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

Re: [Sartre] Discussions

Expand Messages
  • Monte Morris
    Francine, you just came at that wrong moment. The last few days were the first time I ve seen anyone rude on this site. I have job that keeps me busy about 60
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Francine, you just came at that wrong moment. The last few days were the first time I've seen anyone rude on this site. I have job that keeps me busy about 60 hours of the week, but would love to have time to post some serious stuff and respond to the meaningful posts. I have read some interesting and good work on this list, though. When I have time to read some Sartre, I'll be sure to post my thoughts and questions to the bot. Good luck in your study of philosophy!
      --Monte

      francine termini <francineterm@...> wrote:
      I have only been a part of this group for a few days and I would have to agee with you. I was hopeing to learn a little from these discussion but it seems to be a big btch sesions.
      Unfortunatly I have only been studying philosophy for about a yr and I don't feel quite comfortable, just yet, posting any opinions on the topics you have presented. I guess you might say I am still getting my feet wet. But I have read and saved your post in hopes that after some thought I may be able to contribute an intelligent response.

      Elaine Phipps-Earl <lizral@...> wrote:
      Over the years i have found being on philosophical discussion groups very
      rewarding. For some odd reason, over the past two years these deep
      discussions have become almost non-existent on all forums. Yesterday i sent
      in an email, hoping for a discussion to evolve and not one person has
      offered any insight. It seems so strange to me that a serious topic for
      discussion is passed over without comment and yet everyone is willing to
      have a say in relation to off-topic arguments. Please guys and gals (if
      there are any gals on this forum apart from me lol) i would really
      appreciate a good discussion on the topic i sent in.

      Here is another section which would be very interesting to discuss:-

      Rousseau also associated our other-dependence and opinions with excessive
      need and consumption. Embracing Stoic ideals, he perceived human weakness in
      excessive need. The man who is strong in his convictions, content to be
      himself, strives merely for his basic needs. For excessive need fosters our
      over-dependence. Dependence upon others, on appearances and opinions
      multiplies our wants and only served to further our dependence, wherein we
      are entrapped in the dense web of opinion, unable to hear the voice of
      Natures reason. Apart from health, strength and a good conscience, all the
      good things in life have become merely matters of opinion and apart from
      bodily suffering and remorse, all other woes are mere delusions. Hence,
      Rousseau proclaimed true freedom could only be found in austerity (p.359).



      Of course i have my own opinions, which i must admit agree with Rousseau.
      However, i would be extremely interested to hear the opinion of others.



      Kind Regards

      Elaine






      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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


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


      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

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


      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

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


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


      --Monte Morris
      "Why don't I have a good quote to put down here?"

      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Leon McQuaid
      I bielieve that Nietzsche wrote something along the lines of, A unity diminishes all of its parts. And I am sure Sartre, in Anti-semite and Jew says that
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I bielieve that Nietzsche wrote something along the lines of, "A unity
        diminishes all of its parts." And I am sure Sartre, in Anti-semite and Jew
        says that "Spiritualization is enfeeblement." This seems hard to deny, but
        what are the concequences of it? As most of you already know, I am obssesed
        with Nietzsche. So, with that said you should know I am always thinking of
        will and power. I reciently wrote a paper in which I spoke of the universal
        will being a fabricated idea of the limits of ones own will. Something which
        comes about primarily through fear and fears rationalization. In any case
        of whether the universal will actually is or exists, whether we have free
        will or actually only think we do, underneth all these perceptions lies the
        extent of all precieved potentiality. What then is a law but externalized
        egoism. I precieve that this such-and-such 'is/ought to be' such-and-such,
        on the basis that I cannot control it, it controls me. Isn't this still an
        extention of my will. Still I require others to agree that law is law. I
        limit myself through law, and others follow suite. In a sense I am
        stronger, in that my will is inforced. Yet on a personal level, I have
        abdicated part of my will, part of my potentiality. Have I created a
        spiritual-link by abdicating my will to something external along with all
        others like me--in creating objective reality? In a way in establishing an
        objective reality we all become alike. Nietzsche once said something along
        the lines of 'man had to be MADE rational (made the same) before he could
        reason.' Made by what/who? And through this spiritualization, am I
        negating my potentiality or am I merely trading it for a different set of
        potential. What significantce does overdependance on others have on a long
        evoloutionary time-line? Does any of this make sense?

        What it comes down to is a affirmation of N's strong/weak dichotomy. If one
        is strong enough, one is ones own law, and is fearless in that. He is free,
        not because he is lawless(in some villenous kind of way), but because he has
        no restrictions to pursue his genius, to exploit his complete and limitless
        potentiality. This is indeed, to a large extent, impossible in this day and
        age. It follows that the weak individual, through laws, is kept weak. He
        doesn't grow. There is no motivation to grow. His only motivation is in
        creating law so that he might live without fear. And so what is to be
        feared is the law itself, that which through it a sembalence of freedom is
        attained (a very Christian ideology). Yet, it can never be absolute feedom.

        Obviously all this is a very simplistic line of thinking that I am just
        begining to explore, and is not so cut and dry.

        >From: "Elaine Phipps-Earl" <lizral@...>
        >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >To: <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
        >Subject: [Sartre] Discussions
        >Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:38:22 +1000
        >
        >Over the years i have found being on philosophical discussion groups very
        >rewarding. For some odd reason, over the past two years these deep
        >discussions have become almost non-existent on all forums. Yesterday i sent
        >in an email, hoping for a discussion to evolve and not one person has
        >offered any insight. It seems so strange to me that a serious topic for
        >discussion is passed over without comment and yet everyone is willing to
        >have a say in relation to off-topic arguments. Please guys and gals (if
        >there are any gals on this forum apart from me lol) i would really
        >appreciate a good discussion on the topic i sent in.
        >
        >Here is another section which would be very interesting to discuss:-
        >
        >Rousseau also associated our other-dependence and opinions with excessive
        >need and consumption. Embracing Stoic ideals, he perceived human weakness
        >in
        >excessive need. The man who is strong in his convictions, content to be
        >himself, strives merely for his basic needs. For excessive need fosters our
        >over-dependence. Dependence upon others, on appearances and opinions
        >multiplies our wants and only served to further our dependence, wherein we
        >are entrapped in the dense web of opinion, unable to hear the voice of
        >Natures reason. Apart from health, strength and a good conscience, all the
        >good things in life have become merely matters of opinion and apart from
        >bodily suffering and remorse, all other woes are mere delusions. Hence,
        >Rousseau proclaimed true freedom could only be found in austerity (p.359).
        >
        >
        >
        >Of course i have my own opinions, which i must admit agree with Rousseau.
        >However, i would be extremely interested to hear the opinion of others.
        >
        >
        >
        >Kind Regards
        >
        >Elaine
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
        http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.