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

exposition

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Since my profile page displays a small quotation from Rainer Maria Rilke s Seventh Duino Elegy, namely, Hiersein ist herrlich , it might be instructive to
    Message 1 of 20 , Apr 3 1:01 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Since my profile page displays a small quotation from Rainer Maria
      Rilke's Seventh Duino Elegy, namely, "Hiersein ist herrlich", it
      might be instructive to quote more [in translation] of this
      fantastical prophetic work, beginning from that very sentence:

      Being here's glorious! Even you knew it, you girls,
      who went without, as it seemed, sank under - you, in the vilest
      streets of cities, festering, or open for refuse.
      For to each was granted an hour, - perhaps not quite
      so much as an hour - some span that could scarcely be measured
      by measures of time, in between two whiles, when she really
      possessed an existence. All. Veins full of existence.
      But we so lightly forget what our laughing neighbour
      neither confirms nor envies. We want to be visibly
      able to show it; whereas the most visible joy
      can only reveal itself to us when we've transformed it, within.

      Nowhere, beloved, can world exist but within.
      Life passes in transformation. And, ever diminishing,
      outwardness dwindles. Where once was a permanent house,
      up starts some invented structure across our vision, as fully
      at home among concepts as though it still stood in a brain.
      Spacious garners of power are formed by the Time Spirit, formless
      as that tense urge he's extracting from everything else.
      Temples he knows no longer. We're now more secretly saving
      such lavish expenses of heart. Nay, even where one survives,
      one single thing once prayed or tended or knelt to,
      it's reaching, just as it is, into the unseen world.
      Many perceive it no more, but neglect the advantage
      of building it grandlier now, with pillars and statues, within*!


      Tr. J.B. Leishman, Selected Works R.M.Rilke Vol.II, Poetry,
      Hogarth Press, London 1980.
    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
      in the 1999 Dawkins - Pinkerton debate mentioned here before, i zeroed in on Dawkins s citation of G.K. Chesterton (who while not initially Catholic, ended up
      Message 2 of 20 , Apr 4 7:55 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        in the 1999 Dawkins - Pinkerton debate mentioned here before, i zeroed in
        on Dawkins's citation of G.K. Chesterton (who while not initially
        Catholic, ended up as a realist Christian):

        <DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
        don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.>

        i see the truth of what Chesterton is saying: better something that has
        the depth of many generations than mindless revolution that tears down but
        has nothing to put in place.

        nevertheless that has not turned me to organized religion like it did
        Chesterton (unless we're talking about preferred belief systems that are
        not necessarily seen as "religion.") no one religion is accepted as
        universal, even though any mature religion deals with universals.

        as to the "danger of cults" i don't see how you can have self selection
        and adaptation without risk & in any case probably any collective
        innovation starts out as a "deviant cult," a deviation from the norm
        whatever that happens to be. all of them different competing, sometimes &
        potentially cooperating, belief systems, often tied in to some kind of
        political and economic inheritance which gives the believer some kind of
        advantage.

        any rx to this generalization, which i hold (what are the limits of this
        belief)?:

        religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
        those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
        violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
        symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain conditions).

        aija
      • Trinidad Cruz
        ... wrote: DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they don t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. In Defense of
        Message 3 of 20 , Apr 4 9:39 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
          wrote:

          "DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
          don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."

          "In Defense of Orthodoxy" is the book. The classic fear of change, or
          fear of materialism argument. Humans are too stupid to be free. Negros
          can't take care of themselves. What will they do if we free them?
          Santeria, snycretism, pot smoking Jamaicans, Ethiopian saviors. What
          will women do if we give them the vote? You miss Dawkins point while
          promoting the likes of David Allan Coe with the quote.

          Coe's version: "ya gotta stand for something or you'll fall for
          anything.", or "why'd she have to go and marry that nigger?"

          In this atmosphere Camus could only propose rebellion and Sartre
          decisive action.

          "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
          those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
          violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
          symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
          conditions)."

          Religion becomes dangerous categorized out of its level. When
          superstition (religion) controls national government. When religion no
          longer demonstrates against or argues against national public policy,
          and instead writes national public policy. When religion seeks not to
          criticize materialistic discourse, but rather re-write it seeking
          nationally mandated public consumption, i/e "intelligent design",
          "creationism" theories etc.in the public school system. Start a
          parochial school, it's tax free.

          Trinidad Cruz
        • Siobhan
          religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale violence against
          Message 4 of 20 , Apr 4 5:20 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
            those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
            violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
            symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
            conditions)." - aija

            One of the drums I bang very loudly is the notion that only religious
            groups, organizations or churches are a problem for the individual
            who is victimized by the morality which is founded on most
            traditional monotheistic believers. It only takes one person in your
            life who is convinced of his/her belief to make your life a living
            hell.

            Siobhan


            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
            wrote:
            >
            > in the 1999 Dawkins - Pinkerton debate mentioned here before, i
            zeroed in
            > on Dawkins's citation of G.K. Chesterton (who while not initially
            > Catholic, ended up as a realist Christian):
            >
            > <DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing,
            they
            > don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.>
            >
            > i see the truth of what Chesterton is saying: better something
            that has
            > the depth of many generations than mindless revolution that tears
            down but
            > has nothing to put in place.
            >
            > nevertheless that has not turned me to organized religion like it
            did
            > Chesterton (unless we're talking about preferred belief systems
            that are
            > not necessarily seen as "religion.") no one religion is accepted as
            > universal, even though any mature religion deals with universals.
            >
            > as to the "danger of cults" i don't see how you can have self
            selection
            > and adaptation without risk & in any case probably any collective
            > innovation starts out as a "deviant cult," a deviation from the norm
            > whatever that happens to be. all of them different competing,
            sometimes &
            > potentially cooperating, belief systems, often tied in to some kind
            of
            > political and economic inheritance which gives the believer some
            kind of
            > advantage.
            >
            > any rx to this generalization, which i hold (what are the limits of
            this
            > belief)?:
            >
            > religions become dangerous when they are used to justify
            dehumanizing
            > those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
            > violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
            > symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
            conditions).
            >
            > aija
          • Aija Veldre Beldavs
            ... what is the point you want me to bring out in that discussion when mostly i already agree with the stuff about consciousness not residing in genes, that
            Message 5 of 20 , Apr 4 6:35 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Trinidad Cruz:

              > "DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
              > don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."

              > "In Defense of Orthodoxy" is the book. The classic fear of change, or
              > fear of materialism argument. Humans are too stupid to be free. Negros
              > can't take care of themselves. What will they do if we free them?
              > Santeria, snycretism, pot smoking Jamaicans, Ethiopian saviors. What
              > will women do if we give them the vote? You miss Dawkins point while
              > promoting the likes of David Allan Coe with the quote.

              what is the point you want me to bring out in that discussion when mostly
              i already agree with the stuff about consciousness not residing in genes,
              that cognitive processes & selfish genes don't by themselves explain
              complex behavior & selfish genes produce people who sacrifice themselves
              for their children, friends, groups, causes etc? (my semiotics minor
              mostly consisted of cogsci classes with Douglas Hofstadter).

              i don't define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in science,
              nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both. Plains Indian
              horse culture example for culture; quantum physics in science. change and
              relative coalescions of stability (or of void if you prefer Hindu-wise),
              as probably any dual concept are inseparable & defined in terms of each
              other.

              for me -that- Chesterton quote brings up a practical rather than
              theoretical matter. rather than turning benignly to say Kierkegaarde,
              people who are violently and suddenly deprived of their support systems,
              which include their belief systems and the mechanisms of implementation of
              nice new ideas, tend to be very vulnerable and therefore are much more
              likely to be prey for short-term manipulators as opposed to long-term
              manipulators who have a deeper investment in more aspects of society, such
              as a church.

              check out just about any postcolonial area of the world, like the
              suffering of transition in Africa or the postsoviet area.

              > Coe's version: "ya gotta stand for something or you'll fall for
              > anything.", or "why'd she have to go and marry that nigger?"

              again, this isn't interesting to me because for me race is pretty much
              biologically bogus - race is historically & socially constructed. in
              spite of the fact that restrictions as to whom one might legitimately or
              preferably marry go back a long way to moieties & such (as the first
              anthropologists pointed out), groups of people have been mixing genes if
              it was at all possible from the beginnings.

              > In this atmosphere Camus could only propose rebellion and Sartre
              > decisive action.

              yeah, decisive action.... well, the only problem is that in practice real
              blood and such revolutions tend to result in bloodbaths. even if they're
              constructed by overintellecutalized idealists in their isolated vengeful
              aristocratic misery &/or with the best of intentions, they tend to be
              carried out by immature teenage hoodlums as well as assorted other kinds
              with their personal axe to grind, such as in the Cambodian revolution of
              Pol Pot, or the Great Communist Revolution, to say nothing of other
              postcolonial horror stories in Africa & so on.

              > "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
              > those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
              > violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
              > symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
              > conditions)."

              > Religion becomes dangerous categorized out of its level. When
              > superstition (religion) controls national government. When religion no
              > longer demonstrates against or argues against national public policy,
              > and instead writes national public policy. When religion seeks not to
              > criticize materialistic discourse, but rather re-write it seeking
              > nationally mandated public consumption, i/e "intelligent design",
              > "creationism" theories etc.in the public school system. Start a
              > parochial school, it's tax free.

              categorized out of its level is a belief system that takes itself too
              seriously, claiming to speak for God & so on. i'm not much for
              theocracies, so you're preaching to the converted.

              i wanted to pull -that- Chesterton quote (rather than swallow Chesterton's
              religious orthodoxy) by being informed with the paradigm concepts of Kuhn
              (Structure of Scientific Revolutions). are belief systems more like
              parallel mutually exclusive constructed paradigmatic systems dealing with
              the same phenomena of the emotional meaning of existence? does parallel
              maturity occur in different belief systems? or is there a hierarchy of
              religious belief systems leading to...uh...well...pure existentialist
              philosophy of the prophets Sartre or Kierkegaarde?

              myself a liberal and not even raised a Christian, at times far off the
              deep and marginalized end, Chesterton was actually a find for me as
              someone who could even remotely make orthodoxy understandable where
              earlier my lack of understanding of orthodoxy amounted to what could be
              described as ignorance boardering on prejudice.

              anyway, if what i've said is a blind alley, how about Pinker's statement
              that "psychology of the violent encounters is strikingly similar (across
              cultures)?" agree or disagree?

              aija
            • Bob Keyes
              Must Comment. Bob... ... From: Aija Veldre Beldavs [mailto:beldavsa@indiana.edu] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:36 PM To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Subject:
              Message 6 of 20 , Apr 4 10:09 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Must Comment.
                Bob...

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Aija Veldre Beldavs [mailto:beldavsa@...]
                Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 9:36 PM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [existlist] Re: not all beliefs are of equal value



                Trinidad Cruz:

                > "DAWKINS: Yes. G. K. Chesterton said when people stop believing, they
                > don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything."

                > "In Defense of Orthodoxy" is the book. The classic fear of change, or
                > fear of materialism argument. Humans are too stupid to be free. Negros
                > can't take care of themselves. What will they do if we free them?
                > Santeria, snycretism, pot smoking Jamaicans, Ethiopian saviors. What
                > will women do if we give them the vote? You miss Dawkins point while
                > promoting the likes of David Allan Coe with the quote.

                what is the point you want me to bring out in that discussion when mostly
                i already agree with the stuff about consciousness not residing in genes,



                [Bob Keyes] Consciousness does reside in the Gene? Get Real ! . Without
                the Genes there would be no consciousness.
                Even a Dog is conscious. And Genes formed this mental state long before
                dogs.
                Because you cannot with your Ape-Like Brain (I am speaking for all
                Humanity here) , conceive how genes can cause this does not mean that it
                does not exist. And all we do know is Genes cause everything else, why not
                THIS !!!!
                Get Real.....It is Plausible, at the Min and Near Scientifically Logically
                Induced at the MaX.





                that cognitive processes & selfish genes don't by themselves explain
                complex behavior & selfish genes produce people who sacrifice themselves
                for their children, friends, groups, causes etc? (my semiotics minor
                mostly consisted of cogsci classes with Douglas Hofstadter).


                [Bob Keyes] Yes the Can !!! There is a plausible explanation of this
                without resorting to Mysticism.








                i don't define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in science,
                nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both. Plains Indian
                horse culture example for culture; quantum physics in science. change and
                relative coalescions of stability (or of void if you prefer Hindu-wise),
                as probably any dual concept are inseparable & defined in terms of each
                other.


                [Bob Keyes] HUH ? I am dumb...






                for me -that- Chesterton quote brings up a practical rather than
                theoretical matter. rather than turning benignly to say Kierkegaarde,
                people who are violently and suddenly deprived of their support systems,
                which include their belief systems and the mechanisms of implementation of
                nice new ideas, tend to be very vulnerable and therefore are much more
                likely to be prey for short-term manipulators as opposed to long-term
                manipulators who have a deeper investment in more aspects of society, such
                as a church.

                check out just about any postcolonial area of the world, like the
                suffering of transition in Africa or the postsoviet area.

                > Coe's version: "ya gotta stand for something or you'll fall for
                > anything.", or "why'd she have to go and marry that nigger?"

                again, this isn't interesting to me because for me race is pretty much
                biologically bogus - race is historically & socially constructed. in
                spite of the fact that restrictions as to whom one might legitimately or
                preferably marry go back a long way to moieties & such (as the first
                anthropologists pointed out), groups of people have been mixing genes if
                it was at all possible from the beginnings.

                > In this atmosphere Camus could only propose rebellion and Sartre
                > decisive action.

                yeah, decisive action.... well, the only problem is that in practice real
                blood and such revolutions tend to result in bloodbaths. even if they're
                constructed by overintellecutalized idealists in their isolated vengeful
                aristocratic misery &/or with the best of intentions, they tend to be
                carried out by immature teenage hoodlums as well as assorted other kinds
                with their personal axe to grind, such as in the Cambodian revolution of
                Pol Pot, or the Great Communist Revolution, to say nothing of other
                postcolonial horror stories in Africa & so on.

                > "religions become dangerous when they are used to justify dehumanizing
                > those who think in different categories, or to justify large-scale
                > violence against others who are seen as unchanging unrehabilitable
                > symbolic evil (when they are aspects of humans under certain
                > conditions)."

                > Religion becomes dangerous categorized out of its level. When
                > superstition (religion) controls national government. When religion no
                > longer demonstrates against or argues against national public policy,
                > and instead writes national public policy. When religion seeks not to
                > criticize materialistic discourse, but rather re-write it seeking
                > nationally mandated public consumption, i/e "intelligent design",
                > "creationism" theories etc.in the public school system. Start a
                > parochial school, it's tax free.

                categorized out of its level is a belief system that takes itself too
                seriously, claiming to speak for God & so on. i'm not much for
                theocracies, so you're preaching to the converted.

                i wanted to pull -that- Chesterton quote (rather than swallow Chesterton's
                religious orthodoxy) by being informed with the paradigm concepts of Kuhn
                (Structure of Scientific Revolutions). are belief systems more like
                parallel mutually exclusive constructed paradigmatic systems dealing with
                the same phenomena of the emotional meaning of existence? does parallel
                maturity occur in different belief systems? or is there a hierarchy of
                religious belief systems leading to...uh...well...pure existentialist
                philosophy of the prophets Sartre or Kierkegaarde?

                myself a liberal and not even raised a Christian, at times far off the
                deep and marginalized end, Chesterton was actually a find for me as
                someone who could even remotely make orthodoxy understandable where
                earlier my lack of understanding of orthodoxy amounted to what could be
                described as ignorance boardering on prejudice.

                anyway, if what i've said is a blind alley, how about Pinker's statement
                that "psychology of the violent encounters is strikingly similar (across
                cultures)?" agree or disagree?


                [Bob Keyes] First your Wish( or any fantasies as to why) to be more
                orthodox is meaningless. Second
                As to your Question, Evolutionary Speaking, I would expect base behaviors
                to be common to all Humans, especially
                if we branched only 150 K years ago... (Not counting pygmies) I would vote
                they are probably similar !!
                Bob... Comments....





                aija





                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist




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

                Yahoo! Groups Links

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

                b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Knott
                ... So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is exempt simply because you do not denote the belief as religion ? It would be my suggestion
                Message 7 of 20 , Apr 5 7:08 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > One of the drums I bang very loudly ...
                  > It only takes one person in your
                  > life who is convinced of his/her belief to
                  > make your life a living
                  > hell.

                  So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is exempt
                  simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?

                  It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with conviction (or
                  grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of the
                  conviction held.

                  Swallow Dat
                • Siobhan
                  Knott, No, my conviction isn t exempt from consequence, but perhaps it might create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered existential ethic
                  Message 8 of 20 , Apr 5 7:32 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Knott,

                    No, my conviction isn't exempt from consequence, but perhaps it might
                    create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered
                    existential ethic than on the nothing of fantasy or slavery of dogma.
                    Good point though. Can't say I'd swallow it hook, line & sinker, but
                    it's been worth a taste. All convictions are equal in that they have
                    consequences, but all are not equal for the individual who
                    contemplates them. One must choose since we aren't exempt from that
                    conundrum.

                    Siobhan

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@l...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > One of the drums I bang very loudly ...
                    > > It only takes one person in your
                    > > life who is convinced of his/her belief to
                    > > make your life a living
                    > > hell.
                    >
                    > So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is
                    exempt
                    > simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?
                    >
                    > It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with conviction
                    (or
                    > grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of the
                    > conviction held.
                    >
                    > Swallow Dat
                  • Trinidad Cruz
                    ... wrote: i don t define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in science, nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both. Plains Indian
                    Message 9 of 20 , Apr 5 7:48 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@i...>
                      wrote:

                      "i don't define tradition necessarily as fear of change, not in
                      science, nor in culture. when needed, rapid change occurs in both.
                      Plains Indian horse culture example for culture; quantum physics in
                      science. change and relative coalescions of stability (or of void if
                      you prefer Hindu-wise), as probably any dual concept are inseparable &
                      defined in terms of each other."

                      Tradition has no efficacious value toward human development over time
                      unless it is always unequivocally open to change.Since the beginning
                      of written history religion has hindered scientific development
                      period, and to posit otherwise is ridiculous in 2005.


                      "for me -that- Chesterton quote brings up a practical rather than
                      theoretical matter. rather than turning benignly to say Kierkegaarde,
                      people who are violently and suddenly deprived of their support
                      systems, which include their belief systems and the mechanisms of
                      implementation of nice new ideas, tend to be very vulnerable and
                      therefore are much more likely to be prey for short-term manipulators
                      as opposed to long-term manipulators who have a deeper investment in
                      more aspects of society, such as a church. check out just about any
                      postcolonial area of the world, like the suffering of transition in
                      Africa or the postsoviet area."

                      "yeah, decisive action.... well, the only problem is that in practice
                      real blood and such revolutions tend to result in bloodbaths. even if
                      they're constructed by overintellecutalized idealists in their
                      isolated vengeful aristocratic misery &/or with the best of
                      intentions, they tend to be carried out by immature teenage hoodlums
                      as well as assorted other kinds with their personal axe to grind, such
                      as in the Cambodian revolution of Pol Pot, or the Great Communist
                      Revolution, to say nothing of other postcolonial horror stories in
                      Africa & so on."

                      It is always young men operating in a "belief system" that are
                      motivated or impressed or drafted to fight wars for manipulative
                      political or religious agendas. We had a postcolonial horror story
                      here called the Civil War. A war at the top levels drawn largely along
                      religious lines, an atheist northern leadership, and a Christian
                      southern leadership. No one wants to fight it domestically anymore
                      because of comfort, a comfort available because of science and
                      technology. We now have an administration that believes it is
                      acceptable to export our postcolonial horror to the rest of the world.
                      We should drag him back to Appamattox.

                      "categorized out of its level is a belief system that takes itself too
                      seriously, claiming to speak for God & so on.i'm not much for
                      theocracies, so you're preaching to the converted."

                      Hardly. Religion has always attempted to categorize science as a
                      belief system. The subjective center of religious belief is available
                      only as an emotional or psychological phenomenon. To be sure the
                      belief can have and does have scientifically materialistically
                      traceable effective results on the general human race, but the source
                      is imagined. Religion is always attempting to categorize scientific
                      theory as imagination, however in science, theory is always theory and
                      never seen as anything other than a theory to be tested. The
                      subjective center of scientific theory becomes available over time
                      through new information or the theory becomes disproved. Science may
                      operate as a belief system but it assumes that the center of its
                      belief is available materialistically while religion does not."You
                      should not tempt (test) the lord your God." The material
                      unavailability of God diminishes the intellectual potential and
                      psychological and emotional development of human beings.If we are
                      going to use words like "belief system" to characterize science we
                      should at least understand the foundation of belief: our heart beats,
                      we breath air, we become aware of it. Scientific theory attempts to
                      discover how we may believe we are real using available evidence.
                      Religion provides only after the fact effect as evidence,and an
                      unavailble untestable primary cause. It is delusional.

                      "i wanted to pull -that- Chesterton quote (rather than swallow
                      Chesterton's religious orthodoxy) by being informed with the paradigm
                      concepts of Kuhn (Structure of Scientific Revolutions). are belief
                      systems more like parallel mutually exclusive constructed paradigmatic
                      systems dealing with the same phenomena of the emotional meaning of
                      existence?"

                      The emotional meaning of existence has nothing to do with physical
                      science, and in fact such an idea would be explored in psychology with
                      an attempt to find a physical cause.


                      "does parallel maturity occur in different belief systems?"

                      This is a good question, and the crux of how much genetics come into
                      play, is there psychopathic mutation, and so forth.


                      "or is there a hierarchy of religious belief systems leading
                      to...uh...well...pure existentialist philosophy of the prophets Sartre
                      or Kierkegaarde?"

                      Sartre would utterly dismiss a characterization as a
                      prophet.Kierkegaard would wallow in it.There is a great difference
                      between the two.

                      "anyway, if what i've said is a blind alley, how about Pinker's
                      statement that "psychology of the violent encounters is strikingly
                      similar (across cultures)?" agree or disagree?"

                      Not an easily arguable generalization. I'm sure lifted from Campbell
                      in the first place (warrior or hero cultures). I can only say that
                      pure materialists do not see death as a solution, and even though most
                      argue it is inevitable it is only argued as inevitable based on a
                      specific theoretical view of a cosmological past. It's science,
                      subject to change. It's hard to agree or disagree with a word like
                      similar.

                      Trinidad Cruz
                    • louise
                      Siobhan, Is a conviction really something one can contemplate and choose?? I tend to think that a conviction is a belief one is embraced by, because one is
                      Message 10 of 20 , Apr 5 7:59 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Siobhan,

                        Is a conviction really something one can contemplate and choose?? I
                        tend to think that a conviction is a belief one is embraced by,
                        because one is convinced, and hence desirous of the embrace. This
                        is what existential ethic is, in my view: subjective desire, founded
                        on rigorous thinking about life experience and other learning. Lack
                        of desire, lack of thought, lack of rigour in thinking, lack of
                        learning, some or all of these factors can produce dogmatism.
                        Secular dogma prevails over religious, in sheer quantity, anyway, in
                        the West. At least such is my impression from our sceptred isle.
                        The 'our' does not seek to include you, nor, necessarily, any fellow-
                        Briton either. It is certainly not intended as a 'royal we'. It
                        indicates a search, for home. Great Britain is my home. I am proud
                        to be here, but distinctly horrified about the prevailing dogmas.

                        Louise


                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Siobhan" <bravegnoobee@y...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Knott,
                        >
                        > No, my conviction isn't exempt from consequence, but perhaps it
                        might
                        > create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered
                        > existential ethic than on the nothing of fantasy or slavery of
                        dogma.
                        > Good point though. Can't say I'd swallow it hook, line & sinker,
                        but
                        > it's been worth a taste. All convictions are equal in that they
                        have
                        > consequences, but all are not equal for the individual who
                        > contemplates them. One must choose since we aren't exempt from
                        that
                        > conundrum.
                        >
                        > Siobhan
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@l...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > One of the drums I bang very loudly ...
                        > > > It only takes one person in your
                        > > > life who is convinced of his/her belief to
                        > > > make your life a living
                        > > > hell.
                        > >
                        > > So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is
                        > exempt
                        > > simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?
                        > >
                        > > It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with
                        conviction
                        > (or
                        > > grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of
                        the
                        > > conviction held.
                        > >
                        > > Swallow Dat
                      • Knott
                        ... Again, this seems to state that clearly your ideas are superior to others...which is perhaps self-serving. That is, you have created your own dogma (so
                        Message 11 of 20 , Apr 5 11:58 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > No, my conviction isn't exempt from consequence,
                          > but perhaps it might
                          > create more authentic decisions based on the loosely tethered
                          > existential ethic than on the nothing of fantasy
                          > or slavery of dogma.

                          Again, this seems to state that clearly your ideas are superior to
                          others...which is perhaps self-serving. That is, you have created
                          your own dogma (so have I), loosely tethered existential ethic, based
                          on what you hope to be correct. There is no guarantee that your
                          thinking is any better than that of a group...nor worse. My
                          interpretation of the parts of existentialism that I am interested in
                          have specifically to do with the idea that I am responsible for my
                          unique perspective, perhaps to be open to refining and bettering it
                          ('bettering' difficult to define).

                          I'd suggest the trick is rather not flogging people with the limp end
                          of it. For example, I have political beliefs, but I would never try
                          to convince someone that they were correct. I discuss them almost
                          never...most people are confused enough ;-).

                          Emoticon Madness
                        • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                          ... Lawrence Britt comparing the classic fascist regimes (Hitler s Germany), (Mussolini s Italy), (Spain s Franco), (Suharto s Indonesia) & numerous Latin
                          Message 12 of 20 , Apr 6 7:30 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > > One of the drums I bang very loudly ... > It only takes one person in
                            > your > life who is convinced of his/her belief to > make your life a
                            > living > hell.

                            > So, I take it that your conviction and belief in this belief is exempt
                            > simply because you do not denote the belief as 'religion'?

                            > It would be my suggestion that any belief one holds with conviction (or
                            > grudge) is not circumspect of potential consequences because of the
                            > conviction held.
                            > Swallow Dat

                            Lawrence Britt comparing the classic fascist regimes (Hitler's Germany),
                            (Mussolini's Italy), (Spain's Franco), (Suharto's Indonesia) & numerous
                            Latin American regimes found 14 defining characteristics common to each.
                            i find these characteristics present in many other organized,
                            institutionalized & vested interests. characteristics also of other
                            totalitarianisms, the -practice- of Communism (at least in Eurasia), or in
                            Empire. btw i would consider #1 as =(mis)use= of nationalism, rather than
                            a healthy group consciousness that doesn't expand to imperialism and is
                            benign as to neighbors with different beliefs (there are viable examples
                            of non-predatory small nations), but anyway...

                            aija
                            --------
                            1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
                            Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans,
                            symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as
                            are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

                            2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
                            Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in
                            fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain
                            cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even
                            approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long
                            incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

                            3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
                            The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
                            eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious
                            minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

                            4. Supremacy of the Military
                            Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a
                            disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is
                            neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

                            5. Rampant Sexism
                            The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively
                            male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made
                            more rigid.

                            Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is
                            represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

                            6. Controlled Mass Media
                            Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other
                            cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or
                            sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in
                            war time, is very common.

                            7. Obsession with National Security
                            Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

                            8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
                            Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the
                            nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and
                            terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets
                            of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or
                            actions.

                            9. Corporate Power is Protected
                            The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the
                            ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually
                            beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

                            10. Labor Power is Suppressed
                            Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist
                            government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely
                            suppressed.

                            11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
                            Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher
                            education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other
                            academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts
                            and letters is openly attacked.

                            12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
                            Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to
                            enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and
                            even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a
                            national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

                            13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
                            Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and
                            associates who appoint each other to government positions and use
                            governmental power and authority to protect their friends from
                            accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national
                            resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by
                            government leaders.

                            14. Fraudulent Elections
                            Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times
                            elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination
                            of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or
                            political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist
                            nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control
                            elections.
                            -------
                          • louise
                            Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a syllogism, so I shall
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                              stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                              syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.

                              1.
                              That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                              existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.

                              2.
                              That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                              metaphysical statement.

                              Conclusion.
                              The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                              remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.

                              Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by stating, "Ergo,
                              classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                              existentialism is dead."

                              My approach is basically non-academic, I would say, hence the poetic
                              descriptions that others often find impenetrable or even
                              offensive. 'Deadness' in this context indicates, from a more
                              abstract standpoint, 'non-viability'. In other words, I intended an
                              optimistic statement which asserts that the glory of Athenian
                              achievement can still be reproduced in contemporary lives, just as
                              the courageous endeavours of those inspired by, for example, Sartre
                              or Camus, are testament to how existentialism is a living tradition.
                              For me it is all somewhat a statement of faith, not in the religious
                              sense, but with the implicit acceptance that what is not cognitively
                              understood can be most vital of all.

                              Louise
                            • jimstuart51
                              Louise, I appreciate this post. Certainly your one, two, conclusion argument is a model of clarity, and faithfully reflects Livingston s interpretation of
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Louise,

                                I appreciate this post.

                                Certainly your "one, two, conclusion" argument is a model of clarity,
                                and faithfully reflects Livingston's interpretation of what Heidegger
                                is saying.

                                Jim




                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                                > stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                                > syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.
                                >
                                > 1.
                                > That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                > existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.
                                >
                                > 2.
                                > That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                > metaphysical statement.
                                >
                                > Conclusion.
                                > The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                > remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.
                                >
                                > Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by
                                stating, "Ergo,
                                > classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                                > existentialism is dead."
                                >
                                > My approach is basically non-academic, I would say, hence the
                                poetic
                                > descriptions that others often find impenetrable or even
                                > offensive. 'Deadness' in this context indicates, from a more
                                > abstract standpoint, 'non-viability'. In other words, I intended
                                an
                                > optimistic statement which asserts that the glory of Athenian
                                > achievement can still be reproduced in contemporary lives, just as
                                > the courageous endeavours of those inspired by, for example, Sartre
                                > or Camus, are testament to how existentialism is a living
                                tradition.
                                > For me it is all somewhat a statement of faith, not in the
                                religious
                                > sense, but with the implicit acceptance that what is not
                                cognitively
                                > understood can be most vital of all.
                                >
                                > Louise
                                >
                              • eupraxis@aol.com
                                Louise, [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a syllogism, so I
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Louise,

                                  [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                                  stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                                  syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.

                                  1.
                                  That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                  existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.

                                  2.
                                  That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                  metaphysical statement.

                                  Conclusion.
                                  The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                  remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]

                                  Response: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that sense, essence
                                  precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in metaphysics as
                                  espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre remains stuck in metaphysics.
                                  Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If Heidegger is correct, Sartre remains as a
                                  metaphysical thinker, but this does not mean that Sartre is Platonic. Metaphysics
                                  does necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal source of
                                  metaphysics, as such).
                                  ---
                                  Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by stating, "Ergo,
                                  classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                                  existentialism is dead."

                                  Response: Classical thinking is a vague term. Are Democritus and Lucretius
                                  the same as Thales, Aristotle, Zeno or Plotinus?

                                  Wil



                                  **************
                                  Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
                                  credit score.
                                  (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • louise
                                  ... sense, essence ... metaphysics as ... metaphysics. ... remains as a ... Platonic. Metaphysics ... source of ... Stated with great clarity. There is
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jan 24, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Louise,
                                    >
                                    > [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises
                                    > stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                                    > syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.
                                    >
                                    > 1.
                                    > That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                    > existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.
                                    >
                                    > 2.
                                    > That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                    > metaphysical statement.
                                    >
                                    > Conclusion.
                                    > The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                    > remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]
                                    >
                                    > Response: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that
                                    sense, essence
                                    > precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in
                                    metaphysics as
                                    > espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre remains stuck in
                                    metaphysics.
                                    > Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If Heidegger is correct, Sartre
                                    remains as a
                                    > metaphysical thinker, but this does not mean that Sartre is
                                    Platonic. Metaphysics
                                    > does necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal
                                    source of
                                    > metaphysics, as such).

                                    Stated with great clarity. There is nothing here with which I
                                    disagree.

                                    > ---
                                    > Originally I expressed this in rather cryptic form by
                                    stating, "Ergo,
                                    > classical thinking is not dead, unless you also accept that
                                    > existentialism is dead."
                                    >
                                    > Response: Classical thinking is a vague term. Are Democritus and
                                    Lucretius
                                    > the same as Thales, Aristotle, Zeno or Plotinus?

                                    Yes, the vagueness of the phrase, 'classical thinking', was probably
                                    prompted by an uneasy sense that I tend to espouse unfashionable
                                    causes. Bill, for instance, has from time to time reminded me
                                    that 'the present does not respect the past', and other such
                                    aphoristic nuggets. So I was defensive, as though there were no
                                    particular distinctions to be made, whereas obviously there is a huge
                                    range of thought in Classical times, Greek or Roman. Having said
                                    that, Sartre and Camus are also of the past, and they are frequently
                                    mentioned at the list. It's odd, really, that existentialism is so
                                    very difficult to pin down. A tribute, maybe, to the uniqueness of
                                    the individual human. For all who work to examine their own thinking
                                    and set their lives in the light of that thought, there is the
                                    immense possibility of discovering what is startling and new. And
                                    possibly incommunicable. Hmm, is that what I meant when adopting the
                                    pseudonym of 'Willing Worker'? It's not going to start a revolution,
                                    is it? Workers of the world - examine your lives. Existentialism is
                                    for the few, because the many are not interested. Having said that,
                                    individuality does take more forms than the examined life. The
                                    language of philosophy ranges from the hermetic to the precisely
                                    academic, but how far can it be colloquial, if at all? Louise


                                    >
                                    > Wil
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > **************
                                    > Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
                                    > credit score.
                                    > (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?
                                    ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • jimstuart51
                                    Louise: [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a syllogism, so I
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Louise: [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the
                                      premises stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount
                                      to a syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.

                                      1.
                                      That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                      existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.

                                      2.
                                      That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                      metaphysical statement.

                                      Conclusion.
                                      The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                      remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]

                                      Wil: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that sense,
                                      essence precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in
                                      metaphysics as espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre
                                      remains stuck in metaphysics. Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If
                                      Heidegger is correct, Sartre remains as a metaphysical thinker, but
                                      this does not mean that Sartre is Platonic. Metaphysics does
                                      necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal source of
                                      metaphysics, as such).

                                      Jim: Wil, I guess you missed a `not' out of your last sentence.
                                      Certainly what you wrote in the preceding sentences would lead the
                                      reader to expect a `not' to be meant.

                                      Generally, I think you are both in agreement that one of the main
                                      points of Heidegger's "Letter on Humanism" was that he saw Sartre as
                                      still stuck in the old metaphysical way of thinking. I think that
                                      this is the point Louise was trying to make, and I didn't read her as
                                      saying that Sartre was Platonic in any sense. Rather both Plato and
                                      Sartre were both grounded in a `metaphysics' which was not faithful
                                      to the `truth about Being'.

                                      Here is the relevant extract from the Livingston lecture:

                                      Though he shares much with Sartre, Heidegger's aim in the Letter on
                                      Humanism is to distinguish himself from – rather than endorse –
                                      Sartre's existentialism and his associated concept of humanism. For
                                      Heidegger thinks that this concept of humanism is still within the
                                      tradition of metaphysics. Of Sartre's reversal of the traditional
                                      priority of essence over existence, Heidegger says:
                                      "…Sartre expresses the basic tent of existentialism in this way:
                                      Existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia
                                      and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which from
                                      Plato's time on has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre
                                      reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement
                                      remains a metaphysical statement. With it he stays with metaphysics
                                      in oblivion of the truth of Being." (p. 232).
                                      By contrast, Heidegger thinks his philosophy of Being can discover a
                                      still older and more original meaning for man. To this end, Heidegger
                                      rejects everything that Sartre calls "humanism" – but only in the
                                      service of the higher dignity of man. "… The highest determinations
                                      of the sense of man in humanism still do not realize the proper
                                      dignity of man .." (p. 233). This "proper dignity" can only be
                                      discovered if man is thought of – as Sartre does not think of him –
                                      in his fundamental relationship to Being and its meaning and truth.

                                      Jim
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      ... Yes, thanks. Wil ************** Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your credit score.
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 1/25/09 5:34:32 AM, jjimstuart1@... writes:

                                        > Wil, I guess you missed a `not' out of your last sentence.
                                        > Certainly what you wrote in the preceding sentences would lead the
                                        > reader to expect a `not' to be meant.
                                        >

                                        Yes, thanks.

                                        Wil


                                        **************
                                        Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve
                                        your credit score.
                                        (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • louise
                                        ... premises ... sense, essence ... metaphysics as ... metaphysics. ... remains as a ... Platonic. Metaphysics ... source of ... Jim and Wil, I am puzzled.
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Louise,
                                          >
                                          > [Not being trained in formal logic, I am unsure whether the
                                          premises
                                          > stated in my earlier message, with their conclusion, amount to a
                                          > syllogism, so I shall simply present them as 'one' and 'two'.
                                          >
                                          > 1.
                                          > That for Plato [interpreted by Scholastic thought] essence precedes
                                          > existence, and that this is a metaphysical statement.
                                          >
                                          > 2.
                                          > That for Sartre existence precedes essence, and that this is a
                                          > metaphysical statement.
                                          >
                                          > Conclusion.
                                          > The type of classical thinking exemplified by Platonic metaphysics
                                          > remains implicit in Sartrean existentialism.]
                                          >
                                          > Response: 1. The Ideal is real; the mundane is a copy. In that
                                          sense, essence
                                          > precedes existence. This becomes a foundational premise in
                                          metaphysics as
                                          > espoused by Aristotle. 2. For Heidegger, Sartre remains stuck in
                                          metaphysics.
                                          > Sartre thought otherwise. Concl. If Heidegger is correct, Sartre
                                          remains as a
                                          > metaphysical thinker, but this does not mean that Sartre is
                                          Platonic. Metaphysics
                                          > does necessarily imply Platonism (or Aristotelianism, the formal
                                          source of
                                          > metaphysics, as such).

                                          Jim and Wil,

                                          I am puzzled. Are you both asserting that the final sentence here
                                          should read, "Metaphysics does not necessarily imply Platonism (or
                                          Aristotelianism, the formal source of metaphysics, as such)?

                                          It seems to me that the statement was correct the first time round.
                                          There is metaphysical thinking, I suppose, in, for instance, the
                                          ancient Sanskrit holy texts, but this is a quite different kind of
                                          philosophical thought, surely? As far as Western philosophy is
                                          concerned, is it not true that all metaphysics can be traced back to
                                          Plato??

                                          Louise
                                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                                          Louise. As far as Western philosophy is concerned, is it not true that all metaphysics can be traced back to Plato?? Response: The formal beginning of
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Jan 25, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Louise.

                                            "As far as Western philosophy is concerned, is it not true that all
                                            metaphysics can be traced back to Plato??"

                                            Response: The formal beginning of metaphysics-proper (that is, as a formal
                                            discipline) is usually put at the feet of Aristotle. But the general range of
                                            speculative philosophies go as far back as Thales.

                                            It is nevertheless fairly common to attribute many Western notions to Plato,
                                            including the subject-object dualism, or dualism itself. Plato's foot print is
                                            enormous. But it would be misleading to say that all metaphysics is therefore
                                            Platonic, or that the term "Platonic" is used always in a strict manner.

                                            Whitehead once quipped that all Western thought is involved in an ancient
                                            wrestling match between Plato and Aristotle, which would make one infer that
                                            Aristotle was un-Platonic in a significant way, for example. Or again, the
                                            Neo-"Platonists" are seen as being significantly different from the Atomists and
                                            Epicureans, etc.

                                            Plato is not completely consistent throughout the dialogues on the real/ideal
                                            thing. I do not have the time to go through all of this right now, but if
                                            memory serves me right you will see some equivocation in the Laws, for example.
                                            Aristotle contradicts himself in the Metaphysics as well, first criticizing
                                            Plato's Ideas as impossible, but then exploiting the very same concept with his
                                            discussion of the Summum Bonum and thought thinking itself.

                                            The point is that all such slogans and sayings become problematic when
                                            investigated with any sense of detail.

                                            Wil

                                            In a message dated 1/25/09 11:36:10 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                                            > Jim and Wil,
                                            >
                                            > I am puzzled. Are you both asserting that the final sentence here
                                            > should read, "Metaphysics does not necessarily imply Platonism (or
                                            > Aristotelianism, the formal source of metaphysics, as such)?
                                            >
                                            > It seems to me that the statement was correct the first time round.
                                            > There is metaphysical thinking, I suppose, in, for instance, the
                                            > ancient Sanskrit holy texts, but this is a quite different kind of
                                            > philosophical thought, surely? As far as Western philosophy is
                                            > concerned, is it not true that all metaphysics can be traced back to
                                            > Plato??
                                            >
                                            > Louise
                                            >




                                            **************
                                            Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
                                            credit score.
                                            (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.