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

Re: [existlist] Re: Nihilism: where it all begins

Expand Messages
  • gevans613@aol.com
    _existlist@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com) Trinidad Cruz wrote: [below] Hi Trinidad, An excellent piece of writing. Is there any more of
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 2, 2005
      _existlist@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)


      Trinidad Cruz wrote: [below]

      Hi Trinidad,
      An excellent piece of writing. Is there any more of your stuff I can see
      somewhere - perhaps published on the Internet?
      I would like to publish your piece in my Athenaeum Library of Philosophy
      credited to you together with a small head and shoulders picture if that is
      possible?
      You can see the treatment I give to the material I post by visiting:

      _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm_
      (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm)

      If you have any other philosophical stuff of a similar quality I would love
      to put that up in the library too. The website libraries are strictly
      non-commercial and regularly attract between 60,000 to 80,000 visitors per DAY - so
      you would be ensured of a large readership. :-)

      Cordially,

      Jud Evans.

      BTW Any other members who have stuff that they have written that they feel
      would be of interest to a philosophical audience are most welcome to sent it to
      me privately as an attachment. The philosophical stance taken is
      immaterial, and can include concepts from the whole gamut of ideas, from Platonism to
      Nietzsche - from Anselm to the Churchills or personal, individual philosophies.


      Trinidad Cruz wrote:
      Human beings must be wholly considered and this requires an account of death
      that recognizes personal mortality, not in the sense that all men die, but
      rather that "I" die. If we catch on to Sartre's bending of Heidegger's demand
      toward activation there is some resolution for this issue short of nihilism.

      It is my view that the idea of activation requires a bit more development.
      In a purely scientific sense I may reasonably hypothesize that "I" the
      individual cannot be without the species, and produce any number of historical
      scientific arguments to that effect, but putting us all in the same boat does
      nothing to personally rid me of death, so short of fantasy I can only be immersed
      in death. Consider that the activation of any species-wide new action on the
      individual cannot be activated by the species precisely because the
      individual has arisen from the species. Any action by the species on a living
      individual with the potential to change the individual can only be activated by the
      individual himself.

      Consider that the individual cannot escape what the species has activated
      towards him in initially producing him as an individual member of the species,
      in order to get the sense of an essentially determined condition; and one can
      argue that the force required for the individual to improve his situation
      beyond what is common to the species can only be generated as a species-wide
      resolution toward change. For an individual to improve his biologically
      determined plight he must somehow activate the species toward the "I" that he longs
      to keep.

      For most on the surface this is a rather unattractive nearly Machiavellian
      idea until one considers what methodolgy or implementation would be required to
      activate the species toward oneself. Consider that the species' activation
      toward self-perpetuation produced the individual in the first place.
      Reconsider that the ordinary individual arisen of the species can do absolutely
      nothing to alter that imperative short of destroying the species. Consider that
      existence for a human being is an all or nothing proposition if you will, but do
      not discount what is left of the all just because you have yet to
      philosophically decipher how to activate the species toward the individual. It seems to
      me that if an individual were to successfully assume the responsibility for
      the perpetuation and preservation of the species the species would be free to
      produce a new imperative. I wonder what that would be? Perhaps one could
      speculate: the perpetuation of the individual? Consider that every act an
      individual makes toward liberating and providing more choices to another
      individual is a brief assumption of the imperative of the species. Perhaps that
      activation of species toward individual is not so impossible.

      Death in the whole individual is something that must be taken as fact, just
      an end of a string of possibilities, but what one does with the possibilities
      is of substantial importance to the whole species and so to every living
      individual and every individual to come. As much as a human being to be whole
      must accept the personal immersion in death, so must he accept the personal
      immersion in species. Becoming is an active and limited state. Nietzche's
      argument is dated and now become inevitably a straw man construction. The argument
      for meaning that stands is the one that removes the NECESSITY of
      meaninglessness from the dialectic, the one Sartre and Darwin began. We are all "dead men
      walking" and it is this "walking", the active state, that is our meaning as
      individuals, and as a species. We can only change as individuals what we began
      as a species by accepting responsibility for it. Pick up the stone.


      PERSONAL WEBSITE
      http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
      ... yes, but most who confront their dead (wo)man state aren t heroes, they need a touch on the shoulder, or at least seeing others picking up their stones.
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 2, 2005
        > Nietzche's argument is dated and now become inevitably a straw man
        > construction. The argument for meaning that stands is the one that
        > removes the NECESSITY of meaninglessness from the dialectic, the one
        > Sartre and Darwin began. We are all "dead men walking" and it is this
        > "walking", the active state, that is our meaning as individuals, and
        > as a species. We can only change as individuals what we began as a
        > species by accepting responsibility for it. Pick up the stone.
        > Trinidad Cruz

        yes, but most who confront their dead (wo)man state aren't heroes, they
        need a touch on the shoulder, or at least seeing others picking up their
        stones.

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