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

55234Re: [existlist] Re: Being is change.

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Apr 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mary,

      Sorry for the delay. But I think it is not bad to get some clarity in my
      thinking, which I hope the delay has facilitated.

      On 29 March 2011 23:56, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > Hello again,
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Thank you too, sincerely.
      > >
      > > I think your observation about our actions in spontaneous situations is
      > spot
      > > on. At best, we discover what/who we are through what we have done, after
      > > the fact.
      >
      > Though not certain, it's also possible our actions previous to that
      > situation indicate how we will respond. Authenticity requires practice.
      >

      I've become vague on what Heidegger ever meant by authenticity, and I'm
      happy to recollect Sartre's anti-fundamentalist take.



      >
      >
      > > Regarding ideals, if ethics is the aspiration to do no harm, then it is
      > > hardly necessary to join any group i.e. share in the thoughts of a group,
      > or
      > > actually have thoughts at all. Consciousness is a learnt, group product,
      > > produced for the sake of the being of the group.
      >
      > Do you mean we don't join groups since we're already naturally part of
      > them; or that we should avoid or separate from groups, because they produce
      > group think? I hope the first and doubt the latter is possible to any
      > significant degree.
      >

      Yes, the first one. And I agree with you that the latter is impossible. But,
      siding with Sartre, becoming an individual seems to be THE fundamental
      project. He doesn't refer to it as becoming an individual. For him, it is
      man trying to become God. To me, that is the same.



      >
      >
      > > And this brings us back to our conversations of last year. If we persist
      > > with those lines of thought, and incorporate the above, then an ethical
      > > individual, per se, does not exist. Or otherwise, if an individual does
      > > exist, then it is unethical by it's very nature.
      >
      > Are you reiterating the individual doesn't exist and that any person who
      > doesn't acknowledge s/he belongs to any group is therefore unethical?
      >

      I am saying that the practice of becoming an individual is fundamentally
      flawed, and I am agreeing with you that it is impossible to achieve. The
      embarkation on that project is unethical.



      > Are you claiming since we automatically belong to groups, overtly joining
      > organizations in an attempt to secure universal human rights is unnecessary
      > because to do so will create harm to others, whether we intend so or not?
      >

      Doing no harm does not require any action. It demands the abstaining from
      action.

      Cheers

      Herman




      > Thank you,
      > Mary
      >
      > > Cheers
      > >
      > > Herman
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic