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

Re: Being Human

Expand Messages
  • decker150
    To Lapin. I stand corrected. I think I ve overgeneralized there. I should have qualified the statement as some thinkers. Thanks - Joe you are right
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      To Lapin. I stand corrected. I think I've overgeneralized there.
      I should have qualified the statement as 'some' thinkers.

      Thanks - Joe

      you are right abouytataNDp--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Lapin
      _866" <lapin_866@h...> wrote:
      > The popular idea among thinkers is to approach the
      > >mind as some accidental feature that randomly passed through the
      > >haphazard evolutionary flow. In other words, the universe doesn't
      > >know what it is up to and as the evolutionary foam oozes forward,
      it
      > >keeps making one strange mistake after another. To me that's
      just a
      > >bunch of hard-hearted BS. There is a great deal of bitterness
      over
      > >the human condition.
      >
      >
      > OK except for the universe doesn't make one strange mistake after
      another to
      > all of this "school" of thinkers.
      >
      >
      > >mu the,nFo--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Leon McQuaid"
      > ><leonpmcquaid@h...> wrote:
      > > > So I don't have much to say about this post other than it's
      great. I
      > > > laughed out loud (though not in a degrading way) when I
      read "the
      > >universe
      > > > is up to something". It's a great line, it's so non descript,
      yet so
      > > > beautiful somehow. Anyway this post is much were my mind
      usually is
      > >so I
      > > > thought I'd add a question. Nietzsche somewhere says "a unity
      > > > necessicarally diminishes all of its parts" and I thought this
      to be
      > >the
      > > > most profound thing I've ever read. I take it that this goes
      along
      > >with
      > > > memory and forgetfulness. To think of a thing as a thing in-
      itself
      > >is to
      > > > deny, and to an extent forget, that there is anything else in
      the logos
      > > > acting on it. In designating something, and giving it a set
      > >meaning, we
      > > > have an excuse to move on to other things. But to give
      something
      > >meaning
      > > > is almost a metaphysical act in that it, as a thing in-itself
      is taken
      > > > outside of its surroundings. A concept is not subject to
      > >space/time, at
      > > > least it is not treated as such. As soon as we come to a
      concept of
      > >a thing
      > > > in particular we in a sense forget that that concept was
      thought into
      > > > existence through a synthesis of forces, i.e. "I see a cup"
      denotes
      > >that I
      > > > have seen cups before and there is nothing about 'cupness'
      that is like
      > > > 'mugness'. Yet if both cup and mug are of the same kind,
      (which
      > >they at
      > > > base are) the fact about such and such 'being' such and such
      is a
      > > > metaphysical fact that I assert. Does this make sense?
      > > >
      > > >
      _________________________________________________________________
      > > > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
      > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
      > > >
      > >http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%
      2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
      > >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
      > http://search.fr.msn.ch
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.