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

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

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