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

125Re: Digest Number 49

Expand Messages
  • Robert Abele
    Oct 7, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      My personal experiences seem to lead to the conclusion
      I can find the way myself(but in my old age I tend to
      doubt this assertion)but finding my out of where
      temptation has lead me is infinitely more complex, and
      I can clearly see the hand of God in these seemingly
      free choices.

      robertabele

      "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way
      myself."
      >
      > -- Rita Mae Brown

      --- existlist@onelist.com wrote:
      >
      > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
      > ----------------------------
      >
      > Choose from a wide selection of high-quality
      > newsletters at ONElist.
      > For details on ONElist's PROS&PUNDITS newsletters,
      > click below.
      > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/prospun2
      > ">Click Here</a>
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > From The Exist List...
      > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > There are 6 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in today's digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: hello!
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 2. Free Will
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > 3. Re: Free Will
      > From: "ds" <ds@...>
      > 4. Re: hello!
      > From: "Matt Kirby"
      > <max.kirby@...>
      > 5. Re: Facticity
      > From: TiffaniTN@...
      > 6. Re: Facticity
      > From: "Matt Kirby"
      > <max.kirby@...>
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Re: hello!
      >
      > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Meghan wrote:
      >
      > > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
      > >
      > > <<I think that was Descartes, at least I know his
      > "proof" of god's
      > > existence is something like that>>
      > >
      > > The passage may well be from the Meditations
      > (although I'm up to my ears in
      > > Hobbes right now and can't go check :-).
      > >
      > > It comes from the idea that all beings have a
      > certain degree of reality to
      > > them. God has the most reality of everything,
      > humans have considerably
      > > less, animals have less than that, plants have
      > less than animals, and
      > > inanimate objects have the least of all. Sort of
      > an inverted-pyramid
      > > arrangement.
      > >
      > > Something with less reality cannot cause something
      > with more reality.
      > > Hence, humans cannot be the cause of (i.e. come up
      > with) God.
      > >
      > > There's a lot more to the proof of God's
      > existence; it's in the third
      > > Meditation, if anyone is desperate to know about
      > it.
      >
      > Speaking of proof of God's existence, is anybody
      > familar w/ Anselm's
      > famous ontological argument for the existence of
      > God?
      > -first he defines God as that "which nothing
      > greater can
      > be conceived."
      > -We can think of things. Anything. Just the fact
      > that we can
      > think of something doesn't mean that it exists.
      > Right? Monsters for ex.
      > are from our imagination(I hope). However, God is
      > that which no higher
      > being can
      > be thought. What would be "grater" to exist only in
      > the mind or to exist
      > in
      > the mind and in actuality? The latter seems
      > superior to me. Therefore,
      > God exist according to Anselm's definition
      >
      > Brandon
      > Heidegger was a wanker!!
      >
      > >
      > > ObExistentialism: I bought a copy of Sartre's
      > _The Wall_ today.
      > >
      > > -Meghan
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > _____________________
      > >
      > > http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html
      > >
      > > "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way
      > myself."
      > >
      > > -- Rita Mae Brown
      > >
      > > > From The Exist List...
      > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:19:48 +0100
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > Subject: Free Will
      >
      > ds wrote:
      >
      > >Personally, I think the whole concept of "free
      > will" is a bit shaky and I can't understand why
      > Sartre would put so much weight on it.<
      >
      > I recently read a biography of Sartre, and
      > throughout it the writer kept on making the point
      > that Sartre and de Beauvoir had nothing but
      > contempt for what they called bourgeois morality'. I
      > suppose it was this passionate dislike of
      > contemporary manners and behaviour which made them
      > so interested in free will. It seems to me that it
      > was during the 1939-45 war that they really got
      > going with their views since at that time it looked
      > as though the whole 'old order' in France would
      > disappear. After all, the Germans had found it easy
      > to invade and occupy the country so the 'old guard'
      > were discredited.
      >
      > ds also mentioned the way our choices are influenced
      > by >experience, social conditioning, instinct, etc<
      > Isn't the important point here that free will means
      > we acknowledge that we could make alternative
      > choices if we had chosen to do so? Surely how we
      > arrive at the final decision is a matter of personal
      > choice?
      >
      > Charles Vermont
      > London, England
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 3
      > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:45:44 -0700
      > From: "ds" <ds@...>
      > Subject: Re: Free Will
      >
      > Sure, but isn't it also possible that what we
      > perceive as "free will" is
      > only just an automatic response our brain gives when
      > confronted with a
      > situation? It incorporates reason, experience,
      > instinct etc all into this
      > automated response, but the individual, who is
      > merely observing these
      > processes believes that he/she consciously
      > controlled the decision because
      > the individual feels that he/she "is" the decision
      > making process (the
      > mind). Is this not possible? Personally, I'm in
      > between behaviorism and free
      > will, I can see the behaviorists points, but I've
      > also thought that maybe,
      > the mind, being non-physical is not subject to the
      > "laws" of the physical
      > world, including laws of causality. A thought I had
      > that kind of supported
      > this was that thoughts can disappear and reappear;
      > matter/energy cannot do
      > this...just a thought, though
      >
      > daniel
      >
      === message truncated ===


      =====
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic