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

Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted beside the great meat bush...

Expand Messages
  • thebookdoc@aol.com
    Eduard, If you would be so kind as to explain why this
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 4, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      << if only for reason that humans have a nature and one might as well believe
      that this is the case >>

      Eduard,

      If you would be so kind as to explain why this is so and prove it to me.
      Please don't say "because it is obvious!" As if there was obvious parts of
      human nature, then there would not be people like Charles Manson and a nature
      that is inclined toward violence.

      And if you wish to brush that aside by saying he was crazy and does not
      count, then it is my contention that it is the nature of all humans to be
      "crazy." And we would also be back to a discussion concerning blue clams and
      how-manys...

      Richard
    • Linda Jordan
      You re quite the optimist, Eduard. That s wonderful. I somehow wish that life had handed me such a plate that I could be the same way. Tempering optimism
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        You're quite the optimist, Eduard. That's wonderful. I somehow wish that
        life had handed me such a plate that I could be the same way. Tempering
        optimism with pessisism seems to be the best way. Look for the best, expect
        the worst, ya' know?

        >From: thebookdoc@...
        >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        >To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted beside the
        >great meat bush...
        >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 06:41:05 EDT
        >
        ><< if only for reason that humans have a nature and one might as well
        >believe
        >that this is the case >>
        >
        >Eduard,
        >
        >If you would be so kind as to explain why this is so and prove it to me.
        >Please don't say "because it is obvious!" As if there was obvious parts of
        >human nature, then there would not be people like Charles Manson and a
        >nature
        >that is inclined toward violence.
        >
        >And if you wish to brush that aside by saying he was crazy and does not
        >count, then it is my contention that it is the nature of all humans to be
        >"crazy." And we would also be back to a discussion concerning blue clams
        >and
        >how-manys...
        >
        >Richard

        _________________________________________________________________
        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
      • Edward Alf
        Richard et al, ok ... i will try to explain and prove it to you ... my comment was preceded by a sentence so that the full comment was, i think that one
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Richard et al,

          ok ... i will try to explain and prove it to you ...

          my comment was preceded by a sentence so that the full comment was, " i
          think that one could have an inclination towards existentialism and still
          believe in human nature ... if only for reason that humans have a nature and
          one might as well believe that this is the case ...

          this was in response to the question of, "Just wondering if one can be of
          existentialist leanings and believe in human nature."

          i am not saying that there are obvious parts of human nature ... all im
          saying is that there is such a thing as human nature ... i dont think that
          even you are disagreeing with that ... a nature which is inclined towards
          violence, is still a nature and since Charles Manson is a human, one has to
          conclude that he has a human nature ... and if Charles Manson were to adopt
          the philosophy of existentialism, then we could say that there is a person
          who has existentialist leanings and that we also believe there is a human
          nature ...

          see ... that was not too hard .. and i didnt even get into the subject of
          blue clams ...

          have fun ....

          eduard

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <thebookdoc@...>
          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:41 AM
          Subject: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted beside the
          great meat bush...


          > << if only for reason that humans have a nature and one might as well
          believe
          > that this is the case >>
          >
          > Eduard,
          >
          > If you would be so kind as to explain why this is so and prove it to me.
          > Please don't say "because it is obvious!" As if there was obvious parts of
          > human nature, then there would not be people like Charles Manson and a
          nature
          > that is inclined toward violence.
          >
          > And if you wish to brush that aside by saying he was crazy and does not
          > count, then it is my contention that it is the nature of all humans to be
          > "crazy." And we would also be back to a discussion concerning blue clams
          and
          > how-manys...
          >
          > Richard
        • Diana
          About your human nature discussion: Edward, I think there s been confusion concerning the meaning of the concepts used. What do we mean by `human nature ?
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            About your human nature discussion:

            Edward,

            I think there's been confusion concerning the meaning of the concepts
            used.
            What do we mean by `human nature'?

            Let's say that `human nature' stands for a number of characteristics,
            which all humans share in common. At the same time, you know,
            existentialism says that every individual is unique.

            So the two (common nature <--> unique individual) contradict.

            The other point is that even I myself am different at different
            moments – my emotional state, for instance, changes. And it's me –
            not some predefined nature of mine – which is responsible for that
            change.

            Diana

            --- In existlist@y..., "Edward Alf" <ealf@s...> wrote:
            > Richard et al,
            >
            > ok ... i will try to explain and prove it to you ...
            >
            > my comment was preceded by a sentence so that the full comment
            was, " i
            > think that one could have an inclination towards existentialism and
            still
            > believe in human nature ... if only for reason that humans have a
            nature and
            > one might as well believe that this is the case ...
            >
            > this was in response to the question of, "Just wondering if one can
            be of
            > existentialist leanings and believe in human nature."
            >
            > i am not saying that there are obvious parts of human nature ...
            all im
            > saying is that there is such a thing as human nature ... i dont
            think that
            > even you are disagreeing with that ... a nature which is inclined
            towards
            > violence, is still a nature and since Charles Manson is a human,
            one has to
            > conclude that he has a human nature ... and if Charles Manson were
            to adopt
            > the philosophy of existentialism, then we could say that there is a
            person
            > who has existentialist leanings and that we also believe there is a
            human
            > nature ...
            >
            > see ... that was not too hard .. and i didnt even get into the
            subject of
            > blue clams ...
            >
            > have fun ....
            >
            > eduard
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: <thebookdoc@a...>
            > To: <existlist@y...>
            > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:41 AM
            > Subject: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted
            beside the
            > great meat bush...
            >
            >
            > > << if only for reason that humans have a nature and one might as
            well
            > believe
            > > that this is the case >>
            > >
            > > Eduard,
            > >
            > > If you would be so kind as to explain why this is so and prove it
            to me.
            > > Please don't say "because it is obvious!" As if there was obvious
            parts of
            > > human nature, then there would not be people like Charles Manson
            and a
            > nature
            > > that is inclined toward violence.
            > >
            > > And if you wish to brush that aside by saying he was crazy and
            does not
            > > count, then it is my contention that it is the nature of all
            humans to be
            > > "crazy." And we would also be back to a discussion concerning
            blue clams
            > and
            > > how-manys...
            > >
            > > Richard
          • Mary Grace Riguer
            Why can t there be common nature among humans? Surely, as we belong to the same species, there must be particular characteristics we all share. ...
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Why can't there be common nature among humans? Surely, as we belong to the
              same species, there must be particular characteristics we all share.



              At 01:40 AM 4/6/01 +0000, you wrote:

              >About your human nature discussion:
              >
              >Edward,
              >
              >I think there's been confusion concerning the meaning of the concepts
              >used.
              >What do we mean by `human nature'?
              >
              >Let's say that `human nature' stands for a number of characteristics,
              >which all humans share in common. At the same time, you know,
              >existentialism says that every individual is unique.
              >
              >So the two (common nature <--> unique individual) contradict.
              >
              >The other point is that even I myself am different at different
              >moments ­ my emotional state, for instance, changes. And it's me ­
              >not some predefined nature of mine ­ which is responsible for that
              >change.
              >
              >Diana
              >
              >--- In existlist@y..., "Edward Alf" <ealf@s...> wrote:
              > > Richard et al,
              > >
              > > ok ... i will try to explain and prove it to you ...
              > >
              > > my comment was preceded by a sentence so that the full comment
              >was, " i
              > > think that one could have an inclination towards existentialism and
              >still
              > > believe in human nature ... if only for reason that humans have a
              >nature and
              > > one might as well believe that this is the case ...
              > >
              > > this was in response to the question of, "Just wondering if one can
              >be of
              > > existentialist leanings and believe in human nature."
              > >
              > > i am not saying that there are obvious parts of human nature ...
              >all im
              > > saying is that there is such a thing as human nature ... i dont
              >think that
              > > even you are disagreeing with that ... a nature which is inclined
              >towards
              > > violence, is still a nature and since Charles Manson is a human,
              >one has to
              > > conclude that he has a human nature ... and if Charles Manson were
              >to adopt
              > > the philosophy of existentialism, then we could say that there is a
              >person
              > > who has existentialist leanings and that we also believe there is a
              >human
              > > nature ...
              > >
              > > see ... that was not too hard .. and i didnt even get into the
              >subject of
              > > blue clams ...
              > >
              > > have fun ....
              > >
              > > eduard
              > >
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: <thebookdoc@a...>
              > > To: <existlist@y...>
              > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:41 AM
              > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted
              >beside the
              > > great meat bush...
              > >
              > >
              > > > << if only for reason that humans have a nature and one might as
              >well
              > > believe
              > > > that this is the case >>
              > > >
              > > > Eduard,
              > > >
              > > > If you would be so kind as to explain why this is so and prove it
              >to me.
              > > > Please don't say "because it is obvious!" As if there was obvious
              >parts of
              > > > human nature, then there would not be people like Charles Manson
              >and a
              > > nature
              > > > that is inclined toward violence.
              > > >
              > > > And if you wish to brush that aside by saying he was crazy and
              >does not
              > > > count, then it is my contention that it is the nature of all
              >humans to be
              > > > "crazy." And we would also be back to a discussion concerning
              >blue clams
              > > and
              > > > how-manys...
              > > >
              > > > Richard
              >
              >
              >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              >existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >






              *****************************~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~******************************

              VOTE ABANSE! PINAY (women sector) for PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVE


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Linda Jordan
              That would be a nice idea. The only things I can see that all humans have in common are birth and death. So many permutations. I don t believe that there
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                That would be a nice idea. The only things I can see that all humans have
                in common are birth and death. So many permutations. I don't believe that
                there are characteristics that we all share, nor do I place any particular
                value in such a belief. For most people, things would be more comfortable
                if they could believe they share certain things with others. That relates
                to expectations--would make things more predictable. But again, I see no
                advantage in that. My experiences have shown me that having such beliefs is
                generally a letdown cuz what one expects just doesn't happen. Guess I still
                retain some of my earlier desire to live on the edge. Less so as I've
                gotten older but must still be there. That, in addition to experience. I
                probably sound like a cynic. I really am not one. More of a realist, a
                delightfully happy realist.

                >From: Mary Grace Riguer <maryg@...>
                >Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                >To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted beside
                >the great meat bush...
                >Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:16:30 +0800
                >
                >Why can't there be common nature among humans? Surely, as we belong to the
                >same species, there must be particular characteristics we all share.
                >
                >
                >
                >At 01:40 AM 4/6/01 +0000, you wrote:
                >
                > >About your human nature discussion:
                > >
                > >Edward,
                > >
                > >I think there's been confusion concerning the meaning of the concepts
                > >used.
                > >What do we mean by `human nature'?
                > >
                > >Let's say that `human nature' stands for a number of characteristics,
                > >which all humans share in common. At the same time, you know,
                > >existentialism says that every individual is unique.
                > >
                > >So the two (common nature <--> unique individual) contradict.
                > >
                > >The other point is that even I myself am different at different
                > >moments � my emotional state, for instance, changes. And it's me �
                > >not some predefined nature of mine � which is responsible for that
                > >change.
                > >
                > >Diana
                > >
                > >--- In existlist@y..., "Edward Alf" <ealf@s...> wrote:
                > > > Richard et al,
                > > >
                > > > ok ... i will try to explain and prove it to you ...
                > > >
                > > > my comment was preceded by a sentence so that the full comment
                > >was, " i
                > > > think that one could have an inclination towards existentialism and
                > >still
                > > > believe in human nature ... if only for reason that humans have a
                > >nature and
                > > > one might as well believe that this is the case ...
                > > >
                > > > this was in response to the question of, "Just wondering if one can
                > >be of
                > > > existentialist leanings and believe in human nature."
                > > >
                > > > i am not saying that there are obvious parts of human nature ...
                > >all im
                > > > saying is that there is such a thing as human nature ... i dont
                > >think that
                > > > even you are disagreeing with that ... a nature which is inclined
                > >towards
                > > > violence, is still a nature and since Charles Manson is a human,
                > >one has to
                > > > conclude that he has a human nature ... and if Charles Manson were
                > >to adopt
                > > > the philosophy of existentialism, then we could say that there is a
                > >person
                > > > who has existentialist leanings and that we also believe there is a
                > >human
                > > > nature ...
                > > >
                > > > see ... that was not too hard .. and i didnt even get into the
                > >subject of
                > > > blue clams ...
                > > >
                > > > have fun ....
                > > >
                > > > eduard
                > > >
                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > > From: <thebookdoc@a...>
                > > > To: <existlist@y...>
                > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:41 AM
                > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted
                > >beside the
                > > > great meat bush...
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > > << if only for reason that humans have a nature and one might as
                > >well
                > > > believe
                > > > > that this is the case >>
                > > > >
                > > > > Eduard,
                > > > >
                > > > > If you would be so kind as to explain why this is so and prove it
                > >to me.
                > > > > Please don't say "because it is obvious!" As if there was obvious
                > >parts of
                > > > > human nature, then there would not be people like Charles Manson
                > >and a
                > > > nature
                > > > > that is inclined toward violence.
                > > > >
                > > > > And if you wish to brush that aside by saying he was crazy and
                > >does not
                > > > > count, then it is my contention that it is the nature of all
                > >humans to be
                > > > > "crazy." And we would also be back to a discussion concerning
                > >blue clams
                > > > and
                > > > > how-manys...
                > > > >
                > > > > Richard
                > >
                > >
                > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > >existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >*****************************~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~******************************
                >
                >VOTE ABANSE! PINAY (women sector) for PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVE
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >

                _________________________________________________________________
                Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
              • Diana
                ... to the ... Yes, you are right. However unique the individual, we are still able to recognize him as being a human :-) Or in another way: if there is no
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 6, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Why can't there be common nature among humans? Surely, as we belong
                  to the
                  > same species, there must be particular characteristics we all share.

                  Yes, you are right. However unique the individual, we are still able
                  to recognize him as being a human :-)
                  Or in another way: if there is no human nature, then what do we mean
                  when we say `a human'?

                  All right, as others pointed out, although we all share some elements
                  in common, still each of us is unique with regard to his actions.

                  The common elements cannot determine our actions – everyone chooses
                  for himself how to act.

                  Have I finally got right Sartre's view?


                  > At 01:40 AM 4/6/01 +0000, you wrote:
                  >
                  > >About your human nature discussion:
                  > >
                  > >Edward,
                  > >
                  > >I think there's been confusion concerning the meaning of the
                  concepts
                  > >used.
                  > >What do we mean by `human nature'?
                  > >
                  > >Let's say that `human nature' stands for a number of
                  characteristics,
                  > >which all humans share in common. At the same time, you know,
                  > >existentialism says that every individual is unique.
                  > >
                  > >So the two (common nature <--> unique individual) contradict.
                  > >
                  > >The other point is that even I myself am different at different
                  > >moments ­ my emotional state, for instance, changes. And it's me ­
                  > >not some predefined nature of mine ­ which is responsible for that
                  > >change.
                  > >
                  > >Diana
                  > >
                  > >--- In existlist@y..., "Edward Alf" <ealf@s...> wrote:
                  > > > Richard et al,
                  > > >
                  > > > ok ... i will try to explain and prove it to you ...
                  > > >
                  > > > my comment was preceded by a sentence so that the full comment
                  > >was, " i
                  > > > think that one could have an inclination towards existentialism
                  and
                  > >still
                  > > > believe in human nature ... if only for reason that humans have
                  a
                  > >nature and
                  > > > one might as well believe that this is the case ...
                  > > >
                  > > > this was in response to the question of, "Just wondering if one
                  can
                  > >be of
                  > > > existentialist leanings and believe in human nature."
                  > > >
                  > > > i am not saying that there are obvious parts of human nature ...
                  > >all im
                  > > > saying is that there is such a thing as human nature ... i dont
                  > >think that
                  > > > even you are disagreeing with that ... a nature which is
                  inclined
                  > >towards
                  > > > violence, is still a nature and since Charles Manson is a human,
                  > >one has to
                  > > > conclude that he has a human nature ... and if Charles Manson
                  were
                  > >to adopt
                  > > > the philosophy of existentialism, then we could say that there
                  is a
                  > >person
                  > > > who has existentialist leanings and that we also believe there
                  is a
                  > >human
                  > > > nature ...
                  > > >
                  > > > see ... that was not too hard .. and i didnt even get into the
                  > >subject of
                  > > > blue clams ...
                  > > >
                  > > > have fun ....
                  > > >
                  > > > eduard
                  > > >
                  > > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > > From: <thebookdoc@a...>
                  > > > To: <existlist@y...>
                  > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 6:41 AM
                  > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted
                  > >beside the
                  > > > great meat bush...
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > > << if only for reason that humans have a nature and one might
                  as
                  > >well
                  > > > believe
                  > > > > that this is the case >>
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Eduard,
                  > > > >
                  > > > > If you would be so kind as to explain why this is so and
                  prove it
                  > >to me.
                  > > > > Please don't say "because it is obvious!" As if there was
                  obvious
                  > >parts of
                  > > > > human nature, then there would not be people like Charles
                  Manson
                  > >and a
                  > > > nature
                  > > > > that is inclined toward violence.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > And if you wish to brush that aside by saying he was crazy and
                  > >does not
                  > > > > count, then it is my contention that it is the nature of all
                  > >humans to be
                  > > > > "crazy." And we would also be back to a discussion concerning
                  > >blue clams
                  > > > and
                  > > > > how-manys...
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Richard
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > >existlist-unsubscribe@y...
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  *****************************~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~********
                  **********************
                  >
                  > VOTE ABANSE! PINAY (women sector) for PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVE
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Edward Alf
                  Mary, it is a good question ... but i dont think the answer would have as much to do with human nature as it is a reluctance to accept the fact that one is not
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 8, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mary,

                    it is a good question ... but i dont think the answer would have as much to
                    do with human nature as it is a reluctance to accept the fact that one is
                    not necessarily unique ... it seems to fly in the face of American cultural
                    mythology (by the way im Canadian) ... that mythology suggests that the
                    individual is the highest good ... it is as if everyone should be a John
                    Wayne or Thoreau ... which is a myth, since Americans are actually very
                    socially inclined ... but the premise of uniqueness is still there ... of
                    course the English have it the other way, in that they believe in a social
                    connectiveness when actually they act more like individuals ... and
                    Canadians as usual are somewhere in the middle and in most cases do not have
                    a clue of what they are ...

                    it is this reluctance to accept a certain commonality which leads to the
                    objection against a "human nature" ... the objection is based upon a
                    unstated definition of human nature which is of specific characteristics ...
                    but human nature cant be specific ... it is a general way of acting and does
                    not jeopardise our own sense of uniqueness ... there is a human nature and
                    there is also uniqueness ... the two are not contradictory ...

                    eduard


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Mary Grace Riguer" <maryg@...>
                    To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:16 AM
                    Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted beside
                    the great meat bush...


                    Why can't there be common nature among humans? Surely, as we belong to the
                    same species, there must be particular characteristics we all share.
                  • Edward Alf
                    Linda et folks, lets try some characteristics that might be considered as common ... im not saying that these are absolutely common, since there can be
                    Message 9 of 9 , Apr 8, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Linda et folks,

                      lets try some characteristics that might be considered as common ... im not
                      saying that these are absolutely common, since there can be exceptions, but
                      sufficiently common to make a case ...

                      - we seek the basics of food, shelter and clothing
                      - we seek order out of chaos
                      - we seek love
                      - we seek acceptance and self-definition
                      - we seek self fulfillment

                      im sure that with some time for thought, one could come up with a lot more
                      ...

                      birth and death are not characteristics of human nature ... they come to use
                      without our seeking them ...

                      eduard


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Linda Jordan" <tustna@...>
                      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 8:27 AM
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Human nature grown in pots and planted beside
                      the great meat bush...


                      > That would be a nice idea. The only things I can see that all humans have
                      > in common are birth and death. So many permutations. I don't believe
                      that
                      > there are characteristics that we all share, nor do I place any particular
                      > value in such a belief. For most people, things would be more comfortable
                      > if they could believe they share certain things with others. That relates
                      > to expectations--would make things more predictable. But again, I see no
                      > advantage in that. My experiences have shown me that having such beliefs
                      is
                      > generally a letdown cuz what one expects just doesn't happen. Guess I
                      still
                      > retain some of my earlier desire to live on the edge. Less so as I've
                      > gotten older but must still be there. That, in addition to experience. I
                      > probably sound like a cynic. I really am not one. More of a realist, a
                      > delightfully happy realist.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.