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

Re: Tom's question about my question about his reply

Expand Messages
  • Tom
    Then you outlined what I had said I thought were the assumptions the man might be making. What I suppose I don t understand is why you would want to create a
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Then you outlined what I had said I thought were the assumptions the man might be making. What I suppose I don't understand is why you would want to create a world where there is no uncertainty, definite future occurrences can be known a priori, and then ask for an existentialist view on the man's moral dilemma. I define an existentialist world as being a place where there is no such thing as fact, nothing is definite, and all that 'truly' exists for the people who live in that world is the way they choose to try and perceive their world. So how can I apply existentialist principles to a world which is not existentialist in nature?

      I hinted at that one - in my original post I said "Maybe the nature of your philosophy dictates that it is too contrived to have meaning to you?" I'm no all-knowing expert on existential philosophy but find many similarities between my thoughts and those of many famous 'existential' philosophers. Existentialism is a very diverse term though...defined in many ways. It might be an existentialist list but I'm just trying to get a perspective on this from people who call themselves "existentialists".

      I accept the idea of pragmatic truths. The fact that sun will rise the next morning is a pragmatic truth. The fact that the train will plunge into the canyon is a pragmatic truth. If you would like me to contrive the situation even more then the man is a highly knowledgable physicist with an expertise in railways and therefore he can be almost certain that the train will plunge! :-).

      The idea of my scenario is that the occurances are near certainties. There is little or no room for error in judgement. I could write a book about the scenario to iron out every possible debatable probablility but in this kind of ethical debate, you have to accept that the situation is one with very little room for uncertainty. Rather much like if you drop a lead weight it won't float upwards. You can be as existential about that as you like but if it floats upwards then that's something very odd indeed!

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