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

Re: pounders and thumpers

Expand Messages
  • C. S. Wyatt
    ... enough about existentialism to speak of theistic existentialism but they always fall back to preaching and jesus gibberish. Unfortunately, a great many
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 28, 2005
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "bhvwd" <v.valleywestdental@m...> wrote:
      > writing changes fron bad to almost unintelligible. They know just
      enough about existentialism to speak of theistic existentialism but
      they always fall back to preaching and jesus gibberish.

      Unfortunately, a great many people think they understand any given
      philosophy while having no conception of the given school of thought.
      If the people are wishing to ask questions and learn, there is no
      problem -- it is when they assume to know something that problems occur.

      Talking about personal faith as if it can be explained or even
      justified goes against everything Kierkegaard and other true theistic
      existentialists would propose. That is one reason for the FAQ
      requiring no specific discussions of religion: we welcome only the
      general discussion of existentialism and faith, not personal diatribes.

      > This is not an open discussion group, it is a titled and focused
      group. Because a group of enemies has found a way to blackmail the
      moderator and owner into compliance with their agenda could end in the
      destruction of what has been a good effort.

      No, the problem is that most "current" philosophers claiming the
      "existential" mantle are theists. I am not sure how this started, but
      I wonder if some of it was a backlash against Sartre. That a group of
      scholars seems to dominate is not unexpected -- scholarship cycles.

      The only member ever kicked and finally banned was a "Reverend" -- the
      very title Kierkegaard dismissed as "unchristian" and preposterous. If
      you really think there is a Creator, how can a mere mortal suppose to
      be better or "revered" above others?

      > The owner is not an existentialist and neither is the moderator.
      That is ,in itself ,an odd situation that has been explained as a
      political necessity.

      Actually, I do not believe there are many existentialists, if any,
      only a group of us striving to be independent within a world where
      true independence would be considered criminal. Remember that early
      existentialists suggested the rejection of any "system" as true for
      everyone. What matters is that I strive to have my own system and
      morality instead of a blind embrace of others' systems.

      Unfortunately, I have also been fired from jobs for having my own
      strict ethical constructs. That's the nature of being true to
      yourself, especially if you are as outspoken as I used to be and
      sometimes still am.

      I'm not sure where I would fall in the world of philosophy. I believe
      in personal responsibility, free will, and the consequence of choice.
      I also believe science presents a problem for "traditional"
      existentialism because some people do seem to have limited "free will"
      and others have way too much free will -- sociopaths are truly "free"
      without concern for others. Science surely affects my views, as does
      my belief in the value of scientific data.

      Yet, valuing science, I also believe how I experience the world, how I
      see things, is my personal "truth" far removed from the very science I
      know and understand. Phenomenology and existentialism appreciate the
      individual's reaction to the world over any rational/scientific truths.

      So, I am caught in the middle, like most people. I compromise in order
      to survive and remain sane in a world without the individual freedom I
      wish for each day. I smile at the cameras, know my campus e-mail can
      be scanned (legally), and wish people would wake up to the violations
      of freedom all around us.

      I do not believe any university instructor could challenge the system
      and some of the idiocy I see without being fired. If I am compelled to
      act and say what I believe, to stand for my personal morality at all
      times, I am going to be alienated to such an extreme that functioning
      in modern society might prove impossible.

      I'm currently navigating dangerous political waters at the university.
      I have to write letters this weekend deflecting opposition to a
      research project because it might show weaknesses within some
      departments. I have been told I must rewrite my introduction and
      accept "a bit of immunizing blame" so people won't gripe that I was

      Of course I am biased, we all are, but a study is a study. There are
      bound to be numbers and measures involved. That's political
      correctness gone awry.

      > So it is ok to scandalise the children with religous propaganda but
      not ok to drive them away with the language that every grade school
      student is well aquainted with. We see the soft liberal american
      penchant for self immolation working its worst penchants. Sad, and
      very spineless. Bill

      The language issue has been explained repeatedly. Some
      K12/university/library filters remove posts with language content. I
      know we have had serious problems at our Cal State with legit sites
      and posts being filtered. Imagine trying to get papers on Henry Miller
      through our e-mail system... it is not easy. We have to be creative to
      circumvent the filter on campus. Personally, I think the system proves
      how some paranoid state legislator ruins a university.

      This is certainly not a "liberal" issue. The state senator responsible
      was from the morality police. Absurdity explained, as far as I'm
      concerned. These are the same people unable to trust parents to use
      the "off" button on their radios and televisions.

      Both left and right, atheist and "Christian" want to strip me of some
      freedoms. This is what I oppose. However, letting each speak at times
      reminds us how dangerous than can be to freedom. Once they post
      repeatedly off-topic, time to kick the person after a warning.

      I was told a Libertarian cannot be existential. No idea why, but I
      suppose that alone removes me from the realm. (I reject the notion
      socialism is freedom in any way, but many claim I have no business
      writing about Sartre and Simone, then.) I just don't "belong" to any
      philosophy. Yippeee! I'm free!! (* kidding *)

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