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

Re: pseudo humanism

Expand Messages
  • jaime.denada
    WS Thanks, I find it interesting though no more appalling than Sartre s turns in his final years. There s intent and then there s changing your mind. Yes,
    Message 1 of 70 , Apr 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Thanks, I find it interesting though no more appalling than Sartre's
      turns in his final years. There's intent and then there's changing
      your mind. Yes, you'll find an inauthentic mantle, where a stench of
      ambition or narcissism is perfumed to perpetuate a reputation or
      mystique. When I interact with "text" I try to engage a decent body
      of work before I embrace or ignore the entanglement. Text is a
      process and there's nothing outside of text. See, I can read Derrida
      and shelve the superfluous. As you remarked it's very time consuming,
      and it's natural to resent time wasted.

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      > JD,
      > You might find it interesting (I found it all too apaulling, but
      that's just me) that Derrida's biggest self-avowed influence (said,
      as he was deathly ill, to a freind of mine) was Leo
      Strauss's "Persecution and the Art of Writing". If you know that
      text, it explains a lot of Derrida's excesses. It also explains what
      I take to be Derrida's inexusable idshonesty and equivocal politcs.
      > WS
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: jaime.denada@...
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:16 AM
      > Subject: [existlist] pseudo humanism
      > tc,
      > You seem the most exclusionary inhospitable person I've ever
      > encountered. I'm not surprised you don't recognize that my
      > are within Derrida's framework which is arguably the most open and
      > non-syncretistic ever, except possibly for Knott's text which
      > exhibits internal coherence. I read some of your postings and find
      > your contradictions exemplary. Strangely, you employ poetry to
      > textualize your lack of proof yet fail to grasp that poetic text
      > itself is key to advances for AI. Even Dawkins who hates
      > deconstruction employs poetic construction in his own texts in
      > to elucidate evolutionary text for the layman!(See Jerome McGann,
      > al)
      > Derrida's deconstruction was an inevitable extention of
      > existentialism and remains a useful tool for ferreting out the
      > inconsistencies of philosophies which continue to reposit
      > metaphysics in sheep's clothing. Rendition and recursion are
      > but only with decent intent which I take to be improved
      > through cleaner text and hospitality. You seem to keep creating
      > problems when there is a need for solutions.
      > JD
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > I don't entirely discount metaphorical propositions, but this is
      > not a
      > > clean metaphor. Human text is inescapably syncretistic, pretty
      > > like philosophy. Chemistry in the cosmos is inevitable. There is
      > > universal poetic solution. That is why I asked if you were
      > proposing a
      > > metaphysics? If you are; that metaphysics must fit the entire
      > > of what it is to be human. Your proposition does not. It is not
      > > and it is hopelessly anthropocentric. Hope and fear are utterly
      > vain.
      > > Human communication includes a fraction of the cosmos and time so
      > > small that it may not even be taken for real in comparison with
      > > source; yet a human being is produced in a dynamic that may
      > > the entire cosmos. Start out by thinking of yourself as a
      > in
      > > the snow; and such propositions will not occur to you; and maybe
      > even
      > > a sense of awe at life and the cosmos will come back. Then you
      > > invent a God if you like; or accept your limitation as
      > but
      > > not miraculous. I don't care. You can promote your ID'ers all you
      > > want. Grandeur is delusion. Knott is clearer about such things
      > > his whore butter. What he doesn't accept is that self-deception
      > > actually a vestigial quality. Some animals eat their own brains
      > > they find a place to nest. Human beings slide down into their
      > > evolutionary history under stress and become lesser animals than
      > they
      > > are intuitively, not realizing that their irrational
      > lead
      > > them there. Perhaps you mean to modify or qualify your
      > > Please do and then relate a basis. If you prove one other than
      > > evolution let me know, and I'll go eat my brain.
      > >
      > > tc
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jaime.denada" <jaime.denada@>
      > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > tc,
      > > >
      > > > Are we measuring the lengths of our academic credentials?
      > is
      > > > the text you've read and now frames your questions. I said
      > > > communication. What what doesn't that include?
      > > >
      > > > JD
      > > >
      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I do not propose that at all. There are biological
      > communications
      > > > > without any text other than chemical reaction. Text pre-
      > > > > authorship. Is the cosmos an author? Would you propose a
      > metaphysics
      > > > > then? Have you written your heartbeat, or for that matter
      > pain
      > > > or
      > > > > arousal? Very good. You get an A for picking up the Fish.
      > you
      > > > > recognize it or did you have to ask?
      > > > >
      > > > > tc
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jaime.denada"
      > <jaime.denada@>
      > > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I propose that every form of communication between humans,
      > > > including
      > > > > > the arts, is a text, wherein the author and reader become
      > > > > > aware/conscious of the fact that self and other are
      > > > entangled
      > > > > > and indistinguishable, all appearances aside.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > J
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
      free from AOL at AOL.com.
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Herman B. Triplegood
      Well, I have to admit that I am more of a right-winger than a left one. But, don t get me wrong. About the believer thing, for me, the belief is more the cart,
      Message 70 of 70 , Apr 11, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, I have to admit that I am more of a right-winger than a left
        one. But, don't get me wrong. About the believer thing, for me, the
        belief is more the cart, than it is the horse. I am comfortable with
        my belief being my conclusion, and a hypothetical, even a
        speculative, conclusion, at that, not a presupposition. I am open to
        the possibility that, in my spirituality, my transcendentalism, I
        might ultimately be misguided, or even gulity of wishful thinking.

        I really did not know what to expect from Hegel when I started
        reading him some months back. He has inspired and challenged me in a
        lot of different areas, and he has caused me to step back and to
        reassess my own thoughts on matters like Sprit, divinity, and God.

        The thing about the stages of the Hegelian dialectic, as far as I
        understand it, is that each stage is essential, and cannot be
        dispensed with. Yes, philosophy is the pinnacle, as far as the
        consciousness of the Absolute is concerned, for Hegel. But the
        movement, beginning in art, and going through religion, to get to the
        philosophical, is a necessary dialectic, and each stage is an
        essential moment of the whole process. The thing is that we cannot
        skip any one of these stages on our way to the philosophical
        comprehension of the Absolute. If we try to leap to the highest
        synthesis, philosophy, without going through the preceeding stages of
        art, and religion, our comprehension will end up being one-sided, and
        therefore, distorted. At least, this is what Hegel says about it.

        I do not see how Hegel's system can be read as anything other than a
        philosophy of Spirit, with the theological assertions that such a
        reading would necessarily involve. I am baffled, therefore, by the so-
        called left wing interpretations of Hegel that, as far as I
        understand them, pretty much try to secularize him.

        However, I can understand how such a left wing interpretation can
        really be its own position, more or less independently of Hegel. One
        could always say, I guess, that Hegel was somewhat right, but that he
        went too far, and he leaped, and he shouldn't have. One could say
        that going beyond secularism, and humanism, flat out, don't make no
        sense. Now, that might not be a valid interpretation of what Hegel
        said. But, it might be true, whether it is Hegelian or not. I really
        don't thnk so. I take the opposite point of view. I say, stopping at
        secularism and humanism, without doing the leap, that is what don't
        make no sense. Why? Because we are natural born leapers (no, not
        leppers!). That's why.

        I think it is grotesque to hold up Hegel as a philosopher who would
        be a defense for what we know as fundamentalism. Hegel, it seems to
        me, is too rich to be so neatly pigeonholed. To my mind, Hegel is
        definitely a mystical thinker. He is not an orthodox Christian
        theologian. However, Hegel's system has, it seems to me, important
        theological implications that cannot be easily discounted.

        No doubt, I am going to have to revisit Hegel at some later date,
        better sooner, than later. I feel like I have, so far, probably
        missed more than I got. The "Science of Logic" was so massive, so
        complicated, so densely packed, that I am sure I missed whole
        chapters there. Nevertheless, I think I am getting enough from my
        first reading of Hegel's major works to make my further reading,
        ahead, more interesting, and also more fruitful. I look forward, over
        the next six to twelve months, to reading Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard,
        Nietzsche, and James. Later on, when I finally get there, whenever
        that will be, Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre. It will be interesting
        to look back at Hegel, shoulder to shoulder with some of these
        philosophers, and then, later on, when I can revisit Hegel, I think a
        lot more will be clear to me by then.

        One of the things I would be interested in talking about, and getting
        some more insight into, here, is Hegel's relation to existentialism.
        What aspects of Hegel's thought inspired, either positively or
        negatively, the development of existentialism?

        Well, here I am, a forty nine year old technician, a kind of pseudo-
        computer geek, really, who works the night shift for a phone company.
        In my spare time, I read philosophy and history. I ask myself, when I
        look at how crazy this world, my world, has gotten, is, how did we
        get into this mess? I know how I got into it. I happened to be born
        into it, in 1958.

        The answer about the whole mess, is kind of like detective work. It
        involves some history. It also involves some history of ideas too.

        My reading, my little detective thing, my curiosity about the mess
        and how it happened, has brought a few general topics into some focus
        for me: science, technology (and the militarism that technology makes
        possible), the Enlightenment, Romanticism, transcendentalism (mainly
        Kant, and Hegel, and that whole gang of idealists), and

        The way I see it, these are just the broad strokes of the brush as
        far as the history of ideas goes, the main things that have
        contributed to a changed world and a pretty uncertain future, for me,
        and for a whole bunch of us.

        So, I guess, this is the real reason why I am here, on this list, and
        on some others, and this is the real reason why I have been reading
        all of those books, not just philosophy ones, but more general ones
        that paint those broad strokes of the brush for me. I am just trying
        to figure out this crazy, mixed up, topsy turvy, technologized, life
        in the fast lane, weird world, that I happened to be born into almost
        fifty years ago before the Alzheimer's gets me.

        I need to know: Should I leap? or should I just stay put?


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > You're right about the richness of those texts. Bon appetite!
        > I would remind you, though, of the severe split between so-called
        > right-wing and left-wing Hegelianism. I am very much in the latter
        > category, if I am an "Hegelian", at all. But there are many who
        > Hegel as positive on the God question. They are usually believers
        > themselves, which I am certainly not.
        > While it is true that Hegel, probably for reasons of propriety, is
        > bit vague on his position on that in the later works, in his
        > youthful days, he is absolutely clear on his contempt for the
        > belief in Jesus as a God. I can refer you to the text of Early
        > Theological Writings readily available at Amazon.com. Religion, for
        > Hegel, is a 'step' that he sees humanity must wade through before
        > attaining philosophy. Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity is still
        > of the best "applied Hegel" texts on the subject, and a great book.
        > But, being a member of a few Hegel associations, I can tell you
        > there is a growing rabid element in those circles between born-
        > creationist-types and those not, and it gets very divisive. As I
        > earlier -- a contagion!
        > Wil
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: hb3g@...
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 2:44 AM
        > Subject: [existlist] Reading List
        > Here is one I am really looking forward to reading:
        > "Philosophy of
        > Being: A Reconstructive Essay in Metaphysics," by Oliva Blanchette
        > Boston College. The book came out through Catholic University Press
        > in 2003. I had to wait a couple of months and have only been able
        > browse the beginning pages so far.
        > Blanchette maintains that metaphysics is in need of a complete
        > reconstruction, and then, he proceeds to attempt at least the
        > beginnings of such a reconstruction in this interesting looking
        > He spends quite a bit of time discussing, and critiquing Hegel's
        > attempted reconsgruction of metaphysics and Heidegger's
        > deconstruction of metaphysics.
        > Blanchette is a theologian. So, if you take this one on, be
        > for a sympathetic treatment of the supernatural. This is the topic
        > with which he finishes this book.
        > Hegel has had my complete attention since the beginning of
        > I read the "Phenomenology" early last fall, then, beginning in
        > December, took on his "Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences,"
        > the "Science of Logic," the lectures on the philosophy of history,
        > and the "Philosophy of Right."
        > I am finishing up the first of two volumes, about twelve hundred
        > pages, of Hegel's lectures on aesthetics, right now, and have,
        > of me, over the next two or three months, the lectures on religion
        > and on the history of philosophy.
        > The "Science of Logic" was a very difficult read, but, profoundly
        > insightful gthroughout those passages that were more easily
        > accessible to me. A brand new commentary, just released in March,
        > written by David Gray Carlson, a philosopher of jurisprudence,
        > mainly, looks to be about the best commentary on the "Science of
        > Logic," so far. I now have it, and, looking it over, it is very
        > thorough, much more thorough than any previous commentary with
        > I am familiar. Hyppolite's "Logic and Existence," it seems, just
        > skims the surface, and McTaggart's well known commentary on
        > the "Science of Logic" is, to me, practically useless, and,
        > too brief to do justice to Hegel's work.
        > Another good general commentary, "Hegel and Aristotle," written by
        > Alfredo Ferrarin, and published in 2001, does a pretty good job of
        > showing Hegel's foundation in Aristotelian metaphysics. Hegel is
        > often interpreted as an extension of, and amplification of, ideas
        > that originated, mainly with Kant, but also Fichte. Ferrarin
        > however, that it makes much more sense to interpret Hegel as an
        > Aristotelian.
        > I think this is fundamentally correct. It certainly fits with the
        > content and style of Hegel's writing in his "Philosophy of Nature."
        > The sheer scope, and the detail, in Hegel's knowledge of the
        > of his time, is truly impressive. He had studied Newton for
        > His commentaries on Kepler's "Harmony of the World" and
        > Euclid's "Elements" are like nothing I have seen, yet, in twentieth
        > century commentaries on these classics.
        > Hegel is often assessed in terms of what followed him --
        > existentialism, historicism, the various revolts against idealism.
        > But, I think it is important to place Hegel in terms of what
        > him, and most deeply influenced him -- Aristotle, Plotinus,
        > philosophy, and the philosophy of nature.
        > Hegel is a good old fashioned metaphysician, deeply sympathetic
        > toward theology, and the long speculative tradition in metaphysics
        > and theology, in which he was so thoroughly schooled. Yes, he knew
        > his Kant, and he knew his Fichte, and many other close
        > contemporaries, like Schelling, Schiller, Jacobi, and Holderlin.
        > Hegel knew his ancient philosophy, especially Aristotle, better
        > he knew his own contemporaries, and, I daresay, better that those
        > contemporaries knew Aristotle.
        > Hb3g
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "C. S. Wyatt" <existlist1@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I appreciate the discussion, even if I don't have nearly enough
        > time to look at my own sources
        > > for much of this. I spent the last two months reading Levinas and
        > Habermas, so my brain is
        > > not up to untangling anything Heidegger, Sartre, or even Derrida
        > (especially Derrida) wrote
        > > and/or said.
        > >
        > > I can only think of one minor point: Nietzsche is the closest to
        > own views, which should
        > > probably worry me. I know his philology was often weak, with more
        > appeal to the masses
        > > than academics, but the core of his thought appeals more to me
        > year.
        > >
        > > Any time a book is mentioned (thank Wil) I try to add it to my
        > Amazon Wish List. I'm still
        > > getting books that probably won't be digested until next year at
        > this rate. I've been putting
        > > the titles in my database, at least.
        > >
        > > - CSW
        > >
        > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
        > from AOL at AOL.com.
        > =0
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.