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

38900firstly, secondly

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Jul 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      TC. Beginning to wonder now, if unclarity in my thinking apparently
      provoked or aggravated by comments you made a couple years ago, has
      prevented me from seeing the philosophic foundation of your
      thought. Maybe you are European in your presentations, maybe
      metaphysical in tradition of German thinkers, such as Kant, Hegel,
      whose works I have scarcely opened. Others at the list will be more
      qualified to comment thereon. Your own existence manifests through
      medium of poetic writing, couched in grammatical prose, balking
      utterly at dialectical subjectivity evinced by Kierkegaardian
      student such as myself. There is so much more to say about the
      message below, I only know a limit has been reached. Ignorance the
      ocean on which may drift this personal pronoun, I do, most slow.

      Mary. If you are correct to state that J-P believed he
      could 'decide for others with his actions', that such decision were
      implicitly contained by his own freedom, we would seem to be in
      presence of that which is cultic rather than philosophical.
      Existentialism is born of the human individual, can die only with
      the death of individual will, and belongs in the bosom of philosphy.

      Louise
      ... making sober preparations

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night"
      <two_owl_night@...> wrote:
      >
      > Interesting speculation and mostly accurate assessment of the non-
      > philosophy we call existentialism. But don't forget, J-P believed
      he
      > was responsible for his freedom and able to decide for others with
      > his actions. It suggests an ego of immense proportion to believe
      one
      > is capable of such a life. "But then, what the hell do I know, and
      it
      > probably only matters to my existence anyway." Your last sentence
      > seals the deal for individuals who comprehend the inability to
      know
      > most things with any certainty. We might know enough to live our
      own
      > lives, but I doubt we'll ever know enough to guide the masses.
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > I personally think (with a great respect for the man's
      intelligence)
      > > that he repudiated his philosophy on purpose. I think he saw, as
      I
      > do,
      > > that existentialism and humanism could only be framed by the
      > > individual, and that all personal action is personally mediating
      to
      > > one's own existence regardless of contingency, indeed an ultimate
      > > acceptance of personal responsibility and worth. There was no
      > > metaphysics, no scheme to it, no universal truth, other than
      what
      > one
      > > did with one's own existence; truly the possession of self,
      however
      > > absurd or uninformed or blissful or tragic. He embraced a
      messianic
      > > system to avoid being taken as a messianic presence in a field
      > > (philosophy) that assimilates common sense like a vacuum,
      sucking
      > any
      > > kind of actual human insight whatsoever into a metaphysical view.
      > > Metaphysics is a delusion and not possible for an existentialist.
      > > Consider the philosophic wreck that the existentialist view
      really
      > is,
      > > and that men used to collapse and burst into tears when meeting
      > Sartre
      > > in his heyday. Existentialism is not hope for the masses, it is
      just
      > > unqualified dignity for the individual, for the action of being
      > human,
      > > regardless of contingency, regardless of knowledge, regardless of
      > > information. It was a big thing he drunkenly stumbled upon. It is
      > > foolish to believe he took it lightly in the climate of the
      > twentieth
      > > century at the end of his life. It had to be shaken free of
      > > philosophy, something that can only be assimilated and forgotten
      > into
      > > another kind of being right along with literature. But then,
      what
      > the
      > > hell do I know, and it probably only matters to my existence
      > anyway.
      > >
      > > tc
      > >
      >
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic