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

Re: [existlist] Wil, 'The question'

Expand Messages
  • eupraxis@aol.com
    Jay, Existentialism, in its academic and literary formulations (which is always where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless. By
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
      Jay,

      Existentialism, in its 'academic' and literary formulations (which is always
      where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless. By
      public I mean one that sought to open philosophical discussion to
      humanity-at-large. (This was especially true in the case of Sartre.) As such, it was
      inherently a liberal-humanist discourse, a leftist one, that had at its base the
      concept of radical freedom. Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom
      to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of
      course be anathematic to authoritarianism.

      That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
      issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
      sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
      Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.

      Wil


      In a message dated 11/3/06 12:24:09 AM, netjaysd@... writes:


      >
      >
      >
      > Wil,
      >
      > The original question to Louise was 'Authoritarianism is incompatible with
      > Extentialism, how or why not ?'
      > Jay
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Aija Veldre Beldavs
      ... i don t see this next step to everyone else s freedom covered by existentialism within my own very limited theoretical reading or in much of the practice
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
        Wil:

        > Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's
        > freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of course
        > be anathematic to authoritarianism.

        i don't see this next step to everyone else's freedom covered by
        existentialism within my own very limited theoretical reading or in much
        of the practice within this list. i do see it covered in ethical systems
        that take into account both the laws of nature and human ability to
        reflect in addition to the experience of loving care, which one gets from
        close others, especially in infancy, but also importantly in adolescence
        and throughout life.

        > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
        > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
        > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
        > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.

        i don't see the usefulness of, for instance, labeling as "totalitarian"
        Fibonacci-patterned decisions, but maybe i'm misreading what you are
        trying to say.

        aija
      • eupraxis@aol.com
        If a philosophical position avows everyone s freedom, it couldn t then avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom) and be consistent.
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 3, 2006
          If a philosophical position avows everyone's freedom, it couldn't then avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom) and be consistent.

          W

          -----Original Message-----
          From: beldavsa@...
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:17 AM
          Subject: Re: [existlist] Wil, 'The question'


          Wil:

          > Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's
          > freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of course
          > be anathematic to authoritarianism.

          i don't see this next step to everyone else's freedom covered by
          existentialism within my own very limited theoretical reading or in much
          of the practice within this list. i do see it covered in ethical systems
          that take into account both the laws of nature and human ability to
          reflect in addition to the experience of loving care, which one gets from
          close others, especially in infancy, but also importantly in adolescence
          and throughout life.

          > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
          > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
          > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
          > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.

          i don't see the usefulness of, for instance, labeling as "totalitarian"
          Fibonacci-patterned decisions, but maybe i'm misreading what you are
          trying to say.

          aija

          ________________________________________________________________________
          Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Aija Veldre Beldavs
          ... yup, that s the theory, that s the logic. but most people don t spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds. the great social experiments sure
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
            > If a philosophical position avows everyone's freedom, it couldn't then
            > avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom)
            > and be consistent. W

            yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't
            spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.

            the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
            century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
            communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
            time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
            survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.

            never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
            beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
            last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
            reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
            perfect theories.

            course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
            nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
            for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.

            aija
          • Christopher Knoepfle
            no ante. The Maestro s Astrology (available at lulu.com)- a 238pp demonstration of Plato s framework of divination, complete with a working example. ... From:
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
              no ante.

              The Maestro's Astrology (available at lulu.com)- a 238pp demonstration of Plato's framework of divination, complete with a working example.



              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2006 1:16:12 PM
              Subject: Re: [existlist] Wil, 'The question'


              > If a philosophical position avows everyone's freedom, it couldn't then
              > avow an authoritarian position (which presumably denies that freedom)
              > and be consistent. W

              yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't
              spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.

              the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
              century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
              communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
              time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
              survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.

              never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
              beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
              last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
              reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
              perfect theories.

              course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
              nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
              for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.

              aija



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              aija, [yup, that s the theory, that s the logic. but most people don t spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.] Well, that would explain why it
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 4, 2006
                aija,

                [yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't spend much
                time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.]

                Well, that would explain why it I haven't gone on a date for some time. Gee,
                who could have guessed that it was I who was playing hard to get all along?!?

                [the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
                century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
                communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
                time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
                survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.]

                Yes, and Bush says that he has read Camus, as well as a few "Shakespeares"
                this Summer. Theory rarely makes a difference on the practices of despots. But
                we, here, are not despots, so why should we think like them? The logic has to
                count for something. What could the meaning of justice be if that were not so?

                [never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
                beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
                last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
                reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
                perfect theories.

                course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
                nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
                for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.]

                If I understand you correctly, you have a few nodding heads: Hegel said that
                logic is faith (in his early criticism of Kant's assumption to the contrary);
                Nietzsche said that it is "optimism". There is a true, but cold, insight in
                what you say here. But what are WE to do?

                Deconstruction was a failure precisely because it undercut the requirement,
                even of its critics, to be intellectually ("logocentrically) honest. A bad
                move, I think. Just because we know Cartesian expectations to have been
                overweening shouldn't lead us to any resignation.

                Wil


                In a message dated 11/4/06 1:20:22 PM, beldavsa@... writes:


                > yup, that's the theory, that's the logic. but most people don't
                > spend much time in sheltered academic toy logic worlds.
                >
                > the great social experiments sure didn't test out in practice the last
                > century but they killed millions, displaced millions more, tore up
                > communities that had ecologically developed somewhat more gently over
                > time, and left a significant number of the descendants of those who
                > survived poisoned in spirit as well as body.
                >
                > never mind that today it is not considered ethical to experiment on human
                > beings without serious limits, such as involving informed consent. in the
                > last century, never mind the ethics, it didn't work out for practical
                > reasons either to say nothing of some fundamental logical flaws in those
                > perfect theories.
                >
                > course that doesn't seem to stop a lot of those who have power to change.
                > nothing much does cause nature hasn't hit humanity with full force as yet.
                > for now some can play at gods accountable to no one.
                >
                > aija
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • James Johnson
                Wil, How do you define radical freedom ? How would your individual ( subjective ) expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual ( subjective
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 9, 2006
                  Wil,

                  How do you define radical freedom ? How would your individual ( subjective )
                  expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual ( subjective )
                  expression of my freedom/choice ? ?
                  With subjectivism being a center point in Extentialism, how and who decides what
                  subjective view is ' more' correct between us or a large group ? ? If you or me were in
                  conflict as to what is the right interpretation or what the correct actions to take, don't you
                  think the ' I am whatever I am ' would sprout authoriatarinism ? Because you did
                  mentioned that due to the encouragement of radical freedom in Existentialism,
                  authoritarianism would/should be anathematic to Existentialism. Do we have
                  responsiblities between us ?
                  > And again with subjectivity being the viewpoint of understanding reality, how
                  can ' academic formulations' be expressed as deeds/actions and not just words or
                  opinions ? And with the desire to open the philosophical discussion to the public at large
                  what is the practical value of 'academic' discussions to the public at large ? Academia
                  seems anathematic to generalities.

                  Jay
                  > Jay,
                  >
                  > Existentialism, in its 'academic' and literary formulations (which is always
                  > where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless. By
                  > public I mean one that sought to open philosophical discussion to
                  > humanity-at-large. (This was especially true in the case of Sartre.) As such, it was
                  > inherently a liberal-humanist discourse, a leftist one, that had at its base the
                  > concept of radical freedom. Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's freedom
                  > to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would of
                  > course be anathematic to authoritarianism.
                  >
                  > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have existential
                  > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
                  > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from the
                  > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.
                  >
                  > Wil
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 11/3/06 12:24:09 AM, netjaysd@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Wil,
                  > >
                  > > The original question to Louise was 'Authoritarianism is incompatible with
                  > > Extentialism, how or why not ?'
                  > > Jay
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • eupraxis@aol.com
                  [How would your individual (subjective) expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual (subjective) expression of my freedom/choice?] Maybe
                  Message 8 of 16 , Nov 9, 2006
                    [How would your individual (subjective) expression of freedom/choice not be
                    anathematic to my individual (subjective) expression of my freedom/choice?]

                    Maybe it would. Life has no guarantees.

                    [With subjectivism being a center point in Existentialism, how and who
                    decides what
                    subjective view is ' more' correct between us or a large group?]

                    There is no automatic answer. Philosophy, or in this case Existentialism in
                    particular, is a large body of writing that, over the span of time, has built
                    up arguments and points of view, some of them diverse. No one ever said that
                    anyone could learn to be an absolute or perfect arbiter. But because there is no
                    transcendental canon of truth doesn't mean that one should have no sense of
                    value at all.

                    [If you or me were in conflict as to what is the right interpretation or what
                    the correct actions to take, don't you think the ' I am whatever I am ' would
                    sprout authoritarianism?]

                    You have me mistaken for someone else. That is not my line.

                    [Because you did mentioned that due to the encouragement of radical freedom
                    in Existentialism, authoritarianism would/should be anathematic to
                    Existentialism.]

                    No, you have that wrong, sorry. What I said was, "Freedom, taken logically
                    beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of
                    those in need of it, would of course be anathematic to authoritarianism." It is
                    a matter of logical consistency.

                    WS


                    In a message dated 11/9/06 7:56:45 PM, netjaysd@... writes:


                    > Wil,
                    >
                    > How do you define radical freedom ? How would your individual ( subjective )
                    > expression of freedom/choice not be anathematic to my individual (
                    > subjective )
                    > expression of my freedom/choice ? ?
                    > With subjectivism being a center point in Extentialism, how and who decides
                    > what
                    > subjective view is ' more' correct between us or a large group ? ? If you or
                    > me were in
                    > conflict as to what is the right interpretation or what the correct actions
                    > to take, don't you
                    > think the ' I am whatever I am ' would sprout authoriatarinism ? Because you
                    > did
                    > mentioned that due to the encouragement of radical freedom in
                    > Existentialism,
                    > authoritarianism would/should be anathematic to Existentialism. Do we have
                    > responsiblities between us ?
                    > > And again with subjectivity being the viewpoint of understanding reality,
                    > how
                    > can ' academic formulations' be expressed as deeds/actions and not just
                    > words or
                    > opinions ? And with the desire to open the philosophical discussion to the
                    > public at large
                    > what is the practical value of 'academic' discussions to the public at large
                    > ? Academia
                    > seems anathematic to generalities.
                    >
                    > Jay
                    > > Jay,
                    > >
                    > > Existentialism, in its 'academic' and literary formulations (which is
                    > always
                    > > where I am coming from, it seems), was a public discourse, nevertheless.
                    > By
                    > > public I mean one that sought to open philosophical discussion to
                    > > humanity-at- humanity-at-<wbr>large. (This was especially true in the case
                    > of Sartre.
                    > > inherently a liberal-humanist discourse, a leftist one, that had at its
                    > base the
                    > > concept of radical freedom. Freedom, taken logically beyond just someone's
                    > freedom
                    > > to everyone's freedom, and to the liberation of those in need of it, would
                    > of
                    > > course be anathematic to authoritarianism.
                    > >
                    > > That said, if one were an authoritarian, one would oneself have
                    > existential
                    > > issues, so I guess one could write a limited kind of existentialism for
                    > > sadists, bullies, dictators and the like -- but, outside of writing from
                    > the
                    > > Nuremburg trials, I haven't seen anything like that as yet.
                    > >
                    > > Wil
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > In a message dated 11/3/06 12:24:09 AM, netjaysd@... writes:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Wil,
                    > > >
                    > > > The original question to Louise was 'Authoritarianism is incompatible
                    > with
                    > > > Extentialism, how or why not ?'
                    > > > Jay
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Mary
                    Forgive my sloth. This past week has been a whirlwind, now nearly past. I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at
                    Message 9 of 16 , Nov 10, 2006
                      Forgive my sloth. This past week has been a whirlwind, now nearly past.

                      "I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men
                      have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand
                      years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even
                      when the former is dangerous and the latter safe... I believe that any
                      man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to
                      become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however
                      slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."

                      H. L. Mencken

                      It seems Nietzsche understood this better than either Kierkegaard or
                      Sartre, philosophically speaking. And of course, not much can free us
                      from our own perception(s).

                      Mary

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                      No, you have that wrong, sorry. What I said was, "Freedom, taken
                      logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's freedom, and to
                      the liberation of those in need of it, would of course be anathematic
                      to authoritarianism. It is a matter of logical consistency.
                    • louise
                      Mary, What is this about forgiveness? At existlist? My inertia must do battle with your sloth. We need Kierkegaard, to delineate the difference between
                      Message 10 of 16 , Nov 10, 2006
                        Mary,

                        What is this about forgiveness? At existlist? My inertia must do
                        battle with your sloth. We need Kierkegaard, to delineate the
                        difference between liberty and freedom, in a more extended field
                        than is attempted by Nietzsche. Still, that assertion is as bald
                        and unsubstantiated as your own. If danger fosters the rescuing
                        power, as Holderlin relates, so may exhaustion summon forth faith.
                        In that process I trust, and wish to make good my claims in the
                        fullness of time. Bill has opined that the present does not respect
                        the past, and I guess that from where I stand such a tendency,
                        though scarce believable to one of my persuasion, represents the
                        kind of despair from which the Dane shows the way to deliverance.

                        Louise

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <agignesthai@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Forgive my sloth. This past week has been a whirlwind, now nearly
                        past.
                        >
                        > "I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that
                        men
                        > have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand
                        > years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free,
                        even
                        > when the former is dangerous and the latter safe... I believe that
                        any
                        > man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to
                        > become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in
                        however
                        > slight the measure, is bound to become a slave."
                        >
                        > H. L. Mencken
                        >
                        > It seems Nietzsche understood this better than either Kierkegaard
                        or
                        > Sartre, philosophically speaking. And of course, not much can free
                        us
                        > from our own perception(s).
                        >
                        > Mary
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                        >
                        > No, you have that wrong, sorry. What I said was, "Freedom, taken
                        > logically beyond just someone's freedom to everyone's freedom, and
                        to
                        > the liberation of those in need of it, would of course be
                        anathematic
                        > to authoritarianism. It is a matter of logical consistency.
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.