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

Re: thesis vs.life

Expand Messages
  • gina goia
    -Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to so many different views with respect to its underliyng philosophical foundations,and hence
    Message 1 of 30 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      -Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to
      so many different views with respect to its underliyng philosophical
      foundations,and hence proper interpretive framework,as has the
      guarantee of freedom of expression,the free speech: --
      (1) assuring individuals self-fulfillment
      (2)promoting discovery of truth
      (3)providing for participation in decisionmaking by all members of
      society
      (4)promoting social stability through discussion and compromise of
      differences (F.Schauer,Free Speech:A Philosophical Inquiry(1982)
      The free speech has developed in the situation of
      frustration,injustice,abuse or discrimination.The Berkeley Free
      Speech Movement was one of the first of the 1960's university
      student protest that challenged authority and criticized the way
      things were...
      In existentialism a main concept is:"to exist is to be
      free..." "Don't ask what has been or what is usual,or what is
      expected of you,don't be determined by your past or by your habits
      or by the people surrounding you,but realize that this very moment
      is a new platform to jump into any possible direction like a
      flea...One student of Heidegger's got sarcastic characterizing a
      Heidegger lecture of the twenties by words"We are wildly determined-
      if only we knew determined what to do!"...Do you? gina
      In existlist@yahoogroups.com, carneymh <carneymh@y...> wrote:
      > Do you really think there is such a thing as "free speech?" Or
      that it has ever existed such that it can ever be "restored"?
      >
      > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
      > Ethics and morality will coincide once freedom of speech is
      restored.
      >
      > English Pericles
      > ... against sentient cruelties ...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
      nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      >
      >
      > 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.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • louise
      For the existentialist, reading is always contemporary. It is necessarily in the present we respond, existing as the form we are, temporal flesh. Often the
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 15, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        For the existentialist, reading is always contemporary. It is
        necessarily in the present we respond, existing as the form we are,
        temporal flesh. Often the eighteeth, nineteenth century writers,
        revive me from discouragement, I love the purity of spirit, even in
        context of apparent aesthetic cynicism. The following extract is
        taken from Soren Kierkegaard's "Either/Or - A Fragment of Life",
        published by Victor Eremita (one of SK's pseudonymous personae).

        ~ Vainly I strive against it. My foot slips. My life is still a
        poet's existence. What could be more unhappy? I am predestined;
        fate laughs at me when it suddenly shows me how everything I do to
        resist, becomes a moment in such an existence. I can describe hope
        so vividly that every hoping individual will acknowledge my
        description; and yet it is a deception, for while I picture hope, I
        think of memory.

        There is still another proof for the existence of God, one which has
        hitherto been overlooked. It is propounded by a servant in
        Aristophanes' *The Knights*:

        Demosthenes:
        Shrines? shrines? Why surely you don't believe in the gods?
        Nicias:
        I do.
        Demosthenes:
        But what's your argument? Where's your proof?
        Nicias:
        Because I feel they persecute me and hate me in spite of everything
        I try to please 'em.
        Demosthenes:
        Well, well. That's true; you're right about that. ~

        From the section titled, 'Diapsalmata' [textual note explains that
        this is a Greek word which means 'interlude', used in the Greek
        translation of the Psalms of David, about the musical interludes
        introduced between the different sections of the text, at the
        performance in the synagogue.]
        Translation by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson,
        Princeton U.P. 1949.

        --------------

        posted by Louise
      • two_owl_night
        To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the Hebrew text. What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still contemporary. Where the
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
          Hebrew text.

          What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still contemporary.
          Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
          trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will to
          survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When the
          chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their gods to
          save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand? Is
          this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
          >
          > For the existentialist, reading is always contemporary. It is
          > necessarily in the present we respond, existing as the form we are,
          > temporal flesh. Often the eighteeth, nineteenth century writers,
          > revive me from discouragement, I love the purity of spirit, even in
          > context of apparent aesthetic cynicism. The following extract is
          > taken from Soren Kierkegaard's "Either/Or - A Fragment of Life",
          > published by Victor Eremita (one of SK's pseudonymous personae).
          >
          > ~ Vainly I strive against it. My foot slips. My life is still a
          > poet's existence. What could be more unhappy? I am predestined;
          > fate laughs at me when it suddenly shows me how everything I do to
          > resist, becomes a moment in such an existence. I can describe hope
          > so vividly that every hoping individual will acknowledge my
          > description; and yet it is a deception, for while I picture hope, I
          > think of memory.
          >
          > There is still another proof for the existence of God, one which
          has
          > hitherto been overlooked. It is propounded by a servant in
          > Aristophanes' *The Knights*:
          >
          > Demosthenes:
          > Shrines? shrines? Why surely you don't believe in the gods?
          > Nicias:
          > I do.
          > Demosthenes:
          > But what's your argument? Where's your proof?
          > Nicias:
          > Because I feel they persecute me and hate me in spite of everything
          > I try to please 'em.
          > Demosthenes:
          > Well, well. That's true; you're right about that. ~
          >
          > From the section titled, 'Diapsalmata' [textual note explains that
          > this is a Greek word which means 'interlude', used in the Greek
          > translation of the Psalms of David, about the musical interludes
          > introduced between the different sections of the text, at the
          > performance in the synagogue.]
          > Translation by David F. Swenson and Lillian Marvin Swenson,
          > Princeton U.P. 1949.
          >
          > --------------
          >
          > posted by Louise
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it appears to me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in complicity with the
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it appears to
            me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in complicity with the
            Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that the conflict can
            be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example. With so many
            Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder. What "end
            game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another man's ... well, you
            get the idea.

            Yikes.
            WS


            In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@... writes:


            > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
            > Hebrew text.
            >
            > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still contemporary.
            > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
            > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will to
            > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When the
            > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their gods to
            > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand? Is
            > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
            >
            > Mary
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • two_owl_night
            Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across millenia. Those prophesies were epic
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
              prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
              millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
              place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they are
              today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
              dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
              species . . .

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
              >
              > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it
              appears to
              > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
              complicity with the
              > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that the
              conflict can
              > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
              With so many
              > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
              What "end
              > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
              man's ... well, you
              > get the idea.
              >
              > Yikes.
              > WS
              >
              >
              > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@... writes:
              >
              >
              > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
              > > Hebrew text.
              > >
              > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
              contemporary.
              > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
              > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will
              to
              > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When
              the
              > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
              gods to
              > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand?
              Is
              > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
              > >
              > > Mary
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • louise
              Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the culmination of a struggle more
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the
                people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the
                culmination of a struggle more than two centuries old. Respect for
                ancient faiths, regardless whether one takes seriously their claims,
                when translated into historic or philosophic statement, represents
                our best hope for progress. A loonie is one more religious fiction,
                crafted, as I have attempted to explain here before, by adherents to
                the prevailing Western cult - paternalistic humanism.

                Louise
                ... ever distrustful of political incursion

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night"
                <two_owl_night@...> wrote:
                >
                > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
                > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they
                are
                > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                > species . . .
                >
                > Mary
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                > >
                > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East,
                it
                > appears to
                > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                > complicity with the
                > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that
                the
                > conflict can
                > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
                > With so many
                > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
                > What "end
                > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                > man's ... well, you
                > > get the idea.
                > >
                > > Yikes.
                > > WS
                > >
                > >
                > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@ writes:
                > >
                > >
                > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                > > > Hebrew text.
                > > >
                > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                > contemporary.
                > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can
                we
                > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the
                will
                > to
                > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers?
                When
                > the
                > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
                > gods to
                > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his"
                hand?
                > Is
                > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                > > >
                > > > Mary
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
              • eupraxis@aol.com
                I have no respect for ancient faiths , nor for the quietism of those who eschew politics in behalf of ancient faiths -- or any new faiths, for that matter.
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of those who
                  eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new faiths, for that
                  matter. It is easy to call any criticism that you do not care for "paternalistic"
                  without any further ado, as if that is supposed to marshal some communal
                  peeve, but it is the height of insincerity to accuse secular humanism, which has
                  fought against the paternalistic and reactionary abuses of power and influence
                  by 'religion' from its inception, of anything like paternalism. Modern feminism
                  (at least in Europe) comes directly out of that intellectual ferment.

                  The case can be made, in fact that secular humanism (and its scion,
                  existentialism, to a considerable extent) were born precisely as a defense against the
                  religious and metaphysical underpinnings of reactionary politics, which is why
                  our typical bible thumper here in the U.S. is still so shrill about its
                  influence.

                  Wil

                  In a message dated 7/16/06 11:05:19 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                  > Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the
                  > people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the
                  > culmination of a struggle more than two centuries old. Respect for
                  > ancient faiths, regardless whether one takes seriously their claims,
                  > when translated into historic or philosophic statement, represents
                  > our best hope for progress. A loonie is one more religious fiction,
                  > crafted, as I have attempted to explain here before, by adherents to
                  > the prevailing Western cult - paternalistic humanism.
                  >
                  > Louise
                  > ... ever distrustful of political incursion
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "two_owl_night"
                  > <two_owl_night@two> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                  > > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                  > > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
                  > > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they
                  > are
                  > > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                  > > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                  > > species . . .
                  > >
                  > > Mary
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East,
                  > it
                  > > appears to
                  > > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                  > > complicity with the
                  > > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that
                  > the
                  > > conflict can
                  > > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
                  > > With so many
                  > > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
                  > > What "end
                  > > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                  > > man's ... well, you
                  > > > get the idea.
                  > > >
                  > > > Yikes.
                  > > > WS
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@ writes:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                  > > > > Hebrew text.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                  > > contemporary.
                  > > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can
                  > we
                  > > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the
                  > will
                  > > to
                  > > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers?
                  > When
                  > > the
                  > > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
                  > > gods to
                  > > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his"
                  > hand?
                  > > Is
                  > > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Mary
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • andy_rix13@cox.net
                  I had never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine eschatology being applicable! Andy
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I had never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine eschatology being applicable!

                    Andy


                    ---- two_owl_night <two_owl_night@...> wrote:
                    > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                    > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                    > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already taken
                    > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they are
                    > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                    > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                    > species . . .
                    >
                    > Mary
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                    > >
                    > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle East, it
                    > appears to
                    > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                    > complicity with the
                    > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that the
                    > conflict can
                    > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for example.
                    > With so many
                    > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only shudder.
                    > What "end
                    > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                    > man's ... well, you
                    > > get the idea.
                    > >
                    > > Yikes.
                    > > WS
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@... writes:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words of the
                    > > > Hebrew text.
                    > > >
                    > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                    > contemporary.
                    > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity? Can we
                    > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise the will
                    > to
                    > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers? When
                    > the
                    > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on their
                    > gods to
                    > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his" hand?
                    > Is
                    > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                    > > >
                    > > > Mary
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • louise
                    Wil, You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my criticism easy , when it is based on hard intellectual fighting at this list for two and a
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wil,

                      You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                      criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting at
                      this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                      half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and, more
                      recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is that
                      the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my case
                      to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                      there's plenty of meat in the archives.

                      Louise

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                      >
                      > I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of
                      those who
                      > eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new
                      faiths, for that
                      > matter. It is easy to call any criticism that you do not care
                      for "paternalistic"
                      > without any further ado, as if that is supposed to marshal some
                      communal
                      > peeve, but it is the height of insincerity to accuse secular
                      humanism, which has
                      > fought against the paternalistic and reactionary abuses of power
                      and influence
                      > by 'religion' from its inception, of anything like paternalism.
                      Modern feminism
                      > (at least in Europe) comes directly out of that intellectual
                      ferment.
                      >
                      > The case can be made, in fact that secular humanism (and its
                      scion,
                      > existentialism, to a considerable extent) were born precisely as a
                      defense against the
                      > religious and metaphysical underpinnings of reactionary politics,
                      which is why
                      > our typical bible thumper here in the U.S. is still so shrill
                      about its
                      > influence.
                      >
                      > Wil
                      >
                      > In a message dated 7/16/06 11:05:19 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      > > Politicians are pragmatists. They serve the delusions of the
                      > > people. It is hardly matter of Bush & Co. We are witnessing the
                      > > culmination of a struggle more than two centuries old. Respect
                      for
                      > > ancient faiths, regardless whether one takes seriously their
                      claims,
                      > > when translated into historic or philosophic statement,
                      represents
                      > > our best hope for progress. A loonie is one more religious
                      fiction,
                      > > crafted, as I have attempted to explain here before, by
                      adherents to
                      > > the prevailing Western cult - paternalistic humanism.
                      > >
                      > > Louise
                      > > ... ever distrustful of political incursion
                      > >
                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, "two_owl_night"
                      > > <two_owl_night@two> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Indeed. Some deluded believer-leaders are trying to fulfill
                      > > > prophesies, all of them taken out of cultural context across
                      > > > millenia. Those prophesies were epic poems of events already
                      taken
                      > > > place. They were the same ugly and beautiful hopes then as they
                      > > are
                      > > > today. It would seem that the human species can destroy its own
                      > > > dreams. Then again, if your dream is to destroy the human
                      > > > species . . .
                      > > >
                      > > > Mary
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > If you are alluding to the present tragedy in the Middle
                      East,
                      > > it
                      > > > appears to
                      > > > > me, at least, that Bush and Company are in some manner in
                      > > > complicity with the
                      > > > > Israeli action. If that is so, then there is little hope that
                      > > the
                      > > > conflict can
                      > > > > be mediated. Bush has come out AGAINST a ceasefire, for
                      example.
                      > > > With so many
                      > > > > Christian loonies in that administration, one can only
                      shudder.
                      > > > What "end
                      > > > > game" do they have in mind? One man's "rapture" is another
                      > > > man's ... well, you
                      > > > > get the idea.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Yikes.
                      > > > > WS
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 6:40:33 AM, two_owl_night@ writes:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > > To measure, consider, and weigh the meaning of the words
                      of the
                      > > > > > Hebrew text.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > What does it mean when ancient ethnic hatreds are still
                      > > > contemporary.
                      > > > > > Where the hope? Where the encouragement? Where the sanity?
                      Can
                      > > we
                      > > > > > trust our leaders to use their intelligence and exercise
                      the
                      > > will
                      > > > to
                      > > > > > survive? Or will they succumb to the insanity of believers?
                      > > When
                      > > > the
                      > > > > > chips are down and the stakes high, will they gamble on
                      their
                      > > > gods to
                      > > > > > save them, using our lives as bluff? Are they forcing "his"
                      > > hand?
                      > > > Is
                      > > > > > this just one big suicidal apocalyptic hissy fit?
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Mary
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                      Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work. Wil ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.

                        Wil

                        In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                        > Wil,
                        >
                        > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                        > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting at
                        > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                        > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and, more
                        > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is that
                        > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my case
                        > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                        > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                        >
                        > Louise
                        >



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • louise
                        What a superb example of patronising humanism :-). Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension. ... at ... more ... that ... case
                        Message 11 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).

                          Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.



                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                          >
                          > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                          >
                          > Wil
                          >
                          > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                          >
                          >
                          > > Wil,
                          > >
                          > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                          > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting
                          at
                          > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                          > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                          more
                          > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                          that
                          > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                          case
                          > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                          > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                          > >
                          > > Louise
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                          What do we make of Sartre s statement that follows (from Existentialism Is a Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are socio-politically
                          Message 12 of 30 , Jul 16, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            What do we make of Sartre's statement that follows (from Existentialism Is a
                            Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are
                            socio-politically connected with the totality of humankind. Wil

                            "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, ... states that if God does not
                            exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a
                            being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is
                            man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that
                            existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up,
                            appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself If man, as the
                            existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is
                            nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he
                            will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it.
                            Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he
                            wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.

                            "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. ...Thus, existentialism's
                            first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full
                            responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is
                            responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own
                            individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.

                            "...When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us
                            does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also
                            chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a
                            single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man
                            as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the
                            same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We
                            always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.


                            "... Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed,
                            because it involves all mankind, if I am a workingman and choose to join a
                            Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a member I want
                            to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the kingdom of man is
                            not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be resigned
                            for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. ... Therefore,
                            I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain
                            image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man."


                            In a message dated 7/16/06 5:03:37 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                            > What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).
                            >
                            > Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@... wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                            > >
                            > > Wil
                            > >
                            > > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@ In a messa
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > > Wil,
                            > > >
                            > > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                            > > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual fighting
                            > at
                            > > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two and a
                            > > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                            > more
                            > > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                            > that
                            > > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                            > case
                            > > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                            > > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                            > > >
                            > > > Louise
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • two_owl_night
                            Wil, This is probably the most fundamental issue for existentialism. I think Sartre diluted Nietzsche s individualism a bit when he asserts that when we choose
                            Message 13 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wil,

                              This is probably the most fundamental issue for existentialism. I
                              think Sartre diluted Nietzsche's individualism a bit when he asserts
                              that when we choose for ourselves we must choose according to how we
                              want others to choose, almost a restatement of the "golden rule."
                              Sartre does seems to agree with Nietzsche and Heidegger that nothing
                              is responsible for our existence, that we are thrown into being.

                              "We others, who desire to restore innocence to becoming, would like
                              to be the missionaries of a cleaner idea: that no one has given man
                              his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and
                              ancestors, nor he himself--that no one is to blame for him. There is
                              no being that could be held responsible for the fact that anyone
                              exists at all, that anyone is thus and thus, that anyone was born in
                              certain circumstances, in a certain environment.--It is a tremendous
                              restorative that such a being is lacking." Will to Power-765

                              In this age of the blame-game, both within and outside of psych
                              therapy, hasn't science offered a better explanation, that we are
                              subject to genetic and environmental forces? There are some people
                              who really want and/or need medication to function in. Of course, as
                              much as we are able, we can still strive to become the individual we
                              will. Scientific explanations somewhat clarify the existence and
                              essence facets, but they are not complete solutions. They still
                              remain somewhat abstract. How these facts are applied still remains a
                              matter for the individual. Nietzsche's statement is still true, no
                              one thing is responsible for our being. You might say we are the
                              ongoing result of a process over which we try to assert some control.
                              If that's at all possible, we can only be responsible for ourselves.
                              And similar to his idea that it's not alway in our best interest to
                              be violent with others, Nietzsche thinks acting in our own best
                              interest encourages others to break from the herd, thereby diluting
                              the power of the state in our lives. Religious governments are the
                              worst oppressors because they take NO responsibility. That's just
                              something they use to control the individual. If they make mistakes,
                              well hell, we're all just going to a better place, right?

                              Mary




                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                              >
                              > What do we make of Sartre's statement that follows (from
                              Existentialism Is a
                              > Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are
                              > socio-politically connected with the totality of humankind. Wil
                              >
                              > "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, ... states that if
                              God does not
                              > exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes
                              essence, a
                              > being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that
                              this being is
                              > man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by
                              saying that
                              > existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man
                              exists, turns up,
                              > appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself If man,
                              as the
                              > existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at
                              first he is
                              > nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will
                              have made what he
                              > will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to
                              conceive it.
                              > Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also
                              only what he
                              > wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
                              >
                              > "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. ...Thus,
                              existentialism's
                              > first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the
                              full
                              > responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a
                              man is
                              > responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible
                              for his own
                              > individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.
                              >
                              > "...When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every
                              one of us
                              > does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice
                              he also
                              > chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be,
                              there is not a
                              > single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an
                              image of man
                              > as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to
                              affirm at the
                              > same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose
                              evil. We
                              > always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without
                              being good for all.
                              >
                              >
                              > "... Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have
                              supposed,
                              > because it involves all mankind, if I am a workingman and choose to
                              join a
                              > Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a
                              member I want
                              > to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the
                              kingdom of man is
                              > not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be
                              resigned
                              > for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. ...
                              Therefore,
                              > I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a
                              certain
                              > image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man."
                              >
                              >
                              > In a message dated 7/16/06 5:03:37 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                              >
                              >
                              > > What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).
                              > >
                              > > Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.
                              > >
                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                              > > >
                              > > > Wil
                              > > >
                              > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@ In a messa
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > > Wil,
                              > > > >
                              > > > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                              > > > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual
                              fighting
                              > > at
                              > > > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two
                              and a
                              > > > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                              > > more
                              > > > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                              > > that
                              > > > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                              > > case
                              > > > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                              > > > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Louise
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • Exist List Moderator
                              ... While I adhere to no faith, I also recognize that the numbers of believers in Islam far exceeds the number necessary to dictate political realities. As
                              Message 14 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Jul 16, 2006, at 13:40, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                > I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of those
                                > who
                                > eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new faiths,
                                > for that
                                > matter.

                                While I adhere to no faith, I also recognize that the numbers of
                                believers in Islam far exceeds the number necessary to dictate
                                political realities. As with Christianity only a millennium in the
                                past, Islam and its sects have numbers on its side.

                                Also, because Islam has no single leader or group of leaders, no "Pope"
                                to unite it, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of Imams with whom to
                                deal. Each mosque, within each sect, even has its own unique beliefs.
                                Sunni and Shiite are only the tip of the iceberg, since each of those
                                two major groups has sub-sects and splinter groups.

                                A question was posed to me, and I think it illustrates a problem with a
                                shallow reading of philosophy: Aren't the Islamic "radicals" being true
                                to their faith, acting in an "authentic" manner based on the life of
                                The Prophet? He spread the faith through conquest, as they are trying
                                to do. Isn't that what Sartre praised? Acting in a purely authentic
                                manner?

                                Oh, goody. Yes, they are being "authentic" but when authenticity
                                impinges on the rights and free will of others, that violates
                                everything post Enlightenment philosophies respect. If you do not allow
                                people to select your faith via free will and choice, how authentic can
                                the new converts be?

                                Religion is not going away, no matter what many early twentieth century
                                philosophers and scientists hoped. Humans seem to have a need for faith
                                and alliances. Political parties are no better than church
                                congregations, with blind loyalties and a lack of intellectual
                                consistency. People want to imagine someone, or something, has all the
                                answers.

                                The good thing about existentialism and most post-modern philosophies
                                is that they question not if there are Truths but more essentially if
                                humanity can ever understand any Truth if it even does exist.
                                Kierkegaard believed in a Truth, as did Frankl, but neither thought a
                                mere human could appreciate the truth -- our senses and intellect are
                                not up to the task.

                                Faith is an attempt to say, "I don't know the Truth, but I *imagine* it
                                to be this Creator." Of course, that's just my view of faith.

                                Being agnostic, I even lack the energy to be a "pure" atheist. I'd
                                never fit into the Middle East mind-set.


                                - C. S. Wyatt
                                I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                that I shall be.
                                http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                              • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                                ... all gods aren t the same. some aren t even particularly demanding of loyal true belief. aija
                                Message 15 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > Religion is not going away, no matter what many early twentieth century
                                  > philosophers and scientists hoped. Humans seem to have a need for faith
                                  > and alliances.

                                  all gods aren't the same. some aren't even particularly demanding of
                                  loyal "true belief."

                                  aija
                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                  Well, I would agree with that, too. Sometimes I wonder if Diogenes the Cynic hadn t it right all along. Of course, authenticity in Heidegger s sense of the
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Well, I would agree with that, too. Sometimes I wonder if Diogenes the Cynic hadn't it right all along.

                                    Of course, authenticity in Heidegger's sense of the term (and Sartre picks it up from him) doesn't -- and could never -- mean being in alignment with any ideology or belief system of any kind. It isn't any sort of correspondence of polarities.

                                    Wil

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: existlist1@...
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 9:54 AM
                                    Subject: [existlist] Middle East, was Re: Selah

                                    On Jul 16, 2006, at 13:40, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                    > I have no respect for "ancient faiths", nor for the quietism of those
                                    > who
                                    > eschew politics in behalf of "ancient faiths" -- or any new faiths,
                                    > for that
                                    > matter.

                                    While I adhere to no faith, I also recognize that the numbers of
                                    believers in Islam far exceeds the number necessary to dictate
                                    political realities. As with Christianity only a millennium in the
                                    past, Islam and its sects have numbers on its side.

                                    Also, because Islam has no single leader or group of leaders, no "Pope"
                                    to unite it, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of Imams with whom to
                                    deal. Each mosque, within each sect, even has its own unique beliefs.
                                    Sunni and Shiite are only the tip of the iceberg, since each of those
                                    two major groups has sub-sects and splinter groups.

                                    A question was posed to me, and I think it illustrates a problem with a
                                    shallow reading of philosophy: Aren't the Islamic "radicals" being true
                                    to their faith, acting in an "authentic" manner based on the life of
                                    The Prophet? He spread the faith through conquest, as they are trying
                                    to do. Isn't that what Sartre praised? Acting in a purely authentic
                                    manner?

                                    Oh, goody. Yes, they are being "authentic" but when authenticity
                                    impinges on the rights and free will of others, that violates
                                    everything post Enlightenment philosophies respect. If you do not allow
                                    people to select your faith via free will and choice, how authentic can
                                    the new converts be?

                                    Religion is not going away, no matter what many early twentieth century
                                    philosophers and scientists hoped. Humans seem to have a need for faith
                                    and alliances. Political parties are no better than church
                                    congregations, with blind loyalties and a lack of intellectual
                                    consistency. People want to imagine someone, or something, has all the
                                    answers.

                                    The good thing about existentialism and most post-modern philosophies
                                    is that they question not if there are Truths but more essentially if
                                    humanity can ever understand any Truth if it even does exist.
                                    Kierkegaard believed in a Truth, as did Frankl, but neither thought a
                                    mere human could appreciate the truth -- our senses and intellect are
                                    not up to the task.

                                    Faith is an attempt to say, "I don't know the Truth, but I *imagine* it
                                    to be this Creator." Of course, that's just my view of faith.

                                    Being agnostic, I even lack the energy to be a "pure" atheist. I'd
                                    never fit into the Middle East mind-set.

                                    - C. S. Wyatt
                                    I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                    that I shall be.
                                    http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                    http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer


                                    ________________________________________________________________________
                                    Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Exist List Moderator
                                    ... The problem with this being that both men joined political movements, often following then right off a cliff -- from the embrace of Soviet Russia and Cuba
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:06, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                      > Of course, authenticity in Heidegger's sense of the term (and Sartre
                                      > picks it up from him) doesn't -- and could never -- mean being in
                                      > alignment with any ideology or belief system of any kind. It isn't any
                                      > sort of correspondence of polarities.

                                      The problem with this being that both men joined political movements,
                                      often following then right off a cliff -- from the embrace of Soviet
                                      Russia and Cuba by Sartre to Heidegger's WWII alliance with the
                                      National Socialist Party.


                                      - C. S. Wyatt
                                      I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                      that I shall be.
                                      http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                      http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      Mary, Yeah, I agree with your Universalist Ethics criticism (it is more like Kant s famous maxim of the 2nd Critique than the Golden Rule, I think, since it
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mary,

                                        Yeah, I agree with your "Universalist Ethics" criticism (it is more like Kant's famous maxim of the 2nd Critique than the Golden Rule, I think, since it conceptualizes a totality rather than limiting itself to an individual's self-regard).

                                        Nietzsche's life-long position (which I also agree with) is against any "metaphysical" understanding of morality, any kind of transcendence or Absolute. Still, Nietzsche does promote a philosophy of value, a transvaluation of hitherto "nihilistic" religious values, for the sake of 'something better', a higher human of some kind, which latter does invite some kind of irony (which is not lost on him). In any case, while being a champion of an individualistic approach to things, he doesn't wind up caught in an egoism (like Max Stirner) or an "objectivism" (like Rand). There is still a sense of a greater good in Nietzsche..

                                        In any case, some political choices are not discrete, like joining a Nazi party or some such thing. One has to face the consequences of that kind of 'choice' qua choice, I would have to say.

                                        Wil,


                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: two_owl_night@...
                                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 8:54 AM
                                        Subject: [existlist] responsibility for essence/existence

                                        Wil,

                                        This is probably the most fundamental issue for existentialism. I
                                        think Sartre diluted Nietzsche's individualism a bit when he asserts
                                        that when we choose for ourselves we must choose according to how we
                                        want others to choose, almost a restatement of the "golden rule."
                                        Sartre does seems to agree with Nietzsche and Heidegger that nothing
                                        is responsible for our existence, that we are thrown into being.

                                        "We others, who desire to restore innocence to becoming, would like
                                        to be the missionaries of a cleaner idea: that no one has given man
                                        his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and
                                        ancestors, nor he himself--that no one is to blame for him. There is
                                        no being that could be held responsible for the fact that anyone
                                        exists at all, that anyone is thus and thus, that anyone was born in
                                        certain circumstances, in a certain environment.--It is a tremendous
                                        restorative that such a being is lacking." Will to Power-765

                                        In this age of the blame-game, both within and outside of psych
                                        therapy, hasn't science offered a better explanation, that we are
                                        subject to genetic and environmental forces? There are some people
                                        who really want and/or need medication to function in. Of course, as
                                        much as we are able, we can still strive to become the individual we
                                        will. Scientific explanations somewhat clarify the existence and
                                        essence facets, but they are not complete solutions. They still
                                        remain somewhat abstract. How these facts are applied still remains a
                                        matter for the individual. Nietzsche's statement is still true, no
                                        one thing is responsible for our being. You might say we are the
                                        ongoing result of a process over which we try to assert some control.
                                        If that's at all possible, we can only be responsible for ourselves.
                                        And similar to his idea that it's not alway in our best interest to
                                        be violent with others, Nietzsche thinks acting in our own best
                                        interest encourages others to break from the herd, thereby diluting
                                        the power of the state in our lives. Religious governments are the
                                        worst oppressors because they take NO responsibility. That's just
                                        something they use to control the individual. If they make mistakes,
                                        well hell, we're all just going to a better place, right?

                                        Mary

                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > What do we make of Sartre's statement that follows (from
                                        Existentialism Is a
                                        > Humanism)? He seems to strongly suggest that all of our acts are
                                        > socio-politically connected with the totality of humankind. Wil
                                        >
                                        > "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, ... states that if
                                        God does not
                                        > exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes
                                        essence, a
                                        > being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that
                                        this being is
                                        > man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by
                                        saying that
                                        > existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man
                                        exists, turns up,
                                        > appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself If man,
                                        as the
                                        > existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at
                                        first he is
                                        > nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will
                                        have made what he
                                        > will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to
                                        conceive it.
                                        > Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also
                                        only what he
                                        > wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.
                                        >
                                        > "Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. ...Thus,
                                        existentialism's
                                        > first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the
                                        full
                                        > responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a
                                        man is
                                        > responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible
                                        for his own
                                        > individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.
                                        >
                                        > "...When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every
                                        one of us
                                        > does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice
                                        he also
                                        > chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be,
                                        there is not a
                                        > single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an
                                        image of man
                                        > as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to
                                        affirm at the
                                        > same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose
                                        evil. We
                                        > always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without
                                        being good for all.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > "... Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have
                                        supposed,
                                        > because it involves all mankind, if I am a workingman and choose to
                                        join a
                                        > Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a
                                        member I want
                                        > to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the
                                        kingdom of man is
                                        > not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be
                                        resigned
                                        > for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. ...
                                        Therefore,
                                        > I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a
                                        certain
                                        > image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man."
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > In a message dated 7/16/06 5:03:37 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > What a superb example of patronising humanism :-).
                                        > >
                                        > > Jesus Christ is merciful, amused perhaps by your incomprehension.
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In existlist@yahoogrouexistl, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Well, I hope Christ appreciates your hard work.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Wil
                                        > > >
                                        > > > In a message dated 7/16/06 2:38:01 PM, hecubatoher@ In a messa
                                        > > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > > Wil,
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > You are indeed an impostor, a newbie who presumes to judge my
                                        > > > > criticism 'easy', when it is based on hard intellectual
                                        fighting
                                        > > at
                                        > > > > this list for two and a half years, an effort based on two
                                        and a
                                        > > > > half decades of strenuous living, following the atheistic and,
                                        > > more
                                        > > > > recently, Christian, existentialist paths. My great regret is
                                        > > that
                                        > > > > the fatigue I am feeling currently prevents me from putting my
                                        > > case
                                        > > > > to you with any promptness. However, if you were interested,
                                        > > > > there's plenty of meat in the archives.
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Louise
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >


                                        ________________________________________________________________________
                                        Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • two_owl_night
                                        Then, of course, one discovers their mistakes, disengages and breaks alliances. Those who have been led astray or misled by philosophical idols are responsible
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Jul 17, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Then, of course, one discovers their mistakes, disengages and breaks
                                          alliances. Those who have been led astray or misled by philosophical
                                          idols are responsible for what they themselves choose to assimilate.
                                          This restores the responsible individual nihilism Nietzsche asserts.

                                          Mary

                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                                          <existlist1@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > The problem with this being that both men joined political
                                          movements,
                                          > often following then right off a cliff -- from the embrace of
                                          Soviet
                                          > Russia and Cuba by Sartre to Heidegger's WWII alliance with the
                                          > National Socialist Party.
                                          >
                                          > - C. S. Wyatt
                                          >
                                          > On Jul 17, 2006, at 11:06, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > Of course, authenticity in Heidegger's sense of the term (and
                                          Sartre
                                          > > picks it up from him) doesn't -- and could never -- mean being in
                                          > > alignment with any ideology or belief system of any kind. It
                                          isn't any
                                          > > sort of correspondence of polarities.
                                        • insightboy1der
                                          hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor s. I want a topic about atheism and its relation to media
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Jul 20, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor's. I want a
                                            topic about atheism and its relation to media
                                          • Exist List Moderator
                                            ... You could study the influence of Sartre and other intellectuals on the media, especially as it relates to the creation and maintenance of a secular
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Jul 21, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Jul 21, 2006, at 1:09, insightboy1der wrote:

                                              > hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor's. I want a
                                              > topic about atheism and its relation to media

                                              You could study the influence of Sartre and other intellectuals on the
                                              media, especially as it relates to the creation and maintenance of a
                                              secular national identity in much of Europe. Sartre, however, also
                                              thought "secular" would be less biases and more reasonable. That is a
                                              myth, since everyone has beliefs -- we just transfer the passion to
                                              another cause.

                                              The American media has never embraced the same secularism. Just try to
                                              replace Christmas in a story with "holidays" and watch the outcry!


                                              - C. S. Wyatt
                                              I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                              that I shall be.
                                              http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                              http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                                              Sartre was, of course, an avowed atheist. A personal, objective god would nullify the Satrean project in its entirety. W ... From: existlist1@tameri.com To:
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Jul 21, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Sartre was, of course, an avowed atheist. A personal, objective god would nullify the Satrean project in its entirety.

                                                W

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: existlist1@...
                                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:55 AM
                                                Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: thesis

                                                On Jul 21, 2006, at 1:09, insightboy1der wrote:

                                                > hey anyone pls helpme im doing my thesis for my bachelor's. I want a
                                                > topic about atheism and its relation to media

                                                You could study the influence of Sartre and other intellectuals on the
                                                media, especially as it relates to the creation and maintenance of a
                                                secular national identity in much of Europe. Sartre, however, also
                                                thought "secular" would be less biases and more reasonable. That is a
                                                myth, since everyone has beliefs -- we just transfer the passion to
                                                another cause.

                                                The American media has never embraced the same secularism. Just try to
                                                replace Christmas in a story with "holidays" and watch the outcry!

                                                - C. S. Wyatt
                                                I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                that I shall be.
                                                http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer


                                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                                Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Exist List Moderator
                                                ... The question was about a thesis based on atheism and the media. The only good example I could think of within existentialism was Sartre, though I suppose
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Jul 21, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Jul 21, 2006, at 12:12, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                  > Sartre was, of course, an avowed atheist. A personal, objective god
                                                  > would nullify the Satrean project in its entirety.

                                                  The question was about a thesis based on atheism and the media. The
                                                  only good example I could think of within existentialism was Sartre,
                                                  though I suppose others in the phenomenology realm might also work. I
                                                  know Merleau-Ponty was a media critic for a time. You could certainly
                                                  expand beyond existentialism to include the thoughts of any number of
                                                  post-modern thinkers.

                                                  I know I'd look at pop-culture theory, where a number of British and
                                                  Australian scholars have written on the secular vs. non-secular nature
                                                  of media. American media cater to our national desire to be "religious"
                                                  without actually being that dedicated to anything. There was a
                                                  collection of essays on the media I read recently, I think from the
                                                  University of California, Santa Cruz, on this issue -- the "religious
                                                  language" used in the media (terms like crusade, crucifixion, savior)
                                                  to relate to the audience. My argument is that such language is not
                                                  really religiously significant to most people when they hear a news
                                                  report. Maybe there is a more subconscious connection, though?

                                                  - C. S. Wyatt
                                                  I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                  that I shall be.
                                                  http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                  http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.