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

DELETE Re: Digest Number 68

Expand Messages
  • Robert Abele
    DELETE ... =====
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      DELETE

      --- existlist@onelist.com wrote:
      >
      > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
      > ----------------------------
      >
      > Get EXPERT CONTENT at ONElist!
      > Join PROS&PUNDITS. For details go to:
      > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/prospun1
      > ">Click Here</a>
      >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > From The Exist List...
      > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > There are 12 messages in this issue.
      >
      > Topics in today's digest:
      >
      > 1. Thoughts and Thinking
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > 2. Existentialism and Feeling
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > 3. Re: SAD ! --- Corrections
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 4. Re: Tirades and Tiaras
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 5. Re: Human Condition
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 6. Re: Human Condition
      > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
      > 7. Bullshit
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 8. Re: Existentialism and Feeling
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 9. Re: Bullshit
      > From: "Matt Kirby"
      > <max.kirby@...>
      > 10. Re: Bullshit
      > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
      > 11. Camus and God
      > From: Brandon Roshto
      > <broshto@...>
      > 12. Re: Existentialism and Feeling
      > From: "hank alphonse"
      > <surdbird@...>
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 1
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:18:30 -0000
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > Subject: Thoughts and Thinking
      >
      > Yana, have written again:
      >
      > >All, I repeat again �why don�t you think� ?<
      >
      > I do not understand what you are on about. There
      > have been many posts to this list which have made me
      > choose to pause for thought. I doubt they would have
      > done this if there had not been a great deal of
      > thought behind them. You have singled me out as one
      > of the few on this list who think, but in my
      > personal experience there are lot more than a few.
      >
      > At the same time, however, I do not remember any of
      > your posts setting me thinking. I have felt,
      > however, the following emotions: compassion,
      > irritation, annoyance, frustration, and disbelief.
      > Therefore I have a challenge. I want you to take the
      > most brilliant, most insightful, most profound
      > thought you have ever had about existentialist
      > philosophy and post it to this list. By doing this
      > we will all have the chance to see what you mean by
      > 'thinking', and also have the choice as to whether
      > we rate you highly enough to read your subsequent
      > posts.
      >
      > Musing about this email, I have been trying to
      > remember whether I have ever come across anyone else
      > who has made it his/her mission in life to make
      > people think. The only one I can recall was a woman
      > I worked with at a firm of reinsurance brokers. The
      > name she called herself, and I kid you not, was
      > Polly Parrot. She worked for around 15 years in the
      > accounts department, making sure none of us fiddled
      > our expenses. In the end she was sacked for
      > inefficiency - it took an age before she would issue
      > a cheque. What I wonder today is why she didn't take
      > a more active role in helping to shape the direction
      > of the company - if she had then she would have had
      > plenty of opportunity to make us all think very
      > hard.
      >
      > Charles Vermont
      > London, England, UK
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > .
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 2
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:36:14 -0000
      > From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > Subject: Existentialism and Feeling
      >
      > Yana wrote:
      >
      > >If you feel insulted then you are responsible for
      > what you feel not me!<
      >
      > I disagree, feeling irritated. It seems to me this
      > is like saying that if you punch me in the face then
      > I am responsible for the pain I feel and not you. If
      > I ask you to punch me in the face then sure, it is
      > my responsibility, but not if it is an unsolicited
      > attack.
      >
      > I believe this goes straight to the heart of the
      > current human condition. Can we form relationships
      > with other human beings where we are all allowed to
      > feel what we feel and express what we feel without
      > being told that we should be feeling something else?
      > In other words, can I be free to express the unique
      > emotions I have without being told to shut up?
      >
      > Charles Vermont
      > London, England, UK
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 3
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:59:02 -0500 (EST)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Re: SAD ! --- Corrections
      >
      > One more error based on faculty assumptions and
      > misunderstandings
      > Our tax dollars do fund roadways in CA. Do you
      > think that the
      > state gov't can fund the reconstruction of the
      > roadways after
      > earthquakes? I know not!
      >
      > An assumption made w/o any supporting evidence
      > (i.e." quote," 'sorry Yana,
      > fact, evidence, etc), isn't worth stating.
      > Everybody operates under the
      > assumption that they're right.
      >
      > Yana, please read over your messages before you send
      > them.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 4
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:31:29 -0500 (EST)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Re: Tirades and Tiaras
      >
      > On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
      >
      > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
      > >
      > > Charles,
      > > It was NOT my that caused me ask those questions.
      > > It was the "TOPIC OF FREEDOM"! And all proved to
      > > me that everything they wrote about that topic was
      > > nothing but buch empty, shallow words that none of
      > > them believed in. You see how if they truley
      > believed
      > > in all their "phylosophical" thoughts, they would
      > NOT
      > > have jumped on my case and called me names. Which
      > is
      > > O.K. because they ONLT proved that I WAS RIGHT,
      > THEY
      > > don't think. And BTW, I meant to not include you
      > in
      > > that e-mail by saying except for Charles but I
      > forgot!
      > > Actually among all these loseres, you are the ONLY
      > one
      > > who thinks. Tom does to but he does not have any
      > real
      > > life experience to use for his teories.
      > >
      > > And as far as my grief, "TIME HEALS EVERYTHING"
      > they say!
      > > >
      > > have a great day
      > > ~yana
      > >
      > >
      > > Fortunately, for you Yana, not everyone replied to
      > your railling post
      > several weeks ago.
      >
      > Please read your messages before you send them.
      >
      >
      > > >From: "Charles Vermont"
      > <Funchoice@...>
      > > >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
      > > >To: "Existentialism List" <existlist@onelist.com>
      > > >Subject: [existlist] Tirades and Tiaras
      > > >Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:42:36 +0100
      > > >
      > > ><< text2.html >>
      > > ><< text3.html >>
      > >
      > > > From The Exist List...
      > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 5
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:42:23 -0500 (EST)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Re: Human Condition
      >
      >
      > Come on Yana. Your comment to Megan, "what you
      > said
      > Megan doesn't have anything to do w/ what I said."
      >
      > Another example of "faculty assumptions and
      > misunderstanding" as Megan
      > would say.
      >
      > I was unaware that all issues in this list revolved
      > around Yana.
      >
      > Seems to me someone is having delusions of grandeur.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 6
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:19:07 -0600
      > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
      > Subject: Re: Human Condition
      >
      > Yana wrote:
      >
      > <<And yes I take full responsibility by doing so.
      > If you feel insulted
      > then you are responsible for what you feel not me!>>
      >
      > If I am insulted by something you say, it stands to
      > reason that I would
      > remain unoffended had you kept your mouth shut.
      > Therefore, your choice to
      > say something is the cause of me being offending.
      > Since you are the cause,
      > you have responsibility. It's a simple equation
      > (cross-apply Charles'
      > example of the punch in the face).
      >
      > Assign corresponding fault or blame (depending on
      > your vocabulary) along
      > with the causal link. This is not to say I wouldn't
      > be responsible, as
      > well --- but in my view of responsibility, any cause
      > holds at least partial
      > responsibility.
      >
      > <<Human condition is so far from what it was even 50
      > years ago, all I am
      > saying is to analyze what we are, have and wonder
      > about NOW!>>
      >
      > Are you saying that nothing from the past is
      > relevant? Hardly. Ever hear
      > the expression, "Those who forget the past are
      > doomed to repeat it?" Those
      > in a rush to deal with "NOW" often neglect the
      > lessons from the past.
      >
      > <<Those �great thinkers� wanted to improve the human
      > conditions.>>
      >
      > How can you say that? How is it possible for you to
      > know their motives?
      > Especially considering your incredible disdain for
      > established philosophers.
      >
      > <<How can you define Moral Obligation to a 15 year
      > old? A 15 year old that
      > does not have a mother at home all day to teach it
      > to him/her!>>
      >
      > You can define moral obligation to a 15-year-old the
      > way you would to any
      > other person --- in the terms in which you see it.
      > Based on my paradigm,
      > I'd say something about responsibility for actions.
      > Someone else might
      > speak in terms of God's wrath. Somebody else might
      > put it in terms of
      > "hedons" and utilitarianism.
      >
      > [I'll ignore that apparent slur on working mothers'
      > inability to raise
      > children properly.]
      >
      > <<What is the point of thinking if it does not
      > effect the society you live
      > in.>>
      >
      > So thinking is only valuable as a means to a
      > consequence? Thinking just
      > for the sake of thinking has no virtue? I heartily
      > disagree with that. (I
      > could cite Plato's theory of the forms, but I
      > wouldn't want Yana to wet her
      > pants.)
      >
      > <<Meghan comes up with the example of a man leaving
      > his shut gun and �.
      > Truthfully Meghan, what did that have to do with
      > what I said?!!!>>
      >
      > Forgive me for trying to draw some purpose and
      > topicality from your
      > ramblings. I wasn't aware this forum was to be
      > entirely dedicated to you
      > insulting listmembers and ranting about
      > pharmaceutical conspiracies.
      >
      > <<I had already said I was responsible for what I
      > wrote so what are you
      > trying to achieve by bringing up an example that
      > was similar to your
      > previous e-mail about the book you read (in the book
      > review post!) that
      > has nothing to do with what I said!>>
      >
      > I wanted to move the discussion in another direction
      > and see what other
      > listmembers had to say about responsibility and
      > intent from an
      > existentialist perspective.
      >
      > <<Both of your expamples had to do with killing, why
      > NOT something that has
      > to do with living?!!!>>
      >
      > You don't like my examples, come up with
      > substitutes. I wait in
      > anticipation for them. You know what they say ...
      > if you don't like
      > something, don't just complain --- make a change.
      > It seems all you do is
      > criticize. Why not improve upon what you don't
      > like?
      >
      > <<you do NOT know who you are trying to
      > manupulate!>>
      >
      > I'm happier not knowing. Really. Besides, I've
      > never been one who is
      > easily intimidated.
      >
      > <<I have a friend that is vegetarian and meditates a
      > lot BUT she does not
      > socializes with other people. I asked her once what
      > is the point of her
      > meditating when it does NOT effect the world she
      > lives in. She said�
      > People annoyed her�!!!! That is something, isn�t it?
      > :)>>
      >
      > Emily Dickinson chose to isolate herself and she
      > produced some of the
      > world's greatest poetry, which was fully appreciated
      > after she died.
      > Perhaps you misunderstand your friend.
      >
      > <<When i started reading the �existlist� while back,
      > not too many people
      > were posting and i thought how can we use this
      > superhighway of information
      > to our benefit?>>
      >
      > Ah, but perhaps the low traffic was an example of
      > how the list *was* being
      > used to our benefit! High traffic doesn't
      > necessarily indicate a great
      > dialogue is occurring.
      >
      > <<so if i am reading this list it better have some
      > new materials!>>
      >
      > Like I said before --- complaining without action is
      > useless. If you don't
      > like things, affect your own change instead of
      > poking at others to do so
      > for you.
      >
      > <<at least I made you start questioning
      > yourselves!>>
      >
      > I haven't questioned myself one bit due to anything
      > you've put forth ---
      > however, others on this list have made me think,
      > with their intelligence
      > and insightfulness. Of course, I've certainly
      > questioned *you* ...
      >
      > <<We live in a world (and i am talking specifcaly
      > about US because being
      > from the other side of the ocean, this place is a
      > planet All by it self)>>
      >
      > Now I see why all my Canadian friends think
      > Americans are so dreadfully
      > self-centered ...
      >
      > <<everybody is rushing to get somewhere and when we
      > get where we wanted to
      > go, we are rushing to go somewhere else and mind you
      > we have the fastest
      > cars to take us there! (who knows where!) .>>
      >
      > Anyone else here suddenly think of Jed Purdy?
      >
      > <<Television did not exist 100 years ago, neither
      > did the remote control
      > for it, so people socialized and read a lot hence
      > their minds worked!
      > Television has paralyzed people�s minds, they do not
      > think anymore, they do
      > as they are told to do via the advertisement.>>
      >
      > So you're saying that television eliminates the
      > functioning of the mind and
      > free will? As someone who watches "The Simpsons" on
      > a daily basis and is
      > pulling a 4.0 GPA this semester, I beg to differ.
      > Please refrain from
      > absurd generalizations.
      >
      > <<When Ghoteh wrote his �Faust�, he lived in the
      > best natural environment
      > anybody could live in and he did not have Internet
      > to waste his time
      > �CHATING ABOUT BULL SHIT�, how can one living in
      > Silicon Valey, NY or SF
      > could ever come-up with that kind of book?!>>
      >
      > Does every book have to be "Faust" to be great? I
      > can think of several
      > books written recently which are quite phenomenal.
      > Besides, I find Ghoteh
      > [sic] rather prosaic.
      >
      > <<they come-up with scincefiction to escape the
      > society they live in, to
      > escape the reality.>>
      >
      > "Scincefiction" [sic] has been around a great deal
      > longer than our present
      > social structure --- think of Jules Verne!
      >
      > <<They do not realize the reason for existence
      > because they are too busy
      > running away from it!>>
      >
      > Perhaps their reason for existence is to write
      > science fiction.
      >
      > <<I can not teach about responsibility, moral
      > obligation and death and life
      > by reading Plato.>>
      >
      > That's a limitation on your part, not the fault of
      > cultural relativism.
      > Other people do just fine using Plato's writings as
      > a groundwork for
      > musings on responsibility, moral obligation, death,
      > and life.
      >
      > <<That is all I am saying.>>
      >
      > You seem to be saying a lot more, and much of it is
      > utterly groundless.
      >
      >
      > -Meghan
      >
      >
      > _____________________
      >
      > http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html
      >
      > "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way
      > myself."
      >
      > -- Rita Mae Brown
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 7
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:53:45 -0500 (EST)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Bullshit
      >
      >
      >
      > Yana said, "Plato lived in a world that was
      > different. The answers that
      > have been written do not change or improve the human
      > condition in our
      > times."
      >
      > Once again" faculty assumptions and
      > misunderstanding" at work.
      >
      > I'll give you a taste of your own sophist-like
      > techniques
      > you use to criticize others on this list. It's
      > easy. You who accuses
      > many of not thinking.
      >
      > 1. You said, " Plato lived in a world that was
      > different."
      > What was so different about their world than ours?
      > Were the
      > natural laws of their world different from the
      > natural laws of our
      > world? Are we not still studying the same natural
      > laws they were
      > studying in the 4th century BC? If this is the
      > case then don't
      > bother sending posts to anyone that lives outside
      > of your area (CA
      > I think) because nature might be different for
      > those who don't
      > reside in your commune.
      > 2. You said, "The answers that have been written do
      > not change or improve
      > the human condition in our times."
      > God this is easy. Lets consider Copernicus. He
      > argued
      > successfully that, rather than the sun revolving
      > around the earth
      > (the geocentric theory), the earth revolved around
      > the sun (the
      > heliocentric theory). He proved this in the 15th
      > century. This
      > was before this technology you spoke of Yana.
      > There was no
      > almanac. Thales (585 BC) predicted an eclipse. He
      > did this by
      > watching the stars. Are you telling me that this
      > knowledge isn't
      > practical?
      > It seems to me that you think that people in the
      > 20th century are
      > so much smarter than those of the past.
      > -could you prove the earth round?
      > -could you predict a eclipse?
      > -could you explain the laws of gravity (this has no
      > value today
      > either according to you)
      > -could you prove the heliocentric theory?
      >
      >
      > ON ETHICS and Morality
      > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, for your
      > information, founded the basis
      > for all MORALITY. The morality and ethics today
      > still echo the works of
      > the
      > philosophers and not much more (I Think). Nietzsche
      > is an exception,
      > however he is related to Aristotle. His ethics, for
      > the most part, are
      > opposite
      > Aristotle's. However, my point: All moral and
      > ethical theory is in
      > opposition or
      > response to the medieval philosophers.
      > *If you think differently Yana, don't just make an
      > assertion like
      > you ususally do w/o evidence, facts, observations,
      > or some
      > authority on
      > the subject to back it up. All knowledge isn't
      > subjective. And if you
      > think it is don't reply to this post. If you think
      > all knowledge is
      > subjective then write
      > a book and title it Yanaism or something. Let me
      > know when the book is
      > done. I'll critique it for you (at a small proce of
      > coarse).
      >
      >
      > Ethics and morality still revolve around the great
      > philosophers. Most
      > people know the general themes in these subjects.
      > However, they do not
      > seem to live by these central all of the time. This
      > is common sense.
      >
      > Technology, on the other hand, still revolves around
      > the same
      > knowledge that you assumed worthless in Plato's
      > time: Natural science.
      > The difference between our technology is that we
      > apply the maximums of
      > these sciences. Although these maxims are abstruse
      > to the layman, he
      > still benifits from their application.
      >
      > It seems to me at the present time, that ethical and
      > moral theory are
      > paradoxical. For example, as I mentioned above:
      > Most of us know the
      > foundations of all these theories, regardless of if
      > you know Aristotle. .
      > . etc. But the problem is that we don't apply these
      > basic simple ideals
      > that we are conscious of and understand. This is
      > the problem.
      >
      >
      > Brandon
      >
      > PS: Yana PLEASE don't make these general
      > assumptions w/o an effort to
      > back them up beyond the fact that you made them,
      > that you thought them,
      > that you think. . . . In a real world this means
      > nothing to me. However
      > nature in SC may be different then nature in CA.
      > Therefore the same
      > natural laws won't apply to us universallily. If
      > you think this is the
      > case don't bother responding to this message.
      >
      >
      > YANA SAYS: "Plato lived in a world that was
      > different. The answers that
      > have been written do not change the human condition
      > in our times"
      > Am I the only one that disagrees? Let me know.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 8
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:02:29 -0500 (EST)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Re: Existentialism and Feeling
      >
      > Why don't you accept the challenge by Charles.
      > What do you think?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 9
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:38:10 -0600
      > From: "Matt Kirby" <max.kirby@...>
      > Subject: Re: Bullshit
      >
      > I agree with you, thank you for the very well
      > presented argument, hopefully
      > Yana will take your advice and THINK before she
      > post. Yana I hope you read
      > Roshto's post completely and understand that if you
      > want to present a
      > perspective or an argument this is the logical and
      > acceptable way. Making
      > false and unfounded assumptions will not get people
      > to think, it will only
      > make people look at you as an uneducated moron, to
      > put it lightly. There
      > comes a time Yana when you must relize that people
      > are not like you, and
      > people do not think like you (Thank God for that),
      > you must accept that and
      > be humble in you opinion's no matter how bad the
      > delusions of grandeur are.
      > Thanks again Roshto for the well presented post.
      > Kirby
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > To: <existlist@onelist.com>
      > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 6:53 PM
      > Subject: [existlist] Bullshit
      >
      >
      > > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yana said, "Plato lived in a world that was
      > different. The answers that
      > > have been written do not change or improve the
      > human condition in our
      > > times."
      > >
      > > Once again" faculty assumptions and
      > misunderstanding" at work.
      > >
      > > I'll give you a taste of your own sophist-like
      > techniques
      > > you use to criticize others on this list. It's
      > easy. You who accuses
      > > many of not thinking.
      > >
      > > 1. You said, " Plato lived in a world that was
      > different."
      > > What was so different about their world than ours?
      > Were the
      > > natural laws of their world different from the
      > natural laws of our
      > > world? Are we not still studying the same natural
      > laws they were
      > > studying in the 4th century BC? If this is the
      > case then don't
      > > bother sending posts to anyone that lives outside
      > of your area (CA
      > > I think) because nature might be different for
      > those who don't
      > > reside in your commune.
      > > 2. You said, "The answers that have been written
      > do not change or improve
      > > the human condition in our times."
      > > God this is easy. Lets consider Copernicus. He
      > argued
      > > successfully that, rather than the sun revolving
      > around the earth
      > > (the geocentric theory), the earth revolved around
      > the sun (the
      > > heliocentric theory). He proved this in the 15th
      > century. This
      > > was before this technology you spoke of Yana.
      > There was no
      > > almanac. Thales (585 BC) predicted an eclipse.
      > He did this by
      > > watching the stars. Are you telling me that this
      > knowledge isn't
      > > practical?
      > > It seems to me that you think that people in the
      > 20th century are
      > > so much smarter than those of the past.
      > > -could you prove the earth round?
      > > -could you predict a eclipse?
      > > -could you explain the laws of gravity (this has
      > no value today
      > > either according to you)
      > > -could you prove the heliocentric theory?
      > >
      > >
      > > ON ETHICS and Morality
      > > Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, for your
      > information, founded the basis
      > > for all MORALITY. The morality and ethics today
      > still echo the works of
      > > the
      > > philosophers and not much more (I Think).
      > Nietzsche is an exception,
      > > however he is related to Aristotle. His ethics,
      > for the most part, are
      > > opposite
      > > Aristotle's. However, my point: All moral and
      > ethical theory is in
      > > opposition or
      > > response to the medieval philosophers.
      > > *If you think differently Yana, don't just make an
      > assertion like
      > > you ususally do w/o evidence, facts, observations,
      > or some
      > > authority on
      > > the subject to back it up. All knowledge isn't
      > subjective. And if you
      > > think it is don't reply to this post. If you
      > think all knowledge is
      > > subjective then write
      > > a book and title it Yanaism or something. Let me
      > know when the book is
      > > done. I'll critique it for you (at a small proce
      > of coarse).
      > >
      > >
      > > Ethics and morality still revolve around the great
      > philosophers. Most
      > > people know the general themes in these subjects.
      > However, they do not
      > > seem to live by these central all of the time.
      > This is common sense.
      > >
      > > Technology, on the other hand, still revolves
      > around the same
      > > knowledge that you assumed worthless in Plato's
      > time: Natural science.
      > > The difference between our technology is that we
      > apply the maximums of
      > > these sciences. Although these maxims are
      > abstruse to the layman, he
      > > still benifits from their application.
      > >
      > > It seems to me at the present time, that ethical
      > and moral theory are
      > > paradoxical. For example, as I mentioned above:
      > Most of us know the
      > > foundations of all these theories, regardless of
      > if you know Aristotle. .
      > > . etc. But the problem is that we don't apply
      > these basic simple ideals
      > > that we are conscious of and understand. This is
      > the problem.
      > >
      > >
      > > Brandon
      > >
      > > PS: Yana PLEASE don't make these general
      > assumptions w/o an effort to
      > > back them up beyond the fact that you made them,
      > that you thought them,
      > > that you think. . . . In a real world this means
      > nothing to me. However
      > > nature in SC may be different then nature in CA.
      > Therefore the same
      > > natural laws won't apply to us universallily. If
      > you think this is the
      > > case don't bother responding to this message.
      > >
      > >
      > > YANA SAYS: "Plato lived in a world that was
      > different. The answers that
      > > have been written do not change the human
      > condition in our times"
      > > Am I the only one that disagrees? Let me know.
      > >
      > >
      > > > From The Exist List...
      > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 10
      > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:59:51 -0600
      > From: Meghan <freelance@...>
      > Subject: Re: Bullshit
      >
      > Brandon wrote:
      >
      > <<Ethics and morality still revolve around the great
      > philosophers.>>
      >
      > It would certainly be a challenge to create an
      > entirely new system of
      > ethics without using any component already present
      > in a moral system. A
      > good deal of them are either refuting or expanding
      > on pre-existing moral
      > theories.
      >
      > Besides, as we all well know, citing a reliable
      > authority which supports
      > your stance gives your position more validity.
      >
      > <<Most people know the general themes in these
      > subjects. However, they do
      > not seem to live by these central all of the time.
      > This is common sense.>>
      >
      > This is an excellent point. I'm well aware of the
      > categorical imperative,
      > but I'd find myself paralyzed if I attempted to live
      > by it. :-)
      >
      > <<YANA SAYS: "Plato lived in a world that was
      > different. The answers that
      > have been written do not change the human condition
      > in our times" Am I the
      > only one that disagrees? Let me know.>>
      >
      > I disagree; the answers that have been written
      > *did* change the human
      > condition, from their inception to the present day.
      > And as people find new
      > ways to intrepret and apply them, they will continue
      > to shape our world.
      >
      >
      > -Meghan
      >
      >
      > _____________________
      >
      > http://nettrash.com/users/meghan/enter.html
      >
      > "Lead me not into temptation; I can find the way
      > myself."
      >
      > -- Rita Mae Brown
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 11
      > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:04:50 -0500 (EST)
      > From: Brandon Roshto <broshto@...>
      > Subject: Camus and God
      >
      > I Was just reading old posts that I have saved when
      > I ran across
      > one in which someone wrote that Camus and
      > Kierkegaard incorporated God
      > into their work. I'm aware that Kierkegaard did
      > this, but where did
      > Camus' did he do this?
      > Brandon
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Message: 12
      > Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:17:30 -0500
      > From: "hank alphonse" <surdbird@...>
      > Subject: Re: Existentialism and Feeling
      >
      >
      > I relate to this because I realy try to open up on
      > this list. I don't think I will contribute
      > creativly but at least i can learn.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I believe this goes straight to the heart of the
      > current human condition. Can we form relationships
      > with other human beings where we are all allowed to
      > feel what we feel and express what we feel without
      > being told that we should be feeling something else?
      > In other words, can I be free to express the unique
      > emotions I have without being told to shut up?
      >
      > Charles Vermont
      > London, England, UK
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      _______________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >


      =====
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.