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

Re: [Sartre] Existentialism and The Ethical

Expand Messages
  • praxistence@aol.com
    But the absence of inate, gene-given honesty does not logically assume a tabula rasa. Newborns still cry when hungry; it doesn t take much time for babies to
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 8, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      But the absence of inate, gene-given honesty does not logically assume a
      tabula rasa. Newborns still cry when hungry; it doesn't take much time for
      babies to recognize a familiar face (or breast, for that matter). However,
      even assuming a tabula rasa, does it matter?

      Adults start inculcating a newborn with their culture immediately, merely by
      wrapping it in a blanket. Tabula rasa is never even an issue; the manner in
      which the newborn begins to be acculturated does matter: the new mom that's
      inattentive to her baby for a day in the hospital may be in for an
      exasperating career as a parent.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gapi
      Tabula Rasa or clean Slate , An empiricist description of the human mind at birth with no innate ideas simply awaiting experience to develop them but I ll
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 8, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Tabula Rasa or "clean Slate", An empiricist description of the human mind
        at birth with no innate ideas simply awaiting experience to develop them but
        I'll have none of it. I am of the opinion that we have no free will.

        We are simply & only characters in a script, the uncreated creator (god to
        many) is the author of that script You simply unfold according to the script
        like any character does in any script. If you do believe you have a free
        will it is only because your part in the paly calls for you to so believe.

        I mentioned 'god' however I am not refering to the man made god.
        The uncreated creator - Something is responsible for all that is however it
        is not that all loving, compassionate entity many refer to as god, the one
        of the bible. The uncreated created creator is indifferent.
        Lance




        ----- Original Message --

        ---
        From: <praxistence@...>

        > But the absence of inate, gene-given honesty does not logically assume a
        > tabula rasa. Newborns still cry when hungry; it doesn't take much time for
        > babies to recognize a familiar face (or breast, for that matter). However,
        > even assuming a tabula rasa, does it matter?
        >
        > Adults start inculcating a newborn with their culture immediately, merely
        by
        > wrapping it in a blanket. Tabula rasa is never even an issue; the manner
        in
        > which the newborn begins to be acculturated does matter: the new mom
        that's
        > inattentive to her baby for a day in the hospital may be in for an
        > exasperating career as a parent.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • praxistence@aol.com
        One of the grand dichotomies that no one can properly address is the general belief in free will (if it exists, it s something we humans produce) & the
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 9, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          One of the grand dichotomies that no one can properly address is the general
          belief in "free will" (if it exists, it's something we humans produce) & the
          orthodox insistence that mental illness is the result of brain disorders over
          which we have no control. As Jonathan Miller has suggested, if mental illness
          (specifically, schizophrenia) is the product of abnormal brain function, then
          normal, acceptable behavior is (assuming the logic here) is the product of
          normal brain function; hence, no free will.

          We reach an impasse (a cultural neurosis, actually) when we credit
          unacceptable conduct to abnormal brain function & acceptable conduct to free
          will. Sartre wrote that mental illness was a choice; so then, maybe, is free
          will.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Villena
          Dear Lance, How can you call your theory? You show a kind of determinism that seems have been taken from a misreading of Epicuro, Leibniz and P. S. de Laplace.
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 11, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Lance,
            How can you call your theory? You show a kind of determinism that seems have been taken from a misreading of Epicuro, Leibniz and P. S. de Laplace. Your rethoric figures are attractive but they have been used too many times to have at the present moment any relevant meaning related to philosophy of action: they mean nothing. If God is indiferent, God did not write the script of your life, dear Epicuro. Tell me did God, for you, also write the script of a stone�s existence? Did God gave us a capacity to make differences exactly as He does? Are you an indivual? Tell me, what about your toes? Do they have a script?
            Problems in relation to determinism and free will appear like pseudo ones. There is no causality, that is all. So that, there is neither necessity nor chance. No free will and no determinism. Creation and causal nexus are just dogmas of ancient thought.
            David
            gapi <gapi@...> wrote:Tabula Rasa or "clean Slate", An empiricist description of the human mind
            at birth with no innate ideas simply awaiting experience to develop them but
            I'll have none of it. I am of the opinion that we have no free will.

            We are simply & only characters in a script, the uncreated creator (god to
            many) is the author of that script You simply unfold according to the script
            like any character does in any script. If you do believe you have a free
            will it is only because your part in the paly calls for you to so believe.

            I mentioned 'god' however I am not refering to the man made god.
            The uncreated creator - Something is responsible for all that is however it
            is not that all loving, compassionate entity many refer to as god, the one
            of the bible. The uncreated created creator is indifferent.
            Lance




            ----- Original Message --

            ---
            From:


            > But the absence of inate, gene-given honesty does not logically assume a
            > tabula rasa. Newborns still cry when hungry; it doesn't take much time for
            > babies to recognize a familiar face (or breast, for that matter). However,
            > even assuming a tabula rasa, does it matter?
            >
            > Adults start inculcating a newborn with their culture immediately, merely
            by
            > wrapping it in a blanket. Tabula rasa is never even an issue; the manner
            in
            > which the newborn begins to be acculturated does matter: the new mom
            that's
            > inattentive to her baby for a day in the hospital may be in for an
            > exasperating career as a parent.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >


            To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Lorna Landry
            James, but where does not choosing leave us? We don t choose once, but over and over again. Our life history is a history of our choices, and it doesn t stop
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 11, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              James,



              but where does not choosing leave us? We don't choose once, but over and over again. Our life history is a history of our choices, and it doesn't stop until we are dead. To not choose is to not be consciously alive. We are in a constant state of becoming, and our lives are such that we cannot help but choose.



              Lorna






              James Bingham <sergeimagic@...> wrote:But if we choose as a means of existence, we cease to be the individual and
              become an appropraition of that choice. We surrender our independence and
              'become'.






              >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@...>
              >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Existentialism and The Ethical
              >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:03:25 -0500 (EST)
              >
              >Hi, I agree that 'not' or 'nothing' is something, in
              >this sense, from what I understand; Essence procedes
              >(comes after) existence(This for sure). When we begin
              >to choose, we begin to exist in the world, by choosing
              >what we are, and what we are not. What we are not
              >creates the other, or an absence, which comes back and
              >defines us, making it a presence. So, 'nothing' really
              >is something which determines us. The choices that we
              >make to define ourselves, and the world that we live
              >in, have no ethical value. You can only pick one thing
              >over another. How did I do? Anybody?
              >Thanks,
              >
              >Amy
              > --- Leon McQuaid <leonpmcquaid@...> wrote: >
              >I never took Sartre as saying we arent anything. I
              > > thought he was saying
              > > that we are a 'not'. We can not define our essence,
              > > but that doesnt me we
              > > dont have essences.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > >From: Amy Wing <loconito442@...>
              > > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              > > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              > > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Existentialism and The
              > > Ethical
              > > >Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:39:19 -0500 (EST)
              > > >
              > > > --- "decker150 <decker150@...>"
              > > ><decker150@...> wrote: >
              > > >
              > > >I agree with you that the answer is no, because
              > > Sartre
              > > >really does not believe in a ethical or non-ethical
              > > >choice. Only that you put one value or desire over
              > > >another. It seems though if a macro-structure was
              > > to
              > > >be defined as an ethical system based on Sartre's
              > > >philosophy, that the ethical system would be built
              > > >upon individual choice and responsibility. I think
              > > >that everyone would have to internally believe that
              > > if
              > > >someone say told a lie, and it hurt someone, that
              > > >everyone would be responsible for choosing the
              > > world
              > > >that hurt them. The question could be posed; why
              > > did
              > > >the person lie? I don't think that there is an
              > > >inherent ethical system in us when we are born,
              > > >therefore it is only through our actions, and the
              > > >values that we reinforce, that we define ourselves
              > > >and the world. I find that this is where I seem to
              > > be
              > > >really difficult to get along with sometimes,
              > > because
              > > >I know that I have to compromise my actions to get
              > > >along in the world, but I truly believe that I am
              > > my
              > > >actions. This really becomes a problem sometimes.
              > > >About a true self: My interpretation of Sartre, so
              > > >far, and if there is a true self, is that there is,
              > > >but we define it. Well, we try to define it, and
              > > the
              > > >world tells us if we actually did define it that
              > > way
              > > >or not.(I don't totally know if Sartre would back
              > > me
              > > >on this point or not). But we are not anything,
              > > >literally, except a body when we are born; therfore
              > > we
              > > >are created.
              > > >
              > > >Thanks,
              > > >Amy
              > > >
              > > > Back to our Moderator's original question "Can we
              > > > > build an ethical
              > > > > system upon the Sartrean existentialist
              > > foundation,
              > > > > analogous to
              > > > > ethical systems that have built up around other
              > > > > notable philosophical
              > > > > movements, eg. utilitarianism"? And if so, how
              > > would
              > > > > we begin to
              > > > > describe such an ethical system?"
              > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > A quiry arises as to if Being-in-itself
              > > possesses an
              > > > > ethical dimension
              > > > > that is-already-there in Da-sein, regardless of
              > > > > human conditioning,
              > > > > culture, religion, etc. (?) I believe the answer
              > > is
              > > > > no. Does anyone
              > > > > think otherwise?
              > > > >
              > > > > The Tabula Rosa indicates that a newborn baby (a
              > > > > mini-me) is
              > > > > characterized as an absence. Honesty is not
              > > > > innately present within
              > > > > the genes. Does anyone believe otherwise? I
              > > > > believe that if such a
              > > > > newborn is to eventually be-honest, it is
              > > generally
              > > > > assumed that this
              > > > > trait must be developed, just as other traits
              > > and
              > > > > abilities are
              > > > > brought out by training and over time.
              > > > >
              > > > > However, here is an attempt at a moral
              > > franmework;
              > > > >
              > > > > 1. Being-Honest-In-General (Authenticity)
              > > > > 2. Being-Honest-To-Yourself-About-Yourself (Good
              > > > > Faith)
              > > > > 3. Being-Honest-With-Others
              > > > > 4. The Potentiality of Being-Honest (May or May
              > > not
              > > > > happen)
              > > > >
              > > > > Notes: Honesty is a type of being, whose mode of
              > > > > being is developed
              > > > > along with thinking abilities
              > > > >
              > > > > Note: Parmenides said "For Being and Thinking
              > > are
              > > > > the same"
              > > > >
              > > > > Both thought and action are dynamic, but thought
              > > > > alone is calculating
              > > > > and can deceive. Bad faith strikes me on the
              > > level
              > > > > of 'thought' which
              > > > > would be stated as
              > > > > Being-Disceptive-To-Yourself-About-Yourself'. I
              > > > > suppose Sartre, in his conception of 'Bad
              > > Faith',
              > > > > concluded that
              > > > > deception, even at the level of psychical
              > > secrecy,
              > > > > was existential,
              > > > > enough so to make it a subject. It is one think
              > > to
              > > > > deceive oneself,
              > > > > but different as Being-Deception-To-Another (or
              > > > > Others).
              > > > >
              > > > > The underlying implication, set in contrast to
              > > the
              > > > > self-deception
              > > > > inherent in Bad Faith is that somewhere there is
              > > a
              > > > > ground of truth,
              > > > > which supports the pursuit of authenticity and
              > > > > individualized as
              > > > >
              > > > > I-am-in-my-self-the-truth-about-myself; and
              > > there is
              > > > > no way to avoid
              > > > > that fact except through self-deception.
              > > > >
              > > > > Truth (disclosedness / unconcealment /
              > > unhiddeness)
              > > > > becomes the
              > > > > standard for Good Faith, authenticity.
              > > Therefore,
              > > > > existentially,
              > > > > Sartrean Existentialism depends upon a ground of
              > > > > truth to disclose.
              > > > > Does anyone here believe that there is such
              > > 'truth"?
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Joe
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >______________________________________________________________________
              > > >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >_________________________________________________________________
              > > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months
              > > FREE*.
              > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
              > >
              > >
              >
              >______________________________________________________________________
              >Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca


              _________________________________________________________________
              Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
              http://messenger.msn.co.uk


              To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              ---------------------------------
              Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • gapi
              David question for you: You are mexican right? That explains it... There are six billion people on this tiny pebble in the universe refered to as earth you are
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 11, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                David question for you: You are mexican right? That explains it...

                There are six billion people on this tiny pebble in the universe refered to
                as earth you are but one of them comprende?. There is a roulette wheel with
                each one of their programs on it. Lets also say that you are unhappy with
                yourself, with what the lottery of life doled you out. Your short, you want
                to be tall. Your a bit plump, you want to be slim. You've brown hair but you
                want blond. Your presently very mechanically inclined however you want to be
                musical, artistic. Six of one half a dozen of another! In short you want
                change. Now there's the wheel. You can spin it if you desire. "Street life",
                there's a million parts to play!

                Would you spin it? Wherever it lands will be the new you! Of
                course you could end up worse, probably would. Just look around you there
                aren't really that many "beautiful" people with good dispositions around &
                whats the point of being beautiful if your also a dull jerk with a bad
                disposition, a self-centered egotistical fool. I for one would never spin
                that wheel, but then again I'm not you now am I! Like yourself
                & why not? If we took every one of these six billion inhabitants & had them
                vote on eachother respectively we'd all get the same number of votes!
                There's nothing wrong whatsoever with you except that maybe you're in the
                wrong line. Migrate to birds of your own feather. Only with them will you
                find what you want & be appreciated for what & who you are . With people
                gain a quick rapport or abandon the effort & move on!

                Destiny & its vicious "pre-ordained plan"! Einstein was to
                have said that the theory of relativity "simply" came to him one fine sunny
                day while puttering around in his rose garden. Einstein, in "my" most humble
                opinion, made a mistake. I know, I know, "Einstein, a mistake!" Impossible!
                Everyone makes mistakes, including you. Thats why they put erasers on
                pencils The "big bang", the explosion from which "all" emanated. This was
                his first bent conception. It was asked "if in the beginning there was
                nothing & then came this explosion what did the explosion explode into?"
                Most reasonable of inquires? If there was nothing it had nothing at all in
                which to explode. However because humans tend to discover what they expect
                to find he quickly resolved this by declaring that "all" time, space &
                matter were simultaneously created in that instant! Touche! Now contrary to
                the big bang theory is the "steady state" theory which says that the
                universe, I suppose like god, never began but always was & is expanding
                because new matter is being created continuously. This is anything but a
                science textbook & we shall momentarily move on however take a moment to
                consider this: The superstring theory. A theory explaining the properties of
                elementary particles & the energy between them (gravity & nuclear forces).
                Sixth sense? All that what "is" in the universe "are" extremely small string
                like objects. These objects exist a universe of ten dimensions rather than
                the three space dimensions & one time dimension decernible to Einstein. You
                see, there are things which travel faster than the speed of light, like
                "thought" for example! Take anything & cut it in half, cut that in half, cut
                that in half. Continue on with this procedure & where do you end up?

                You'll never get to the end or beginning, same thing, because
                there is no such animal! You'll never get to the "indivisable"
                It is always hard to begin to concentrate, the mind darts so attempting to
                escape thinking even though thought is the most rewarding & valuable
                function of man. It darts faster than....

                This speed of light concept concerns not all things, only light &
                electromagnetic waves. It would be impossible to accelerate any material
                body to this speed because it would require an infinite amount of energy not
                "now" presently available. No, I'm afraid science is in for some rude
                awakenings not at all unlike those it has experienced since the first man
                decided "what was what" only for the second
                man to come along & prove him wrong. Science might feel a might
                uncomfortable with this however bear in mind that these are all conjectures
                & your guess is as good as mine or theirs or anybody elses about such
                things, so, until they can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I suggest
                you believe what you feel comfortable with. This type of thinking might boil
                some blood & so it should! ..... Lance


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: David Villena

                Dear Lance,
                How can you call your theory? You show a kind of determinism that seems have
                been taken from a misreading of Epicuro, Leibniz and P. S. de Laplace. Your
                rethoric figures are attractive but they have been used too many times to
                have at the present moment any relevant meaning related to philosophy of
                action: they mean nothing. If God is indiferent, God did not write the
                script of your life, dear Epicuro. Tell me did God, for you, also write the
                script of a stone´s existence? Did God gave us a capacity to make
                differences exactly as He does? Are you an indivual? Tell me, what about
                your toes? Do they have a script?
                Problems in relation to determinism and free will appear like pseudo ones.
                There is no causality, that is all. So that, there is neither necessity nor
                chance. No free will and no determinism. Creation and causal nexus are just
                dogmas of ancient thought.
                David
                gapi <gapi@...> wrote:Tabula Rasa or "clean Slate", An empiricist
                description of the human mind
                at birth with no innate ideas simply awaiting experience to develop them but
                I'll have none of it. I am of the opinion that we have no free will.

                We are simply & only characters in a script, the uncreated creator (god to
                many) is the author of that script You simply unfold according to the script
                like any character does in any script. If you do believe you have a free
                will it is only because your part in the paly calls for you to so believe.

                I mentioned 'god' however I am not refering to the man made god.
                The uncreated creator - Something is responsible for all that is however it
                is not that all loving, compassionate entity many refer to as god, the one
                of the bible. The uncreated created creator is indifferent.
                Lance




                ----- Original Message --

                ---
                From:


                > But the absence of inate, gene-given honesty does not logically assume a
                > tabula rasa. Newborns still cry when hungry; it doesn't take much time for
                > babies to recognize a familiar face (or breast, for that matter). However,
                > even assuming a tabula rasa, does it matter?
                >
                > Adults start inculcating a newborn with their culture immediately, merely
                by
                > wrapping it in a blanket. Tabula rasa is never even an issue; the manner
                in
                > which the newborn begins to be acculturated does matter: the new mom
                that's
                > inattentive to her baby for a day in the hospital may be in for an
                > exasperating career as a parent.
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >


                To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                ---------------------------------
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • David Villena
                Lance, What is above is a question? Should I answer it? Are you able to make a well made
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 12, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Lance,
                  <<David question for you: You are mexican right? That explains it...>>

                  What is above is a question? Should I answer it? Are you able to make a well made argumentation? I guess that you read in your free time, but that is not enough. An advice: if you want to refute something, do not use ad hominem�s.
                  Let me be honest, I do not find any meaning in what has been written by you and I think that a serious discussion with you is not possible.
                  David
                  gapi <gapi@...> wrote:David question for you: You are mexican right? That explains it...

                  There are six billion people on this tiny pebble in the universe refered to
                  as earth you are but one of them comprende?. There is a roulette wheel with
                  each one of their programs on it. Lets also say that you are unhappy with
                  yourself, with what the lottery of life doled you out. Your short, you want
                  to be tall. Your a bit plump, you want to be slim. You've brown hair but you
                  want blond. Your presently very mechanically inclined however you want to be
                  musical, artistic. Six of one half a dozen of another! In short you want
                  change. Now there's the wheel. You can spin it if you desire. "Street life",
                  there's a million parts to play!

                  Would you spin it? Wherever it lands will be the new you! Of
                  course you could end up worse, probably would. Just look around you there
                  aren't really that many "beautiful" people with good dispositions around &
                  whats the point of being beautiful if your also a dull jerk with a bad
                  disposition, a self-centered egotistical fool. I for one would never spin
                  that wheel, but then again I'm not you now am I! Like yourself
                  & why not? If we took every one of these six billion inhabitants & had them
                  vote on eachother respectively we'd all get the same number of votes!
                  There's nothing wrong whatsoever with you except that maybe you're in the
                  wrong line. Migrate to birds of your own feather. Only with them will you
                  find what you want & be appreciated for what & who you are . With people
                  gain a quick rapport or abandon the effort & move on!

                  Destiny & its vicious "pre-ordained plan"! Einstein was to
                  have said that the theory of relativity "simply" came to him one fine sunny
                  day while puttering around in his rose garden. Einstein, in "my" most humble
                  opinion, made a mistake. I know, I know, "Einstein, a mistake!" Impossible!
                  Everyone makes mistakes, including you. Thats why they put erasers on
                  pencils The "big bang", the explosion from which "all" emanated. This was
                  his first bent conception. It was asked "if in the beginning there was
                  nothing & then came this explosion what did the explosion explode into?"
                  Most reasonable of inquires? If there was nothing it had nothing at all in
                  which to explode. However because humans tend to discover what they expect
                  to find he quickly resolved this by declaring that "all" time, space &
                  matter were simultaneously created in that instant! Touche! Now contrary to
                  the big bang theory is the "steady state" theory which says that the
                  universe, I suppose like god, never began but always was & is expanding
                  because new matter is being created continuously. This is anything but a
                  science textbook & we shall momentarily move on however take a moment to
                  consider this: The superstring theory. A theory explaining the properties of
                  elementary particles & the energy between them (gravity & nuclear forces).
                  Sixth sense? All that what "is" in the universe "are" extremely small string
                  like objects. These objects exist a universe of ten dimensions rather than
                  the three space dimensions & one time dimension decernible to Einstein. You
                  see, there are things which travel faster than the speed of light, like
                  "thought" for example! Take anything & cut it in half, cut that in half, cut
                  that in half. Continue on with this procedure & where do you end up?

                  You'll never get to the end or beginning, same thing, because
                  there is no such animal! You'll never get to the "indivisable"
                  It is always hard to begin to concentrate, the mind darts so attempting to
                  escape thinking even though thought is the most rewarding & valuable
                  function of man. It darts faster than....

                  This speed of light concept concerns not all things, only light &
                  electromagnetic waves. It would be impossible to accelerate any material
                  body to this speed because it would require an infinite amount of energy not
                  "now" presently available. No, I'm afraid science is in for some rude
                  awakenings not at all unlike those it has experienced since the first man
                  decided "what was what" only for the second
                  man to come along & prove him wrong. Science might feel a might
                  uncomfortable with this however bear in mind that these are all conjectures
                  & your guess is as good as mine or theirs or anybody elses about such
                  things, so, until they can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I suggest
                  you believe what you feel comfortable with. This type of thinking might boil
                  some blood & so it should! ..... Lance


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: David Villena

                  Dear Lance,
                  How can you call your theory? You show a kind of determinism that seems have
                  been taken from a misreading of Epicuro, Leibniz and P. S. de Laplace. Your
                  rethoric figures are attractive but they have been used too many times to
                  have at the present moment any relevant meaning related to philosophy of
                  action: they mean nothing. If God is indiferent, God did not write the
                  script of your life, dear Epicuro. Tell me did God, for you, also write the
                  script of a stone�s existence? Did God gave us a capacity to make
                  differences exactly as He does? Are you an indivual? Tell me, what about
                  your toes? Do they have a script?
                  Problems in relation to determinism and free will appear like pseudo ones.
                  There is no causality, that is all. So that, there is neither necessity nor
                  chance. No free will and no determinism. Creation and causal nexus are just
                  dogmas of ancient thought.
                  David
                  gapi wrote:Tabula Rasa or "clean Slate", An empiricist
                  description of the human mind
                  at birth with no innate ideas simply awaiting experience to develop them but
                  I'll have none of it. I am of the opinion that we have no free will.

                  We are simply & only characters in a script, the uncreated creator (god to
                  many) is the author of that script You simply unfold according to the script
                  like any character does in any script. If you do believe you have a free
                  will it is only because your part in the paly calls for you to so believe.

                  I mentioned 'god' however I am not refering to the man made god.
                  The uncreated creator - Something is responsible for all that is however it
                  is not that all loving, compassionate entity many refer to as god, the one
                  of the bible. The uncreated created creator is indifferent.
                  Lance




                  ----- Original Message --

                  ---
                  From:


                  > But the absence of inate, gene-given honesty does not logically assume a
                  > tabula rasa. Newborns still cry when hungry; it doesn't take much time for
                  > babies to recognize a familiar face (or breast, for that matter). However,
                  > even assuming a tabula rasa, does it matter?
                  >
                  > Adults start inculcating a newborn with their culture immediately, merely
                  by
                  > wrapping it in a blanket. Tabula rasa is never even an issue; the manner
                  in
                  > which the newborn begins to be acculturated does matter: the new mom
                  that's
                  > inattentive to her baby for a day in the hospital may be in for an
                  > exasperating career as a parent.
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >


                  To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                  To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                  To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.