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

BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

Expand Messages
  • sportsfan007us
    Hi, I have read *some* of Buber, Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger. I m specifically interested in how they apply to day-to-day human relations. Sartre, of course,
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I have read *some* of Buber, Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger.

      I'm specifically interested in how they apply to day-to-day human
      relations.



      Sartre, of course, has been known at times for saying
      that the other person (with whom I am having a relationship)
      is my enemy because they want to reduce me to a thing.

      They want have the *feeling* (which differs from an objective
      range of predictability) that they can predict what
      I will do and who I am.
      I am an object, capable of change within limited parameters;
      I am not a subject capable of changing beyond predictability.

      It seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when one/both
      relates tothe other as an object.



      Buber, on the other hand, says that it *is* possible to
      relate to another as a fellow subject.
      In fact, we are not fully existing to each other if
      we are not in a dialogue where we regard ourselves as
      subject and another subject.

      Camus (I think of him as an absurdist, not a strict existialist) would
      not be on Sartre's side and be more on Buber's side. He wouldn't
      define a relationship so specifically on dialog, but he would, as
      Buber, see relating to fellow-subject as possible and dignifying our
      existence.

      In either case, it seems to me that relationship might work well if I
      regard the other as a fellow-subject because we are both capable of
      change beyond predictability; in fact, our very relationship is
      capable of change beyond predictability;



      Heidegger, I am *guessing*, is more on the side of saying
      we are existing (rather than "we exist") regardless of the other.
      There's something here on the side that I fully exist without
      regardless of the other.

      Again, it seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when
      one/both relates to the other as an object.



      Please note that I'm inviting comments to how all this applies
      to everyday relating: to relating you and I relating better.
      I hope not to get into a detailed tangent about ontological systems
      (although I am guilty of speaking of ontology in a way I felt
      comfortable :-( (not necessarily in a way that was relevant).


      Comments?


      Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • m00dy58
      Each time you feel free enough to agonize over an important ethical decision which doesn t rely upon religious dogma, stagnant philosophy or ideology, and for
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Each time you feel free enough to agonize over an important ethical
        decision which doesn't rely upon religious dogma, stagnant philosophy
        or ideology, and for which you're willing to take responsibility, it
        relates.

        m

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "sportsfan007us" <sportsfan007us@...>
        wrote: Please note that I'm inviting comments to how all this applies
        to everyday relating...
      • louise
        Hi, and welcome to the list. All sports fans welcome, of course, within reason, and prejudice is naturally to be expected. Myself, I see the entire meaning
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, and welcome to the list. All sports fans welcome, of course,
          within reason, and prejudice is naturally to be expected. Myself, I
          see the entire meaning of life exemplified on the football pitch.
          Copious interpretation is, however, required. I shall intersperse
          comments within your text, below. Louise

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "sportsfan007us"
          <sportsfan007us@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi,
          >
          > I have read *some* of Buber, Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger.
          >
          > I'm specifically interested in how they apply to day-to-day human
          > relations.
          >
          >
          >
          > Sartre, of course, has been known at times for saying
          > that the other person (with whom I am having a relationship)
          > is my enemy because they want to reduce me to a thing.
          >
          > They want have the *feeling* (which differs from an objective
          > range of predictability) that they can predict what
          > I will do and who I am.
          > I am an object, capable of change within limited parameters;
          > I am not a subject capable of changing beyond predictability.
          >
          > It seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when one/both
          > relates tothe other as an object.

          It amazes me, that anyone would consider such a distorted perception
          able to yield anything worth the name of 'relationship'. How might a
          human being, except in grammatical sense, be meaningfully an object?

          >
          >
          > Buber, on the other hand, says that it *is* possible to
          > relate to another as a fellow subject.
          > In fact, we are not fully existing to each other if
          > we are not in a dialogue where we regard ourselves as
          > subject and another subject.
          >

          I find Buber's statements as you give them here to be true, clear,
          simple, in other words, beautiful.

          > Camus (I think of him as an absurdist, not a strict existialist)
          would
          > not be on Sartre's side and be more on Buber's side. He wouldn't
          > define a relationship so specifically on dialog, but he would, as
          > Buber, see relating to fellow-subject as possible and dignifying our
          > existence.
          >

          Possibly Camus accordingly widens the range of description for human
          relationship, since undoubtedly one may find great enrichment, for
          instance, in relating to the works of an artist now dead. The
          relationship is active and present on one side, bequeathed from a
          living history, on the other. At least, the lived history bestows
          its gift again, when a reader/beholder/listener of the artist's work
          brings it to contemporary consciousness.

          > In either case, it seems to me that relationship might work well if
          I
          > regard the other as a fellow-subject because we are both capable of
          > change beyond predictability; in fact, our very relationship is
          > capable of change beyond predictability;
          >

          This seems quite true.

          >
          > Heidegger, I am *guessing*, is more on the side of saying
          > we are existing (rather than "we exist") regardless of the other.
          > There's something here on the side that I fully exist without
          > regardless of the other.
          >
          > Again, it seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when
          > one/both relates to the other as an object.
          >

          My own engagements with Heidegger's thought are ongoing and
          rudimentary. He has never, though, left me with the impression that
          such notional disregard of the other amounts to an objectification.


          >
          > Please note that I'm inviting comments to how all this applies
          > to everyday relating: to relating you and I relating better.
          > I hope not to get into a detailed tangent about ontological systems
          > (although I am guilty of speaking of ontology in a way I felt
          > comfortable :-( (not necessarily in a way that was relevant).
          >
          >
          > Comments?
          >
          >
          > Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          >
        • Herman B. Triplegood
          Right now, I am on a Nietzsche binge. I am just finishing up The Birth of Tragedy. What I am getting, so far, from reading Nietzsche, is this: Life is tragic,
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Right now, I am on a Nietzsche binge.

            I am just finishing up The Birth of Tragedy.

            What I am getting, so far, from reading Nietzsche, is this:

            Life is tragic, and this makes life beautiful, and noble, and actually
            worth living.

            Music is the spirit of tragedy.

            Nietzsche is pure, uncontrollable metaphysical genius, gone ramshackle
            riot in the house of reason.

            Dionysos! Dionysos! Dionysos!

            Hb3g
          • m00dy58
            Yeah, sure. And the Burmese Buddhist monks sing in their flames. A more sober ethical existentialism would be going here with a measly click or two...
            Message 5 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Yeah, sure. And the Burmese Buddhist monks sing in their flames. A
              more sober ethical existentialism would be going here with a measly
              click or two...

              http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/

              m

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>
              wrote: Right now, I am on a Nietzsche binge.

              I am just finishing up The Birth of Tragedy.

              What I am getting, so far, from reading Nietzsche, is this:

              Life is tragic, and this makes life beautiful, and noble, and actually
              worth living.

              Music is the spirit of tragedy.

              Nietzsche is pure, uncontrollable metaphysical genius, gone ramshackle
              riot in the house of reason.

              Dionysos! Dionysos! Dionysos!

              Hb3g

              >
              > Right now, I am on a Nietzsche binge.
              >
              > I am just finishing up The Birth of Tragedy.
              >
              > What I am getting, so far, from reading Nietzsche, is this:
              >
              > Life is tragic, and this makes life beautiful, and noble, and
              actually
              > worth living.
              >
              > Music is the spirit of tragedy.
              >
              > Nietzsche is pure, uncontrollable metaphysical genius, gone
              ramshackle
              > riot in the house of reason.
              >
              > Dionysos! Dionysos! Dionysos!
              >
              > Hb3g
              >
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              I am not understanding the quip. I am a lover of Nietzsche, and I stand in solidarity with the Burmese monks, and with a good deal more than that. Problems
              Message 6 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                I am not understanding the quip. I am a lover of Nietzsche, and I stand in solidarity with the Burmese monks, and with a good deal more than that. Problems with Nietzsche?

                Wil







                -----Original Message-----
                From: m00dy58 <m00dy58@...>
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 9:50 am
                Subject: [existlist] Re: Dionysos

























                Yeah, sure. And the Burmese Buddhist monks sing in their flames. A

                more sober ethical existentialism would be going here with a measly

                click or two...



                http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/



                m



                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>

                wrote: Right now, I am on a Nietzsche binge.



                I am just finishing up The Birth of Tragedy.



                What I am getting, so far, from reading Nietzsche, is this:



                Life is tragic, and this makes life beautiful, and noble, and actually

                worth living.



                Music is the spirit of tragedy.



                Nietzsche is pure, uncontrollable metaphysical genius, gone ramshackle

                riot in the house of reason.



                Dionysos! Dionysos! Dionysos!



                Hb3g



                >

                > Right now, I am on a Nietzsche binge.

                >

                > I am just finishing up The Birth of Tragedy.

                >

                > What I am getting, so far, from reading Nietzsche, is this:

                >

                > Life is tragic, and this makes life beautiful, and noble, and

                actually

                > worth living.

                >

                > Music is the spirit of tragedy.

                >

                > Nietzsche is pure, uncontrollable metaphysical genius, gone

                ramshackle

                > riot in the house of reason.

                >

                > Dionysos! Dionysos! Dionysos!

                >

                > Hb3g

                >

















                ________________________________________________________________________
                Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • m00dy58
                No, sorry for the snarky swipe. Suppose we can take comfort in suffering together over the centuries. Tragedy is noble, beautiful and all that. Maybe it was
                Message 7 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  No, sorry for the snarky swipe. Suppose we can take comfort in
                  suffering together over the centuries. Tragedy is noble, beautiful and
                  all that. Maybe it was the wine.

                  m

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote: I am not
                  understanding the quip. I am a lover of Nietzsche, and I stand in
                  solidarity with the Burmese monks, and with a good deal more than that.
                  Problems with Nietzsche?
                • Aija Veldre Beldavs
                  ... this is a good example where individuals can not actualize what they feel unless they are linked to other individuals in collective expression. signing
                  Message 8 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    eupraxis@...:
                    > I am not understanding the quip. I am a lover of Nietzsche, and I stand in solidarity with the Burmese monks, and with a good deal more than that. Problems with Nietzsche?
                    > Wil
                    >
                    >
                    > Yeah, sure. And the Burmese Buddhist monks sing in their flames. A
                    > more sober ethical existentialism would be going here with a measly
                    > click or two...
                    > http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/
                    >
                    >
                    > m

                    this is a good example where individuals can not actualize what they
                    feel unless they are linked to other individuals in collective
                    expression. signing petitions has been one recent way to combine the
                    existential Dionysian with the practical and humanistic Appolinian -
                    bringing international pressure. [however, the names of the signers
                    don't seem to be published. the petitions i have signed (generated in
                    Scandinavia or the Baltic) make the signatures public on the internet
                    and reasonable attempt is made to verify.] also more than a million
                    genuine signatures would be needed FAST. from what i read who knows how
                    many monks are already murdered in the jungle.

                    aija
                  • jimstuart46
                    Sportsfan007us, Louise, I agree with your attitudes to the accounts of human relationships given by Sartre, Buber, Camus and Heidegger. Sartre is very good at
                    Message 9 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sportsfan007us, Louise,

                      I agree with your attitudes to the accounts of human relationships
                      given by Sartre, Buber, Camus and Heidegger.

                      Sartre is very good at describing dysfunctional human relationships,
                      but not so good at describing authentic, rewarding relationships. He
                      seems to think that the type of dysfunctional relationship he
                      describes is the norm. But, in my experience, whilst some
                      relationships are like this, many others are not.

                      Perhaps we have more psychological insight than Sartre had in his
                      time. We have learnt how to recognise the "control freak", so we can
                      warn each other against this all too human tendency (particularly in
                      men), and guard against it in ourselves.

                      Jim
                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                      Jim Who are you calling a control freak? I suggest you send me your posts so that I can preview them before posting! Wil ... From: jimstuart46
                      Message 10 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jim

                        Who are you calling a control freak? I suggest you send me your posts so that I can preview them before posting!

                        Wil







                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: jimstuart46 <jjimstuart@...>
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 3:00 pm
                        Subject: [existlist] Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

























                        Sportsfan007us, Louise,



                        I agree with your attitudes to the accounts of human relationships

                        given by Sartre, Buber, Camus and Heidegger.



                        Sartre is very good at describing dysfunctional human relationships,

                        but not so good at describing authentic, rewarding relationships. He

                        seems to think that the type of dysfunctional relationship he

                        describes is the norm. But, in my experience, whilst some

                        relationships are like this, many others are not.



                        Perhaps we have more psychological insight than Sartre had in his

                        time. We have learnt how to recognise the "control freak", so we can

                        warn each other against this all too human tendency (particularly in

                        men), and guard against it in ourselves.



                        Jim





















                        ________________________________________________________________________
                        Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • jimstuart46
                        Nice one, Wil. You ve brought a smile to my face for the first time today! Jim ... posts so that I can preview them before posting!
                        Message 11 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Nice one, Wil.

                          You've brought a smile to my face for the first time today!

                          Jim



                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > Jim
                          >
                          > Who are you calling a control freak? I suggest you send me your
                          posts so that I can preview them before posting!
                          >
                          > Wil
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Herman B. Triplegood
                          I apologize if I come off sounding like I am preaching to the choir here. I do not mean to lecture. I am just a regular guy, maybe a bit too talkative, who
                          Message 12 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I apologize if I come off sounding like I am preaching to the choir
                            here. I do not mean to lecture. I am just a regular guy, maybe a bit
                            too talkative, who keeps getting older, who never finished college,
                            who has a rather prosaic, and not very exciting career, fixing more
                            or less predictable machines. I am not an academic whiz kid. I don't
                            know Greek, Latin or German

                            I am just being enthusiastic, and wanting to share my thoughts. I
                            realize there are those who know a whole lot more about Nietzsche,
                            and a lot of other things, than I do. I don't get much of a chance to
                            discuss philosophy in my real life. Almost everybody I know really
                            has no clue about what philosophy is, and trying to strike up a
                            conversation, let us say, at a bar or someplace like that, about
                            Nietzsche, or maybe Plato, would be a hopeless exercise in futility
                            that would most likely lead to some kind of alienation, or, worse,
                            maybe even a bar fight. So, I avoid it.

                            It is just that Nietzsche is turning out to be such a great reading
                            experience for me. I wish I had paid more attention to him a long
                            time ago.

                            So, if anybody feels that they need to set me straight on anything
                            that I have said, anything that is wrong, or a misunderstanding, I am
                            open to being corrected and instructed.

                            Of course, I am dismayed by what I see on television about what is
                            going on in Burma, and to say that suffering is beautiful is not a
                            defense of the violent methods used by the powers that be to manitain
                            control of the country.

                            I was just paraphrasing what I have run into while reading Nietzsche,
                            and, from the correct point of view (whatever that might be), it does
                            make a lot of sense. Suffering is pretty much universal. It is a hard
                            reality that we face. It is impossible, I think, to deny that this is
                            true. But this does not mean that we should give up, and give in, to
                            the suffering.

                            This is where Nietzshce differs significantly from Schopenhauer.
                            Schopenhauer's point of view was to renounce the will to live in the
                            face of this universal suffering. Schopenhauer flat out says that it
                            would have been better, for all of us, "to have never been born."
                            Since we have been born, and "our parents have murdered us" just by
                            giving birth to us, just as we murder our own children just by giving
                            birth to them, the correct resolution of the problem of suffering in
                            the world is to renouce the ultimate cause of that suffering, which
                            is every single one of us just being here. According to Schopenhauer,
                            the ultimate solution is, indeed, the "denial of the will to live." I
                            was floored, and deeply disturbed, when I read these words in
                            Schopenhauer. The problem is that although these statements are
                            obviously extreme, they carry profound truths within them that, as
                            terrifying as they are, cannot be ignored, or easily dimissed.
                            Wherever there is life, there is always, also death. Or, to quote a
                            very common saying that I have so frequently heard, and even said
                            myself: "Life is a bitch, and then you die."

                            Nietzsche came to see Schopenhauer's perspective as a very negative
                            and destructive kind of pessimism (DUH!), a quietism, which,
                            according to Nietzsche, finds its strongest examples in
                            Buddhistic/Brahmanistic self-negation and the Christian mystical
                            renunciation of the world (contemptuus mundi).

                            Now, one could certainly take issue with Nietzsche's, and even
                            Schopenhauer's, interpretation of Buddhism, Brahamanism, and
                            Christianity, but, what Nietzsche said is what Nietzsche said, right
                            or wrong, and that is that.

                            Personally, I try to view the issue as a need to give up an
                            irrational attachment to living in the face of the certain death that
                            goes right along with living. Rather than pit a radical world
                            renunciation against a hopeless prospect of reconciliation with the
                            world (basically, Schopenhauer's ethical view in a nutshell, as I
                            understand it), I try to see the solution in terms of surrender, but
                            a surrender that is twofold, involving a surrender *to* the will to
                            live as much as a surrender *of* the will to live. We need to *give
                            in* to living, and participate in the everyday present in which we
                            happen to be living, just as much as we need to gracefully *give up*
                            the will to live at the very end of life.

                            I don't know how well this perspective of mine really harmonizes with
                            eastern mysticism, or with Christian mysticism, or, for that matter,
                            Nietzsche, but it seems to me to be a more sensible, moderated point
                            of view, in comparison with the extremity of pessimism that I see in
                            Schopenhauer. Yet, in spite of his pessimism, Schopenhauer states
                            some profound truths about human existence, and Nietzsche certainly
                            recognized this. I can see Schopenhauer, and an answer to
                            Schopenhauer, in The Birth of Tragedy, and, I assume, I will probably
                            continue to see this throughout Nietzsche's writings. Nietzsche
                            clearly recognized that Schopenhauer had to be answered, that he
                            could not be ignored.

                            In contrast to the negative kind of pessimism that Nietzsche came to
                            associate with Schopenhauer, Christian mysticism, and eastern
                            mysticism, there is another kind of pessimism that can lead to a
                            positive overcoming of this bad situation. Yes, there is suffering,
                            struggle, conflict, and so on, and there always will be. The correct
                            reaction to this fact is not to give up in the face of it all, but to
                            struggle to overcome it, to resolve conflict, ameliorate suffering,
                            and to transform oneself and to transcend the negative.

                            Tragedy, as an art form, helps us to do this by bringing us to a
                            deeper understanding of the causes, both natural and psychological,
                            that underlie tragic events. That is all. It isn't about wallowing in
                            the negativity of it all. It is about facing up to the reality of
                            negativity and doing something about it.

                            I do not think it would be correct to turn this around and call
                            Nietzsche an optimist. He certainly isn't. Things will not turn out
                            for the best all on their own. "Things fall apart. The center does
                            not hold," as Yeats has said; if, that is, e do nothing; if we do not
                            grab hold of them and do something about them. Left untouched, the
                            situation in our world will either gradually get worse and worse
                            until nobody can continue to live on this planet, or, it will reach a
                            critical breaking point, and it will all fall apart, quite suddenly,
                            in a global crisis of some kind.

                            But this is not an inevitable outcome. Okay, there may be some kind
                            of fate, a necessity that we cannot change or even understand, just a
                            nexus of causal contingencies, like a climate crisis brought on by
                            global warming, or a comet that strikes the earth, or something like
                            that, but still, ultimately, we are the decision makers. It is up to
                            us to act, or not to act, to try, and yes, maybe fail, but also,
                            maybe succeed.

                            This, to me, seems to be the import to the idea that god is dead and
                            that everything boils down to man's will to power and man's
                            potentiality to transform himself. Like it or not, our destiny is, to
                            a large extent, in our own hands. The ball is in man's court. It is
                            up to man to figure out the ways in which to minimize war, hunger,
                            suffering, and to enhance his chances of survival. We will never
                            eliminate all war, all hunger, all suffering, but this does not give
                            us the excuse that we should do nothing about these things.

                            What NIetzsche seems to be saying, at least, as far as I understand
                            what I have been reading so far, is that modern man needs to change,
                            to renew himself, to become something greater than he is now, or ever
                            was. We hold in our hands, with our technology, awesome power to
                            destroy, and there is no telling how much more awesome this
                            potentiality for destructive power may become. Who knows? We might
                            invent a black hole bomb that can make the entire earth just
                            disappear. Poof!

                            We cannot abnegate the laws of nature. There will always be somebody
                            smart enough, or diabolical enough, to figure out how to take
                            davantage of what we know about the way things work in order to build
                            terrible weapons that can kill millions of people. But we can
                            collectively choose not to use them, or even manufacture them. We can
                            also resolve to do what is necessary, even brutally necessary, to do
                            what has to be done to keep these kinds of weapons out of the hands
                            of madmen who would use them.

                            Old man, the man that was used to waging war in an unrestricted
                            fashion, with total brutality, cannot survive in this brave new world
                            of ours. He would destroy himself in short order if left unchecked.

                            I think it really was a shame that this idea of the new man got
                            twisted and perverted into the horrible dogma of the master race that
                            came to such brutal consequences under German National Socialism and
                            Japanese imperialism during the first half of the twentieth century.
                            I do not think that we should blame Nietzsche for this perversion.
                            The new man is not just a new reality but a new necessity for all of
                            mankind. It is our fault if we do not understand what this means and
                            if we pervert it into genocide and violence.

                            What I find so refreshing about reading Nietzsche, after having spent
                            most of the last three years reading the mostly German philosophers
                            that preceded him, is the deep passion, and concern for the plight of
                            the world, that resonates in Nietzsche's words. He speaks directly
                            from the heart, and also to the heart. Yes, at times he speaks
                            wildly, without control, almost like some kind of a
                            madman, "screeching from the rooftops," as William Barrett has
                            described him. But, maybe this was needed. Maybe it is still needed.
                            It does not surprise me that, as a philosopher, Nietzsche would
                            almost have had to scream in order just to be heard.

                            It was time for a wake up call. We are still right in the middle of
                            that wake up call. There has to be more to philosophy, and the true
                            calling of the would be philosopher, in this dangerously changing
                            modern world of ours, than leading the purely theoretical life of
                            quiet contemplation, in seclusion from the torrent of life, and
                            radical change, that surrounds us all, and even threatens to engulf
                            us in an avalanche of unintnended consequence. There is no doubt, in
                            my mind, that ever since the Enlightenment, there has been a growing
                            sense of urgency, that philosophy has been in an increasing state of
                            expanding emergency, and that crisis, not stability, is the hard
                            intellectual reality of our time.

                            Hb3g

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > eupraxis@...:
                            > > I am not understanding the quip. I am a lover of Nietzsche, and I
                            stand in solidarity with the Burmese monks, and with a good deal more
                            than that. Problems with Nietzsche?
                            > > Wil
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Yeah, sure. And the Burmese Buddhist monks sing in their flames.
                            A
                            > > more sober ethical existentialism would be going here with a
                            measly
                            > > click or two...
                            > > http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > m
                            >
                            > this is a good example where individuals can not actualize what
                            they
                            > feel unless they are linked to other individuals in collective
                            > expression. signing petitions has been one recent way to combine
                            the
                            > existential Dionysian with the practical and humanistic Appolinian -

                            > bringing international pressure. [however, the names of the
                            signers
                            > don't seem to be published. the petitions i have signed (generated
                            in
                            > Scandinavia or the Baltic) make the signatures public on the
                            internet
                            > and reasonable attempt is made to verify.] also more than a
                            million
                            > genuine signatures would be needed FAST. from what i read who
                            knows how
                            > many monks are already murdered in the jungle.
                            >
                            > aija
                            >
                          • rb
                            everyone, Thanks for the welcome. Buber (qua a neo-Kantian), says that when we use our association with another person mainly for our own ends/benefit, we are
                            Message 13 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              everyone,

                              Thanks for the welcome.

                              Buber (qua a neo-Kantian), says that when
                              we use our association with
                              another person mainly for
                              our own ends/benefit,
                              we are using them as an object.

                              Dunno how you mean that
                              the meaning of life is like a football pitch,
                              but would love to learn the details.

                              Best,
                              rb



                              both --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi, and welcome to the list. All sports fans welcome, of course,
                              > within reason, and prejudice is naturally to be expected. Myself, I
                              > see the entire meaning of life exemplified on the football pitch.
                              > Copious interpretation is, however, required. I shall intersperse
                              > comments within your text, below. Louise
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "sportsfan007us"
                              > <sportsfan007us@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Hi,
                              > >
                              > > I have read *some* of Buber, Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger.
                              > >
                              > > I'm specifically interested in how they apply to day-to-day human
                              > > relations.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Sartre, of course, has been known at times for saying
                              > > that the other person (with whom I am having a relationship)
                              > > is my enemy because they want to reduce me to a thing.
                              > >
                              > > They want have the *feeling* (which differs from an objective
                              > > range of predictability) that they can predict what
                              > > I will do and who I am.
                              > > I am an object, capable of change within limited parameters;
                              > > I am not a subject capable of changing beyond predictability.
                              > >
                              > > It seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when one/both
                              > > relates tothe other as an object.
                              >
                              > It amazes me, that anyone would consider such a distorted perception
                              > able to yield anything worth the name of 'relationship'. How might a
                              > human being, except in grammatical sense, be meaningfully an object?
                              >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Buber, on the other hand, says that it *is* possible to
                              > > relate to another as a fellow subject.
                              > > In fact, we are not fully existing to each other if
                              > > we are not in a dialogue where we regard ourselves as
                              > > subject and another subject.
                              > >
                              >
                              > I find Buber's statements as you give them here to be true, clear,
                              > simple, in other words, beautiful.
                              >
                              > > Camus (I think of him as an absurdist, not a strict existialist)
                              > would
                              > > not be on Sartre's side and be more on Buber's side. He wouldn't
                              > > define a relationship so specifically on dialog, but he would, as
                              > > Buber, see relating to fellow-subject as possible and dignifying our
                              > > existence.
                              > >
                              >
                              > Possibly Camus accordingly widens the range of description for human
                              > relationship, since undoubtedly one may find great enrichment, for
                              > instance, in relating to the works of an artist now dead. The
                              > relationship is active and present on one side, bequeathed from a
                              > living history, on the other. At least, the lived history bestows
                              > its gift again, when a reader/beholder/listener of the artist's work
                              > brings it to contemporary consciousness.
                              >
                              > > In either case, it seems to me that relationship might work well if
                              > I
                              > > regard the other as a fellow-subject because we are both capable of
                              > > change beyond predictability; in fact, our very relationship is
                              > > capable of change beyond predictability;
                              > >
                              >
                              > This seems quite true.
                              >
                              > >
                              > > Heidegger, I am *guessing*, is more on the side of saying
                              > > we are existing (rather than "we exist") regardless of the other.
                              > > There's something here on the side that I fully exist without
                              > > regardless of the other.
                              > >
                              > > Again, it seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when
                              > > one/both relates to the other as an object.
                              > >
                              >
                              > My own engagements with Heidegger's thought are ongoing and
                              > rudimentary. He has never, though, left me with the impression that
                              > such notional disregard of the other amounts to an objectification.
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              > > Please note that I'm inviting comments to how all this applies
                              > > to everyday relating: to relating you and I relating better.
                              > > I hope not to get into a detailed tangent about ontological systems
                              > > (although I am guilty of speaking of ontology in a way I felt
                              > > comfortable :-( (not necessarily in a way that was relevant).
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Comments?
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                              > >
                              >
                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                              Buber was not particularly fond of Palestinians, however, and advocated some less than kind practices for the latter. He was a racist, in fact. Otherwise, he
                              Message 14 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Buber was not particularly fond of Palestinians, however, and advocated some less than kind practices for the latter. He was a racist, in fact. Otherwise, he was a sanctimonious sack of ****. But other than that....

                                Wil







                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: rb <sportsfan007us@...>
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:10 pm
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

























                                everyone,



                                Thanks for the welcome.



                                Buber (qua a neo-Kantian), says that when

                                we use our association with

                                another person mainly for

                                our own ends/benefit,

                                we are using them as an object.



                                Dunno how you mean that

                                the meaning of life is like a football pitch,

                                but would love to learn the details.



                                Best,

                                rb



                                both --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

                                >

                                > Hi, and welcome to the list. All sports fans welcome, of course,

                                > within reason, and prejudice is naturally to be expected. Myself, I

                                > see the entire meaning of life exemplified on the football pitch.

                                > Copious interpretation is, however, required. I shall intersperse

                                > comments within your text, below. Louise

                                >

                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "sportsfan007us"

                                > <sportsfan007us@> wrote:

                                > >

                                > > Hi,

                                > >

                                > > I have read *some* of Buber, Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger.

                                > >

                                > > I'm specifically interested in how they apply to day-to-day human

                                > > relations.

                                > >

                                > >

                                > >

                                > > Sartre, of course, has been known at times for saying

                                > > that the other person (with whom I am having a relationship)

                                > > is my enemy because they want to reduce me to a thing.

                                > >

                                > > They want have the *feeling* (which differs from an objective

                                > > range of predictability) that they can predict what

                                > > I will do and who I am.

                                > > I am an object, capable of change within limited parameters;

                                > > I am not a subject capable of changing beyond predictability.

                                > >

                                > > It seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when one/both

                                > > relates tothe other as an object.

                                >

                                > It amazes me, that anyone would consider such a distorted perception

                                > able to yield anything worth the name of 'relationship'. How might a

                                > human being, except in grammatical sense, be meaningfully an object?

                                >

                                > >

                                > >

                                > > Buber, on the other hand, says that it *is* possible to

                                > > relate to another as a fellow subject.

                                > > In fact, we are not fully existing to each other if

                                > > we are not in a dialogue where we regard ourselves as

                                > > subject and another subject.

                                > >

                                >

                                > I find Buber's statements as you give them here to be true, clear,

                                > simple, in other words, beautiful.

                                >

                                > > Camus (I think of him as an absurdist, not a strict existialist)

                                > would

                                > > not be on Sartre's side and be more on Buber's side. He wouldn't

                                > > define a relationship so specifically on dialog, but he would, as

                                > > Buber, see relating to fellow-subject as possible and dignifying our

                                > > existence.

                                > >

                                >

                                > Possibly Camus accordingly widens the range of description for human

                                > relationship, since undoubtedly one may find great enrichment, for

                                > instance, in relating to the works of an artist now dead. The

                                > relationship is active and present on one side, bequeathed from a

                                > living history, on the other. At least, the lived history bestows

                                > its gift again, when a reader/beholder/listener of the artist's work

                                > brings it to contemporary consciousness.

                                >

                                > > In either case, it seems to me that relationship might work well if

                                > I

                                > > regard the other as a fellow-subject because we are both capable of

                                > > change beyond predictability; in fact, our very relationship is

                                > > capable of change beyond predictability;

                                > >

                                >

                                > This seems quite true.

                                >

                                > >

                                > > Heidegger, I am *guessing*, is more on the side of saying

                                > > we are existing (rather than "we exist") regardless of the other.

                                > > There's something here on the side that I fully exist without

                                > > regardless of the other.

                                > >

                                > > Again, it seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when

                                > > one/both relates to the other as an object.

                                > >

                                >

                                > My own engagements with Heidegger's thought are ongoing and

                                > rudimentary. He has never, though, left me with the impression that

                                > such notional disregard of the other amounts to an objectification.

                                >

                                >

                                > >

                                > > Please note that I'm inviting comments to how all this applies

                                > > to everyday relating: to relating you and I relating better.

                                > > I hope not to get into a detailed tangent about ontological systems

                                > > (although I am guilty of speaking of ontology in a way I felt

                                > > comfortable :-( (not necessarily in a way that was relevant).

                                > >

                                > >

                                > > Comments?

                                > >

                                > >

                                > > Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                > >

                                >





















                                ________________________________________________________________________
                                Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • m00dy58
                                Yeah, and so why is he considered an existentialist again? These mystics and utopians should be disregarded, in my opinion. m ... particularly fond of
                                Message 15 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Yeah, and so why is he considered an existentialist again? These
                                  mystics and utopians should be disregarded, in my opinion.

                                  m

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote: Buber was not
                                  particularly fond of Palestinians, however, and advocated some
                                  less than kind practices for the latter. He was a racist, in fact.
                                  Otherwise, he was a sanctimonious sack of ****. But other than that....

                                  Wil
                                • eupraxis@aol.com
                                  He had had a holier than thou kind of fame after Walter Kaufmann rediscovered him, and he was (kind of) promoted as an answer to Heidegger. Wil ... From:
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    He had had a holier than thou kind of fame after Walter Kaufmann 'rediscovered' him, and he was (kind of) promoted as an answer to Heidegger.

                                    Wil




                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: m00dy58 <m00dy58@...>
                                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 3:01 pm
                                    Subject: [existlist] Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

























                                    Yeah, and so why is he considered an existentialist again? These

                                    mystics and utopians should be disregarded, in my opinion.



                                    m



                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote: Buber was not

                                    particularly fond of Palestinians, however, and advocated some

                                    less than kind practices for the latter. He was a racist, in fact.

                                    Otherwise, he was a sanctimonious sack of ****. But other than that....



                                    Wil





















                                    ________________________________________________________________________
                                    Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • m00dy58
                                    What ever could have been the question? Kaufman did promote other much worthier. although he seemed to favor the theists. Yes? m ... holier than thou kind of
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      What ever could have been the question? Kaufman did promote other much
                                      worthier. although he seemed to favor the theists. Yes?

                                      m

                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote: He had had a
                                      holier than thou kind of fame after Walter Kaufmann 'rediscovered'
                                      him, and he was (kind of) promoted as an answer to Heidegger.

                                      Wil
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      Well, there was an interest in Jewish philosophy as German philosophy resusuitated itself with the post-war interest in Heidegger, and also Sartre was
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Well, there was an interest in Jewish philosophy as German philosophy resusuitated itself with the post-war interest in Heidegger, and also Sartre was reexamining antisemitism in his later work. Besides Husserl himself, who was actually a practicing Lutheran, and before Levinas was made available to a larger audience, the "I & Thou" approach of Buber was the only game in town in that specific sub-genre, at least here in the USA.

                                        Kaufmann had always taken a lot of heat for his Nietzsche texts, and ... well, there you have it.

                                        Wil








                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: m00dy58 <m00dy58@...>
                                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 3:26 pm
                                        Subject: [existlist] Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

























                                        What ever could have been the question? Kaufman did promote other much

                                        worthier. although he seemed to favor the theists. Yes?



                                        m



                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote: He had had a

                                        holier than thou kind of fame after Walter Kaufmann 'rediscovered'

                                        him, and he was (kind of) promoted as an answer to Heidegger.



                                        Wil





















                                        ________________________________________________________________________
                                        Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • louise
                                        ... Have to admit that, when I posted my reply to your original message, at midnight UK time, was rather sleepy. What was intended simply as spontaneous,
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "rb" <sportsfan007us@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > everyone,
                                          >
                                          > Thanks for the welcome.
                                          >
                                          > Buber (qua a neo-Kantian), says that when
                                          > we use our association with
                                          > another person mainly for
                                          > our own ends/benefit,
                                          > we are using them as an object.
                                          >
                                          > Dunno how you mean that
                                          > the meaning of life is like a football pitch,
                                          > but would love to learn the details.

                                          Have to admit that, when I posted my reply to your original message,
                                          at midnight UK time, was rather sleepy. What was intended simply as
                                          spontaneous, intuitive contribution looks somewhat enigmatic now.
                                          Anyway, there was in the first place an association with Albert
                                          Camus, whom I understand to have been a football fan in his lifetime,
                                          a fact advertised on T-shirts, I seem to recall. Further to this, my
                                          basic Anglo-Saxon empirical approach to existential thought, would
                                          emphasise the sort of practical test of theory that is reflected in
                                          unmistakeable fashion by players of this very English, very working-
                                          class game, whether they be amateur or professional. It provides a
                                          test of character and conmmitment under the gaze of an impartial
                                          arbiter (or, these days, one might say, four arbiters, if one lists
                                          referee, two line assistants and 'fourth official'), whilst
                                          impassioned supporters seek to urge on their team, or, sadly enough,
                                          provoke the opposition to failure. In the more extreme cases, where
                                          vicious personal insults, coin-throwing, or tribal abuse of some form
                                          are intended (perhaps) to trigger a reaction which will remove the
                                          individual from the field of play, it is almost an exercise in mind-
                                          control. Chemicals flood the brain, team-mates know their
                                          colleagues' weaknesses, notorious club rivalries raise the stakes,
                                          and so on. So fairly meandering thoughts, not much related to the
                                          reading of philosophical texts. My remark was almost
                                          somnambulistically ironic, so tired have I become of trying to make
                                          headway with reference to arguing from what one might call some of
                                          the classic texts of existential thought, applied in all due
                                          strenuousness to the challenges of contemporary living. L.

                                          >
                                          > Best,
                                          > rb
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > both --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@>
                                          wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Hi, and welcome to the list. All sports fans welcome, of course,
                                          > > within reason, and prejudice is naturally to be expected.
                                          Myself, I
                                          > > see the entire meaning of life exemplified on the football
                                          pitch.
                                          > > Copious interpretation is, however, required. I shall
                                          intersperse
                                          > > comments within your text, below. Louise
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "sportsfan007us"
                                          > > <sportsfan007us@> wrote:
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Hi,
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I have read *some* of Buber, Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > I'm specifically interested in how they apply to day-to-day
                                          human
                                          > > > relations.
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Sartre, of course, has been known at times for saying
                                          > > > that the other person (with whom I am having a relationship)
                                          > > > is my enemy because they want to reduce me to a thing.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > They want have the *feeling* (which differs from an objective
                                          > > > range of predictability) that they can predict what
                                          > > > I will do and who I am.
                                          > > > I am an object, capable of change within limited parameters;
                                          > > > I am not a subject capable of changing beyond predictability.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > It seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well when
                                          one/both
                                          > > > relates tothe other as an object.
                                          > >
                                          > > It amazes me, that anyone would consider such a distorted
                                          perception
                                          > > able to yield anything worth the name of 'relationship'. How
                                          might a
                                          > > human being, except in grammatical sense, be meaningfully an
                                          object?
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Buber, on the other hand, says that it *is* possible to
                                          > > > relate to another as a fellow subject.
                                          > > > In fact, we are not fully existing to each other if
                                          > > > we are not in a dialogue where we regard ourselves as
                                          > > > subject and another subject.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > I find Buber's statements as you give them here to be true,
                                          clear,
                                          > > simple, in other words, beautiful.
                                          > >
                                          > > > Camus (I think of him as an absurdist, not a strict
                                          existialist)
                                          > > would
                                          > > > not be on Sartre's side and be more on Buber's side. He wouldn't
                                          > > > define a relationship so specifically on dialog, but he would,
                                          as
                                          > > > Buber, see relating to fellow-subject as possible and
                                          dignifying our
                                          > > > existence.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > Possibly Camus accordingly widens the range of description for
                                          human
                                          > > relationship, since undoubtedly one may find great enrichment,
                                          for
                                          > > instance, in relating to the works of an artist now dead. The
                                          > > relationship is active and present on one side, bequeathed from a
                                          > > living history, on the other. At least, the lived history
                                          bestows
                                          > > its gift again, when a reader/beholder/listener of the artist's
                                          work
                                          > > brings it to contemporary consciousness.
                                          > >
                                          > > > In either case, it seems to me that relationship might work
                                          well if
                                          > > I
                                          > > > regard the other as a fellow-subject because we are both
                                          capable of
                                          > > > change beyond predictability; in fact, our very relationship is
                                          > > > capable of change beyond predictability;
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > This seems quite true.
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Heidegger, I am *guessing*, is more on the side of saying
                                          > > > we are existing (rather than "we exist") regardless of the
                                          other.
                                          > > > There's something here on the side that I fully exist without
                                          > > > regardless of the other.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Again, it seems to me that relationship doesn't work too well
                                          when
                                          > > > one/both relates to the other as an object.
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          > > My own engagements with Heidegger's thought are ongoing and
                                          > > rudimentary. He has never, though, left me with the impression
                                          that
                                          > > such notional disregard of the other amounts to an
                                          objectification.
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Please note that I'm inviting comments to how all this applies
                                          > > > to everyday relating: to relating you and I relating better.
                                          > > > I hope not to get into a detailed tangent about ontological
                                          systems
                                          > > > (although I am guilty of speaking of ontology in a way I felt
                                          > > > comfortable :-( (not necessarily in a way that was relevant).
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Comments?
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        • m00dy58
                                          Ah, yes, how duh of me. Anti-Semitism was met with Zionism which was met with more resistance...Fascism creeps back in...and on and on it goes...Left Bank,
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Oct 5, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Ah, yes, how duh of me. Anti-Semitism was met with Zionism which was
                                            met with more resistance...Fascism creeps back in...and on and on it
                                            goes...Left Bank, West Bank, blood bank...

                                            m

                                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote: Well, there was
                                            an interest in Jewish philosophy as German philosophy resusuitated
                                            itself with the post-war interest in Heidegger, and also Sartre was
                                            reexamining antisemitism in his later work. Besides Husserl himself,
                                            who was actually a practicing Lutheran, and before Levinas was made
                                            available to a larger audience, the "I & Thou" approach of Buber was
                                            the only game in town in that specific sub-genre, at least here in
                                            the USA.

                                            Kaufmann had always taken a lot of heat for his Nietzsche texts,
                                            and ... well, there you have it.

                                            Wil
                                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                                            Merlin was reputed to have said, The tragedy of Man is that he forgets. I would put it otherwise: The tragedy of people is that they couldn t care less about
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Oct 5, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Merlin was reputed to have said, The tragedy of Man is that he forgets. I would put it otherwise: The tragedy of people is that they couldn't care less about other people.

                                              Wil















                                              -----Original Message-----

                                              From: m00dy58 <m00dy58@...>

                                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                                              Sent: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 9:27 am

                                              Subject: [existlist] Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER
































                                              Ah, yes, how duh of me. Anti-Semitism was met with Zionism which was


                                              met with more resistance...Fascism creeps back in...and on and on it


                                              goes...Left Bank, West Bank, blood bank...





                                              m





                                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote: Well, there was


                                              an interest in Jewish philosophy as German philosophy resusuitated


                                              itself with the post-war interest in Heidegger, and also Sartre was


                                              reexamining antisemitism in his later work. Besides Husserl himself,


                                              who was actually a practicing Lutheran, and before Levinas was made


                                              available to a larger audience, the "I & Thou" approach of Buber was


                                              the only game in town in that specific sub-genre, at least here in


                                              the USA.





                                              Kaufmann had always taken a lot of heat for his Nietzsche texts,


                                              and ... well, there you have it.





                                              Wil


























                                              ________________________________________________________________________
                                              Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Herman B. Triplegood
                                              I remember that. For it is the doom of men that they forget. What you say is also true. The lack of compassion, Schopenhauer calls it loving kindness,
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I remember that. "For it is the doom of men that they forget." What
                                                you say is also true. The lack of compassion, Schopenhauer calls it
                                                loving kindness, certainly is also a tragedy.

                                                Hb3g

                                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Merlin was reputed to have said, The tragedy of Man is that he
                                                forgets. I would put it otherwise: The tragedy of people is that they
                                                couldn't care less about other people.
                                                >
                                                > Wil
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > -----Original Message-----
                                                >
                                                > From: m00dy58 <m00dy58@...>
                                                >
                                                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                                >
                                                > Sent: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 9:27 am
                                                >
                                                > Subject: [existlist] Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Ah, yes, how duh of me. Anti-Semitism was met with Zionism which
                                                was
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > met with more resistance...Fascism creeps back in...and on and on
                                                it
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > goes...Left Bank, West Bank, blood bank...
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > m
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote: Well, there was
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > an interest in Jewish philosophy as German philosophy resusuitated
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > itself with the post-war interest in Heidegger, and also Sartre was
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > reexamining antisemitism in his later work. Besides Husserl
                                                himself,
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > who was actually a practicing Lutheran, and before Levinas was made
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > available to a larger audience, the "I & Thou" approach of Buber
                                                was
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > the only game in town in that specific sub-genre, at least here in
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > the USA.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Kaufmann had always taken a lot of heat for his Nietzsche texts,
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > and ... well, there you have it.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Wil
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                ______________________________________________________________________
                                                __
                                                > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL
                                                Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                >
                                              • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                Yes, that s it. Thanks. Wil ... ************************************** See what s new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Yes, that's it. Thanks.
                                                  Wil

                                                  In a message dated 10/6/07 4:34:00 AM, hb3g@... writes:


                                                  > I remember that. "For it is the doom of men that they forget." What
                                                  > you say is also true. The lack of compassion, Schopenhauer calls it
                                                  > loving kindness, certainly is also a tragedy.
                                                  >
                                                  > Hb3g
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >




                                                  **************************************
                                                  See what's new at http://www.aol.com


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • jimstuart46
                                                  Wil: The tragedy of people is that they couldn t care less about other people. Jim: I ve been thinking about this for a day or so, and I think you are exactly
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Wil: The tragedy of people is that they couldn't care less about other
                                                    people.

                                                    Jim: I've been thinking about this for a day or so, and I think you
                                                    are exactly right. This is the tragedy of human existence.

                                                    I see philosophy as the discipline or method for individuals to follow
                                                    in order to transform themselves into individuals who do care about
                                                    other people.

                                                    Many of the ancient Greeks and Romans viewed philosophical texts
                                                    as "spiritual exercises" to repeat and focus on in an attempt to
                                                    transform themselves into human beings with a better, more
                                                    appropriate, attitude to existence.

                                                    Pierre Hadot's book "Philosophy as a Way of Life" draws out this
                                                    aspect of ancient philosophy. I thoroughly recommend Hadot's book.
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.