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

Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence

Expand Messages
  • Mattlzpf@aol.com
    In a message dated 8/29/2003 6:50:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... We all know that governments don t look at laws with any philosophical inquiry, that s no
    Message 1 of 192 , Sep 1, 2003
      In a message dated 8/29/2003 6:50:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
      iambiguously@... writes:

      > >>>>>>>>>>The point I am making is that decisions like this are not
      > generally derived from sitting down and trying to grapple introspectively with the
      > role of "society" or the meaning of "Kantian metaethical concepts" or "how can
      > we 'just know' objectively what ot do?". Suire, they may be factored in,
      > more or less, but the far more crucial factors are: "what was I taught about
      > guns?", "what are the experiences I have had around guns?", "what do I thing
      > those experiences mean?".>>>>>>>>>>>

      We all know that governments don't look at laws with any philosophical
      inquiry, that's no discovery. If you could explain why you are bringing this
      up and your actual point it would really help.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • louise
      ... to signify or represent the relationship between in my head and out in the world, postmodernism can only be understood contextually in terms of
      Message 192 of 192 , Mar 13, 2005
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, George Walton <iambiguously@y...>
        > Eduard,
        > Well, as a postmodernist might insists, "like any other word used
        to signify or represent the relationship between in my head and out
        in the world, 'postmodernism' can only be understood contextually in
        terms of particular cultures and political economies."
        > In other words, postmodernism eschews all metaphysical
        contraptions---sacred or secular. They view "reality" in brackets,
        as the manner in which different people interpret different
        circumstantial contexts. Take the word "freedom" for example.
        Mordernists thinkers [usually construed as Kant to the present]
        would attempt to wrap the definition of the word around a binary
        logo-centric ontological contraption: either/or. It was believed,
        therefore, that we could define and grasp Freedom ahistorically.
        That there was an objective, universal manner in which to encompass
        it. That freedom had nothing to do with interpretation, but could
        literally be deduced a priori by The Rational Mind.
        > Postmodernists and poststructuralists debunked that. For them,
        words like "freedom" and "justice" and "good" and "bad" and "right"
        and "wrong" were merely relative "situational interpretations" that
        flowed from the political, economic, social, cultural, and
        historical and interpersonal contexts around which their meaning
        evolved. For example, think of the American Revolutionary War. Think
        of how the monarchy in England grasped the meaning of those words
        above quite differently from most of the Colonists. Or think about
        the how the Colonists viewed the words quite apart from how the
        indigenous Indian tribes did. Or think about how Communists view the
        defintions apart from how capitalists do. Et Cetera.
        > Similarly, right now, I am writing what I think I mean and you are
        reading what you think I'm saying. That's human communication in a
        nutshell. The Modernists, however, will insists that there is an
        objective manner in which these words can be construed. The
        postmodernists, however, never stop laughing when they hear that.
        > In other words: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
        > Biggie
        > eduard at home <yeoman@v...> wrote:
        > Biggie,
        > What is a "postmodernist"??
        > eduard
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "George Walton" <iambiguously@y...>
        > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:30 AM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence
        > > Matt,
        > >
        > > Nothing personal, but I suspect your mind is lost because
        > it doesn't really want to be found. I see that a lot in
        > venues like this.
        > >
        > > Or maybe I'm wrong. Just out of curiosity, how would you
        > differeniate Kant from Hume from Nietzsche from Wittgenstein
        > from Heidegger from Foucault respecting human moral
        > interactions?
        > >
        > > And philosophy is, of course, everywhere. A politician can
        > be completely ignorant and uneducated like the current
        > President of the United States and he is still imbued with
        > the philosophical currents that impregnate human
        > interactions historically. Again, it's like intellectual
        > ether floating all around us. It impacts always. It's just
        > that, as some existentialists and postmodernists like to
        > point out, it is not a metaphysical presence so much as a
        > contextual one.
        > >
        > > Biggie
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > 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
        > ---------------------------------
        > Do you Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.