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

Eduard`s decency

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    I have always been a student of social trends. I can remember when Right on was a catch phrase of the radical left. One year later it was being used by
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I have always been a student of social trends. I can remember
      when "Right on " was a catch phrase of the radical left. One year
      later it was being used by business suited conservatives. Now
      existentialism has become the new reason for existance of the
      defunct, main line religions. They draw a tenuous line from
      Kirkegaard, through any number of avant guard christian philosophers
      who they have labled existentialists. I consider them theologians,
      not philosophers. I know they see no distinction. Your flirtation
      with religion puts you on the fringe of this group. I consider
      atheism to be a basic tenant of existentialism. I do not like the
      term but I would accept it rather than be labled a believer.
      Just as the theists cannot serve two masters, God and themselves ,
      you cannot be an individualist socialist. Either your individuality
      is of more importance and you are an existentialist or you are a
      socialist and abandon the necessary individualism of your
      existentialism. The society is to serve the individual and the
      individual is responsible for his own life and decisions. I know you
      are not a believer, but socialism is a form of belief. You believe in
      the collective above the individual. That is where Neitchy broke
      with the systems of faith. Kirkegaard may have realigned to the
      death of his existentialism. Existentialism is the study of that
      which exists. That is my definition from the derevation of the word.
      The fantasies of the faithful are not part of that study. That
      socialism is a faith in the collective abouve the individual may put
      the socialist outside the true base of existentialism.
      I am sure you disagree and I always enjoy your comments.
    • Zithromax
      bhvwd, My reading of Sartre disagrees with your thesis. He definitely saw existentialists falling into two camps if you will, and places himself in the
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        bhvwd,

        My reading of Sartre disagrees with your thesis. He definitely saw existentialists falling into two camps if you will, and places himself in the atheist camp. He also felt his camp to be the more enlightened one. But to my knowledge he did not deny that existentialism exists for religious people. Sartre also did not view existentialism as a true philosophy but as an attitude. There were many existentialists of various faiths in addition to Kierkegaard who were theists.

        You seem to associate the attitude of existentialism, a point of view, a way of seeing things into an anti-theism context. And you misspelled Nietzsche - now this in and of itself could be deemed criminal from an existentialist perspective. =) For your crime I condemn you to read Miguel de Unamuno's _Tragic Sense of Life_ with me. I intend to write an essay on it when I am finished with it and you can prepare a rebuttal. C'mon it'll be fun.

        Cheers,

        Zith



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: bhvwd
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:07 PM
        Subject: [existlist] Eduard`s decency


        I have always been a student of social trends. I can remember
        when "Right on " was a catch phrase of the radical left. One year
        later it was being used by business suited conservatives. Now
        existentialism has become the new reason for existance of the
        defunct, main line religions. They draw a tenuous line from
        Kirkegaard, through any number of avant guard christian philosophers
        who they have labled existentialists. I consider them theologians,
        not philosophers. I know they see no distinction. Your flirtation
        with religion puts you on the fringe of this group. I consider
        atheism to be a basic tenant of existentialism. I do not like the
        term but I would accept it rather than be labled a believer.
        Just as the theists cannot serve two masters, God and themselves ,
        you cannot be an individualist socialist. Either your individuality
        is of more importance and you are an existentialist or you are a
        socialist and abandon the necessary individualism of your
        existentialism. The society is to serve the individual and the
        individual is responsible for his own life and decisions. I know you
        are not a believer, but socialism is a form of belief. You believe in
        the collective above the individual. That is where Neitchy broke
        with the systems of faith. Kirkegaard may have realigned to the
        death of his existentialism. Existentialism is the study of that
        which exists. That is my definition from the derevation of the word.
        The fantasies of the faithful are not part of that study. That
        socialism is a faith in the collective abouve the individual may put
        the socialist outside the true base of existentialism.
        I am sure you disagree and I always enjoy your comments.


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        ADVERTISEMENT




        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • yeoman
        Bill, Yes, I disagree with your idea that existentialism is about individualism. That is ... in the context of the individual versus the society. Granted
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill,

          Yes, I disagree with your idea that existentialism is about
          individualism. That is ... in the context of the individual
          versus the society. Granted existentialism is one's
          individual existence, but it comes with a recognition of
          responsibility to others. It is this responsibility which
          points to the importance of society.

          My flirtation with religion was a miserable failure. No one
          seemed to like the idea of having a fantasy and simultaneous
          being aware that it is a fantasy. Religions tend to become
          a personal sort of thing, and to say it is a fantasy, seems
          a threat to self-existence.

          eduard

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "bhvwd" <valleywestdental@...>
          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 4:07 PM
          Subject: [existlist] Eduard`s decency


          > I have always been a student of social trends. I can
          remember
          > when "Right on " was a catch phrase of the radical left.
          One year
          > later it was being used by business suited conservatives.
          Now
          > existentialism has become the new reason for existance
          of the
          > defunct, main line religions. They draw a tenuous line
          from
          > Kirkegaard, through any number of avant guard christian
          philosophers
          > who they have labled existentialists. I consider them
          theologians,
          > not philosophers. I know they see no distinction. Your
          flirtation
          > with religion puts you on the fringe of this group. I
          consider
          > atheism to be a basic tenant of existentialism. I do not
          like the
          > term but I would accept it rather than be labled a
          believer.
          > Just as the theists cannot serve two masters, God and
          themselves ,
          > you cannot be an individualist socialist. Either your
          individuality
          > is of more importance and you are an existentialist or you
          are a
          > socialist and abandon the necessary individualism of your
          > existentialism. The society is to serve the individual and
          the
          > individual is responsible for his own life and decisions.
          I know you
          > are not a believer, but socialism is a form of belief. You
          believe in
          > the collective above the individual. That is where
          Neitchy broke
          > with the systems of faith. Kirkegaard may have realigned
          to the
          > death of his existentialism. Existentialism is the study
          of that
          > which exists. That is my definition from the derevation of
          the word.
          > The fantasies of the faithful are not part of that study.
          That
          > socialism is a faith in the collective abouve the
          individual may put
          > the socialist outside the true base of existentialism.
          > I am sure you disagree and I always enjoy your comments.
          >
          >
          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
          Sponsor ---------------------~-->
          > Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's
          Important Questions.
          > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ACsqlB/TM
          > ----------------------------------------------------------
          -----------~->
          >
          > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
        • Mary Jo Malo
          hbvwd, Based on your definitions, I consider myself an atheist. I was a hostage of Christianity for 30 years. I liked Jesus, not Christianity. I kept on going,
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            hbvwd,

            Based on your definitions, I consider myself an atheist. I was a hostage of Christianity for 30 years. I liked Jesus, not Christianity. I kept on going, and if I need a label from you, it would be an atheist who puts the individual being above all religions and philosophies.

            Mary Jo

            bhvwd <valleywestdental@...> wrote:
            I have always been a student of social trends. I can remember
            when "Right on " was a catch phrase of the radical left. One year
            later it was being used by business suited conservatives. Now
            existentialism has become the new reason for existance of the
            defunct, main line religions. They draw a tenuous line from
            Kirkegaard, through any number of avant guard christian philosophers
            who they have labled existentialists. I consider them theologians,
            not philosophers. I know they see no distinction. Your flirtation
            with religion puts you on the fringe of this group. I consider
            atheism to be a basic tenant of existentialism. I do not like the
            term but I would accept it rather than be labled a believer.
            Just as the theists cannot serve two masters, God and themselves ,
            you cannot be an individualist socialist. Either your individuality
            is of more importance and you are an existentialist or you are a
            socialist and abandon the necessary individualism of your
            existentialism. The society is to serve the individual and the
            individual is responsible for his own life and decisions. I know you
            are not a believer, but socialism is a form of belief. You believe in
            the collective above the individual. That is where Neitchy broke
            with the systems of faith. Kirkegaard may have realigned to the
            death of his existentialism. Existentialism is the study of that
            which exists. That is my definition from the derevation of the word.
            The fantasies of the faithful are not part of that study. That
            socialism is a faith in the collective abouve the individual may put
            the socialist outside the true base of existentialism.
            I am sure you disagree and I always enjoy your comments.


            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

            Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
            (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

            TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.