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

Re: Digest Number 49

Expand Messages
  • Robert Abele
    My personal experiences seem to lead to the conclusion I can find the way myself(but in my old age I tend to doubt this assertion)but finding my out of where
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 7, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      My personal experiences seem to lead to the conclusion
      I can find the way myself(but in my old age I tend to
      doubt this assertion)but finding my out of where
      temptation has lead me is infinitely more complex, and
      I can clearly see the hand of God in these seemingly
      free choices.

      robertabele

      "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way
      myself."
      >
      > -- Rita Mae Brown

      --- existlist@onelist.com wrote:
      >
      > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
      > ----------------------------
      >
      > Choose from a wide selection of high-quality
      > newsletters at ONElist.
      > For details on ONElist's PROS&PUNDITS newsletters,
      > click below.
      > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/prospun2
      > ">Click Here</a>
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > From The Exist List...
      > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > There are 6 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in today's digest:
      >
      > 1. Re: hello!
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 2. Free Will
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > 3. Re: Free Will
      > From: "ds" <ds@...>
      > 4. Re: hello!
      > From: "Matt Kirby"
      > <max.kirby@...>
      > 5. Re: Facticity
      > From: TiffaniTN@...
      > 6. Re: Facticity
      > From: "Matt Kirby"
      > <max.kirby@...>
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Re: hello!
      >
      > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Meghan wrote:
      >
      > > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
      > >
      > > <<I think that was Descartes, at least I know his
      > "proof" of god's
      > > existence is something like that>>
      > >
      > > The passage may well be from the Meditations
      > (although I'm up to my ears in
      > > Hobbes right now and can't go check :-).
      > >
      > > It comes from the idea that all beings have a
      > certain degree of reality to
      > > them. God has the most reality of everything,
      > humans have considerably
      > > less, animals have less than that, plants have
      > less than animals, and
      > > inanimate objects have the least of all. Sort of
      > an inverted-pyramid
      > > arrangement.
      > >
      > > Something with less reality cannot cause something
      > with more reality.
      > > Hence, humans cannot be the cause of (i.e. come up
      > with) God.
      > >
      > > There's a lot more to the proof of God's
      > existence; it's in the third
      > > Meditation, if anyone is desperate to know about
      > it.
      >
      > Speaking of proof of God's existence, is anybody
      > familar w/ Anselm's
      > famous ontological argument for the existence of
      > God?
      > -first he defines God as that "which nothing
      > greater can
      > be conceived."
      > -We can think of things. Anything. Just the fact
      > that we can
      > think of something doesn't mean that it exists.
      > Right? Monsters for ex.
      > are from our imagination(I hope). However, God is
      > that which no higher
      > being can
      > be thought. What would be "grater" to exist only in
      > the mind or to exist
      > in
      > the mind and in actuality? The latter seems
      > superior to me. Therefore,
      > God exist according to Anselm's definition
      >
      > Brandon
      > Heidegger was a wanker!!
      >
      > >
      > > ObExistentialism: I bought a copy of Sartre's
      > _The Wall_ today.
      > >
      > > -Meghan
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > _____________________
      > >
      > > http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html
      > >
      > > "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way
      > myself."
      > >
      > > -- Rita Mae Brown
      > >
      > > > From The Exist List...
      > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:19:48 +0100
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > Subject: Free Will
      >
      > ds wrote:
      >
      > >Personally, I think the whole concept of "free
      > will" is a bit shaky and I can't understand why
      > Sartre would put so much weight on it.<
      >
      > I recently read a biography of Sartre, and
      > throughout it the writer kept on making the point
      > that Sartre and de Beauvoir had nothing but
      > contempt for what they called bourgeois morality'. I
      > suppose it was this passionate dislike of
      > contemporary manners and behaviour which made them
      > so interested in free will. It seems to me that it
      > was during the 1939-45 war that they really got
      > going with their views since at that time it looked
      > as though the whole 'old order' in France would
      > disappear. After all, the Germans had found it easy
      > to invade and occupy the country so the 'old guard'
      > were discredited.
      >
      > ds also mentioned the way our choices are influenced
      > by >experience, social conditioning, instinct, etc<
      > Isn't the important point here that free will means
      > we acknowledge that we could make alternative
      > choices if we had chosen to do so? Surely how we
      > arrive at the final decision is a matter of personal
      > choice?
      >
      > Charles Vermont
      > London, England
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 3
      > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:45:44 -0700
      > From: "ds" <ds@...>
      > Subject: Re: Free Will
      >
      > Sure, but isn't it also possible that what we
      > perceive as "free will" is
      > only just an automatic response our brain gives when
      > confronted with a
      > situation? It incorporates reason, experience,
      > instinct etc all into this
      > automated response, but the individual, who is
      > merely observing these
      > processes believes that he/she consciously
      > controlled the decision because
      > the individual feels that he/she "is" the decision
      > making process (the
      > mind). Is this not possible? Personally, I'm in
      > between behaviorism and free
      > will, I can see the behaviorists points, but I've
      > also thought that maybe,
      > the mind, being non-physical is not subject to the
      > "laws" of the physical
      > world, including laws of causality. A thought I had
      > that kind of supported
      > this was that thoughts can disappear and reappear;
      > matter/energy cannot do
      > this...just a thought, though
      >
      > daniel
      >
      === message truncated ===


      =====
    • CASEY EDWARDS
      the fist part of notes from the underground is one of the best pieces of literature ever written pertaining to existentialism -kay cee
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 7, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        the fist part of notes from the underground is one of the best pieces of
        literature ever written pertaining to existentialism

        -kay cee



        existlist@onelist.com wrote:
        >
        > > >From The Exist List...
        > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > There are 6 messages in this issue.
        >
        > Topics in today's digest:
        >
        > 1. Re: hello!
        > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
        > 2. Free Will
        > From: "Charles Vermont" <Funchoice@...>
        > 3. Re: Free Will
        > From: "ds" <ds@...>
        > 4. Re: hello!
        > From: "Matt Kirby" <max.kirby@...>
        > 5. Re: Facticity
        > From: TiffaniTN@...
        > 6. Re: Facticity
        > From: "Matt Kirby" <max.kirby@...>
        >
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 1
        > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 10:18:03 -0400 (EDT)
        > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
        > Subject: Re: hello!
        >
        > On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Meghan wrote:
        >
        > > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
        > >
        > > <<I think that was Descartes, at least I know his "proof" of god's
        > > existence is something like that>>
        > >
        > > The passage may well be from the Meditations (although I'm up to my ears in
        > > Hobbes right now and can't go check :-).
        > >
        > > It comes from the idea that all beings have a certain degree of reality to
        > > them. God has the most reality of everything, humans have considerably
        > > less, animals have less than that, plants have less than animals, and
        > > inanimate objects have the least of all. Sort of an inverted-pyramid
        > > arrangement.
        > >
        > > Something with less reality cannot cause something with more reality.
        > > Hence, humans cannot be the cause of (i.e. come up with) God.
        > >
        > > There's a lot more to the proof of God's existence; it's in the third
        > > Meditation, if anyone is desperate to know about it.
        >
        > Speaking of proof of God's existence, is anybody familar w/ Anselm's
        > famous ontological argument for the existence of God?
        > -first he defines God as that "which nothing greater can
        > be conceived."
        > -We can think of things. Anything. Just the fact that we can
        > think of something doesn't mean that it exists. Right? Monsters for ex.
        > are from our imagination(I hope). However, God is that which no higher
        > being can
        > be thought. What would be "grater" to exist only in the mind or to exist
        > in
        > the mind and in actuality? The latter seems superior to me. Therefore,
        > God exist according to Anselm's definition
        >
        > Brandon
        > Heidegger was a wanker!!
        >
        > >
        > > ObExistentialism: I bought a copy of Sartre's _The Wall_ today.
        > >
        > > -Meghan
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > _____________________
        > >
        > > http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html
        > >
        > > "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself."
        > >
        > > -- Rita Mae Brown
        > >
        > > > From The Exist List...
        > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
        > >
        >
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 2
        > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:19:48 +0100
        > From: "Charles Vermont" <Funchoice@...>
        > Subject: Free Will
        >
        > ds wrote:
        >
        > >Personally, I think the whole concept of "free will" is a bit shaky and I can't understand why Sartre would put so much weight on it.<
        >
        > I recently read a biography of Sartre, and throughout it the writer kept on making the point that Sartre and de Beauvoir had nothing but contempt for what they called bourgeois morality'. I suppose it was this passionate dislike of contemporary manners and behaviour which made them so interested in free will. It seems to me that it was during the 1939-45 war that they really got going with their views since at that time it looked as though the whole 'old order' in France would disappear. After all, the Germans had found it easy to invade and occupy the country so the 'old guard' were discredited.
        >
        > ds also mentioned the way our choices are influenced by >experience, social conditioning, instinct, etc< Isn't the important point here that free will means we acknowledge that we could make alternative choices if we had chosen to do so? Surely how we arrive at the final decision is a matter of personal choice?
        >
        > Charles Vermont
        > London, England
        >
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 3
        > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:45:44 -0700
        > From: "ds" <ds@...>
        > Subject: Re: Free Will
        >
        > Sure, but isn't it also possible that what we perceive as "free will" is
        > only just an automatic response our brain gives when confronted with a
        > situation? It incorporates reason, experience, instinct etc all into this
        > automated response, but the individual, who is merely observing these
        > processes believes that he/she consciously controlled the decision because
        > the individual feels that he/she "is" the decision making process (the
        > mind). Is this not possible? Personally, I'm in between behaviorism and free
        > will, I can see the behaviorists points, but I've also thought that maybe,
        > the mind, being non-physical is not subject to the "laws" of the physical
        > world, including laws of causality. A thought I had that kind of supported
        > this was that thoughts can disappear and reappear; matter/energy cannot do
        > this...just a thought, though
        >
        > daniel
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Charles Vermont
        > To: Existentialism List
        > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 6:19 AM
        > Subject: [existlist] Free Will
        >
        > ds wrote:
        >
        > >Personally, I think the whole concept of "free will" is a bit shaky and I
        > can't understand why Sartre would put so much weight on it.<
        >
        > I recently read a biography of Sartre, and throughout it the writer kept on
        > making the point that Sartre and de Beauvoir had nothing but contempt for
        > what they called bourgeois morality'. I suppose it was this passionate
        > dislike of contemporary manners and behaviour which made them so interested
        > in free will. It seems to me that it was during the 1939-45 war that they
        > really got going with their views since at that time it looked as though the
        > whole 'old order' in France would disappear. After all, the Germans had
        > found it easy to invade and occupy the country so the 'old guard' were
        > discredited.
        >
        > ds also mentioned the way our choices are influenced by >experience, social
        > conditioning, instinct, etc< Isn't the important point here that free will
        > means we acknowledge that we could make alternative choices if we had chosen
        > to do so? Surely how we arrive at the final decision is a matter of personal
        > choice?
        >
        > Charles Vermont
        > London, England
        >
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 4
        > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 16:58:08 -0500
        > From: "Matt Kirby" <max.kirby@...>
        > Subject: Re: hello!
        >
        > I am reading Hobbes right now, I have enjoyed thus far..
        > Kirby
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
        > To: <existlist@onelist.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 10:10 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] hello!
        >
        > > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
        > >
        > > <<I think that was Descartes, at least I know his "proof" of god's
        > > existence is something like that>>
        > >
        > > The passage may well be from the Meditations (although I'm up to my ears
        > in
        > > Hobbes right now and can't go check :-).
        > >
        > > It comes from the idea that all beings have a certain degree of reality to
        > > them. God has the most reality of everything, humans have considerably
        > > less, animals have less than that, plants have less than animals, and
        > > inanimate objects have the least of all. Sort of an inverted-pyramid
        > > arrangement.
        > >
        > > Something with less reality cannot cause something with more reality.
        > > Hence, humans cannot be the cause of (i.e. come up with) God.
        > >
        > > There's a lot more to the proof of God's existence; it's in the third
        > > Meditation, if anyone is desperate to know about it.
        > >
        > > ObExistentialism: I bought a copy of Sartre's _The Wall_ today.
        > >
        > > -Meghan
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > _____________________
        > >
        > > http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html
        > >
        > > "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way myself."
        > >
        > > -- Rita Mae Brown
        > >
        > > > From The Exist List...
        > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
        > >
        >
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 5
        > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:11:35 EDT
        > From: TiffaniTN@...
        > Subject: Re: Facticity
        >
        > For those of you toiling with the concept of free will versus various forms
        > of determinism, I highly recommend reading Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The
        > Underground.'
        >
        > Anyone who has read this book, I would love to hear your thoughts.
        >
        > Basically, my thoughts on the free will/determinism debate are this. Anyone
        > who tries to suggest that we have absolute freedom is ludicrous ... even
        > Sartre didn't say this... Sartre said we have complete freedom but not
        > absolute (though for a different reason than I am about to express). There
        > are so many factors that limit the possibility of absolute freedom. I don't
        > think that anyone who is up to date on Physiological studies would suggest
        > that our biological make-up has no effect on our choices (disposition), nor
        > would anyone who is familiar with Psychology try to suggest that our past
        > experiences have no influence on our daily choices. These, our genetics and
        > our past experiences, greatly influence us without doubt.
        >
        > The fact that we have the ability to introspect and analyze our
        > predispositions to behave in a certain way in a given context is where the
        > freedom begins. In Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The Underground' this idea is
        > expounded upon. The fact that one can recognize his inclinations and yet
        > still rebel against them seems to solve the genetics/environment debate. I
        > rebel, therefore I am free.
        >
        > Sure, any one of us can make the argument "but how can we really know that
        > even this perceived freedom is not merely an illusion...." It seems that we
        > could debate that issue endlessly ... but I challenge you, what sense does
        > the question even make to ask? Can we ever know? We function as though we
        > have freedom. We feel like we have freedom. We can be educated enough to
        > know what is best for us and still choose to rebel, as in Dostoevsky's 'Notes
        > from the Underground.' We have set up this society with the belief that
        > there is freedom. Let's face it, if we reduce everyone to deterministic
        > animals, how can we make anyone responsible for any of their actions?
        >
        > I reiterate my strong belief that the fact that we can metacognate on our
        > influences and rebel against them seems to offer substance to the theory that
        > there is a sort of freedom, that we are not merely walking products of our
        > bodily composition and environmental conditioning.
        >
        > Tiffani
        >
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        >
        > Message: 6
        > Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:34:35 -0500
        > From: "Matt Kirby" <max.kirby@...>
        > Subject: Re: Facticity
        >
        > Have not read, but on my list, thanks for the recommendation.
        > I must agree with you. Absolute freedom is an illusion, we have created the
        > idea to make us feel better about "us." We are a vast superior species, so
        > how can we be limited by things we can not see. The fact is we are limited
        > and in order to make "us" feel better we create illusionary ideas with
        > illusionary words such as freedom, why heck maybe love is an illusion, just
        > some neurons firing, transmitting a neurotransmitter that makes "us" feel
        > what we call love. We hate to be limited, so we do everything we can to
        > curve that, "the political correct unlimited" I think that is why we climb
        > Mt. Everest, go to the moon, and swim the English Channel, because we rule
        > this planet, so there is nothing that we can not do or be. That idea is a
        > fallacy of thought, the haunting truth is we are limited to our environment
        > and our own genetics. Sad but true, but hey who ever said false hope is bad,
        > its better than no hope.
        > Kirby
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: <TiffaniTN@...>
        > To: <existlist@onelist.com>
        > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 8:11 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Facticity
        >
        > > From: TiffaniTN@...
        > >
        > > For those of you toiling with the concept of free will versus various
        > forms
        > > of determinism, I highly recommend reading Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The
        > > Underground.'
        > >
        > > Anyone who has read this book, I would love to hear your thoughts.
        > >
        > > Basically, my thoughts on the free will/determinism debate are this.
        > Anyone
        > > who tries to suggest that we have absolute freedom is ludicrous ... even
        > > Sartre didn't say this... Sartre said we have complete freedom but not
        > > absolute (though for a different reason than I am about to express).
        > There
        > > are so many factors that limit the possibility of absolute freedom. I
        > don't
        > > think that anyone who is up to date on Physiological studies would suggest
        > > that our biological make-up has no effect on our choices (disposition),
        > nor
        > > would anyone who is familiar with Psychology try to suggest that our past
        > > experiences have no influence on our daily choices. These, our genetics
        > and
        > > our past experiences, greatly influence us without doubt.
        > >
        > > The fact that we have the ability to introspect and analyze our
        > > predispositions to behave in a certain way in a given context is where the
        > > freedom begins. In Dostoevsky's 'Notes From The Underground' this idea is
        > > expounded upon. The fact that one can recognize his inclinations and yet
        > > still rebel against them seems to solve the genetics/environment debate.
        > I
        > > rebel, therefore I am free.
        > >
        > > Sure, any one of us can make the argument "but how can we really know that
        > > even this perceived freedom is not merely an illusion...." It seems that
        > we
        > > could debate that issue endlessly ... but I challenge you, what sense does
        > > the question even make to ask? Can we ever know? We function as though
        > we
        > > have freedom. We feel like we have freedom. We can be educated enough to
        > > know what is best for us and still choose to rebel, as in Dostoevsky's
        > 'Notes
        > > from the Underground.' We have set up this society with the belief that
        > > there is freedom. Let's face it, if we reduce everyone to deterministic
        > > animals, how can we make anyone responsible for any of their actions?
        > >
        > > I reiterate my strong belief that the fact that we can metacognate on our
        > > influences and rebel against them seems to offer substance to the theory
        > that
        > > there is a sort of freedom, that we are not merely walking products of our
        > > bodily composition and environmental conditioning.
        > >
        > > Tiffani
        > >
        > > > From The Exist List...
        > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
        >
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
        > _______________________________________________________________________________
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.