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

Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

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