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

36650On the Nature of Words

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Nov 7, 2005
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
      > I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post, despite my disagreements.
      > Hb3g:
      > Christian existentialism, as I see it, is quite relevant because
      > presents us with a challenge that is existentially poignant. This
      > challenge, put simply, is: dare to believe. Dare to believe in the
      > resurrection into eternal life... When Christ said that he was the
      > resurrection and the life, he was not communicating anything like
      > doctrine or a dogma. He was, in fact, challenging his disciples,
      > others, to embrace this belief, existentially, at a level far more
      > basic than the level of a reasoned ascertainment of matters of
      > K:
      > The challenge of Christian existentialism is poignant to those who
      > share an interpretation of early Jewish Mediterranean history, in
      > which a purportedly historical figure named Jesus taught,
      > miracles, and died for our sins. Subtract this interpretation and
      > the poignancy of the challenge dies with it. What's more, the
      > challenge is no more relevant than other challenges made by
      > different religions. From Buddhism and Hinduism, to Judaism and
      > Islam, to Mormonism and Scientology, religions present a very
      > similar challenge: Believe X, where X stands for an article of
      > that is deemed important to worshippers in that tradition. Believe
      > that Buddha was transfigured under the bodhi tree. Believe in
      > law and God's covenant. Believe in Joseph Smith's golden plates.
      > Believe that we possess a Thetan soul. Etc. The world is filled
      > all manner of religious beliefs, and I am under no obligation to
      > believe all of them, or any of them. The existentialist motto is
      > ought to be): Dare to think, dare to act, dare to be in a
      > uncertain world.
      > Hb3g:
      > To me this is a call to the participation in the transcendent
      > of Being itself, at an existential level, at the nitty gritty
      > of daily experience.
      > K:
      > When you say, "To me this is a call..," I believe you. But it's a
      > self-referential statement. Descartes makes a similar move in the
      > Meditations, where he says, "I cannot think of myself without
      > While that may be true of Descartes, it's false for a broad range
      > thinkers across the philosophical spectrum.


      This direct experience of the transcendental is an existential fact
      that, in my opinion, we cannot rationally deny.


      Direct experience of the transcendental is a paradox, not an
      existential fact, and so can be rationally denied.

      L [Climacus]

      Statement concerning the direct experience of the transcendental
      will appear to the objectivist existentialist to be paradox.

      The subjectivist existentialist will, at the very least, acknowledge
      the logical possibility that the transcendental may be directly

      The human being who types these words knows by experience the truth
      of what Hermann writes. That is merely a biographical statement,
      not one I would expect to convince anyone of its subjective truth -
      for no one else is me. Only the truth that edifies is truth for
      you. So said my sweet lover Soren. [I am Regine].
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic