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

Re: Das Man

Expand Messages
  • Herman B. Triplegood
    Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is to be human. We are human, all to human. I ve been reading Nietzsche. He is right, you know,
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is to
      be human. We are human, all to human. I've been reading Nietzsche. He
      is right, you know, about the inescapability of error. Sure, we can
      be right about some things some of the time. But, we can never be
      totally free of error. There is always some angle we haven't looked
      at yet. There is always some wrong assumption we don't even realize
      we have assumed.

      The same goes for authenticity and character.

      I just don't get the thing about existence being meaningless. I never
      have. The way I see it, if existence really was as meaningless as
      some people think, then, why would existence even bother with
      existing life into existence? HeHe! Yeah, I know, I am
      anthropomorphizing it. So, who cares where existence came from? Who
      cares if there is some ultimate destination or purpose to existence
      or not? The main thing is, it seems, that wherever there is
      existence, sooner or later, somewhere, in some form or another, there
      is life. That isn't meaningless, even if it is donwright mysterious.

      Hb3g

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
      <existlist1@...> wrote:
      >
      > I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
      > contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
      > ramifications. We are either always acting in at least
      partial "bad
      > faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of
      everything
      > and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are
      actually "authentic"
      > in some way.
      >
      > I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
      > professors because I understand that every interaction is
      potentially
      > detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
      > because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what
      I
      > say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of
      a
      > shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
      > suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do
      quantitative
      > analysis of neurological conditions... then expand this to the
      > "philosophy" of education.)
      >
      > Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are we
      not
      > acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something
      or
      > not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a
      complete
      > picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
      > Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the
      same
      > time?
      >
      > I have decided my partial understanding of the self is "authentic"
      as
      > long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic,
      what
      > is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not even
      > sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free
      will
      > despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has
      made
      > you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.
      >
      > It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I
      don't
      > know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
      > reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible, without
      > becoming totally disillusioned.
      >
      > Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
      > meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think
      so.
      > I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do
      not
      > deny the meaningless nature of existence.
      >
      > Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in
      my
      > system.
      >
      > - CSW
      >
    • ccorey@frontiernet.net
      Hb3g, you are right, if existence really was as meaningless as some people think, then, why would existence even bother with existing? People are anxious about
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hb3g, you are right, if existence really was as meaningless as some
        people think, then, why would existence even bother with existing?
        People are anxious about meaninglessness because they know they have
        the freedom to make their life mean whatever they want it to
        mean--which includes the freedom to make it meaningless; and people
        are anxious about existence because they know they have the freedom to
        end it. I think that this is one of the points of existentialism. If
        we label life meaningless it motivates us to find meaning in it. Not
        to loath in a sickness unto death. But to make it our job to refute
        this meaninglessness with ?a courage to be? or self affirmation. I
        think this is what our dead existential philosopher friends wanted us
        to do; to seek out the meaning of life or to take away it?s
        meaninglessness and nothingness in order to reach a state of
        authenticity. It?s just a simple prompt to wake up and smell the coffee.

        -c-


        Quoting "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>:

        > Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is to
        > be human. We are human, all to human. I've been reading Nietzsche. He
        > is right, you know, about the inescapability of error. Sure, we can
        > be right about some things some of the time. But, we can never be
        > totally free of error. There is always some angle we haven't looked
        > at yet. There is always some wrong assumption we don't even realize
        > we have assumed.
        >
        > The same goes for authenticity and character.
        >
        > I just don't get the thing about existence being meaningless. I never
        > have. The way I see it, if existence really was as meaningless as
        > some people think, then, why would existence even bother with
        > existing life into existence? HeHe! Yeah, I know, I am
        > anthropomorphizing it. So, who cares where existence came from? Who
        > cares if there is some ultimate destination or purpose to existence
        > or not? The main thing is, it seems, that wherever there is
        > existence, sooner or later, somewhere, in some form or another, there
        > is life. That isn't meaningless, even if it is donwright mysterious.
        >
        > Hb3g
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
        > <existlist1@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
        >> contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
        >> ramifications. We are either always acting in at least
        > partial "bad
        >> faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of
        > everything
        >> and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are
        > actually "authentic"
        >> in some way.
        >>
        >> I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
        >> professors because I understand that every interaction is
        > potentially
        >> detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
        >> because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what
        > I
        >> say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of
        > a
        >> shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
        >> suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do
        > quantitative
        >> analysis of neurological conditions... then expand this to the
        >> "philosophy" of education.)
        >>
        >> Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are we
        > not
        >> acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something
        > or
        >> not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a
        > complete
        >> picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
        >> Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the
        > same
        >> time?
        >>
        >> I have decided my partial understanding of the self is "authentic"
        > as
        >> long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic,
        > what
        >> is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not even
        >> sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free
        > will
        >> despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has
        > made
        >> you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.
        >>
        >> It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I
        > don't
        >> know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
        >> reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible, without
        >> becoming totally disillusioned.
        >>
        >> Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
        >> meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think
        > so.
        >> I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do
        > not
        >> deny the meaningless nature of existence.
        >>
        >> Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in
        > my
        >> system.
        >>
        >> - CSW
        >>
        >
        >
        >



        CHRISTOPHER COREY (HIGH BANDWIDTH DESIGN & METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH)
      • Herman B. Triplegood
        Pretty well said. The only thing I might have a problem with is where you said, people are anxious about existence because they know they have the freedom to
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Pretty well said. The only thing I might have a problem with is where
          you said, "people are anxious about existence because they know they
          have the freedom to end it." They have the freedom (supposedly) to
          end *their* existence, but not existence in general -- of course. But
          I am sure that is what you must have meant.

          When I said, "why would existence even bother with existing?" what I
          had in mind, there, wasn't really something like existence decides to
          have meaning -- of course it doesn't *decide* anything. Particular
          smart existents, like us, do. But just because existence in general
          doesn't decide anything, only particular smart existents like us do,
          it does not follow that it is meaningless.

          I have in mind, here, just the basic facts of natural order. You
          know: animal, vegetable, mineral, gravity, law of nature, evolution.
          There is alot of order in this existence thing that is supposed to
          be meaningless.

          Lastly, the jury is still out on whether or not this existence thing
          really will ever end, or, for that matter, had a definite beginning.
          Just because the cosmologists talk in terms of a Big Bang does not
          mean that such a Big Bang was the beginning of all existence. It was
          just the beginning of *this* particular existence that we have
          loosely called our "universe". There is plenty of theorizing going on
          about what came before that Big Bang. It works the same way at the
          other end of the process. Maybe this existence, our universe, as we
          know it, will end. But, in reality, that will just be a
          transformation of it into something else that also exists. So, in my
          opinion, the supposition that it will end someday is no argument for
          its meaningless. The eventuality of my own death, likewise, is no
          argument for the meaninglessness of my particular life.

          Hb3g

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, ccorey@... wrote:
          >
          > Hb3g, you are right, if existence really was as meaningless as
          some
          > people think, then, why would existence even bother with existing?
          > People are anxious about meaninglessness because they know they
          have
          > the freedom to make their life mean whatever they want it to
          > mean--which includes the freedom to make it meaningless; and
          people
          > are anxious about existence because they know they have the freedom
          to
          > end it. I think that this is one of the points of existentialism.
          If
          > we label life meaningless it motivates us to find meaning in it.
          Not
          > to loath in a sickness unto death. But to make it our job to
          refute
          > this meaninglessness with ?a courage to be? or self affirmation. I
          > think this is what our dead existential philosopher friends wanted
          us
          > to do; to seek out the meaning of life or to take away it?s
          > meaninglessness and nothingness in order to reach a state of
          > authenticity. It?s just a simple prompt to wake up and smell the
          coffee.
          >
          > -c-
          >
          >
          > Quoting "Herman B. Triplegood" <hb3g@...>:
          >
          > > Yep. To be confused, at least a little bit, maybe a whole lot, is
          to
          > > be human. We are human, all to human. I've been reading
          Nietzsche. He
          > > is right, you know, about the inescapability of error. Sure, we
          can
          > > be right about some things some of the time. But, we can never be
          > > totally free of error. There is always some angle we haven't
          looked
          > > at yet. There is always some wrong assumption we don't even
          realize
          > > we have assumed.
          > >
          > > The same goes for authenticity and character.
          > >
          > > I just don't get the thing about existence being meaningless. I
          never
          > > have. The way I see it, if existence really was as meaningless as
          > > some people think, then, why would existence even bother with
          > > existing life into existence? HeHe! Yeah, I know, I am
          > > anthropomorphizing it. So, who cares where existence came from?
          Who
          > > cares if there is some ultimate destination or purpose to
          existence
          > > or not? The main thing is, it seems, that wherever there is
          > > existence, sooner or later, somewhere, in some form or another,
          there
          > > is life. That isn't meaningless, even if it is donwright
          mysterious.
          > >
          > > Hb3g
          > >
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
          > > <existlist1@> wrote:
          > >>
          > >> I would argue that we are always authentic -- which might seem to
          > >> contradict existential notions until you consider the larger
          > >> ramifications. We are either always acting in at least
          > > partial "bad
          > >> faith" (Sartre suggested this) or we are painfully aware of
          > > everything
          > >> and even our lies, deceptions, and omissions are
          > > actually "authentic"
          > >> in some way.
          > >>
          > >> I choose to limit my interactions with colleagues and senior
          > >> professors because I understand that every interaction is
          > > potentially
          > >> detrimental to my dissertation defense. I'm already an "odd duck"
          > >> because I mix philosophy, neurology, and pedagogy. No matter what
          > > I
          > >> say or do, someone on my committee will be offended. (Not much of
          > > a
          > >> shock -- at the young age of 38 I finally realize the humanities
          > >> suffer from an inferiority complex and hate the fact I do
          > > quantitative
          > >> analysis of neurological conditions... then expand this to the
          > >> "philosophy" of education.)
          > >>
          > >> Can we be in "bad faith" if we know we are acting? And when are
          we
          > > not
          > >> acting? I'm even "acting" when I convince myself to do something
          > > or
          > >> not do something. The way I see myself is, admittedly, not a
          > > complete
          > >> picture. Yet, no one else has a complete picture of me, either.
          > >> Knowing this, how can I be "inauthentic" and "authentic" at the
          > > same
          > >> time?
          > >>
          > >> I have decided my partial understanding of the self
          is "authentic"
          > > as
          > >> long as I know it is partial. I cannot tell you what is genetic,
          > > what
          > >> is from my environment, and what is "pure" free will. I'm not
          even
          > >> sure there is a pure free will -- only an attempt to assert free
          > > will
          > >> despite the other factors shaping me. You can't escape what has
          > > made
          > >> you, but you can try really hard to apply a new, authentic self.
          > >>
          > >> It's all very confusing at this hour, though. I just know that I
          > > don't
          > >> know what has made me who I am. I only know that I try to be as
          > >> reasonable as I can be, as honest with myself as possible,
          without
          > >> becoming totally disillusioned.
          > >>
          > >> Life is actually pretty good, so why would I want to consider how
          > >> meaningless it is? Is that "bad faith" in some way? I don't think
          > > so.
          > >> I am choosing to go past the absurd to enjoy the moment, but I do
          > > not
          > >> deny the meaningless nature of existence.
          > >>
          > >> Rambling too late, with not nearly enough Halloween chocolate in
          > > my
          > >> system.
          > >>
          > >> - CSW
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > CHRISTOPHER COREY (HIGH BANDWIDTH DESIGN & METAPHYSICAL RESEARCH)
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.