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

Re: BUBER, SARTRE, CAMUS, HEIDEGGER

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
      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 2 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
        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 3 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
          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 4 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
            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 5 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
              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 6 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                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 7 of 24 , Oct 4, 2007
                  --- 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 8 of 24 , Oct 5, 2007
                    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 9 of 24 , Oct 5, 2007
                      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 10 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                        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 11 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                          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 12 of 24 , Oct 6, 2007
                            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.