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

42285Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Oct 4, 2007
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "rb" <sportsfan007us@...> wrote:
      >
      > everyone,
      >
      > Thanks for the welcome.
      >
      > Buber (qua a neo-Kantian), says that when
      > we use our association with
      > another person mainly for
      > our own ends/benefit,
      > we are using them as an object.
      >
      > Dunno how you mean that
      > the meaning of life is like a football pitch,
      > but would love to learn the details.

      Have to admit that, when I posted my reply to your original message,
      at midnight UK time, was rather sleepy. What was intended simply as
      spontaneous, intuitive contribution looks somewhat enigmatic now.
      Anyway, there was in the first place an association with Albert
      Camus, whom I understand to have been a football fan in his lifetime,
      a fact advertised on T-shirts, I seem to recall. Further to this, my
      basic Anglo-Saxon empirical approach to existential thought, would
      emphasise the sort of practical test of theory that is reflected in
      unmistakeable fashion by players of this very English, very working-
      class game, whether they be amateur or professional. It provides a
      test of character and conmmitment under the gaze of an impartial
      arbiter (or, these days, one might say, four arbiters, if one lists
      referee, two line assistants and 'fourth official'), whilst
      impassioned supporters seek to urge on their team, or, sadly enough,
      provoke the opposition to failure. In the more extreme cases, where
      vicious personal insults, coin-throwing, or tribal abuse of some form
      are intended (perhaps) to trigger a reaction which will remove the
      individual from the field of play, it is almost an exercise in mind-
      control. Chemicals flood the brain, team-mates know their
      colleagues' weaknesses, notorious club rivalries raise the stakes,
      and so on. So fairly meandering thoughts, not much related to the
      reading of philosophical texts. My remark was almost
      somnambulistically ironic, so tired have I become of trying to make
      headway with reference to arguing from what one might call some of
      the classic texts of existential thought, applied in all due
      strenuousness to the challenges of contemporary living. L.

      >
      > Best,
      > rb
      >
      >
      >
      > both --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@>
      wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi, and welcome to the list. All sports fans welcome, of course,
      > > within reason, and prejudice is naturally to be expected.
      Myself, I
      > > see the entire meaning of life exemplified on the football
      pitch.
      > > Copious interpretation is, however, required. I shall
      intersperse
      > > comments within your text, below. Louise
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "sportsfan007us"
      > > <sportsfan007us@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi,
      > > >
      > > > I have read *some* of Buber, Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger.
      > > >
      > > > I'm specifically interested in how they apply to day-to-day
      human
      > > > relations.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Sartre, of course, has been known at times for saying
      > > > that the other person (with whom I am having a relationship)
      > > > is my enemy because they want to reduce me to a thing.
      > > >
      > > > They want have the *feeling* (which differs from an objective
      > > > range of predictability) that they can predict what
      > > > I will do and who I am.
      > > > I am an object, capable of change within limited parameters;
      > > > I am not a subject capable of changing beyond predictability.
      > > >
      > > > It seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when
      one/both
      > > > relates tothe other as an object.
      > >
      > > It amazes me, that anyone would consider such a distorted
      perception
      > > able to yield anything worth the name of 'relationship'. How
      might a
      > > human being, except in grammatical sense, be meaningfully an
      object?
      > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Buber, on the other hand, says that it *is* possible to
      > > > relate to another as a fellow subject.
      > > > In fact, we are not fully existing to each other if
      > > > we are not in a dialogue where we regard ourselves as
      > > > subject and another subject.
      > > >
      > >
      > > I find Buber's statements as you give them here to be true,
      clear,
      > > simple, in other words, beautiful.
      > >
      > > > Camus (I think of him as an absurdist, not a strict
      existialist)
      > > would
      > > > not be on Sartre's side and be more on Buber's side. He wouldn't
      > > > define a relationship so specifically on dialog, but he would,
      as
      > > > Buber, see relating to fellow-subject as possible and
      dignifying our
      > > > existence.
      > > >
      > >
      > > Possibly Camus accordingly widens the range of description for
      human
      > > relationship, since undoubtedly one may find great enrichment,
      for
      > > instance, in relating to the works of an artist now dead. The
      > > relationship is active and present on one side, bequeathed from a
      > > living history, on the other. At least, the lived history
      bestows
      > > its gift again, when a reader/beholder/listener of the artist's
      work
      > > brings it to contemporary consciousness.
      > >
      > > > In either case, it seems to me that relationship might work
      well if
      > > I
      > > > regard the other as a fellow-subject because we are both
      capable of
      > > > change beyond predictability; in fact, our very relationship is
      > > > capable of change beyond predictability;
      > > >
      > >
      > > This seems quite true.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Heidegger, I am *guessing*, is more on the side of saying
      > > > we are existing (rather than "we exist") regardless of the
      other.
      > > > There's something here on the side that I fully exist without
      > > > regardless of the other.
      > > >
      > > > Again, it seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well
      when
      > > > one/both relates to the other as an object.
      > > >
      > >
      > > My own engagements with Heidegger's thought are ongoing and
      > > rudimentary. He has never, though, left me with the impression
      that
      > > such notional disregard of the other amounts to an
      objectification.
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > > Please note that I'm inviting comments to how all this applies
      > > > to everyday relating: to relating you and I relating better.
      > > > I hope not to get into a detailed tangent about ontological
      systems
      > > > (although I am guilty of speaking of ontology in a way I felt
      > > > comfortable :-( (not necessarily in a way that was relevant).
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Comments?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic