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

56268Re: Winding out

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Oct 26, 2011
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
      > "I feel like its all been done" "Jet airliner " Steve Miller. This group may have said what it has to say about existentialism.
      > It has long been my thought that existentialism evolves from moment to moment as does reality. Now science tells us what is real, it changes but the base of science is very stable. Science informs existentialism of what is real. Morals and ethics are human opinions that often err and often change. Shria law for instance should change because it is primitive and stupid. That is why FN threw away morals especially when they were proposed as the word of god.
      > The moral responsibilities you lay on me are just not accepted because they are arbitrary and the behavours of the herd. I am not responsible for the herd and could not change its behavour if I wished to try.
      > This morning I read that a vatican commision is demanding the UN revamp world monitary matters in favor of greater justice for the heard. I wonder if they will accept a devaluation of vatican treasures in the revaluation. That is morals in action, just do not gore my ox.
      > Grubbing about and fighting for survival is a part of the cosmos and in the end we all lose. Posturing morally or ethically is gamesmanship but little else. We may have exhausted the psudo existential posturing of this stiltified time but it will change and someone will figure out how existentialism fits in. The philosophy of change has merit but in gridlock it seems a static universe. We know it is not ,it is expanding,faster. Bill


      Feelin' Alright by Traffic is running through my head. Meaning comes through daily, non-grandiose struggles within ourselves not necessarily against but through others. I'm recently affected by Doris Lessing's "The Golden Notebook" and Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life"; both outstanding and strongly existentialist. Since existentialist themes permeate the arts, Susan's willingness to allow book chatter in lieu of philosophy texts, might encourage participation. Even Zizek uses popular culture to illuminate difficult concepts but existentialism is easier and more slippery than other formal philosophies.

      Nothing is ever really settled, because the principles uncovered through science and philosophy are interpreted personally which is as you say existentialist. There's no avoiding moral questions. The sense of duty to oneself is a moral position. Whether to use violence is a moral question. So yes, feelings and opinions will constantly change over time. And if philosophy has appeared on the radar, it means thought can be a neutral tool for creating examined, meaningful lives if we choose this for ourselves.

      That you and I represent at least two different reactions to the same knowledge, affirms the tenets of existentialism, the speculative nature of science, and the inherent frustrations and danger of politics. I see an ethical state as practical and flourishing, while you see it as weak and derived from archaic religions. I note in physics a dialectical dynamic, while you focus on particles and mechanism. In biology, I acknowledge nurture and destruction, but you emphasize struggle and annihilation over fostering and encouragement.

      It's been a contentious, satisfying, and for me, necessary ride. Thanks for your testy but polite engagement. Everyone's authenticity has restored my own.

    • Show all 9 messages in this topic