
            about that....

            chaosers

            john









            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • decker150
            Good points, I had not spent much time on James quote, but as those kind of comments are cabale of being, become springboards for opposition and expanded
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Good points, I had not spent much time on James quote, but as
              those kind of comments are cabale of being, become springboards for
              opposition and expanded viewpoints. James may be wrong as Richard
              says, or the whole quote could be taken with a grain of salt. The
              quote did not strike me as an irrefutable law or anything like that.
              However, a thought may have an element of truth to it, without being
              absolutely true; this is how I took the quote.

              "To be a real philosopher all that is necessary is to hate some one
              else's type of thinking." James

              Perhaps philosophy evolved out of religion in the sense that some
              philosopher hated the religious way of thinking. It need not be
              hating your own field or predecessor. I don't think Sartre hated
              Heidegger, but must have felt compelled to say something left unsaid
              by his teachers. Perhaps we also feel frustrated by what is left
              unsaid.

              Sartre's thinking reflects the philosophical tradition, and especially
              Heidegger's influence. But I imagine that he probably added more food
              for thought on the whole existential subject; and Sartre was able to
              do this because he did not merely imitate (parrot), but was able to
              think critically on his own terms, as you have point out.

              Warm regards - Joe
            • decker150
              Hi Elaine. I have been wondering, it seems that existentialism needs some new stepping stones. This I would take to be new ideas. Has the subject been
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 5, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Elaine.

                I have been wondering, it seems that existentialism needs some new
                stepping stones. This I would take to be new ideas. Has the subject
                been exhausted by the old philosophers that are no longer with us in
                the world. Heidegger and Sartre are dead. Does anyone know who the
                current leading existentialist (living) is and still philosophizing.

                Has existentialism more or less bottomed out (??)

                Joe

                --- In Sartre@y..., "Elaine" <lizral@o...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > > "To be a real philosopher all that is necessary is to add another
                stepping
                > stone to philosophical thought"
                >
                > Love & Hugs
                > Elaine
              • decker150
                From a purely existential standpoint, the emphasis is upon the fate of the individual, while being modified by scientific advances still remains grounded to
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  From a purely existential standpoint, the emphasis is upon the fate
                  of the individual, while being modified by scientific advances
                  still remains grounded to basic primordial conditions; that is to
                  say, in our Being, we remain the Beings who are 1.) a self,
                  2.) with others and 3.) in-the-world. These underlying
                  foundations are not eliminated by scientific advancement.
                  They may be modified, but then this contributes often to
                  the encroachment of inauthentic modes of being; tendencies
                  towards greater demystification, uniformity,
                  predictability, news ways to seperate, divide and strangle global
                  communion, throwing the masses into standardization, more people start
                  acting cow-like, and a new breed of 'the-they' emerge to level down
                  the possibilties to only the possibilities thought of by the-they.

                  The same old problems still exist; people won't think for themself,
                  won't live sympathetic or empathetic lives of connecting, still won't
                  accept their own projecting possibilities and uniqueness to freedom,
                  and will learn an entirely new way of 'thinking inside the box'.

                  What is needed today is not a grand social theory, but a radical
                  individualism theory on the authentic-self. In other words, an
                  existential theory that enables the individual to overcome the
                  domination of the mass movements; freeing the individual to
                  recognize their own freedom; through the various modes of
                  liberation that are grasped in the individual's own life; through
                  authentic communion, authentic individual uniqueness, and the power
                  of ones own creative liberation, to think outside the scope of the
                  familiar, proper, accepted, feasible and attainable limitations of
                  the-they-world.

                  Joe

                  --- In Sartre@y..., "Elaine" <lizral@o...> wrote:
                  > All Philosophers transcend the world of sense to define reason. I
                  believe
                  > new stepping stones in philosophical thought will be placed by
                  conjoining
                  > latest scientific discoveries and reason.
                  >
                  > Love & Hugs
                  > Elaine
                • decker150
                  Yes your point is correct, man s perception of him/herself alters ; but this refers to my point on being modified by the advancement; but the foundation
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 7, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes your point is correct, "man's perception of him/herself
                    alters"; but this refers to my point on "being modified" by the
                    advancement; but the foundation remains the same, unchanged, and
                    thankfully; because, there are these underlying constants in our life.
                    I can wake up on any given day and still find that I am still the
                    Being whose being-is-a-self. I am still with others and still in the
                    world. These are not eliminated. And I agree with your point that
                    our perception changes. I understand this is both authentic change
                    and also more propoganda from the-they. The point is,
                    existentially, hermeneutic clarity lies in the
                    underlying primordial foundation. We can always come
                    back to that as the reference point for authenticity.

                    Smiles - Joe

                    Elaine said: "Man sees himself in relation to others, to things in the
                    world, to nature and to the Cosmos. With major advancements in
                    scientific understanding of these things, man perception of him/her
                    self alters.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.