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

44918Re: [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth, or, how society fails to work

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Aug 7, 2008
      No, it can certainly be dismissed with ease. Try it.

      Personally, I cannot stand Kierkegaard. I think that he is a dishonest
      fanatic. Yes, there may be a host of insights along the way of his
      propaganda, but it all remains propaganda, as he himself continually

      I find his writings to be, for the most part, pathetic (sorry Jim,).
      Regina was right to run onto the arms of Schlegel.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:12 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: A short episode in the pursuit of truth, or,
      how society fails to work

      The subject of religious faith, or even simply of Christian faith,

      involves many other areas of intellectual discourse, not simply

      metaphysics. It cannot so easily be dismissed. Belief in God is not

      comparable to belief in any being, since God is not a being. He is

      eternal, not existing. Only by discussing the works of Kierkegaard

      am I capable of feeling any confidence that I might be able to make a

      little progress in communicating with clarity, and at present I must

      wait for a better state of health, before attempting such a task.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:


      > Whenever religion is discussed, or so it seems, the discussion

      always goes

      > onto something else: ethics and morality, nationality, identity,

      meaning, law,

      > etc. This is itself telling and begs to be unpacked, as Hegel and

      Nietzsche do

      > here and there, but my incomprehension about the belief in 'God'

      will not be

      > any better assuaged by these side issues than by shouting "boo" in

      a darkened

      > room.


      > My incomprehension remains: how can anyone today actually think

      that there is

      > a transcendent-yet-present super being, cosmic creator, infinite

      big ear and

      > blame-meister, and the rest of it, when it is clearly a primitive


      > primitive's) fantasy no more sophisticated or plausible than any

      other sky god touted

      > by human ignorance down the millennia? I don't want to hear how

      such a belief

      > dovetails well with other notions and problems, like whether little


      > will wack off to infinity or steal the family SUV without big sky

      daddy watching

      > over him, or whether my cumulative behaviors in the bathroom will


      > absurd and lost to the ages without some cosmic noggin knowing it



      > No, the matter is very simple. The belief in God, qua belief, is

      absurd, if

      > not irrational and insane.


      > Wil


      > In a message dated 8/7/08 4:15:17 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:



      > >

      > >

      > >

      > > Since all my life I have lived in England, and for more than half


      > > that period have felt keenly the unity of our kingdom, and the

      > > importance of the Protestant religion, my comments are with


      > > to British society. Given the universal features of the human

      > > condition, in spite of the differences implied by nation and


      > > it would hardly be surprising if a good deal of what I have to


      > > if valid, might apply, mutatis mutandis, to other societies across

      > > the world.

      > >

      > > If one were to imagine oneself as a kind of benign Big Brother

      > > figure, a theorist of society, charged with observing the communal

      > > life on this island, in the early twenty-first century, the


      > > fact is a fracturing of custom and belief. Culture and morality


      > > distinct, and always have been. Good taste and virtue are not the

      > > same. Even excellent manners may be a cover for moral turpitude. I

      > > have long known this, and it is one of the factors which make me


      > > susceptible to spiritual influences, render me "the natural prey


      > > the incarnate Christ", to borrow a phrase from the poet


      > > Returning to the more general picture, many of the towns, cities,


      > > even the smaller settlements of this country exhibit a bewildering

      > > array of communities, not by any means easy to identify outwardly.

      > > The leaching away of any coherent sense of nation, the taboo on

      > > linking the concept of nation with race, which constitutes its

      > > historic meaning, and the parallel (though not necessarily


      > > enfeeblement of long-established Christian belief, has left a


      > > into which all manner of hedonistic chaos and primitive religious

      > > practice have flowed. Religions, of course, may be theistic,

      > > atheistic, humanistic, pantheistic, and the rest. Where is the

      > > principle for unity, for a decent respect toward the human image


      > > the entire panoply of creaturely life?

      > > Complexity and habitual contact with duplicities justified by


      > > more than a supposed majority interest (really a kind of refined

      > > lynch law) wear down so many citizens, attack health and vitality.

      > > We are our own worst enemies, and yet some are more the enemy than

      > > others. Who are the criminals, and who are the cops? How many

      > > unwritten laws operate?

      > > In a way, these musings represent some sort of response to Wil's

      > > incomprehension of why anyone should believe in God. What can


      > > do, in the end, except name our loves, hates, dilemmas? God is a

      > > very particular word, and meaningless except in context. Truly

      > > convinced, genuine, responsible and loving men and women with

      > > different doctrinal positions, Roman Catholics and Anglicans, for

      > > instance, may be said meaningfully to worship the same God. There


      > > an overlapping heritage to argue or agree about, and theological

      > > language with which to engage one another's intellects without


      > > and pretension. Politics complicate the dialogue, however, and


      > > more so in the case of disagreements arising with Islam, Judaism,


      > > the non-Abrahamic faiths. One of the prevalent cults in Britain

      > > today has evolved from Socialist struggle and the feminist


      > > to counter the age-old conflict between the sexes, which certainly

      > > flourishes within socialist circles, as anywhere else. In truth


      > > conflict may not be resolved, only sublimated. Christianity is

      > > certainly not the only creed to recognise this fact, but any other

      > > remedy lacks historical credibility. I trust that this statement


      > > my opinion does not read like an attempt to proselytize, which


      > > be quite contrary to the spirit and rules of the list. All

      > > endeavours to communicate indirectly by pseudonymous philosophical

      > > play were defeated by self-righteous zealotries and my own


      > > to tolerate the pain of these assaults. Philosophy with me is a

      > > passion, not a romance, and in conflict with more naturalistic


      > > it leads into a war that may not be won. Louise

      > >

      > >

      > >





      > **************

      > Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?

      > Read reviews on AOL Autos.


      > (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?

      ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )



      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

    • Show all 17 messages in this topic