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

59930Re: [existlist] Re: books

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Jun 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary,

      That is precisely what you are saying. You said .... “simply using their brain is doing philosophy”. Of course, you actually wanted to make a cutting remark against me as is evidenced by the “some here”.

      On what basis can you say that that looking at existentialism through the lens of neurology is not speaking in regard to philosophy??

      According to Wikipedia, philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge,values, reason, mind, and language.

      What you are doing is to object to a particular mode of this study. It’s Ok to talk about consciousness of the mind but under no circumstances can one speak about what actually occurs in the mind ... that is, in the brain. Probably because you are not familiar with the approach and perhaps because it is threatening.

      Your example is false. Of course, your neurosurgeon would not claim he is performing philosophy [if philosophy could be performed]. But how would he react if you forbid him using his knowledge of neurology to examine Husserl’s phenomenology??

      By the way, there is such a thing as “philosophy of mind”. See .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

      eduard


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:11 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: books

      But, Eduard, no one is saying philosophers don't use their brains. I maintain that you aren't using yours for understanding Existential concepts.Thinking about neural transmission is doing electrical engineering and thankfully, for this forum, not even rising to the expertise of actual neuroscience, but it's not philosophy. I doubt my neurosurgeon would claim he was performing philosophy when he removed splinters of vertebrae from my spinal cord. And, if he did have an interest in Husserl, he'd never confuse the two.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > “Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy.”
      >
      > Prove it Mary! Tell us how Sartre was not using his brain when he wrote L'étre et le néant. Tell us how Husserl did not use his brain.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:51 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: books
      >
      > Sounds like a great place to begin if you're someone who professes a genuine interest in Existentialism. I tried to find something like that about 15 years ago, yet I also don't regret having taken the time to read some of the authors themselves. Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy. At least Merlin and Bill admitted they had no use for it!
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, christopher arthur <chris.arthur1@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I just bought "Existentialism for Dummies" for my kindle. Has anyone
      > > looked at this book?
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic