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

Re: [existlist] Re: Dionysos

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