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

Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence

Expand Messages
  • Mary Jo Malo
    Biggie, What is your point and why do you recommend a “god” upon which to base our moral decisions when you can’t personally embrace such a religious
    Message 1 of 192 , Sep 2, 2003
      Biggie,

      What is your point and why do you recommend a �god� upon which to base our moral decisions when you can�t personally embrace such a religious certainty? Isn�t it more efficacious to discuss and promote the major tenet and definition of Existentialism - that we don�t have those religious certainties and that we must make very important decisions in that void? This is what makes us adult and responsible. I feel that your dead horse is beginning to protest his endless beatings. Even you want to discuss Christian Existentialism, then let�s do so using the logic that defines such a god of morality. I once asked you what were the attributes and uniqueness of such a god. You didn�t answer but rather retreated to your ambiguous and somewhat futile rhetoric. What say you?

      Mary Jo
      George Walton <iambiguously@...> wrote:Eduard,

      Folks have been predicting the eventual decline of "conventional religion" since The Enlightment. Is it gone yet? No. Why? Because however more sophisticated science becomes in "explaining things naturally", it can't explain or obviate the things that matter most to people. I mean, why does conventional religion persist even in the belly of the Pop Culture beast where the alleged new Gods---consumption and celebrity---have in some respects eclipsed the old?

      Because, however much you purchase in the way of gadgits and indulge in distractions... and however much you follow religiously the marriage of Jennifer and Brad, none of that can puncture the true meaning of religion: the benefits pacgage. With God you get:

      Immortality and Paradise
      Divine Justice
      Devine Explanations
      A Script--the Bible
      Moral Truth
      Something teleological in which to shovel all the pain and suffering in

      Science can't compete there, can it? In fact, science could come out with an exact blueprint, a TOE rationally explaining...well...everything, and billions of folks would still be religious. The human condition, after all, is bursting at the seams with terrible existential truths, right? So there will always be a need to subsume it in something more substantial and enduring and soothing. God, you might say, is the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms. Listen to Buffy Saint Marie's haunting rendition of Leonard Cohen's song "God is Alive, Magic is Afoot".

      Hell, even I would believe if I could figure out a way to.

      Biggie





      eduard at home <yeoman@...> wrote:
      Biggie,

      I must admit that I like religion because of the confidence
      one can have in one's opinion. But I don't see how
      conventional religion can last much longer into the 21st
      century.

      eduard

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "George Walton" <iambiguously@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 12:40 PM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Characteristics of Existence


      > Eduard,
      >
      > Golly, given that lots and lots of religious folks
      absolutely insist that Adam and Eve is the starting point of
      human existence it sort of bears looking into, right? In
      fact, if you run a poll, most of them, once they have run
      out of...uh...rational explanations will...uh...hem and haw
      and stammer a bit and then blurt out: "I just know it,
      that's why!!"
      >
      > Really, try it.
      >
      >
      >
      > Biggie


      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!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      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!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

      [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...>
        wrote:
        > 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
        Service.
        >
        >
        > ---------------------------------
        > 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.