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

Re: YES, 'DEDICATED TO EXPLAINING NOTHING' AND PROUD OF IT

Expand Messages
  • Mario
    ... disappeared even... ... say Hi and inquire with ... answers , like there are ... existence, though you ... the answers. It s a lie and ... thank for your
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "James Johnson" <netjaysd@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > WYATT,
      > I sent a similar respnse as the below but somehow it
      disappeared even...
      > than a handful of chronic members that interact ? New members
      say 'Hi' and inquire with
      > questions about answers ( like Mario ) and you give them 'helpful
      answers', like there are
      > no real absolute answers only answers that you develop from your
      existence, though you
      > say that eventually one accept/realizes that you can't ever know
      the answers. It's a lie and
      > it that makes no sense but it sounds nice enough for nice Mario to
      thank for your time and
      > leave your existence. And so most never return but I know that's
      OK for you and the other
      > few members that stay here because it like tough old Bill says,
      it's about 'Individualism'
      > you all are here for yourself not for anyone else. You have no
      duty or responsibilty to
      > anyone else but the fun of talking about and explaining
      NOTHING............................
      > It OK if you fail someone else since you are
      only here for your subjective ( you
      > don't believe in words Objectivity, as you have said ) Self...
      >
      > The Gadfly
      DEAR GADFLY, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO MY "RESCUE". I BELIEVE
      EVERYONE HERE IS WELL INTENTIONNED, AND IS ENTITLED TO THEIR VIEWS
      AND PERCEPTIONS AND I WAS NOT AT ALL "PUSHED AWAY" BY THE COMMENTS.
      HOWEVER I AM WONDERING IF THE WORD "EXISTENTIALISM" SHOULD NOT BE
      REPLACED WITH "INDIVIDUALISM" AS YOU REFER. AFTER ALL "WHO"
      HAS "THE" ANSWER?!.........:-0

      MARIO
    • Herman B. Triplegood
      Well, you know, philosophy is a kind of an individual thing anyway, and an existential thing too. It is the individuals, after all, who are actually doing the
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 8, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, you know, philosophy is a kind of an individual thing anyway,
        and an existential thing too. It is the individuals, after all, who
        are actually doing the philosophy. So, there's the individual part
        right there. They do it, probably, because it matters to them in some
        way, and, somehow, by sharing it and discussing it, they want to make
        some kind of a difference, not only for themselves, but maybe even
        for others. So, there you have it; that's your existential part of it
        right there.

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mario" <mario_daigle@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "James Johnson" <netjaysd@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > WYATT,
        > > I sent a similar respnse as the below but somehow
        it
        > disappeared even...
        > > than a handful of chronic members that interact ? New members
        > say 'Hi' and inquire with
        > > questions about answers ( like Mario ) and you give them 'helpful
        > answers', like there are
        > > no real absolute answers only answers that you develop from your
        > existence, though you
        > > say that eventually one accept/realizes that you can't ever know
        > the answers. It's a lie and
        > > it that makes no sense but it sounds nice enough for nice Mario
        to
        > thank for your time and
        > > leave your existence. And so most never return but I know that's
        > OK for you and the other
        > > few members that stay here because it like tough old Bill says,
        > it's about 'Individualism'
        > > you all are here for yourself not for anyone else. You have no
        > duty or responsibilty to
        > > anyone else but the fun of talking about and explaining
        > NOTHING............................
        > > It OK if you fail someone else since you are
        > only here for your subjective ( you
        > > don't believe in words Objectivity, as you have said ) Self...
        > >
        > > The Gadfly
        > DEAR GADFLY, THANK YOU FOR COMING TO MY "RESCUE". I BELIEVE
        > EVERYONE HERE IS WELL INTENTIONNED, AND IS ENTITLED TO THEIR VIEWS
        > AND PERCEPTIONS AND I WAS NOT AT ALL "PUSHED AWAY" BY THE COMMENTS.
        > HOWEVER I AM WONDERING IF THE WORD "EXISTENTIALISM" SHOULD NOT BE
        > REPLACED WITH "INDIVIDUALISM" AS YOU REFER. AFTER ALL "WHO"
        > HAS "THE" ANSWER?!.........:-0
        >
        > MARIO
        >
      • louise
        ... anyway, What an extraordinary statement, especially from you, Herman, the accomplished reader of philosophical texts and noted critic of the recently
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Well, you know, philosophy is a kind of an individual thing
          anyway,

          What an extraordinary statement, especially from you, Herman, the
          accomplished reader of philosophical texts and noted critic of the
          recently proffered college reading-list, in all its truncated
          melancholy. Philosophy is a discipline, with many branches, and
          whilst individual readers undoubtedly vary in their personal tastes,
          it would surely defeat its own object if failing to provide some
          agreed criteria and established methodologies whereby discussion
          might redeem itself from simple assertions of appetite. The naivety
          of my own expectations continues to astound, even myself, yet these
          too I interpret as one more evidence of the given foundation,
          ontological and cosmic, for philosophical truth, articulate in
          living human forms.

          Louise
        • Herman B. Triplegood
          Hi Louise: Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether they are on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each philosopher does
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Louise:

            Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether they are
            on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
            philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and his
            circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a gesture of
            respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of these
            thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down what they
            thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much to them
            and it made a profound difference in how they led their lives. That
            is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a downright
            individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level of
            personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.

            As for the reading list, my take on that is, if it is to be a
            philosophy reading list, it needs to be comprehensive. Such a
            requirement does not make the task very easy, and it certainly cannot
            be accomplished in only a year or two. Sometimes it might seem, as we
            do our reading, and thinking, that we go through phases. I was in a
            Kant phase when I sat down and read Kant. Now, I am in a Hegel phase
            as I sit down and read Hegel. He is really blowing my mind. But the
            others are on my reading list too, right on up to good old Jean Paul
            Sartre.

            Along the way, a really interesting thing is happening to me. As I
            spend time with each thinker, in turn, my attitudes toward other
            thinkers whom I know less well is becoming more tolerant. Kant and
            Hegel have opened up a lot of understanding, for me, into others,
            like Descartes, Plato and Aristotle, and the existentialists too. I
            have been doing a lot of side reading in history too, trying to get a
            better grasp on the whole Enlightenment to Romanticism thing and how
            that whole development unfolded and how we relate to it from our
            perspective here in 2006. I am also placing more novels and poetry on
            my list. Some of the best philosophy can actually be found in a good
            novel or an amazing selection of poems.

            I am grateful for the massive amount of time that I am able to devote
            to my reading. I could not have dug this deep back in my school days
            when I had to worry about keeping up my grades, doing term papers,
            and preparing for tests. My free time affords me the luxury of going
            into a total immersion mode with each philosopher that I take on.

            Hb3g

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Well, you know, philosophy is a kind of an individual thing
            > anyway,
            >
            > What an extraordinary statement, especially from you, Herman, the
            > accomplished reader of philosophical texts and noted critic of the
            > recently proffered college reading-list, in all its truncated
            > melancholy. Philosophy is a discipline, with many branches, and
            > whilst individual readers undoubtedly vary in their personal
            tastes,
            > it would surely defeat its own object if failing to provide some
            > agreed criteria and established methodologies whereby discussion
            > might redeem itself from simple assertions of appetite. The
            naivety
            > of my own expectations continues to astound, even myself, yet these
            > too I interpret as one more evidence of the given foundation,
            > ontological and cosmic, for philosophical truth, articulate in
            > living human forms.
            >
            > Louise
            >
          • eupraxis@aol.com
            Now, I am in a Hegel phase as I sit down and read Hegel. He is really blowing my mind. I can recommend a few recent texts - Robert Wallace: Hegel s
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              "Now, I am in a Hegel phase as I sit down and read Hegel. He is really
              blowing my mind."

              I can recommend a few recent texts - Robert Wallace: Hegel's Philosophy of
              Reality, Freedom and God; Stephen Houlgate: The Opening of Hegel's Logic; Terry
              Pinckard: Hegel (Biography), and Hegel's Phenomenology: The Sociality of
              Reason.

              Wil


              In a message dated 12/8/06 11:41:14 PM, hb3g@... writes:


              > Hi Louise:
              >
              > Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether they are
              > on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
              > philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and his
              > circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a gesture of
              > respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of these
              > thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down what they
              > thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much to them
              > and it made a profound difference in how they led their lives. That
              > is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a downright
              > individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level of
              > personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.
              >
              > As for the reading list, my take on that is, if it is to be a
              > philosophy reading list, it needs to be comprehensive. Such a
              > requirement does not make the task very easy, and it certainly cannot
              > be accomplished in only a year or two. Sometimes it might seem, as we
              > do our reading, and thinking, that we go through phases. I was in a
              > Kant phase when I sat down and read Kant. Now, I am in a Hegel phase
              > as I sit down and read Hegel. He is really blowing my mind. But the
              > others are on my reading list too, right on up to good old Jean Paul
              > Sartre.
              >
              > Along the way, a really interesting thing is happening to me. As I
              > spend time with each thinker, in turn, my attitudes toward other
              > thinkers whom I know less well is becoming more tolerant. Kant and
              > Hegel have opened up a lot of understanding, for me, into others,
              > like Descartes, Plato and Aristotle, and the existentialists too. I
              > have been doing a lot of side reading in history too, trying to get a
              > better grasp on the whole Enlightenment to Romanticism thing and how
              > that whole development unfolded and how we relate to it from our
              > perspective here in 2006. I am also placing more novels and poetry on
              > my list. Some of the best philosophy can actually be found in a good
              > novel or an amazing selection of poems.
              >
              > I am grateful for the massive amount of time that I am able to devote
              > to my reading. I could not have dug this deep back in my school days
              > when I had to worry about keeping up my grades, doing term papers,
              > and preparing for tests. My free time affords me the luxury of going
              > into a total immersion mode with each philosopher that I take on.
              >
              > Hb3g
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • louise
              ... are ... of ... they ... them ... That ... Herman, I m quite doubtful about the truth of what you are saying here, though it may be more evident in the
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Hi Louise:
                >
                > Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether they
                are
                > on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
                > philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and his
                > circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a gesture
                of
                > respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of these
                > thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down what
                they
                > thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much to
                them
                > and it made a profound difference in how they led their lives.
                That
                > is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a downright
                > individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level of
                > personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.


                Herman,

                I'm quite doubtful about the truth of what you are saying here,
                though it may be more evident in the works of philosophers living
                later than those you have mentioned. The details of a life, and the
                thought produced by the mind who lives that life, in fleshly human
                form, have complex inter-relationship. If the relationship were
                straightforward, and we could all freely discuss thought in relation
                to our societies, without fear of social antagonism or legal
                prosecution, I for one would probably not be posting to an internet
                site, more likely I would have sought to qualify to teach in a
                university. To my own perception, existentialism throws down the
                challenge to a wider society, concerning how our thought, feelings
                and actions cohere in themselves, to our individual nature, and in
                our bearing toward our fellows.

                Louise
              • Herman B. Triplegood
                Thanks Wil. I don t have any of those. I have Taylor, Solomon, both of which I have read, and Hyppolite. Russon s The Self and the Body in Hegel s
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks Wil. I don't have any of those. I have Taylor, Solomon, both
                  of which I have read, and Hyppolite. Russon's "The Self and the Body
                  in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit" was a very intriguing read.
                  Westphal's "Hegel's Epistemology" was also helpful. Right now I am
                  deeply into the primary texts, having just finished the "Encyclopedia
                  Logic" and moving on to the "Philosophy of Nature". Most of Hegel's
                  texts will require, at the very least, a second and third reading,
                  with a good commentary, but I don't want to get bogged down in too
                  many details right now.

                  Hb3g

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                  >
                  > "Now, I am in a Hegel phase as I sit down and read Hegel. He is
                  really
                  > blowing my mind."
                  >
                  > I can recommend a few recent texts - Robert Wallace: Hegel's
                  Philosophy of
                  > Reality, Freedom and God; Stephen Houlgate: The Opening of Hegel's
                  Logic; Terry
                  > Pinckard: Hegel (Biography), and Hegel's Phenomenology: The
                  Sociality of
                  > Reason.
                  >
                  > Wil
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 12/8/06 11:41:14 PM, hb3g@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  > > Hi Louise:
                  > >
                  > > Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether they
                  are
                  > > on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
                  > > philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and his
                  > > circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a
                  gesture of
                  > > respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of these
                  > > thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down what
                  they
                  > > thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much to
                  them
                  > > and it made a profound difference in how they led their lives.
                  That
                  > > is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a downright
                  > > individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level of
                  > > personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.
                  > >
                  > > As for the reading list, my take on that is, if it is to be a
                  > > philosophy reading list, it needs to be comprehensive. Such a
                  > > requirement does not make the task very easy, and it certainly
                  cannot
                  > > be accomplished in only a year or two. Sometimes it might seem,
                  as we
                  > > do our reading, and thinking, that we go through phases. I was in
                  a
                  > > Kant phase when I sat down and read Kant. Now, I am in a Hegel
                  phase
                  > > as I sit down and read Hegel. He is really blowing my mind. But
                  the
                  > > others are on my reading list too, right on up to good old Jean
                  Paul
                  > > Sartre.
                  > >
                  > > Along the way, a really interesting thing is happening to me. As I
                  > > spend time with each thinker, in turn, my attitudes toward other
                  > > thinkers whom I know less well is becoming more tolerant. Kant and
                  > > Hegel have opened up a lot of understanding, for me, into others,
                  > > like Descartes, Plato and Aristotle, and the existentialists too.
                  I
                  > > have been doing a lot of side reading in history too, trying to
                  get a
                  > > better grasp on the whole Enlightenment to Romanticism thing and
                  how
                  > > that whole development unfolded and how we relate to it from our
                  > > perspective here in 2006. I am also placing more novels and
                  poetry on
                  > > my list. Some of the best philosophy can actually be found in a
                  good
                  > > novel or an amazing selection of poems.
                  > >
                  > > I am grateful for the massive amount of time that I am able to
                  devote
                  > > to my reading. I could not have dug this deep back in my school
                  days
                  > > when I had to worry about keeping up my grades, doing term papers,
                  > > and preparing for tests. My free time affords me the luxury of
                  going
                  > > into a total immersion mode with each philosopher that I take on.
                  > >
                  > > Hb3g
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Herman B. Triplegood
                  Louise: Can you specify what it is you see there you disagree with? Hb3g ... gesture ... the ... relation
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Louise:

                    Can you specify what it is you see there you disagree with?

                    Hb3g

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hi Louise:
                    > >
                    > > Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether they
                    > are
                    > > on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
                    > > philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and his
                    > > circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a
                    gesture
                    > of
                    > > respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of these
                    > > thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down what
                    > they
                    > > thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much to
                    > them
                    > > and it made a profound difference in how they led their lives.
                    > That
                    > > is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a downright
                    > > individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level of
                    > > personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.
                    >
                    >
                    > Herman,
                    >
                    > I'm quite doubtful about the truth of what you are saying here,
                    > though it may be more evident in the works of philosophers living
                    > later than those you have mentioned. The details of a life, and
                    the
                    > thought produced by the mind who lives that life, in fleshly human
                    > form, have complex inter-relationship. If the relationship were
                    > straightforward, and we could all freely discuss thought in
                    relation
                    > to our societies, without fear of social antagonism or legal
                    > prosecution, I for one would probably not be posting to an internet
                    > site, more likely I would have sought to qualify to teach in a
                    > university. To my own perception, existentialism throws down the
                    > challenge to a wider society, concerning how our thought, feelings
                    > and actions cohere in themselves, to our individual nature, and in
                    > our bearing toward our fellows.
                    >
                    > Louise
                    >
                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                    Sounds to me like you have it pretty much all together. Wil ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sounds to me like you have it pretty much all together.

                      Wil

                      In a message dated 12/9/06 5:48:04 PM, hb3g@... writes:


                      > Thanks Wil. I don't have any of those. I have Taylor, Solomon, both
                      > of which I have read, and Hyppolite. Russon's "The Self and the Body
                      > in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit" was a very intriguing read.
                      > Westphal's "Hegel's Epistemology" was also helpful. Right now I am
                      > deeply into the primary texts, having just finished the "Encyclopedia
                      > Logic" and moving on to the "Philosophy of Nature". Most of Hegel's
                      > texts will require, at the very least, a second and third reading,
                      > with a good commentary, but I don't want to get bogged down in too
                      > many details right now.
                      >
                      > Hb3g
                      >
                      >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • louise
                      Yes, sorry, the wording of my first sentence in particular is rather unclear. I shall try to expand and explain. From my experience, mainly in the eighties,
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 9, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yes, sorry, the wording of my first sentence in particular is rather
                        unclear. I shall try to expand and explain. From my experience,
                        mainly in the 'eighties, of reading some academic and literary
                        journals, I gained the impression that many of those who lecture in
                        philosophy for a living, some of whom would be original authors
                        themselves in their subject, rather than publishing only critiques
                        or biographies of established authors of the canon, might be
                        expected to take a pragmatic, not an existentialist, approach. That
                        is, anyone actually intending to base the conduct of his day-to-day
                        life, in all the complexity of its moral detail, on philosophically
                        rigorous thinking, as outlined in a lecture course, would be liable
                        to being considered mad, or dangerous, or both. The treatment
                        accorded to both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche by their contemporaries,
                        or, even now, to their reputations, also confirms me in this
                        impression. That is only a beginning, lacking in specifics, but if
                        you or others are interested, I could attempt to add more detail,
                        perhaps tomorrow.

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Louise:
                        >
                        > Can you specify what it is you see there you disagree with?
                        >
                        > Hb3g
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Hi Louise:
                        > > >
                        > > > Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether
                        they
                        > > are
                        > > > on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
                        > > > philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and
                        his
                        > > > circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a
                        > gesture
                        > > of
                        > > > respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of
                        these
                        > > > thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down what
                        > > they
                        > > > thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much to
                        > > them
                        > > > and it made a profound difference in how they led their lives.
                        > > That
                        > > > is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a
                        downright
                        > > > individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level
                        of
                        > > > personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Herman,
                        > >
                        > > I'm quite doubtful about the truth of what you are saying here,
                        > > though it may be more evident in the works of philosophers
                        living
                        > > later than those you have mentioned. The details of a life, and
                        > the
                        > > thought produced by the mind who lives that life, in fleshly
                        human
                        > > form, have complex inter-relationship. If the relationship were
                        > > straightforward, and we could all freely discuss thought in
                        > relation
                        > > to our societies, without fear of social antagonism or legal
                        > > prosecution, I for one would probably not be posting to an
                        internet
                        > > site, more likely I would have sought to qualify to teach in a
                        > > university. To my own perception, existentialism throws down
                        the
                        > > challenge to a wider society, concerning how our thought,
                        feelings
                        > > and actions cohere in themselves, to our individual nature, and
                        in
                        > > our bearing toward our fellows.
                        > >
                        > > Louise
                        > >
                        >
                      • Herman B. Triplegood
                        Dear Louise: Yes, please go into it further. As for me, I am right in there with good old Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The pragmatic thing to do, it seems to me,
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 10, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Louise:

                          Yes, please go into it further. As for me, I am right in there with
                          good old Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The pragmatic thing to do, it
                          seems to me, is to live your truth. This also means letting your
                          truth live. So, it had better be a robust truth. I fully intend to
                          base my day to day conduct on rigorous philosophical reflection. I am
                          not perfect. I consider myself still an apprentice. I want my
                          philosophy to make a difference in how I live my life. I want it to
                          be existential, not dry and pedantic. I am under no illusion. I know
                          that it is not a simplistic process. I have been around for a few
                          decades, and I have suffered as much as anybody and made as many
                          stupid choices as anybody. It is nitty gritty. It is concrete. It is
                          even messy. But all of this does not mean it cannot be idealistic,
                          rational, spiritual, even absolute, in an unexpectedly complicated
                          and beautiful way. There is that cunning of reason of which Hegel
                          speaks. It is, in some ways, bigger than we are, and we have to give
                          ourselves up to it with a certain kind of trust, even a faith of
                          reason. I guess I am pretty much a die hard classicist when it comes
                          to reason and all of that. So, if the intention to put my philosophy
                          into concrete practice puts me in the straight jacket brigade, all I
                          can say is that it is amazing to me that things have gotten so turned
                          around that it now is the insane who are locking up the sane. I guess
                          a part of it is, maybe, being a rebel. It strikes me that Kierkegaard
                          and Nietzsche, like Socrates, just didn't fit in. Neither did
                          Schopenhauer. Socrates got treated really badly. Living the examined
                          life isn't always going with the flow. Often enough, it is going
                          against the grain.

                          Hb3g

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Yes, sorry, the wording of my first sentence in particular is
                          rather
                          > unclear. I shall try to expand and explain. From my experience,
                          > mainly in the 'eighties, of reading some academic and literary
                          > journals, I gained the impression that many of those who lecture in
                          > philosophy for a living, some of whom would be original authors
                          > themselves in their subject, rather than publishing only critiques
                          > or biographies of established authors of the canon, might be
                          > expected to take a pragmatic, not an existentialist, approach.
                          That
                          > is, anyone actually intending to base the conduct of his day-to-day
                          > life, in all the complexity of its moral detail, on philosophically
                          > rigorous thinking, as outlined in a lecture course, would be liable
                          > to being considered mad, or dangerous, or both. The treatment
                          > accorded to both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche by their contemporaries,
                          > or, even now, to their reputations, also confirms me in this
                          > impression. That is only a beginning, lacking in specifics, but if
                          > you or others are interested, I could attempt to add more detail,
                          > perhaps tomorrow.
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Louise:
                          > >
                          > > Can you specify what it is you see there you disagree with?
                          > >
                          > > Hb3g
                          > >
                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood"
                          <hb3g@>
                          > > > wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Hi Louise:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Yeah, well, when it comes down to it, those texts. whether
                          > they
                          > > > are
                          > > > > on the reading list or not, were written by individuals. Each
                          > > > > philosopher does indeed bring his own unique personality, and
                          > his
                          > > > > circumstances, to what he has to say there. To me, it is a
                          > > gesture
                          > > > of
                          > > > > respect to keep firmly in my mind the fact that for most of
                          > these
                          > > > > thinkers the reasons why they took the time to write down
                          what
                          > > > they
                          > > > > thought is because philosophy personally mattered very much
                          to
                          > > > them
                          > > > > and it made a profound difference in how they led their
                          lives.
                          > > > That
                          > > > > is the sense in which philosophy, it seems to me, is a
                          > downright
                          > > > > individual thing. Why do it if it doesn't matter on the level
                          > of
                          > > > > personal choices? There is a human being behind every book.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Herman,
                          > > >
                          > > > I'm quite doubtful about the truth of what you are saying here,
                          > > > though it may be more evident in the works of philosophers
                          > living
                          > > > later than those you have mentioned. The details of a life,
                          and
                          > > the
                          > > > thought produced by the mind who lives that life, in fleshly
                          > human
                          > > > form, have complex inter-relationship. If the relationship
                          were
                          > > > straightforward, and we could all freely discuss thought in
                          > > relation
                          > > > to our societies, without fear of social antagonism or legal
                          > > > prosecution, I for one would probably not be posting to an
                          > internet
                          > > > site, more likely I would have sought to qualify to teach in a
                          > > > university. To my own perception, existentialism throws down
                          > the
                          > > > challenge to a wider society, concerning how our thought,
                          > feelings
                          > > > and actions cohere in themselves, to our individual nature, and
                          > in
                          > > > our bearing toward our fellows.
                          > > >
                          > > > Louise
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • louise
                          Herman, I need to go very slowly, and often other philosophical threads, or simply the complicating demands of living, bodily, in a house made with hands,
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 10, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Herman, I need to go very slowly, and often other philosophical
                            threads, or simply the complicating demands of living, bodily, in a
                            house made with hands, prevents my participation in the steady
                            development of argument and discussion I would like to see at this
                            list. Horrendous abuse is made of philosophical thought, and I feel
                            that horror keenly. So please understand the context for my
                            polemical style, even if you are baffled or repelled by its
                            content. It is not easy for men and women to recognise each others'
                            emotions, and interpret them correctly. Those statements are simply
                            prefatory to my saying this: Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are neither
                            good nor old. They are dead, but that is hardly to say anything of
                            interest. Where is everyone else, anyway? Speak. Louise

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > Dear Louise:
                            >
                            > Yes, please go into it further. As for me, I am right in there
                            with
                            > good old Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The pragmatic thing to do, it
                            > seems to me, is to live your truth. This also means letting your
                            > truth live. So, it had better be a robust truth. I fully intend to
                            > base my day to day conduct on rigorous philosophical reflection. I
                            am
                            > not perfect. I consider myself still an apprentice. I want my
                            > philosophy to make a difference in how I live my life. I want it
                            to
                            > be existential, not dry and pedantic. I am under no illusion. I
                            know
                            > that it is not a simplistic process. I have been around for a few
                            > decades, and I have suffered as much as anybody and made as many
                            > stupid choices as anybody. It is nitty gritty. It is concrete. It
                            is
                            > even messy. But all of this does not mean it cannot be idealistic,
                            > rational, spiritual, even absolute, in an unexpectedly complicated
                            > and beautiful way. There is that cunning of reason of which Hegel
                            > speaks. It is, in some ways, bigger than we are, and we have to
                            give
                            > ourselves up to it with a certain kind of trust, even a faith of
                            > reason. I guess I am pretty much a die hard classicist when it
                            comes
                            > to reason and all of that. So, if the intention to put my
                            philosophy
                            > into concrete practice puts me in the straight jacket brigade, all
                            I
                            > can say is that it is amazing to me that things have gotten so
                            turned
                            > around that it now is the insane who are locking up the sane. I
                            guess
                            > a part of it is, maybe, being a rebel. It strikes me that
                            Kierkegaard
                            > and Nietzsche, like Socrates, just didn't fit in. Neither did
                            > Schopenhauer. Socrates got treated really badly. Living the
                            examined
                            > life isn't always going with the flow. Often enough, it is going
                            > against the grain.
                            >
                            > Hb3g
                          • Herman B. Triplegood
                            I don t know. Hopefully they are not also dead, like good old K and N. Polemic can be a good thing. It serves a useful purpose. Sometimes one has to
                            Message 13 of 14 , Dec 10, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I don't know. Hopefully they are not also dead, like "good old" K and
                              N. Polemic can be a good thing. It serves a useful purpose. Sometimes
                              one has to overstate their case to rise above the noise and be heard.
                              Both K and N were pretty good at that. You take all the time you
                              want. I am not in any particular hurry to get anywhere. Destinations
                              can be a real drag when compared to the adventure of getting there. I
                              wonder if Columbus was disappointed when he realized he wasn't in
                              India?

                              Hb3g

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Herman, I need to go very slowly, and often other philosophical
                              > threads, or simply the complicating demands of living, bodily, in a
                              > house made with hands, prevents my participation in the steady
                              > development of argument and discussion I would like to see at this
                              > list. Horrendous abuse is made of philosophical thought, and I
                              feel
                              > that horror keenly. So please understand the context for my
                              > polemical style, even if you are baffled or repelled by its
                              > content. It is not easy for men and women to recognise each
                              others'
                              > emotions, and interpret them correctly. Those statements are
                              simply
                              > prefatory to my saying this: Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are neither
                              > good nor old. They are dead, but that is hardly to say anything of
                              > interest. Where is everyone else, anyway? Speak. Louise
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@>
                              > wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Dear Louise:
                              > >
                              > > Yes, please go into it further. As for me, I am right in there
                              > with
                              > > good old Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The pragmatic thing to do, it
                              > > seems to me, is to live your truth. This also means letting your
                              > > truth live. So, it had better be a robust truth. I fully intend
                              to
                              > > base my day to day conduct on rigorous philosophical reflection.
                              I
                              > am
                              > > not perfect. I consider myself still an apprentice. I want my
                              > > philosophy to make a difference in how I live my life. I want it
                              > to
                              > > be existential, not dry and pedantic. I am under no illusion. I
                              > know
                              > > that it is not a simplistic process. I have been around for a few
                              > > decades, and I have suffered as much as anybody and made as many
                              > > stupid choices as anybody. It is nitty gritty. It is concrete. It
                              > is
                              > > even messy. But all of this does not mean it cannot be
                              idealistic,
                              > > rational, spiritual, even absolute, in an unexpectedly
                              complicated
                              > > and beautiful way. There is that cunning of reason of which Hegel
                              > > speaks. It is, in some ways, bigger than we are, and we have to
                              > give
                              > > ourselves up to it with a certain kind of trust, even a faith of
                              > > reason. I guess I am pretty much a die hard classicist when it
                              > comes
                              > > to reason and all of that. So, if the intention to put my
                              > philosophy
                              > > into concrete practice puts me in the straight jacket brigade,
                              all
                              > I
                              > > can say is that it is amazing to me that things have gotten so
                              > turned
                              > > around that it now is the insane who are locking up the sane. I
                              > guess
                              > > a part of it is, maybe, being a rebel. It strikes me that
                              > Kierkegaard
                              > > and Nietzsche, like Socrates, just didn't fit in. Neither did
                              > > Schopenhauer. Socrates got treated really badly. Living the
                              > examined
                              > > life isn't always going with the flow. Often enough, it is going
                              > > against the grain.
                              > >
                              > > Hb3g
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.