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


Expand Messages
  • Herman B. Triplegood
    Dec 10, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Louise:

      Yes, please go into it further. As for me, I am right in there with
      good old Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The pragmatic thing to do, it
      seems to me, is to live your truth. This also means letting your
      truth live. So, it had better be a robust truth. I fully intend to
      base my day to day conduct on rigorous philosophical reflection. I am
      not perfect. I consider myself still an apprentice. I want my
      philosophy to make a difference in how I live my life. I want it to
      be existential, not dry and pedantic. I am under no illusion. I know
      that it is not a simplistic process. I have been around for a few
      decades, and I have suffered as much as anybody and made as many
      stupid choices as anybody. It is nitty gritty. It is concrete. It is
      even messy. But all of this does not mean it cannot be idealistic,
      rational, spiritual, even absolute, in an unexpectedly complicated
      and beautiful way. There is that cunning of reason of which Hegel
      speaks. It is, in some ways, bigger than we are, and we have to give
      ourselves up to it with a certain kind of trust, even a faith of
      reason. I guess I am pretty much a die hard classicist when it comes
      to reason and all of that. So, if the intention to put my philosophy
      into concrete practice puts me in the straight jacket brigade, all I
      can say is that it is amazing to me that things have gotten so turned
      around that it now is the insane who are locking up the sane. I guess
      a part of it is, maybe, being a rebel. It strikes me that Kierkegaard
      and Nietzsche, like Socrates, just didn't fit in. Neither did
      Schopenhauer. Socrates got treated really badly. Living the examined
      life isn't always going with the flow. Often enough, it is going
      against the grain.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      > Yes, sorry, the wording of my first sentence in particular is
      > unclear. I shall try to expand and explain. From my experience,
      > mainly in the 'eighties, of reading some academic and literary
      > journals, I gained the impression that many of those who lecture in
      > philosophy for a living, some of whom would be original authors
      > themselves in their subject, rather than publishing only critiques
      > or biographies of established authors of the canon, might be
      > expected to take a pragmatic, not an existentialist, approach.
      > is, anyone actually intending to base the conduct of his day-to-day
      > life, in all the complexity of its moral detail, on philosophically
      > rigorous thinking, as outlined in a lecture course, would be liable
      > to being considered mad, or dangerous, or both. The treatment
      > accorded to both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche by their contemporaries,
      > or, even now, to their reputations, also confirms me in this
      > impression. That is only a beginning, lacking in specifics, but if
      > you or others are interested, I could attempt to add more detail,
      > perhaps tomorrow.
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Louise:
      > >
      > > Can you specify what it is you see there you disagree with?
      > >
      > > Hb3g
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood"
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi Louise:
      > > > >
      > > > > Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether
      > they
      > > > are
      > > > > on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
      > > > > philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and
      > his
      > > > > circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a
      > > gesture
      > > > of
      > > > > respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of
      > these
      > > > > thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down
      > > > they
      > > > > thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much
      > > > them
      > > > > and it made a profound difference in how they led their
      > > > That
      > > > > is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a
      > downright
      > > > > individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level
      > of
      > > > > personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Herman,
      > > >
      > > > I'm quite doubtful about the truth of what you are saying here,
      > > > though it may be more evident in the works of philosophers
      > living
      > > > later than those you have mentioned. The details of a life,
      > > the
      > > > thought produced by the mind who lives that life, in fleshly
      > human
      > > > form, have complex inter-relationship. If the relationship
      > > > straightforward, and we could all freely discuss thought in
      > > relation
      > > > to our societies, without fear of social antagonism or legal
      > > > prosecution, I for one would probably not be posting to an
      > internet
      > > > site, more likely I would have sought to qualify to teach in a
      > > > university. To my own perception, existentialism throws down
      > the
      > > > challenge to a wider society, concerning how our thought,
      > feelings
      > > > and actions cohere in themselves, to our individual nature, and
      > in
      > > > our bearing toward our fellows.
      > > >
      > > > Louise
      > > >
      > >
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic