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

Dionysos

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 24 , Oct 3, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                            View Source
                            • 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 14 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                              View Source
                              • 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 15 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                                View Source
                                • 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 16 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                                  View Source
                                  • 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 17 of 24 , Oct 5, 2007
                                    View Source
                                    • 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 18 of 24 , Oct 5, 2007
                                      View Source
                                      • 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 19 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                                        View Source
                                        • 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 20 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                                          View Source
                                          • 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 21 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                                            View Source
                                            • 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.