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

Re: [Sartre] Foucault

Expand Messages
  • Elaine Phipps-Earl
    Dear George, U wrote :- The overman, the lastman, the herd. These are all intellectual contraptions that exist only insofar as they convey a tautological
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 31, 2004
      Dear George,

      U wrote :- The overman, the lastman, the herd. These are all intellectual
      contraptions that exist only insofar as they convey a tautological reference
      point. They are true, in other words, by definition. There can be no literal
      overman or lastman or member of the herd. In other words, the paradox
      embedded in existential reference points is that they are often spoken of as
      though they were, in fact, essential reference points. There are no
      essential refernce points, however, respecting human emotional or
      psychological states...or sociological transactions...or ethcial or
      political interactions. There are only what we tell others these words mean
      to us. And they could easily not mean what they do now later. And then we
      all die anyway and for each of us, one by one, these "definitions" become
      essentially moot.

      For many, including Taylor, God is an essential reference point, Taylor
      suggesting that without the absolute reference point of "good" as in "God",
      one can have no sense of good/evil, right/wrong, or of what is moral. In
      turn, one can have no sense of a direction in life, nothing to strive for,
      nothing to desire to become.
      I guess the other side of the coin is just allowing oneself to be and
      embracing all that is. However, if one embraces Romanticism, in just being
      and embracing all that is, one embraces all that is as the emanation of the
      Spirit of God. If one rejects Romantic notions of Nature ie the innate
      goodness of Nature and Nature as the Spirit made manifest, then it would
      appear that God's existence would also be rejected, this reflected in
      Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. BUT....... even
      Nietzsche's Superman must have a point of reference in having taken a
      particular stance.

      Leon, i am studying Foucault this semester, in particular "The Care of the
      Self". As i have only just begun the study i do not have a great deal to
      say. However, i look forward to discussions in the very near future.

      Hugs
      Elaine
    • George Walton
      Sounds like you are not interested in pursuing philosophy at all; instead, you seem to be after Answers. Are you, in fact, after someone who can tell you What
      Message 2 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
        Sounds like you are not interested in pursuing philosophy at all; instead, you seem to be after Answers.

        Are you, in fact, after someone who can tell you What Foucault Meant in the context of What Sartre Meant in the context of What Nietzsche Meant in the context of What Human Reality Really Is?

        Sorry, but I haven't got an ontological clue.

        Leon McQuaid <leonpmcquaid@...> wrote:
        I'm tired of this friggin group and there idle chatter about 'real' reality,
        about 'existence'. "Intellectual Contraptions"? what ever dude. What the
        f*ck is a psychological state? A political transaction? Have you ever read
        any Foucault, or Nietzsche? Because it is Nietzsche that asks the very
        question that Foucault wishes to answer: "who speaks?" Psychobabble and
        science double talk does not quell the problem of semantics. You think that
        your jargon is somehow 'true' somehow purely meaningful. Give me an
        argument damn it.

        >From: George Walton <iambiguously@...>
        >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Foucault
        >Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:56:16 -0800 (PST)
        >
        >The overman, the lastman, the herd. These are all intellectual contraptions
        >that exist only insofar as they convey a tautological reference point. They
        >are true, in other words, by definition. There can be no literal overman or
        >lastman or member of the herd.
        >
        >In other words, the paradox embedded in existential reference points is
        >that they are often spoken of as though they were, in fact, essential
        >reference points. There are no essential refernce points, however,
        >respecting human emotional or psychological states...or sociological
        >transactions...or ethcial or political interactions. There are only what we
        >tell others these words mean to us. And they could easily not mean what
        >they do now later. And then we all die anyway and for each of us, one by
        >one, these "definitions" become essentially moot.
        >
        >Foucault, in fact, spent much of his life assigning words like this a value
        >that is embedded in the existential reality of power and its relationship
        >to actual human interactions out in the real world.
        >
        >George
        >
        >Leon McQuaid <leonpmcquaid@...> wrote:
        >So I am gearing up to write a paper on Foucault and I was wondering. It
        >seems to me that Foucault has written himslef into the postion of being the
        >overman. What do I mean? I'm not sure yet, but I think that he sees the
        >overman as being post-humanist. The other part of this idea has to do with
        >Foucault seeing Sartre as being the last man, or the one to offer the last
        >account of human nature, that man has no nature. Any thoughts? Am I full
        >of sh*t?
        >
        >_________________________________________________________________
        >Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
        >http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
        >
        >
        >
        >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >---------------------------------
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        >Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        >
        >
        >
        >---------------------------------
        >Do you Yahoo!?
        >Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium
        http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines



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




        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        To visit your group on the web, go to:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • George Walton
        Elaine Phipps-Earl wrote:
        Message 3 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
          Elaine Phipps-Earl <lizral@...> wrote:

          <<<<for many, including Taylor, God is an essential reference point, Taylor
          suggesting that without the absolute reference point of "good" as in "God",
          one can have no sense of good/evil, right/wrong, or of what is moral.>>>>

          The irony, of course, being that folks gave been maiming, mutilating and massacreing each other for centuries now because it seems rather vital that their own Good/God be the one that all subscribe to. Yet it is equally true that, sans God [omniscience and omnipotence] there can be no essential, objective or universal vantage point from which to differentiate right from wrong human behavior. So, that being the case how are we to live togrether in a world where, existentially, there are so many vast and varied and conflicting and contradictory moral/political agendas?


          <<<In
          turn, one can have no sense of a direction in life, nothing to strive for,
          nothing to desire to become.
          I guess the other side of the coin is just allowing oneself to be and
          embracing all that is>>>.

          We can, of course, have a sense of direction---we just have no way of ascertaining which one is any more rational or logical or ethical or authenitc than any other one. And this includes the one proposed by Sartre and the other existentialists. I happen to believe it is, indeed, the least untrue lie respecting all of the various philosophical schools of thought I have come upon so far; but I have no way of demonstrating this to be true beyond my own existential arguments. And who knows, tomorrow I could be in another philosophy venue and be persuaded there is, in fact, a more reasonable way to look at things. I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world this profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will be dead and that, for eternity, all of this will become utterly moot. At least for me.

          So, in that brutally precarious and hopelessly ambiguous context how should I choose to live?

          Damned if I know.

          George


          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Elaine Phipps-Earl
          Dear (((((((((((((George)))))))))))))), U wrote :- I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world this profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
            Dear (((((((((((((George)))))))))))))),

            U wrote :- I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world
            this profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will be dead and that, for
            eternity, all of this will become utterly moot.

            Of course both Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and its proclaiming of
            importance the life after death, rather than life itself,
            Sartre suggesting that one who lived in hope of a life hereafter lived in
            "bad faith". However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the abandoning
            of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith? Throughout
            the entire history of the human race, man has believed in life beyond
            this 3d reality. Christianity did not come up with the notion of eternal
            life, it merely gave it the name Heaven. As i mentioned in the previous
            email,
            "it is one instant's experience of sublime eternal perfection that gives us
            hope, dreams and aspirations for that we may not "see", yet know to "be".

            As far as this, well after death, becoming utterly moot, i get the
            overwhelming sense, that in eternity, u and i will laugh at all of this. For
            us here in this life, this 3d reality, who struggle to define meaning, it
            all seems sooooooooooooooo complex, sooooooooooo serious, yet in some
            distant future i see us laughing in recognition of the simplicity of it all
            and at our own stupidity in making it soooooooooooooo complex. They say
            that there exists a very thin line between genius and insanity, and i say
            that there exists a very thin line between the finite and infinite, we need
            only take one step to "see" it, to "feel" it, to "embrace" it, as in this
            instance u who read these words may "sense" and "feel" my embracing u;)))

            The irony, of course, being that folks gave been maiming, mutilating and
            massacreing each other for centuries now because it seems rather vital that
            their own Good/God be the one that all subscribe to. Yet it is equally true
            that, sans God [omniscience and omnipotence] there can be no essential,
            objective or universal vantage point from which to differentiate right from
            wrong human behavior. So, that being the case how are we to live togrether
            in a world where, existentially, there are so many vast and varied and
            conflicting and contradictory moral/political agendas?

            Does "thinking" create/make "feeling" or "feeling "create/make "thinking" or
            both?
            If there be two realities, and in the reality of what "is" we abandon our
            own temporal meaning
            and instead allow the force of the good in itself to move us, then perhaps
            it is "temporal meaning"
            we must abandon and instead reply on "raw feeling" distinct from our own
            constructed meaning to aide in the
            resolution of conflict. If we abandon the Chains of Cause and Effect will we
            discover freedom ?

            Why were they referred to as Chains of Cause and Effects in the first place?

            Love & Massive Hugs
            Elaine
          • Elaine Phipps-Earl
            Dear (((((((((((((George)))))))))))))), U wrote :- I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world this profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
              Dear (((((((((((((George)))))))))))))),

              U wrote :- I just know for sure [or as sure as I can ever be in a world
              this profoundly enigmatic] that one day I will be dead and that, for
              eternity, all of this will become utterly moot.

              Of course both Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and its proclaiming of
              importance the life after death, rather than life itself,
              Sartre suggesting that one who lived in hope of a life hereafter lived in
              "bad faith". However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the abandoning
              of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith? Throughout
              the entire history of the human race, man has believed in life beyond
              this 3d reality. Christianity did not come up with the notion of eternal
              life, it merely gave it the name Heaven. As i mentioned in the previous
              email,
              "it is one instant's experience of sublime eternal perfection that gives us
              hope, dreams and aspirations for that we may not "see", yet know to "be".

              As far as this, well after death, becoming utterly moot, i get the
              overwhelming sense, that in eternity, u and i will laugh at all of this. For
              us here in this life, this 3d reality, who struggle to define meaning, it
              all seems sooooooooooooooo complex, sooooooooooo serious, yet in some
              distant future i see us laughing in recognition of the simplicity of it all
              and at our own stupidity in making it soooooooooooooo complex. They say
              that there exists a very thin line between genius and insanity, and i say
              that there exists a very thin line between the finite and infinite, we need
              only take one step to "see" it, to "feel" it, to "embrace" it, as in this
              instance u who read these words may "sense" and "feel" my embracing u;)))

              The irony, of course, being that folks gave been maiming, mutilating and
              massacreing each other for centuries now because it seems rather vital that
              their own Good/God be the one that all subscribe to. Yet it is equally true
              that, sans God [omniscience and omnipotence] there can be no essential,
              objective or universal vantage point from which to differentiate right from
              wrong human behavior. So, that being the case how are we to live togrether
              in a world where, existentially, there are so many vast and varied and
              conflicting and contradictory moral/political agendas?

              Does "thinking" create/make "feeling" or "feeling "create/make "thinking" or
              both?
              If there be two realities, and in the reality of what "is" we abandon our
              own temporal meaning
              and instead allow the force of the good in itself to move us, then perhaps
              it is "temporal meaning"
              we must abandon and instead reply on "raw feeling" distinct from our own
              constructed meaning to aide in the
              resolution of conflict. If we abandon the Chains of Cause and Effect will we
              discover freedom ?

              Why were they referred to as Chains of Cause and Effects in the first place?

              Love & Massive Hugs
              Elaine





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Paul
              However, wasn t he rather saying that it was the abandoning of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith? No. He was saying that anyone
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                "However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the abandoning
                of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith?"

                No. He was saying that anyone who doesn't look at life head on, and
                whom doesn't start from this point of angst in the face of the
                absurd is not living in good faith. God, like everything else, is
                just a way to push away angst.
              • Leon McQuaid
                Bingo hotdog! Yeah, meaning is the matter. And it seems to be dictated by time--meanings explication. And explication seems dictated by respect something
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                  Bingo hotdog! Yeah, meaning is the matter. And it seems to be dictated by
                  time--meanings explication. And explication seems dictated by respect
                  something which the intelligent seem to always posses.

                  _________________________________________________________________
                  MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*
                  http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                • Elaine Phipps-Earl
                  ... Somewhere in all of these thoughts this morning i was wondering what intention was hidden behind the philosopher s proclaiming? or was it the powers
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                    > No. He was saying that anyone who doesn't look at life head on, and
                    > whom doesn't start from this point of angst in the face of the
                    > absurd is not living in good faith. God, like everything else, is
                    > just a way to push away angst.

                    Somewhere in all of these thoughts this morning i was wondering
                    what "intention" was hidden behind the "philosopher's" proclaiming? or was
                    it the "powers that
                    be" that encouraged philosophers to proclaim, that there was no God, no
                    meaningful order in the Cosmos
                    and no Eternity? Was it realy only a matter of Scientific discoveries, that
                    led to the rejection and ultimate overthrowing
                    of Religious Authority, to the heralding of the perceived need for man to
                    define his own meaning, to become his own authority,
                    which in turn allowed him to have an authentic experience in being?

                    It seems to me that by promoting the notion of a disenchanted world, where
                    man no longer "saw " or was "moved" by the force of the good in the Cosmos,
                    by killing off God and rendering the world to be totally disenchanted, man
                    was forced to believe that he could not "see" or "feel" the good or order.
                    By pushing the notion that reality and meaning could only be defined by the
                    temporal constriction of orders, the masses were roped into accepting merely
                    another authority, that of the wanna be powers, that now be, whom while
                    encouraging man to think for himself, bombard and brain wash his mind with
                    images created to define an imposed collective good and laws, which while i
                    agree that some are universal, the greater majority enforce the powers that
                    be's control. Just speak out against the power's that be and see how far u
                    get lol. Once u open your eyes and examine created reality, believing it to
                    be real is the greatest absurdity.

                    Love & Hugs
                    Elaine
                  • Paul
                    ... See, this again i disagree with. And this is the reason Sartre is so soul destroying. There is no such thing as more or less absurd - only more or less
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                      > Once u open your eyes and examine created reality, believing it to
                      > be real is the greatest absurdity.
                      >
                      > Love & Hugs
                      > Elaine

                      See, this again i disagree with. And this is the reason Sartre is so
                      soul destroying. There is no such thing as more or less absurd -
                      only more or less absurdity. (as in quantity, or depth)

                      There is no such thing as "greatest absurdity," Sartre flings every
                      thing and everyone onto the same level - the things we love and hate
                      with passion are exactly the same.

                      No matter the field of being the for-itself chooses to manifest
                      itself in, each specific instance will only highlight absurdity,
                      contradiction and deception of the self. Even the refusual to be
                      deceived is a deception - it is a stance we put on a higher plane
                      than others - "I refuse to be deceived by life," why do you refuse?
                      Is it somehow better not to be deceived? less absurd? bah.
                    • Elaine Phipps-Earl
                      See, this again i disagree with. And this is the reason Sartre is so ... There is no such thing as greatest absurdity, Sartre flings every ... U see me
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                        See, this again i disagree with. And this is the reason Sartre is so
                        > soul destroying. There is no such thing as more or less absurd -
                        > only more or less absurdity. (as in quantity, or depth)>
                        There is no such thing as "greatest absurdity," Sartre flings every
                        > thing and everyone onto the same level - the things we love and hate
                        > with passion are exactly the same.


                        U "see" me sitting on a street corner with my eyes crossed, fingers up my
                        nose
                        and laughing and say to yourself "this is an absurd vision. She looks
                        absurd".

                        If u walk into the city and see 100,000 people sitting on the ground, eyes
                        crossed, fingers
                        up their nose and laughing, U say to yourself "This is the absurdest vision.
                        Far more absurd than the
                        vision of one person sitting on a street corner with their eyes crossed,
                        fingers up their nose
                        and laughing. This therefore is the greatest absurdity".

                        If u "think" about me sitting on a street corner with my eyes crossed,
                        fingers up my nose
                        and laughing, u may laugh and say "now that was funny", BUT.............. if
                        u "see" it,
                        it appears absurd;)))) And the more people u "see" doing it the more absurd
                        the vision becomes
                        and then u may turn to a friend and say " i have now witnessed the "greatest
                        absurdity" ;)))

                        Love & Hugs
                        Elaine
                      • decker150
                        Paul says: whom doesn t start from this point of angst in the face of the absurd is not living in good faith. God, like everything else, is just a way to push
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 1, 2004
                          Paul says: "whom doesn't start from this point of angst in the face
                          of the absurd is not living in good faith. God, like everything
                          else, is just a way to push away angst."

                          Joe says: Yes it is true that we will do anything to put ourselves
                          out of misery, and it is here you have defined angst as something
                          human beings 'push away'. But I have noticed that when I start from
                          the point of the sublime, in due consideration of this life being
                          incomprehensible, I feel there is nothing to repugnate about Being
                          to push away. Now, that is not to ignore suffering-withiun-this-
                          world. We are essentially talking about the human emotion, a
                          reaction, that has not been able to see past the dark mystery of
                          life as being anything other than 'lacking' something. It is not
                          necessarily a 'good faith' to ignore the possibility that at deeper,
                          even more profound levels of primordial existence, that greater and
                          greater levels of order are still concealed. But, I really am put
                          off by the one-sided arrogance of pure denial, the kind that refuses
                          to ponder the equally valid path of affirmation, courage,
                          acceptance, and any other number of possibilities that acknowledge
                          someing remotely 'good' about Be-ing here.

                          Joe
                        • iambiguously
                          ... proclaiming of ... lived in ... abandoning ... I am not myself a religious person. But I have reached the point in life where I see the futility of
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 2, 2004
                            --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Elaine Phipps-Earl" <lizral@o...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            >>>Of course both Nietzsche and Sartre rejected religion and its
                            proclaiming of
                            > importance the life after death, rather than life itself,
                            > Sartre suggesting that one who lived in hope of a life hereafter
                            lived in
                            > "bad faith". However, wasn't he rather saying that it was the
                            abandoning
                            > of this life for the life hereafter which resulted in bad faith?<<<

                            I am not myself a religious person. But I have reached the point in
                            life where I see the futility of responding to others in terms
                            of "authenticity" and "bad faith". In an absurd world such
                            philosophical adjudications/valuations are essentially meaningless.
                            Human existence is bursting at the seams with all manner of trials
                            and tribulations; it's always never nothing; it is awash in
                            uncertainty and ambiguity and contingency and precarious slips that
                            can start out small but snowball [re the butterfly effect] into
                            catastrophes. In that [at times] brutally unnerving context I don't
                            really care how others devise strategies to make it through the days.

                            It does, however, comes down to whether or not they are able to
                            defend their choices in venues like this, right? In other words, are
                            they reasonable given the manner in which I have come to understand
                            things? I don't believe that opting for some denominational God is
                            rational at all. So, in a philosophical venue, I say so. But that [to
                            me] is not the same thing as being able to condemn the religous
                            choices others make might [that conflict with my own] as Inauthentic.
                            Says who? Me? Hardly.

                            If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
                            to be true. That is my point in a philosophy venue. And so far I have
                            never encountered arguments that convince me this is the case. In
                            fact, the existential evidence is bleak to say the least.

                            As for the "chains of cause and effect" this is what is known as an
                            antinomy in philosophy. We just have no unequivocally Logical or
                            Rational way of demonstrating categorically whether human autonomy
                            and free will are not just self-delusions. We have to live our lives,
                            however, acting as though [while profoundly situated existentially]
                            our choices are [up to a point] our own.

                            George
                          • cicero cortel
                            iambiguously wrote: If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this to be true. That is my point in a philosophy
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 5, 2004
                              iambiguously <iambiguously@...> wrote:
                              If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
                              to be true. That is my point in a philosophy venue. And so far I have
                              never encountered arguments that convince me this is the case.

                              My Reply:

                              Are you referring to the Satrean antinomy of the pure "pour soi" against the pure "en soi"?

                              Neither can you give an incontrovertible proof for the non- existence of God. Can you? The most logical stance should be agnosticism. But in this issue I prefer the stance of W. James in "The Will to Believe".

                              Cicero







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




                              Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                              ---------------------------------
                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                              To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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




                              ---------------------------------
                              Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Siegfried Steurer
                              I prefer the view that if there was a proof for the existence of (a) god, that would be the best case *against* this god. greets ... =====
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 6, 2004
                                I prefer the view that if there was a proof for the existence of (a) god, that would be the best
                                case *against* this god.

                                greets

                                --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> schrieb: >
                                >
                                > iambiguously <iambiguously@...> wrote:
                                > If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
                                > to be true. That is my point in a philosophy venue. And so far I have
                                > never encountered arguments that convince me this is the case.
                                >
                                > My Reply:
                                >
                                > Are you referring to the Satrean antinomy of the pure "pour soi" against the pure "en soi"?
                                >
                                > Neither can you give an incontrovertible proof for the non- existence of God. Can you? The most
                                > logical stance should be agnosticism. But in this issue I prefer the stance of W. James in "The
                                > Will to Believe".
                                >
                                > Cicero

                                =====
                                siegfried@... (DeSade/Gibmaatsuki) http://www.steurer.com
                                http://www.polyamory.at http://www.atheists-online.com

                                "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
                                Thomas Alva Edison




                                Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
                              • George Walton
                                cicero cortel wrote iambiguously wrote: If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 6, 2004
                                  cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote

                                  iambiguously <iambiguously@...> wrote:

                                  If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
                                  to be true. That is my point in a philosophy venue. And so far I have
                                  never encountered arguments that convince me this is the case.

                                  <<<My Reply:

                                  Are you referring to the Satrean antinomy of the pure "pour soi" against the pure "en soi"?>>>>

                                  I am, of course, referring to it [questions like this] as, in fact, ageless antinomies. What, after all, can you or I know categorically or imperatively about distinguishing the "nature" of something essentially from the manner in which it is construed existentially? It is just that some words more or less denote meaning objectively and other words will almost certainly never be construed as anything other than connnotative [existential] vantage points. The most intriguing discussions, however, revolves around trying to distinguish them, right?


                                  <<<Neither can you give an incontrovertible proof for the non- existence of God. Can you? The most logical stance should be agnosticism. But in this issue I prefer the stance of W. James in "The Will to Believe">>>

                                  That is true and I am, in fact, an agnostic myself. But in philosophy exchanges it is, of course, the responsibility of those who profess the existence of something to demonstrate it to be so...not those who do not believe to demonstrate it does not. I could profess, for example, to believe this entire exchange is being dreamed by me. Can you offer incontrovertable proof it is not? No, you would insist [and rightly so] that I demonstrate my propositon to be objectively as I say it is.

                                  George







                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • decker150
                                  Faith requires no proof.Joe--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried Steurer = wrote: I prefer the view that if there was a
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 6, 2004
                                    Faith requires no proof.

                                    Joe

                                    --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried Steurer <siegfriedsteurer@y...> =
                                    wrote:
                                    > I prefer the view that if there was a proof for the existence of (a) god,=
                                    that would be the best
                                    > case *against* this god.
                                    >
                                    > greets
                                    >
                                    > --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@y...> schrieb: >
                                    > >
                                    > > iambiguously <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
                                    > > If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
                                    > > to be true. That is my point in a philosophy venue. And so far I have
                                    > > never encountered arguments that convince me this is the case.
                                    > >
                                    > > My Reply:
                                    > >
                                    > > Are you referring to the Satrean antinomy of the pure "pour soi" agains=
                                    t the pure "en soi"?
                                    > >
                                    > > Neither can you give an incontrovertible proof for the non- existence o=
                                    f God. Can you? The most
                                    > > logical stance should be agnosticism. But in this issue I prefer the st=
                                    ance of W. James in "The
                                    > > Will to Believe".
                                    > >
                                    > > Cicero
                                    >
                                    > =====
                                    > siegfried@s... (DeSade/Gibmaatsuki) http://www.steurer.com
                                    > http://www.polyamory.at http://www.atheists-online.com
                                    >
                                    > "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theori=
                                    es of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a
                                    personal God."
                                    > Thomas Alva Edison
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
                                  • ian buick
                                    I m not convinced that agnosticism is a logical stance in regard to questions that are not subject to proof. I can accept agnosticism - as a waiting for proof
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 6, 2004
                                      I'm not convinced that agnosticism is a logical stance in regard to
                                      questions that are not subject to proof. I can accept agnosticism - as a
                                      waiting for proof stage - in respect to phenomena have not yet been proved
                                      true but are provable. On such important, life defining issues as religion ,
                                      which is not subject to proof, can you really spend your life saying, 'I
                                      don't know'. This appears to me a form of intellectual cowardice. The only
                                      acceptable positions are to bellieve in a God - which as Kant maintained was
                                      an issue of belief, not reason; or to reject God as an unnecessary
                                      hypothesis in forming a basis for life.

                                      (There was this Scottish agnostic who went to heaven and trembled in fear in
                                      front of the might of the almighty.
                                      'Why had you so little faith?' thundered the great one.
                                      I didnae ken, I wisnae sure., came the meek reply
                                      Well ye ken noo!!! Sneered God, thrusting him into the fires of hell.
                                      Ian

                                      <<<Neither can you give an incontrovertible proof for the non- existence of
                                      God. Can you? The most logical stance should be agnosticism. But in this
                                      issue I prefer the stance of W. James in "The Will to Believe">>>

                                      That is true and I am, in fact, an agnostic myself. But in philosophy
                                      exchanges it is, of course, the responsibility of those who profess the
                                      existence of something to demonstrate it to be so...not those who do not
                                      believe to demonstrate it does not. I could profess, for example, to believe
                                      this entire exchange is being dreamed by me. Can you offer incontrovertable
                                      proof it is not? No, you would insist [and rightly so] that I demonstrate my
                                      propositon to be objectively as I say it is.



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • George Walton
                                      ian buick wrote:
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 7, 2004
                                        ian buick <ibuick@...> wrote:

                                        <<<I'm not convinced that agnosticism is a logical stance in regard to
                                        questions that are not subject to proof. I can accept agnosticism - as a
                                        waiting for proof stage - in respect to phenomena have not yet been proved
                                        true but are provable>>>

                                        When you are dealing with questions that revolve around God you are, of course, dealing with questions that revolve around the most primordial of existential concerns: why does anything exists at all? To speak of "proof" [pro or con] that far out on the metaphysical limb is surreal to say the least. In fact, questions this profoundly mysterious are such that all rational and logical thought simply disintegrate. It devolves into a philosophical antinomy that cannot be conceivably imagined...let alone resolved. That is why folks like Sartre did not spend a lot of time considering it. They called themselves atheists, of course, but what does that really mean [respecting religion in its broadest sense] in the cosmogenic context of All There Is?

                                        Instead, the question they focused on contextually [historically] was whether or not there existed an actual denomonational God---Christian, Islamic, Judaic etc. Here I lean more towards denominating myself as an atheist rather than an agnostic. And that is because there has never been any evidence at all to indicate there is literally a God and that the Christian/Islamic/Judaic God is the God. Almost certainly this is preposterous. But not totally out of the question, of course. Still, it is the responsibility of the True Beliver to convince the non-believer of the existence of this God...and not the other way around. Otherwise their belief in God is predicated on blind faith. And we can have faith in the existence of anything, right?


                                        <<<On such important, life defining issues as religion ,
                                        which is not subject to proof, can you really spend your life saying, 'I
                                        don't know'. This appears to me a form of intellectual cowardice. The only
                                        acceptable positions are to bellieve in a God - which as Kant maintained was
                                        an issue of belief, not reason; or to reject God as an unnecessary
                                        hypothesis in forming a basis for life>>>

                                        In a world that is veritably bursting at the seams with pain and suffering...an "it's always never nothing" world that is precariously perched on ambiguity and uncertainty and contingency and death and oblivion, what does it really mean to speak of "intellectual cowardace"? I'm willing to cut anyone who knows anything at all about how hauntingly numb living out in the real world can be some major slack. Anyone, after all, who as lived dangling over the abyss for any appreciable lenght of time knows just how desiccated much that passes for academic and scholasic philosophy can sound when they try to encapulate issues like this Rationally or Logically.

                                        George





                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • cicero cortel
                                        decker150 wrote: Faith requires no proof. Joe ... that would be the best ... t the pure en soi ? ... f God. Can you? The most ... ance
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 7, 2004
                                          decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
                                          Faith requires no proof.

                                          Joe

                                          --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried Steurer <siegfriedsteurer@y...> =
                                          wrote:
                                          > I prefer the view that if there was a proof for the existence of (a) god,=
                                          that would be the best
                                          > case *against* this god.
                                          >
                                          > greets
                                          >
                                          > --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@y...> schrieb: >
                                          > >
                                          > > iambiguously <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
                                          > > If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation, then demonstrate this
                                          > > to be true. That is my point in a philosophy venue. And so far I have
                                          > > never encountered arguments that convince me this is the case.
                                          > >
                                          > > My Reply:
                                          > >
                                          > > Are you referring to the Satrean antinomy of the pure "pour soi" agains=
                                          t the pure "en soi"?
                                          > >
                                          > > Neither can you give an incontrovertible proof for the non- existence o=
                                          f God. Can you? The most
                                          > > logical stance should be agnosticism. But in this issue I prefer the st=
                                          ance of W. James in "The
                                          > > Will to Believe".
                                          > >
                                          > > Cicero
                                          >
                                          > =====
                                          > siegfried@s... (DeSade/Gibmaatsuki) http://www.steurer.com
                                          > http://www.polyamory.at http://www.atheists-online.com
                                          >
                                          > "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theori=
                                          es of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a
                                          personal God."
                                          > Thomas Alva Edison
                                          >
                                          > cicero says:

                                          Please read "The Will to Believe" of W. James. For me the most even-handed analysis of the religious hypothesis so far considering Kant, Aquinas,Hume,Sartre,Flew, Russell, the anthropic principle...

                                          You cannot stay uncommitted.God is someone not a somthing. In personal relationships, James says,a precursory faith is necessary. What do you have to lose? Masses and holy water. What do you have to gain? Eternal bliss not eternal monotony. Do you really think the only kind of happiness we are capable of having is the ones we have now? Have you felt the happines of a St.Fancis? IF LIFE IS INDEED AN OPTION, I OPT FOR GOD AND ETERNITY not self and meaninglessness.

                                          cicero
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de



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






                                          ---------------------------------


                                          Yahoo! Groups Links


                                          To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                          Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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




                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Siegfried Steurer
                                          since this might be off topic (though I think Sartre was definetely a radical atheist), this will ... Eternity is about the worst thing I can imagine (as
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Apr 8, 2004
                                            since this might be off topic (though I think Sartre was definetely a radical atheist), this will
                                            be my last two more lines in this matter on the list:

                                            --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> schrieb:
                                            > You cannot stay uncommitted.God is someone not a somthing. In personal relationships, James
                                            > says,a precursory faith is necessary. What do you have to lose? Masses and holy water. What do
                                            > you have to gain? Eternal bliss not eternal monotony. Do you really think the only kind of
                                            > happiness we are capable of having is the ones we have now? Have you felt the happines of a
                                            > St.Fancis? IF LIFE IS INDEED AN OPTION, I OPT FOR GOD AND ETERNITY not self and meaninglessness.

                                            Eternity is about the worst thing I can imagine (as stated in nabatov's humorous essay "anti-proof
                                            of god"), and I indeed am happy (enough) in this world.

                                            Concerning god it- (him? her) self, I just quote Sade: "The idea of god is the sole wrong for
                                            which I cannot forgive mankind." I never could understand why any human being wants/-ed to believe
                                            in some kind of "higher being". Isnt that self-degrading?

                                            greets

                                            =====
                                            siegfried@... (DeSade/Gibmaatsuki) http://www.steurer.com
                                            http://www.polyamory.at http://www.atheists-online.com

                                            "Is god an atheist? If not, who created him? And if so, why can I not agree with him in unbelief?" John Nicholson




                                            Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
                                          • Monte Morris
                                            I think you should read the ideology of religious studies by Timothy Fitzgerald. THere are millions, if not billions of people in the world today who are
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Apr 9, 2004
                                              I think you should read "the ideology of religious
                                              studies" by Timothy Fitzgerald.
                                              THere are millions, if not billions of people in the
                                              world today who are uncommited to the idea of God or
                                              even to the idea of the "religious" precisely because
                                              they don't have the "god" concept as part of their way
                                              of thinking. James was working from a Western
                                              "Judao-Christian" framework.

                                              --Monte

                                              --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
                                              > Faith requires no proof.
                                              >
                                              > Joe
                                              >
                                              > --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Siegfried Steurer
                                              > <siegfriedsteurer@y...> =
                                              > wrote:
                                              > > I prefer the view that if there was a proof for
                                              > the existence of (a) god,=
                                              > that would be the best
                                              > > case *against* this god.
                                              > >
                                              > > greets
                                              > >
                                              > > --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@y...> schrieb: >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > iambiguously <iambiguously@y...> wrote:
                                              > > > If there is a God...an afterlife...a salvation,
                                              > then demonstrate this
                                              > > > to be true. That is my point in a philosophy
                                              > venue. And so far I have
                                              > > > never encountered arguments that convince me
                                              > this is the case.
                                              > > >
                                              > > > My Reply:
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Are you referring to the Satrean antinomy of the
                                              > pure "pour soi" agains=
                                              > t the pure "en soi"?
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Neither can you give an incontrovertible proof
                                              > for the non- existence o=
                                              > f God. Can you? The most
                                              > > > logical stance should be agnosticism. But in
                                              > this issue I prefer the st=
                                              > ance of W. James in "The
                                              > > > Will to Believe".
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Cicero
                                              > >
                                              > > =====
                                              > > siegfried@s... (DeSade/Gibmaatsuki)
                                              > http://www.steurer.com
                                              > > http://www.polyamory.at
                                              > http://www.atheists-online.com
                                              > >
                                              > > "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof
                                              > of the religious theori=
                                              > es of heaven and hell, of future life for
                                              > individuals, or of a
                                              > personal God."
                                              > > Thomas Alva Edison
                                              > >
                                              > > cicero says:
                                              >
                                              > Please read "The Will to Believe" of W. James. For
                                              > me the most even-handed analysis of the religious
                                              > hypothesis so far considering Kant,
                                              > Aquinas,Hume,Sartre,Flew, Russell, the anthropic
                                              > principle...
                                              >
                                              > You cannot stay uncommitted.God is someone not a
                                              > somthing. In personal relationships, James says,a
                                              > precursory faith is necessary. What do you have to
                                              > lose? Masses and holy water. What do you have to
                                              > gain? Eternal bliss not eternal monotony. Do you
                                              > really think the only kind of happiness we are
                                              > capable of having is the ones we have now? Have you
                                              > felt the happines of a St.Fancis? IF LIFE IS INDEED
                                              > AN OPTION, I OPT FOR GOD AND ETERNITY not self and
                                              > meaninglessness.
                                              >
                                              > cicero
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > Mit sch�nen Gr��en von Yahoo! Mail -
                                              > http://mail.yahoo.de
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                                              > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ---------------------------------
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/
                                              >
                                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                              > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                              > Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ---------------------------------
                                              > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
                                              > your friends today! Download Messenger Now
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                              > removed]
                                              >
                                              >


                                              =====
                                              --Monte Morris
                                              Philosopher wannabe
                                              Japan
                                              "Needs to find a good quote"


                                              __________________________________
                                              Do you Yahoo!?
                                              Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
                                              http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
                                            • cicero cortel
                                              Siegfried Steurer wrote: Eternity is about the worst thing I can imagine (as stated in nabatov s humorous essay anti-proof of
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Apr 12, 2004
                                                Siegfried Steurer <siegfriedsteurer@...> wrote:
                                                Eternity is about the worst thing I can imagine (as stated in nabatov's humorous essay "anti-proof
                                                of god"), and I indeed am happy (enough) in this world.


                                                Reply:

                                                If we consult the surest knowledge about the universe-science- it seems eternity is not absurd(fluctuating universe, etc.) We should not base our belief about life's ultimate meanings on poetry.We should let it rest on solid grounds at least humanly speaking.I am also happy now but I would have bad faith to myself if I deny the longing for it to last forever. Everlasting existence is boring but everlasting happiness is bliss. Eastern and western religions affirm this.Terminal existence is counter-intuitive.

                                                Concerning god it- (him? her) self, I just quote Sade: "The idea of god is the sole wrong for
                                                which I cannot forgive mankind." I never could understand why any human being wants/-ed to believe
                                                in some kind of "higher being". Isnt that self-degrading?

                                                greets
                                                Reply:

                                                Your quote of Sade simply means you share his sentiments.If life for SARTRE is meaningless and the only meaning it could have is the one you give it with,he also wants us to be responsible for the whole of mankind as to the meaning we give it.
                                                =====

                                                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


                                                ---------------------------------
                                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                                                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                                Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

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




                                                ---------------------------------
                                                Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • cicero cortel
                                                Monte Morris wrote: I think you should read the ideology of religious studies by Timothy Fitzgerald. THere are millions, if not
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Apr 12, 2004
                                                  Monte Morris <monteamorris@...> wrote:
                                                  I think you should read "the ideology of religious
                                                  studies" by Timothy Fitzgerald.
                                                  THere are millions, if not billions of people in the
                                                  world today who are uncommited to the idea of God or
                                                  even to the idea of the "religious" precisely because
                                                  they don't have the "god" concept as part of their way
                                                  of thinking. James was working from a Western
                                                  "Judao-Christian" framework.

                                                  --Monte

                                                  --- cicero cortel replies:

                                                  You're right about religion being not a "genuine" option to you in the language of James.But Europe, the Americas, and Asia (correct me if I'm wrong) are believers in general. So whom are you referring to by this billions?

                                                  If people doesn't want to have a God, isn't the "self",or money perhaps replacing the deity here?

                                                  >
                                                  __________________________________
                                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                                  Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
                                                  http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html


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

                                                  Yahoo! Groups Links








                                                  ---------------------------------
                                                  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Monte Morris
                                                  Cicero: This is exactly why I think you should read this book. The concept of religion has built into it the idea of god, soteriology and a text-based
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Apr 13, 2004
                                                    Cicero:
                                                    This is exactly why I think you should read this book.
                                                    The concept of "religion" has built into it the idea
                                                    of "god," "soteriology" and a "text-based" approach.
                                                    Particularly when looking at Buddhist, Confucian, and
                                                    Taoist ideas, God or gods really have nothing to do
                                                    with personal salvation or even in the affairs of the
                                                    every day. And when looking at most Asian cultures in
                                                    particular, where these "religious beliefs" are most
                                                    generally dominant, it is quite naive to make the
                                                    claim that all people are concerned with god.
                                                    I live in Japan and have for the last year and a half,
                                                    and still haven't met a Japanese person who cares one
                                                    bit about religion. In fact, the Japanese word for
                                                    religion, wasn't created until the post WWII
                                                    occupation when the US insisted that the Japanese
                                                    create a word so that the seperation between church
                                                    and state could be "guaranteed."
                                                    Similarly, in India, English colonialists insisted
                                                    that the ruling elite of India coin a word in their
                                                    native language to mean "religion" so that they could
                                                    guarantee the same rights. One has to wonder, in the
                                                    last 150 years or so, just how closely our
                                                    understanding of Hinduisim actually reflects the
                                                    religious traditions of India when 90% of their
                                                    population is locked out of the discussion. Anyone
                                                    even slightly familiar with Hinduism knows that the
                                                    books we read and the doctrines we are taught about it
                                                    have been crafted by the ruling elite to fit with the
                                                    Eurocentric idea of what a "world religion" is.
                                                    Making a claim, a la James, that all people are
                                                    concerned with God, simply reveals the typical
                                                    Judaeo-Christian naivete that comes pre-packed in the
                                                    term "religion."

                                                    the final comment, following in the footsteps of Paul
                                                    Tillich, has never been convincing to me. THere is a
                                                    bit of truth, where people can be completely obsessed
                                                    with money, or some other material object, or even
                                                    their own existence. But this again plays on the idea
                                                    of a person being dedicated to a diety, and again
                                                    falls into the Eurocentric idea of religion. A basic
                                                    understanding of Buddhism, where escaping from desire,
                                                    jealousy, and attachment in general, punches a very
                                                    large hole in this arguement. What does the Buddhist
                                                    "replace" the diety with, particularly when the diety
                                                    was never important to begin with?

                                                    --Monte
                                                    --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Monte Morris <monteamorris@...> wrote:
                                                    > I think you should read "the ideology of religious
                                                    > studies" by Timothy Fitzgerald.
                                                    > THere are millions, if not billions of people in the
                                                    > world today who are uncommited to the idea of God or
                                                    > even to the idea of the "religious" precisely
                                                    > because
                                                    > they don't have the "god" concept as part of their
                                                    > way
                                                    > of thinking. James was working from a Western
                                                    > "Judao-Christian" framework.
                                                    >
                                                    > --Monte
                                                    >
                                                    > --- cicero cortel replies:
                                                    >
                                                    > You're right about religion being not a "genuine"
                                                    > option to you in the language of James.But Europe,
                                                    > the Americas, and Asia (correct me if I'm wrong) are
                                                    > believers in general. So whom are you referring to
                                                    > by this billions?
                                                    >
                                                    > If people doesn't want to have a God, isn't the
                                                    > "self",or money perhaps replacing the deity here?
                                                    >
                                                    > >
                                                    > __________________________________
                                                    > Do you Yahoo!?
                                                    > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
                                                    > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                                                    > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                    >
                                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ---------------------------------
                                                    > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
                                                    > your friends today! Download Messenger Now
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                                    > removed]
                                                    >
                                                    >


                                                    =====
                                                    --Monte Morris
                                                    Philosopher wannabe
                                                    Japan
                                                    "Needs to find a good quote"





                                                    __________________________________
                                                    Do you Yahoo!?
                                                    Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
                                                    http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
                                                  • cicero cortel
                                                    I have studied Eastern philosophies myself being Asian. I agree they do not involve a personal deity. But they aim at personal bliss one way or another.They
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Apr 19, 2004
                                                      I have studied Eastern philosophies myself being
                                                      Asian. I agree they do not involve a personal deity.
                                                      But they aim at personal bliss one way or another.They
                                                      have tmples, rituals, priests.Their deity is
                                                      impersonal ours personal.Both longings to identify w/a
                                                      higher being.Injecting a higher meaning to life not
                                                      absurdity. Buddhism is an ethics of nihilism
                                                      Sartreanism is the ethics of all and none.
                                                      --- monteamorris@... <monteamorris@...>
                                                      wrote:
                                                      > Cicero:
                                                      > This is exactly why I think you should read this
                                                      book.
                                                      > The concept of "religion" has built into it the idea
                                                      > of "god," "soteriology" and a "text-based" approach.
                                                      > Particularly when looking at Buddhist, Confucian,
                                                      and
                                                      > Taoist ideas, God or gods really have nothing to do
                                                      > with personal salvation or even in the affairs of
                                                      the
                                                      > every day. And when looking at most Asian cultures
                                                      in
                                                      > particular, where these "religious beliefs" are most
                                                      > generally dominant, it is quite naive to make the
                                                      > claim that all people are concerned with god.
                                                      > I live in Japan and have for the last year and a
                                                      half,
                                                      > and still haven't met a Japanese person who cares
                                                      one
                                                      > bit about religion. In fact, the Japanese word for
                                                      > religion, wasn't created until the post WWII
                                                      > occupation when the US insisted that the Japanese
                                                      > create a word so that the seperation between church
                                                      > and state could be "guaranteed."
                                                      > Similarly, in India, English colonialists insisted
                                                      > that the ruling elite of India coin a word in their
                                                      > native language to mean "religion" so that they
                                                      could
                                                      > guarantee the same rights. One has to wonder, in the
                                                      > last 150 years or so, just how closely our
                                                      > understanding of Hinduisim actually reflects the
                                                      > religious traditions of India when 90% of their
                                                      > population is locked out of the discussion. Anyone
                                                      > even slightly familiar with Hinduism knows that the
                                                      > books we read and the doctrines we are taught about
                                                      it
                                                      > have been crafted by the ruling elite to fit with
                                                      the
                                                      > Eurocentric idea of what a "world religion" is.
                                                      > Making a claim, a la James, that all people are
                                                      > concerned with God, simply reveals the typical
                                                      > Judaeo-Christian naivete that comes pre-packed in
                                                      the
                                                      > term "religion."
                                                      >
                                                      > the final comment, following in the footsteps of
                                                      Paul
                                                      > Tillich, has never been convincing to me. THere is a
                                                      > bit of truth, where people can be completely
                                                      obsessed
                                                      > with money, or some other material object, or even
                                                      > their own existence. But this again plays on the
                                                      idea
                                                      > of a person being dedicated to a diety, and again
                                                      > falls into the Eurocentric idea of religion. A
                                                      basic
                                                      > understanding of Buddhism, where escaping from
                                                      desire,
                                                      > jealousy, and attachment in general, punches a very
                                                      > large hole in this arguement. What does the Buddhist
                                                      > "replace" the diety with, particularly when the
                                                      diety
                                                      > was never important to begin with?
                                                      >
                                                      > --Monte
                                                      > --- cicero cortel <cicerocortel@...> wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Monte Morris <monteamorris@...> wrote:
                                                      > > I think you should read "the ideology of religious
                                                      > > studies" by Timothy Fitzgerald.
                                                      > > THere are millions, if not billions of people in
                                                      the
                                                      > > world today who are uncommited to the idea of God
                                                      or
                                                      > > even to the idea of the "religious" precisely
                                                      > > because
                                                      > > they don't have the "god" concept as part of their
                                                      > > way
                                                      > > of thinking. James was working from a Western
                                                      > > "Judao-Christian" framework.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > --Monte
                                                      > >
                                                      > > --- cicero cortel replies:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > You're right about religion being not a "genuine"
                                                      > > option to you in the language of James.But Europe,
                                                      > > the Americas, and Asia (correct me if I'm wrong)
                                                      are
                                                      > > believers in general. So whom are you referring to
                                                      > > by this billions?
                                                      > >
                                                      > > If people doesn't want to have a God, isn't the
                                                      > > "self",or money perhaps replacing the deity here?
                                                      > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > __________________________________
                                                      > > Do you Yahoo!?
                                                      === Message Truncated ===





                                                      __________________________________
                                                      Do you Yahoo!?
                                                      Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�
                                                      http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.