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

Re: [existlist] Optical Illusions

Expand Messages
  • rubster cruiser
    Atheism is fundamentally optimistic, mary jo, i know i might be asking a personal question. but are u aetheistic.? u see, i am. and i think i am safe in saying
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
      Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
      mary jo,
      i know i might be asking a personal question. but are u aetheistic.?
      u see, i am. and i think i am safe in saying that it accounts for the max negativity in me.
      of course, it is a personal outlook i suppose...
      rubster.

      Mary Jo <alcyon11@...> wrote:
      Rubster!

      Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
      while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was atheistic
      and optimistic. Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to
      Christianity, since it betrayed its namesake. Defining and redefining
      are essentially individualized tasks. It's very difficult to be in
      the other's shoes. It's simply not possible. I can walk my path, and
      you can walk in your path, either alongside or at various
      intersections. We enter another's orbit at one time or another. It
      can be a creative or destructive event. Essentially, we're looking at
      each other across a universe. It's all phenomenology. We're observers.

      Mary Jo

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
      wrote:
      > Even existentialists war upon each
      > other with their tongue swords.
      >
      > mary jo,
      > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
      > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
      there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly the
      toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
      > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
      > into the christian way of life.
      > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
      pessimistic.
      > both are renowned existentilists.
      > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant since
      the beginning of this philosophy.
      > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
      > Rubster!




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


      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      To visit your group on the web, go to:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

      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!?
      Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • louise
      ... it betrayed its namesake. This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is very rusty, but I d say - he thought Christianity had already
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
        Mary Jo wrote:

        >Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to Christianity, since
        it betrayed its namesake.

        This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is
        very rusty, but I'd say - he thought Christianity had already come
        to an end, and the only hope for its revival was an acknowledgment
        that it was indeed dead. This is what he had in common with
        Nietzsche.

        >It's very difficult to be in the other's shoes. It's simply not
        possible. I can walk my path, and you can walk in your path, either
        alongside or at various intersections. We enter another's orbit at
        one time or another. It can be a creative or destructive event.
        Essentially, we're looking at each other across a universe. It's all
        phenomenology. We're observers.

        All you church-going people, please note!!!

        on behalf of the suffering everywhere, because i'm arrogant enough
        to believe i can say that ...

        p.s. my hobby is embarrassing people.
        i love eduard - global icon.

        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
        > wrote:
        > > Even existentialists war upon each
        > > other with their tongue swords.
        > >
        > > mary jo,
        > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
        > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
        > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
        the
        > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
        > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
        > > into the christian way of life.
        > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
        > pessimistic.
        > > both are renowned existentilists.
        > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
        since
        > the beginning of this philosophy.
        > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
        > > Rubster!
      • rubster cruiser
        ... it betrayed its namesake. This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is very rusty, but I d say - he thought Christianity had already
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
          louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:Mary Jo wrote:

          >Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to Christianity, since
          it betrayed its namesake.

          This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is
          very rusty, but I'd say - he thought Christianity had already come
          to an end, and the only hope for its revival was an acknowledgment
          that it was indeed dead. This is what he had in common with
          Nietzsche.

          >It's very difficult to be in the other's shoes. It's simply not
          possible. I can walk my path, and you can walk in your path, either
          alongside or at various intersections. We enter another's orbit at
          one time or another. It can be a creative or destructive event.
          Essentially, we're looking at each other across a universe. It's all
          phenomenology. We're observers.

          All you church-going people, please note!!!

          on behalf of the suffering everywhere, because i'm arrogant enough
          to believe i can say that ...

          p.s. my hobby is embarrassing people.
          i love eduard - global icon.

          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
          > wrote:
          > > Even existentialists war upon each
          > > other with their tongue swords.
          > >
          > > mary jo,
          > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
          > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
          > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
          the
          > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
          > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
          > > into the christian way of life.
          > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
          > pessimistic.
          > > both are renowned existentilists.
          > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
          since
          > the beginning of this philosophy.
          > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
          > > Rubster!



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


          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Groups Links

          To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

          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!?
          Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • rubster cruiser
          sorry for the blank mails if there were any. some technical prob. anyways, this is for bill. i noticed u were critical of the admin shit in amer. but let me
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
            sorry for the blank mails if there were any. some technical prob.
            anyways, this is for bill.
            i noticed u were critical of the admin shit in amer. but let me assure u america is not alone. now, i dont know if thats a consolation or further depressive.
            in my country, there is a man called narendra modi. there is a political party called the VHP which is short for vishwa hindu parishad (roughly translated as "world hindu organization"). u see, india follows the multi party system. thats one of the reasons things are dirty here. so VHP advocates hindu fundamentalism. which means u keep women in homes in the kitchens coz they are merely cooking, offspring producing machines. u cannot kill cows(bah!) coz they are sacred(strangely it slips their notice when these same cows choke on plastic on the roads...they will just not campaign for cleanliness), u advocate the destruction of muslims, and so ans so...on and on it goes.
            so this contemptible -------(censored language) modi single handedly caused a havoc in his state gujarat, though i suppose we must give the indian police their credit for their support of this chap...police is the worst deptt in india. modi caused the hindu and muslim riots in his state some time back.
            u know,i was fortunate enough to come across a documentary on the riots. believe me it was not pretty. people charred, their remains, alive people trying to figure out how to put the charred remains straight so as to bury them properly, alive men and women burning, begging for food.... it shook me. i apologize if i am too graphical. forgive me. wen i had seen this i was 17 years old. hell, i didnt know humans could do this to humans.
            u see, the cause for this utter massive and complete destruction was religion. i lost my faith quite early. this put a seal on it.
            and the man i mentioned, modi, was brazen enough to indirectly state to the media that he was indeed the cause. he said"if the we are not granted the land for the ram temple, there will be a gujarat in every state." he was elected the next CM.
            u see, this is my country. there is only one word for the legal system-it stinks. it stinks of the backlog, people die while their cases are on, it takes so long. the phrase "i will sue u" holds no meaning and is laughed at. and the rapes, women are raped left right and centre. the politicians stink of double standards.
            so u are not alone. of course, i am only concentrating on the negative aspects. there are several good things. but that documentary i saw-made me cry for nites and nites.
            so anyway, thats wat i wanted to say. i am too pessimistic to believe that thngs will change, the fundamentalism mite come down but it will never be rooted out. there will always be modis and bushes around. we have gone from barbarism to decadence without civilization. armageddon has passed us long back, we just dont see it.
            incidentally i would also like to mention that these riots were destructive and showed that human life has no value. but the iraq prison abuse scandal shows human dignity has no value, which is worse. i was truly shocked to see those images.
            rubster.

            louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
            Mary Jo wrote:

            >Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to Christianity, since
            it betrayed its namesake.

            This is a very complex subject, and my reading of Kierkegaard is
            very rusty, but I'd say - he thought Christianity had already come
            to an end, and the only hope for its revival was an acknowledgment
            that it was indeed dead. This is what he had in common with
            Nietzsche.

            >It's very difficult to be in the other's shoes. It's simply not
            possible. I can walk my path, and you can walk in your path, either
            alongside or at various intersections. We enter another's orbit at
            one time or another. It can be a creative or destructive event.
            Essentially, we're looking at each other across a universe. It's all
            phenomenology. We're observers.

            All you church-going people, please note!!!

            on behalf of the suffering everywhere, because i'm arrogant enough
            to believe i can say that ...

            p.s. my hobby is embarrassing people.
            i love eduard - global icon.

            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > Even existentialists war upon each
            > > other with their tongue swords.
            > >
            > > mary jo,
            > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
            > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
            > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
            the
            > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
            > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
            > > into the christian way of life.
            > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
            > pessimistic.
            > > both are renowned existentilists.
            > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
            since
            > the beginning of this philosophy.
            > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
            > > Rubster!



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


            Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            To visit your group on the web, go to:
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist/

            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!?
            Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bartley, Michael
            Mary Jo, I find your statement Atheism is fundamentally optimistic, while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic very interesting, could you explain how
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
              Mary Jo, I find your statement "Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
              while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic" very interesting, could you
              explain how you came to this conclusion. It not that I agree or disagree
              with your conclusion I want to know more. Actually it knocked my socks off!
              Michael

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Mary Jo [mailto:alcyon11@...]
              Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:04 AM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [existlist] Optical Illusions

              Rubster!

              Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
              while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was atheistic
              and optimistic. Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to
              Christianity, since it betrayed its namesake. Defining and redefining
              are essentially individualized tasks. It's very difficult to be in
              the other's shoes. It's simply not possible. I can walk my path, and
              you can walk in your path, either alongside or at various
              intersections. We enter another's orbit at one time or another. It
              can be a creative or destructive event. Essentially, we're looking at
              each other across a universe. It's all phenomenology. We're observers.

              Mary Jo

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
              wrote:
              > Even existentialists war upon each
              > other with their tongue swords.
              >
              > mary jo,
              > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
              > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
              there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly the
              toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
              > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
              > into the christian way of life.
              > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
              pessimistic.
              > both are renowned existentilists.
              > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant since
              the beginning of this philosophy.
              > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
              > Rubster!





              Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
              (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Mary Jo
              Michael, Atheism believes in nothing except human potential. Christianity believes in the potential of an imagined god. It s pessimistic in its view of
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 2, 2004
                Michael,

                Atheism believes in nothing except human potential. Christianity
                believes in the potential of an imagined god. It's pessimistic in its
                view of humanity. Atheism is courageously optimistic in its view of
                humanity given the present state of affairs in the world.

                Mary Jo

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Bartley, Michael"
                <michael.bartley@m...> wrote:
                > Mary Jo, I find your statement "Atheism is fundamentally
                optimistic,
                > while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic" very interesting,
                could you
                > explain how you came to this conclusion. It not that I agree or
                disagree
                > with your conclusion I want to know more. Actually it knocked my
                socks off!
                > Michael
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Mary Jo [mailto:alcyon11@y...]
                > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:04 AM
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [existlist] Optical Illusions
                >
                > Rubster!
                >
                > Appearances can be deceiving. Atheism is fundamentally optimistic,
                > while Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic. Camus was
                atheistic
                > and optimistic. Kierkegaard saw the leap of faith as an end to
                > Christianity, since it betrayed its namesake. Defining and
                redefining
                > are essentially individualized tasks. It's very difficult to be in
                > the other's shoes. It's simply not possible. I can walk my path,
                and
                > you can walk in your path, either alongside or at various
                > intersections. We enter another's orbit at one time or another. It
                > can be a creative or destructive event. Essentially, we're looking
                at
                > each other across a universe. It's all phenomenology. We're
                observers.
                >
                > Mary Jo
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, rubster cruiser <rubster85@y...>
                > wrote:
                > > Even existentialists war upon each
                > > other with their tongue swords.
                > >
                > > mary jo,
                > > u are grieved that even existentialists attack each other.
                > > i cannot help but feel that the reason for this is the fact that
                > there are diverse views on wat existentialism really is. possibly
                the
                > toughest qustion regarding existentialism is to define it....
                > > for instancce, kierkegaard talked of a "leap of faith"
                > > into the christian way of life.
                > > however, sartre's existentialism is atheistic in nature, also
                > pessimistic.
                > > both are renowned existentilists.
                > > this just goes on to show thta differences have been rampant
                since
                > the beginning of this philosophy.
                > > attacks will alwys appear where there is a difference of opinion.
                > > Rubster!
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.