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

Re: [existlist] Re: Dionysos

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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.