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

Relevance of NDEs to Existentialism

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Polanik
    ... no, not really. I would describe a Near-Death Experience as an experience that seems to the experiencer to have occurred during a time when the
    Message 1 of 26 , Mar 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      jimstuart51 wrote:

      >You argument is not completely clear to me, but it seems to go as
      >follows:

      >1. In Near-Death Experience cases, the body is dead but the revived
      >person remembers having experiences during the time the doctors said
      >they were 'clinically dead'.

      >2. This is a problem for existentialists and physicalists who claim
      >that only an entity with a physical body can think.

      >3. Such existentialists and physicalists have to argue that in NDEs
      >the revived person's memories are false with regard to the time of
      >their experiences.

      >4. NDE cases count in favour of those who claim that human beings are
      >essentially immaterial souls, as immaterial souls can continue to have
      >experiences when their physical body is 'clinically dead'.

      >Is that a fair paraphrase of your argument (in your post 43775)?

      no, not really.

      I would describe a Near-Death Experience as an experience that seems to
      the experiencer to have occurred during a time when the experiencer's
      body was 'clinically dead'.

      in this context, 'clinical death' just means 'heart stoppage' as that is
      the sign that prompts doctors and other rescuers to try to resuscitate
      the body.

      anyone who assumes that the possibility of experience depends solely on
      the brain would need to explain reports of experiences that seem to have
      occurred during a time when the experiencer's body was 'clinically
      dead'.

      >I am not convinced by this argument ... Presumably the neuronal
      >network of the brain is not damaged by this period of death. So if the
      >brain is not damaged, cannot it continue to be active enough to
      >generate experiences?

      that would be one avenue of speculation. to be more complete, you might
      need to explain how the brain can continue to generate lavishly detailed
      experiences while it is 'dead'. more importantly, you'd need to explain
      the evolutionary advantage of allowing the dead/dying brain to devote
      some of its dwindling supply of oxygen to generating the reported
      experiences.

      Joe

      --
      Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
      first person. --- H-N Castaneda

      @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
      @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
    • mary.jo11
      Message 2 of 26 , Mar 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        <that would be one avenue of speculation. to be more complete, you might
        need to explain how the brain can continue to generate lavishly detailed
        experiences while it is 'dead'.>

        From what I understand not everybody actually has this experience. I
        also think you're confusing several definitions of death. There's
        clinical, legal, brain, etc. The body achieves complete death through
        a process, not one single event.


        <more importantly, you'd need to explain the evolutionary advantage of
        allowing the dead/dying brain to devote some of its dwindling supply
        of oxygen to generating the reported experiences.>

        The brain-body attempts to survive long past it's reproductive
        inclinations. If enough oxygen in the brain keeps you alive enough to
        report the NDE, you've survived. I don't understand why this should
        trouble the existence/essence unity.

        Mary
      • jimstuart51
        Joe, Mary makes some good points against your latest arguments. Let me add some further considerations. Jim: I am not convinced by this argument ... Presumably
        Message 3 of 26 , Mar 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Joe,

          Mary makes some good points against your latest arguments. Let me add
          some further considerations.

          Jim: I am not convinced by this argument ... Presumably the neuronal
          network of the brain is not damaged by this period of death. So if
          the brain is not damaged, cannot it continue to be active enough to
          generate experiences?

          Joe: that would be one avenue of speculation. to be more complete,
          you might need to explain how the brain can continue to generate
          lavishly detailed experiences while it is 'dead'. more importantly,
          you'd need to explain the evolutionary advantage of allowing the
          dead/dying brain to devote some of its dwindling supply of oxygen to
          generating the reported
          experiences.

          Jim: When the heart stops beating (so the person is `clinically
          dead'), the brain is not dead. As you say, it still has a `dwindling
          supply of oxygen', so the neurons do not die straight away. It is
          certainly a matter of minutes before the neurons start to die in
          substantial numbers through lack of oxygen. (I can't remember how
          long this period is.)

          As Mary says, it is not everyone who has an NDE when their heart
          stops beating for a few minutes.

          I am not sure why I (as an existentialist and materialist) have
          to "explain the evolutionary advantage of allowing the dead/dying
          brain to devote some of its dwindling supply of oxygen to generating
          the reported experiences." Perhaps this sort of very rare experience
          is a by-product of some other process which has an evolutionary
          advantage. Certainly one can give reasons why it is advantageous for
          humans to have conscious and self-conscious experience rather than
          being mere zombies. Also I think a case can be made for dreaming
          having evolutionary advantages.

          However, I think it would be an evolutionary advantage for a species
          to use dwindling supplies of oxygen to keep the brain alive whilst
          the heart has temporarily stopped. Suppose the person's heart starts
          beating again after a few minutes: People with properly functioning
          brains are more likely to procreate than people who are brain dead.
          (And, of course, to complete this point: neuronal activity causes
          conscious experience.)

          I think the believer in immaterial souls which can float around
          whilst their body's heart has stopped have more explaining to do. The
          person who believes in an immaterial soul which (supposedly) can look
          down from the ceiling of the hospital room has to explain how
          something with zero extension is able to "see" things without any
          eyes.

          Jim
        • Joseph Polanik
          ... and, what existence/essence unity would that be? -- Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the first person. --- H-N Castaneda
          Message 4 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            mary.jo11 wrote:

            > The brain-body attempts to survive long past it's reproductive
            > inclinations. If enough oxygen in the brain keeps you alive enough to
            > report the NDE, you've survived. I don't understand why this should
            > trouble the existence/essence unity.

            and, what 'existence/essence unity' would that be?

            --
            Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
            first person. --- H-N Castaneda

            @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
            http://what-am-i.net
            @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
          • mary.jo11
            Joe, I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct the terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism forum, the burden is
            Message 5 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Joe,

              I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct the
              terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism
              forum, the burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes
              existence, and 2) its relevance.

              Mary

              Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:

              and, what 'existence/essence unity' would that be?
            • Aija Veldre Beldavs
              ... i would think that should a strong reason arise to think these terms entangled, in the spirit of scientific openness, there would be room even in a
              Message 6 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                mary.jo11 wrote:
                > Joe,
                >
                > I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct the
                > terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism
                > forum, the burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes
                > existence, and 2) its relevance.
                >
                > Mary
                >
                > Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
                >
                > and, what 'existence/essence unity' would that be?

                i would think that should a strong reason arise to think these terms
                "entangled," in the spirit of scientific openness, there would be room
                even in a strongly committed existentialism forum to acknowledge that.:)

                aija
              • bhvwd
                ... the ... terms ... room ... that.:) ... fruit salad. Entanglement can be a scientific term of sub atomic origin. There is no reason to extend any of that
                Message 7 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Aija Veldre Beldavs <beldavsa@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > mary.jo11 wrote:
                  > > Joe,
                  > >
                  > > I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct
                  the
                  > > terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism
                  > > forum, the burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes
                  > > existence, and 2) its relevance.
                  > >
                  > > Mary
                  > >
                  > > Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > and, what 'existence/essence unity' would that be?
                  >
                  > i would think that should a strong reason arise to think these
                  terms
                  > "entangled," in the spirit of scientific openness, there would be
                  room
                  > even in a strongly committed existentialism forum to acknowledge
                  that.:)
                  >
                  > aija
                  >Now slow down Aija, a few apples ,a few oranges and you serve up a
                  fruit salad. Entanglement can be a scientific term of sub atomic
                  origin. There is no reason to extend any of that science to
                  essance/existance discussions. Are you going to speak as a
                  scientist? I can see little relevance in science to what is
                  essentially a metaphysical foolishness about spirit. In a strongly
                  committed existential forum there is no talk of spirit, soul, or any
                  of the putrid concepts of faith. That is why Jim is the master of
                  talking at tangents about god. Now you blast in with some quasi
                  relevant material derived from quantum physics. What are you trying
                  to say? Do some good and teach us some physics or serve your salid to
                  the faithful. Jim can be relied on for some english wallnuts. Bill
                • Joseph Polanik
                  ... if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the burden is on you to demonstrate the existence of an essence. Joe ... -- Philosophy is, after all,
                  Message 8 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    mary.jo11 wrote:
                    > Joe,
                    >
                    > I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct the
                    > terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism
                    > forum, the burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes
                    > existence, and 2) its relevance.

                    if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the burden is on you
                    to demonstrate the existence of an essence.

                    Joe










                    >
                    > Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > and, what 'existence/essence unity' would that be?
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                    >
                    > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    --
                    Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
                    first person. --- H-N Castaneda

                    @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                    http://what-am-i.net
                    @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                  • eupraxis@aol.com
                    Joe, You wrote: if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the burden is on you to demonstrate the existence of an essence. I know that the irony of
                    Message 9 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Joe,

                      You wrote: "if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the burden is
                      on you to demonstrate the existence of an essence."

                      I know that the irony of your statement escapes you. Much the pity, that. The
                      "existence precedes essence" phrase is famously (it is one of the most famous
                      of blurbs) from Sartre, Being and Nothingness. I am quite sure that Mary
                      assumed that you were familiar with all of this.

                      When Sartre (that's Jean Paul Sartre) writes that existence precedes essence,
                      he is precisely putting the notion of essence under erasure, returning it to
                      its root 'esse', or "to be".

                      Wil

                      In a message dated 3/2/08 1:07:05 PM, jPolanik@... writes:


                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > mary.jo11 wrote:
                      > > Joe,
                      > >
                      > > I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct the
                      > > terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism
                      > > forum, the burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes
                      > > existence, and 2) its relevance.
                      >
                      > if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the burden is on you
                      > to demonstrate the existence of an essence.
                      >
                      > Joe
                      >
                      >
                      >




                      **************
                      Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.

                      (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
                      2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • louise
                      Wil, I like Joe s idea of a cooperative enterprise, in the effort to philosophise to some purpose. The irony of his statement, if such it was, also escaped
                      Message 10 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Wil,

                        I like Joe's idea of a cooperative enterprise, in the effort to
                        philosophise to some purpose. The irony of his statement, if such it
                        was, also escaped me. Are you suggesting that Sartre's dictum is
                        equivalent to the statement that existence abolishes essence?
                        One starting-point for a Sartre neophyte like myself might be
                        reference to the lexicon provided by CSW, in which existence is
                        defined thus:

                        ~ Existential thinkers write of existence as it is in its factuality
                        as opposed to idealistic philosophy (such as Hegelianism) which
                        equated essence with existence to the detriment of existence. ~

                        In fact, such was the starting-point I decided upon, as evidenced by
                        this post. I choose, therefore I am. Childlike, but relevant.
                        Observing oneself, and all that.

                        Louise

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Joe,
                        >
                        > You wrote: "if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the
                        burden is
                        > on you to demonstrate the existence of an essence."
                        >
                        > I know that the irony of your statement escapes you. Much the pity,
                        that. The
                        > "existence precedes essence" phrase is famously (it is one of the
                        most famous
                        > of blurbs) from Sartre, Being and Nothingness. I am quite sure that
                        Mary
                        > assumed that you were familiar with all of this.
                        >
                        > When Sartre (that's Jean Paul Sartre) writes that existence
                        precedes essence,
                        > he is precisely putting the notion of essence under erasure,
                        returning it to
                        > its root 'esse', or "to be".
                        >
                        > Wil
                        >
                        > In a message dated 3/2/08 1:07:05 PM, jPolanik@... writes:
                        >
                        >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > mary.jo11 wrote:
                        > > > Joe,
                        > > >
                        > > > I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct
                        the
                        > > > terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism
                        > > > forum, the burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes
                        > > > existence, and 2) its relevance.
                        > >
                        > > if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the burden is
                        on you
                        > > to demonstrate the existence of an essence.
                        > >
                        > > Joe
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > **************
                        > Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
                        >
                        > (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-
                        campos-duffy/
                        > 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • eupraxis@aol.com
                        Louise, I haven t looked at CS s lexicon, and I will leave aside any remarks that interpret Hegel as an otherworldly theorist for now (no, thank me later).
                        Message 11 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Louise,

                          I haven't looked at CS's lexicon, and I will leave aside any remarks that
                          interpret Hegel as an otherworldly theorist for now (no, thank me later). But,
                          yes, I am "suggesting" that Sartre, as it were, 'abolishes' essence in favor of
                          existence. It is called "Existentialism"; you might check it out sometime.

                          In other words, Sartre is contending against Platonic Realism (or what is
                          usually called Idealism).

                          In any case, if I should explain the irony of Joe's statement and thoroughly
                          beat the dead horse to a pulp, the point would be that the demonstration of
                          'the existence of an essence', besides being terminologically redundant, is also
                          precisely what an existentialist would NOT think possible.

                          Wil

                          In a message dated 3/2/08 1:59:52 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Wil,
                          >
                          > I like Joe's idea of a cooperative enterprise, in the effort to
                          > philosophise to some purpose. The irony of his statement, if such it
                          > was, also escaped me. Are you suggesting that Sartre's dictum is
                          > equivalent to the statement that existence abolishes essence?
                          > One starting-point for a Sartre neophyte like myself might be
                          > reference to the lexicon provided by CSW, in which existence is
                          > defined thus:
                          >
                          > ~ Existential thinkers write of existence as it is in its factuality
                          > as opposed to idealistic philosophy (such as Hegelianism) which
                          > equated essence with existence to the detriment of existence. ~
                          >
                          > In fact, such was the starting-point I decided upon, as evidenced by
                          > this post. I choose, therefore I am. Childlike, but relevant.
                          > Observing oneself, and all that.
                          >
                          > Louise
                          >
                          >
                          >




                          **************
                          Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.

                          (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
                          2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • bhvwd
                          ... burden is ... that. The ... most famous ... Mary ... precedes essence, ... returning it to ... always assumed Sartre put up essence as a bogeyman and then
                          Message 12 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                            >
                            > Joe,
                            >
                            > You wrote: "if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the
                            burden is
                            > on you to demonstrate the existence of an essence."
                            >
                            > I know that the irony of your statement escapes you. Much the pity,
                            that. The
                            > "existence precedes essence" phrase is famously (it is one of the
                            most famous
                            > of blurbs) from Sartre, Being and Nothingness. I am quite sure that
                            Mary
                            > assumed that you were familiar with all of this.
                            >
                            > When Sartre (that's Jean Paul Sartre) writes that existence
                            precedes essence,
                            > he is precisely putting the notion of essence under erasure,
                            returning it to
                            > its root 'esse', or "to be".
                            >
                            > Wil
                            > I pine for the good old days when we held forth on nothingness. I
                            always assumed Sartre put up essence as a bogeyman and then grabbed
                            his bat and beat the shit out of it. Such a fine, french concept to
                            abuse, Jean Paul really must have hated the spirits, the essance. It
                            was as if he stood and screamed" I am alive and you are the smell of
                            death" When the French speak about smell it is getting serious. In
                            Being and Nothingness Sartre takes it back to the nihilism posturing
                            as an essence in life. But it is nothing as long as beings like you
                            live to affront it. Bill
                            > In a message dated 3/2/08 1:07:05 PM, jPolanik@... writes:
                            >
                            >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > mary.jo11 wrote:
                            > > > Joe,
                            > > >
                            > > > I realize that in a different conversation we might deconstruct
                            the
                            > > > terms existence and essence. But seriously, in an existentialism
                            > > > forum, the burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes
                            > > > existence, and 2) its relevance.
                            > >
                            > > if you speak of an existence/essence unity; then, the burden is
                            on you
                            > > to demonstrate the existence of an essence.
                            > >
                            > > Joe
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > **************
                            > Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
                            >
                            > (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-
                            campos-duffy/
                            > 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                          • louise
                            Wil, I am more sceptical than to take your statements for some kind of gospel truth, and it is no disrespect to your own learning. The fact is, that I
                            Message 13 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wil,

                              I am more sceptical than to take your statements for some kind of
                              gospel truth, and it is no disrespect to your own learning. The fact
                              is, that I consider myself to have been an existentialist for nigh on
                              three decades, and deem it reasonable to expect open discussion on
                              the very topic of this list, which founds and develops itself in the
                              work of various authors. It is an emotional matter, yes, for those
                              of us who care about discourse, and its particular responsibilities,
                              toward the countless life-forms on this planet. I am not a
                              utilitarian, yet I acknowledge the reality of consequence. The
                              questions at issue seem to me philosophically complex. Surely the
                              Platonic Realism against which Sartre was contending does not exhaust
                              the relevant meanings of the term, 'essence'? I agree with you about
                              the inapposite wording, 'existence of an essence', yet in my opinion
                              Joe's questioning of Mary's original statement in #43828 is perfectly
                              legitimate. The patience with which we think, as human beings, takes
                              a long time to evolve. I suppose that a quality like 'patience' is
                              itself an essence. Some human existences exemplify it more than
                              others. Probably there are sound, impatient answers you might put to
                              what could be digressive and muddled on my part, but I do trust the
                              messy kind of progress.

                              Louise

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                              >
                              > Louise,
                              >
                              > I haven't looked at CS's lexicon, and I will leave aside any
                              remarks that
                              > interpret Hegel as an otherworldly theorist for now (no, thank me
                              later). But,
                              > yes, I am "suggesting" that Sartre, as it were, 'abolishes' essence
                              in favor of
                              > existence. It is called "Existentialism"; you might check it out
                              sometime.
                              >
                              > In other words, Sartre is contending against Platonic Realism (or
                              what is
                              > usually called Idealism).
                              >
                              > In any case, if I should explain the irony of Joe's statement and
                              thoroughly
                              > beat the dead horse to a pulp, the point would be that the
                              demonstration of
                              > 'the existence of an essence', besides being terminologically
                              redundant, is also
                              > precisely what an existentialist would NOT think possible.
                              >
                              > Wil
                              >
                              > In a message dated 3/2/08 1:59:52 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                              >
                              >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Wil,
                              > >
                              > > I like Joe's idea of a cooperative enterprise, in the effort to
                              > > philosophise to some purpose. The irony of his statement, if such
                              it
                              > > was, also escaped me. Are you suggesting that Sartre's dictum is
                              > > equivalent to the statement that existence abolishes essence?
                              > > One starting-point for a Sartre neophyte like myself might be
                              > > reference to the lexicon provided by CSW, in which existence is
                              > > defined thus:
                              > >
                              > > ~ Existential thinkers write of existence as it is in its
                              factuality
                              > > as opposed to idealistic philosophy (such as Hegelianism) which
                              > > equated essence with existence to the detriment of existence. ~
                              > >
                              > > In fact, such was the starting-point I decided upon, as evidenced
                              by
                              > > this post. I choose, therefore I am. Childlike, but relevant.
                              > > Observing oneself, and all that.
                              > >
                              > > Louise
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > **************
                              > Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
                              >
                              > (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-
                              campos-duffy/
                              > 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • eupraxis@aol.com
                              Louise, You wrote: I am more skeptical than to take your statements for some kind of gospel truth, and it is no disrespect to your own learning. The fact is,
                              Message 14 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Louise,

                                You wrote: "I am more skeptical than to take your statements for some kind of
                                gospel truth, and it is no disrespect to your own learning. The fact is, that
                                I consider myself to have been an existentialist for nigh on three decades,
                                and deem it reasonable to expect open discussion on the very topic of this
                                list, which founds and develops itself in the work of various authors. It is an
                                emotional matter, yes, for those of us who care about discourse, and its
                                particular responsibilities, toward the countless life-forms on this planet."

                                Response: 'Kay. Assuming that you are contending with my understanding of
                                Sartre's B&N, show me. Sartre denies any kind of transcendence or
                                otherworldliness. As Bill has put it, he goes right to edge of nihilism. [end]

                                You wrote: "I am not a utilitarian, yet I acknowledge the reality of
                                consequence. The questions at issue seem to me philosophically complex."

                                Response: And this has something to do with what? How does that seem to you
                                to be a question currently at issue? A consequence is something that comes
                                after, as a result of. The "reality of a consequence" wouldn't be an essence,
                                then, would it? If you use a nomological rendering of essence (say, an act is
                                preceded by its potential penalties, etc.), then you are still playing the same
                                Platonic card: only a god could guarantee in time such a moral law. I don't
                                think that is what you mean, though. Otherwise, if a consequence is said to 'have
                                a reality' in the essential sense of the term, that would be like saying
                                "down" exists so that falling can happen. Any of these ways of thinking are
                                anathematic to existentialism. [end]

                                You wrote: Surely the Platonic Realism against which Sartre was contending
                                does not exhaust the relevant meanings of the term, 'essence'?

                                Response: It most certainly does exhaust the meaning of the term under
                                discussion, as we were discussing precisely Sartre. [end]

                                You wrote: I agree with you about the inapposite wording, 'existence of an
                                essence', yet in my opinion Joe's questioning of Mary's original statement in
                                #43828 is perfectly legitimate.

                                Response: I was defending Mary's claim that, "in an existentialism forum, the
                                burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes existence, and 2) its
                                relevance." The second part (the relevance part) is moot, of course. [end]

                                You wrote: "The patience with which we think, as human beings, takes a long
                                time to evolve. I suppose that a quality like 'patience' is itself an essence.
                                Some human existences exemplify it more than others. Probably there are sound,
                                impatient answers you might put to what could be digressive and muddled on my
                                part, but I do trust the messy kind of progress."

                                Response: I suppose you could understand patience in a Heideggerian way, as
                                one of a kind of existentialia or basic existential categories of experience;
                                something like Care, etc., although he prefers boredom and impatience. Do the
                                existentialia precede existence, though? They can be said to logically precede
                                Dasein's experience of the world, not unlike Kant's categories, but they have
                                no reality outside of Dasein and are thus consanguine or coeval with presence.
                                So I think we are back to the same place.

                                Thus Spoke,
                                WS


                                In a message dated 3/2/08 2:40:20 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Wil,
                                >
                                > I am more sceptical than to take your statements for some kind of
                                > gospel truth, and it is no disrespect to your own learning. The fact
                                > is, that I consider myself to have been an existentialist for nigh on
                                > three decades, and deem it reasonable to expect open discussion on
                                > the very topic of this list, which founds and develops itself in the
                                > work of various authors. It is an emotional matter, yes, for those
                                > of us who care about discourse, and its particular responsibilities,
                                > toward the countless life-forms on this planet. I am not a
                                > utilitarian, yet I acknowledge the reality of consequence. The
                                > questions at issue seem to me philosophically complex. Surely the
                                > Platonic Realism against which Sartre was contending does not exhaust
                                > the relevant meanings of the term, 'essence'? I agree with you about
                                > the inapposite wording, 'existence of an essence', yet in my opinion
                                > Joe's questioning of Mary's original statement in #43828 is perfectly
                                > legitimate. The patience with which we think, as human beings, takes
                                > a long time to evolve. I suppose that a quality like 'patience' is
                                > itself an essence. Some human existences exemplify it more than
                                > others. Probably there are sound, impatient answers you might put to
                                > what could be digressive and muddled on my part, but I do trust the
                                > messy kind of progress.
                                >
                                > Louise
                                >
                                >
                                >




                                **************
                                Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.

                                (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
                                2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • louise
                                ... some kind of ... fact is, that ... decades, ... of this ... authors. It is an ... and its ... this planet. ... understanding of ... nihilism. [end] ...
                                Message 15 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Louise,
                                  >
                                  > You wrote: "I am more skeptical than to take your statements for
                                  some kind of
                                  > gospel truth, and it is no disrespect to your own learning. The
                                  fact is, that
                                  > I consider myself to have been an existentialist for nigh on three
                                  decades,
                                  > and deem it reasonable to expect open discussion on the very topic
                                  of this
                                  > list, which founds and develops itself in the work of various
                                  authors. It is an
                                  > emotional matter, yes, for those of us who care about discourse,
                                  and its
                                  > particular responsibilities, toward the countless life-forms on
                                  this planet."
                                  >
                                  > Response: 'Kay. Assuming that you are contending with my
                                  understanding of
                                  > Sartre's B&N, show me. Sartre denies any kind of transcendence or
                                  > otherworldliness. As Bill has put it, he goes right to edge of
                                  nihilism. [end]
                                  >

                                  No, I cannot show you. Am being honest, in declaring myself a Sartre
                                  neophyte; though I did read B&N many years ago, it has left virtually
                                  no trace. Many readers of this list will not have read the text. I
                                  am interested in the possibility that, besides the kind of erudite
                                  discussion you most prefer, there may be benefit and interest in
                                  other forms of posting. It should present no difficulty, if there be
                                  tolerance and adherence to the rules of the list, for precise debate,
                                  robust argument, inventive literary efforts, personal existential
                                  narratives, suggested reading lists, and good-humoured banter, to
                                  find place here. Though that is simply my own interpretation of what
                                  existlist is about, and it is not exhaustive, even from my own point
                                  of view. With regard to the specific point you make above, I am
                                  still seeking to understand the meanings and context of terms
                                  like 'transcendence' or 'otherworldliness'. I believe that the more
                                  one questions, if the enquiry be free, that is, conducted without
                                  aggression, the more may appear to view. Nature is everywhere, in a
                                  sense, including in the practice of philosophy, an apparently
                                  abstruse intellectual art, and will reveal most where respect for her
                                  mysteries prevail. If this seems too mushy for you, so be it. My
                                  own attitudes have mellowed through sustaining new experiences, and
                                  my scepticism has evolved and continues to do so. I intend to answer
                                  only one or two points in each e-mail, for clarity's sake.

                                  Louise
                                • louise
                                  ... of ... complex. ... seem to you ... that comes ... an essence, ... an act is ... playing the same ... I don t ... You re right. I did not make clear the
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Louise,

                                    > You wrote: "I am not a utilitarian, yet I acknowledge the reality
                                    of
                                    > consequence. The questions at issue seem to me philosophically
                                    complex."
                                    >
                                    > Response: And this has something to do with what? How does that
                                    seem to you
                                    > to be a question currently at issue? A consequence is something
                                    that comes
                                    > after, as a result of. The "reality of a consequence" wouldn't be
                                    an essence,
                                    > then, would it? If you use a nomological rendering of essence (say,
                                    an act is
                                    > preceded by its potential penalties, etc.), then you are still
                                    playing the same
                                    > Platonic card: only a god could guarantee in time such a moral law.
                                    I don't
                                    > think that is what you mean, though.

                                    You're right. I did not make clear the context. It was a general
                                    point, about the consequences of posting any statement at a public
                                    forum like this. Whatever one writes, is multiply interpreted.
                                    Perhaps I was just encouraging myself, to take care in saying as
                                    exactly as possible what I mean. As opposed to the dubious practice
                                    of considering a general welfare, a form of liberalism to which I
                                    might be susceptible, and which I distrust extremely. I am, though,
                                    as you recall, a Nooist, and, as Eduard has recently stated, if you
                                    want a god you may have one to believe in. Existential
                                    responsibility, though, might urge caution, about whether or no you
                                    really know what you are doing, in finding, or choosing, such a god.
                                    Philosophical discipline is desirable, in order to avoid narrowly
                                    cultic affiliations which prove destructive. I have confidence in
                                    Nooism, because of my empiricism, and my respect for learning and
                                    wisdom.

                                    Louise


                                    Otherwise, if a consequence is said to 'have
                                    > a reality' in the essential sense of the term, that would be like
                                    saying
                                    > "down" exists so that falling can happen. Any of these ways of
                                    thinking are
                                    > anathematic to existentialism. [end]
                                  • louise
                                    ... contending ... under ... wording, existence of an ... statement in ... forum, the ... its ... course. [end] Let s see, first of all you say we were
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Louise,

                                      > You wrote: Surely the Platonic Realism against which Sartre was
                                      contending
                                      > does not exhaust the relevant meanings of the term, 'essence'?
                                      >
                                      > Response: It most certainly does exhaust the meaning of the term
                                      under
                                      > discussion, as we were discussing precisely Sartre. [end]
                                      >
                                      > You wrote: I agree with you about the inapposite
                                      wording, 'existence of an
                                      > essence', yet in my opinion Joe's questioning of Mary's original
                                      statement in
                                      > #43828 is perfectly legitimate.
                                      >
                                      > Response: I was defending Mary's claim that, "in an existentialism
                                      forum, the
                                      > burden is on you to show 1) that essence precedes existence, and 2)
                                      its
                                      > relevance." The second part (the relevance part) is moot, of
                                      course. [end]

                                      Let's see, first of all you say we were discussing precisely Sartre,
                                      then you quote Mary's response to Joe which invokes existentialism in
                                      general. Am I missing something here, or is this not at least
                                      implying that Sartre is the only permitted authority regarding the
                                      interpretation of essence/existence? In regard to his own works,
                                      fair enough, but the original post referred to an existence/essence
                                      unity (without even mentioning Sartre) which, so far, sounds to me
                                      like an unexplained, unexamined article of faith. I should really
                                      like to understand its provenance. Perhaps that should be a question
                                      to Mary, except that she already replied to Joe as if he should do
                                      the work of understanding what she meant.

                                      Louise
                                    • eupraxis@aol.com
                                      Let s see, first of all you say we were discussing precisely Sartre, then you quote Mary s response to Joe which invokes existentialism in general. Am I
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        "Let's see, first of all you say we were discussing precisely Sartre, then
                                        you quote Mary's response to Joe which invokes existentialism in general. Am I
                                        missing something here, or is this not at least implying that Sartre is the
                                        only permitted authority regarding the interpretation of essence/existence? 'In
                                        regard to his own works, fair enough, but the original post referred to an
                                        existence/essence unity (without even mentioning Sartre) which, so far, sounds to
                                        me like an unexplained, unexamined article of faith. I should really like to
                                        understand its provenance."
                                        ----
                                        Response: No, I think you're missing something here. Can you name another
                                        existentialist author who uses that dyad who is either not referring to Sartre,
                                        or who is using the dyad in some other novel way? And in any case, whenever
                                        such a dyad ("existence/essence") is used without any special proviso, wouldn't
                                        one understand those terms in their usual sense, especially in a philosophical
                                        list? Finally, can you show me another meaning to these terms that would be
                                        readily understandable?

                                        I don't think you would have an easy task with any of that. [end]

                                        Wil


                                        In a message dated 3/2/08 5:06:40 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                                        > Let's see, first of all you say we were discussing precisely Sartre,
                                        > then you quote Mary's response to Joe which invokes existentialism in
                                        > general. Am I missing something here, or is this not at least
                                        > implying that Sartre is the only permitted authority regarding the
                                        > interpretation of essence/existence? In regard to his own works,
                                        > fair enough, but the original post referred to an existence/essence
                                        > unity (without even mentioning Sartre) which, so far, sounds to me
                                        > like an unexplained, unexamined article of faith. I should really
                                        > like to understand its provenance. Perhaps that should be a question
                                        > to Mary, except that she already replied to Joe as if he should do
                                        > the work of understanding what she meant.
                                        >
                                        > Louise
                                        >




                                        **************
                                        Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.

                                        (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
                                        2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • louise
                                        ... Sartre, then ... general. Am I ... Sartre is the ... essence/existence? In ... referred to an ... far, sounds to ... really like to ... another ...
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                          >
                                          > "Let's see, first of all you say we were discussing precisely
                                          Sartre, then
                                          > you quote Mary's response to Joe which invokes existentialism in
                                          general. Am I
                                          > missing something here, or is this not at least implying that
                                          Sartre is the
                                          > only permitted authority regarding the interpretation of
                                          essence/existence? 'In
                                          > regard to his own works, fair enough, but the original post
                                          referred to an
                                          > existence/essence unity (without even mentioning Sartre) which, so
                                          far, sounds to
                                          > me like an unexplained, unexamined article of faith. I should
                                          really like to
                                          > understand its provenance."
                                          > ----
                                          > Response: No, I think you're missing something here. Can you name
                                          another
                                          > existentialist author who uses that dyad who is either not
                                          referring to Sartre,
                                          > or who is using the dyad in some other novel way? And in any case,
                                          whenever
                                          > such a dyad ("existence/essence") is used without any special
                                          proviso, wouldn't
                                          > one understand those terms in their usual sense, especially in a
                                          philosophical
                                          > list? Finally, can you show me another meaning to these terms that
                                          would be
                                          > readily understandable?
                                          >
                                          > I don't think you would have an easy task with any of that. [end]
                                          >
                                          > Wil

                                          Wil,

                                          I'm finding your response helpful, in determining which of my
                                          questions appear to be based on lack of necessary knowledge, such
                                          that no useful answers will be forthcoming, and which are worth
                                          investigating further. It does look to me at present as though the
                                          territory involved would be Platonic Realism and theistic
                                          existentialism, if there be any genuine relation between the two
                                          which admits of description by means of the dyad.

                                          Louise
                                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                                          Louise Most (all actually) of the religiously oriented existential literature that I know, from Kierkegaard through to Ricoeur, conspicuously avoids the
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Louise

                                            Most (all actually) of the religiously oriented existential literature that I
                                            know, from Kierkegaard through to Ricoeur, conspicuously avoids the
                                            metaphysical analyses one would otherwise expect from a theist; to wit, some proof that
                                            God exists. Yet we have sin, fallibility, self-loathing, etc. -- and I am not
                                            without my sense of depth -- I have heard the bay of the wolf during the
                                            night, have undergone attacks of dread and regret, have lost myself (my Self) in
                                            the infinity of nothingness, and the rest of it.

                                            Some have applied a kind of reverse Anselmian argument to assuage all of
                                            this; they proffer God by means of the overwhelming vacuity of the eternal. If it
                                            is that absurd, God must exist. Hence 'Plato' lives on, or has always.

                                            But I go another route. The only God (Absolute) for me is (at best) Hegel's,
                                            and it is entirely mundane and apparent. One derives no comfort from Hegel,
                                            only context. I am probably alone here when I say that Hegel is the first
                                            existentialist. But I digress.

                                            Lacan tells us that what we most desire is an illusion. He means that
                                            reflexively: We want an illusion; and what we think we want is itself illusory.
                                            Essences and eternal verities are what we most desire; thus they are necessarily
                                            imaginary. It is like Nietzsche's insight that logic is inherently optimistic.
                                            From an existentialist point of view, that is a profound idea. Logic may limit
                                            thought to rationality, but 'belief' in logic means that one lives in a dream,
                                            nevertheless.

                                            That is the sense of transcendence that I decry and that Sartre deconstructs.
                                            To say that existence precedes essence is to say just this.

                                            Wil



                                            In a message dated 3/2/08 6:45:45 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


                                            > Wil,
                                            >
                                            > I'm finding your response helpful, in determining which of my
                                            > questions appear to be based on lack of necessary knowledge, such
                                            > that no useful answers will be forthcoming, and which are worth
                                            > investigating further. It does look to me at present as though the
                                            > territory involved would be Platonic Realism and theistic
                                            > existentialism, if there be any genuine relation between the two
                                            > which admits of description by means of the dyad.
                                            >
                                            > Louise
                                            >




                                            **************
                                            Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.

                                            (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
                                            2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • louise
                                            Wil, Thanks, Louise ... literature that I ... wit, some proof that ... and I am not ... during the ... (my Self) in ... all of ... eternal. If it ... always.
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Wil,

                                              Thanks,

                                              Louise

                                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Louise
                                              >
                                              > Most (all actually) of the religiously oriented existential
                                              literature that I
                                              > know, from Kierkegaard through to Ricoeur, conspicuously avoids the
                                              > metaphysical analyses one would otherwise expect from a theist; to
                                              wit, some proof that
                                              > God exists. Yet we have sin, fallibility, self-loathing, etc. --
                                              and I am not
                                              > without my sense of depth -- I have heard the bay of the wolf
                                              during the
                                              > night, have undergone attacks of dread and regret, have lost myself
                                              (my Self) in
                                              > the infinity of nothingness, and the rest of it.
                                              >
                                              > Some have applied a kind of reverse Anselmian argument to assuage
                                              all of
                                              > this; they proffer God by means of the overwhelming vacuity of the
                                              eternal. If it
                                              > is that absurd, God must exist. Hence 'Plato' lives on, or has
                                              always.
                                              >
                                              > But I go another route. The only God (Absolute) for me is (at best)
                                              Hegel's,
                                              > and it is entirely mundane and apparent. One derives no comfort
                                              from Hegel,
                                              > only context. I am probably alone here when I say that Hegel is the
                                              first
                                              > existentialist. But I digress.
                                              >
                                              > Lacan tells us that what we most desire is an illusion. He means
                                              that
                                              > reflexively: We want an illusion; and what we think we want is
                                              itself illusory.
                                              > Essences and eternal verities are what we most desire; thus they
                                              are necessarily
                                              > imaginary. It is like Nietzsche's insight that logic is inherently
                                              optimistic.
                                              > From an existentialist point of view, that is a profound idea.
                                              Logic may limit
                                              > thought to rationality, but 'belief' in logic means that one lives
                                              in a dream,
                                              > nevertheless.
                                              >
                                              > That is the sense of transcendence that I decry and that Sartre
                                              deconstructs.
                                              > To say that existence precedes essence is to say just this.
                                              >
                                              > Wil
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > In a message dated 3/2/08 6:45:45 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > > Wil,
                                              > >
                                              > > I'm finding your response helpful, in determining which of my
                                              > > questions appear to be based on lack of necessary knowledge, such
                                              > > that no useful answers will be forthcoming, and which are worth
                                              > > investigating further. It does look to me at present as though the
                                              > > territory involved would be Platonic Realism and theistic
                                              > > existentialism, if there be any genuine relation between the two
                                              > > which admits of description by means of the dyad.
                                              > >
                                              > > Louise
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > **************
                                              > Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
                                              >
                                              > (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-
                                              campos-duffy/
                                              > 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                            • jimstuart51
                                              Wil, I have enjoyed reading your exchange of posts with Louise. I think you both make some good points and you both write with decisiveness and passion. I am
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Wil,

                                                I have enjoyed reading your exchange of posts with Louise. I think you
                                                both make some good points and you both write with decisiveness and
                                                passion.

                                                I am not in complete agreement with what you write about Sartre.

                                                My understanding is that Sartre's famous expression "existence
                                                precedes essence" was to apply to human beings, and only human beings.
                                                He introduced this expression in order to contrast human beings with
                                                all other entities in the world.

                                                Because human beings have absolute freedom, they cannot have an
                                                essence as to have an essence is to lack absolute freedom. I (and
                                                other human beings who grasp their freedom) choose how to act, and in
                                                this choice I create myself anew at each moment of choice. By
                                                contrast, animals, plants, trees, chairs, tables, buildings, etc.,
                                                lack choice and in these cases we can justifiably speak of such
                                                entities having essences.

                                                So, on my reading of Sartre, he does not deny essences in toto, he
                                                just denies that free individuals like you or me have essences.

                                                In this regard Nietzsche is different to Sartre. Nietzsche did, I
                                                think, deny essences across the board, even to scientific entities
                                                like gold, lead, water, etc. For Nietzsche, human beings were not
                                                essentially different to animals, plants, trees, etc., in that all
                                                lacked essences.

                                                I don't think an existentialist has to deny essences to scientific
                                                entities. I view existentialism as a philosophy concerned with the
                                                human being and her choices in an inhospitable, purposeless world. I
                                                don't think such a view necessarily excludes a belief in logic, nor a
                                                belief that scientific entities have essences.

                                                Jim
                                              • eupraxis@aol.com
                                                Jim, Thanks. No, I think it is clear, and not just from B&N, that Sartre denies any kind of transcendent reality, except for the Imaginary itself. This is
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Jim,

                                                  Thanks.

                                                  No, I think it is clear, and not just from B&N, that Sartre denies any kind
                                                  of transcendent reality, except for the Imaginary itself. This is fundamental
                                                  to his phenomenology and his artistic work, in my opinion. However, the
                                                  consequences of "existence preceding essence", which was meant as a slight on the
                                                  lingering scholasticism of the Academy, is just as you describe it.

                                                  By the way, there have been all kinds of stories about Sartre's supposed
                                                  conversion to religion during his decline. They are nonsense, and I know that by
                                                  the best anecdotal evidence available to me: to wit, I know someone, a great
                                                  friend and mentor, who was in that loop. To the end, Sartre was a committed
                                                  atheist.

                                                  Wil

                                                  In a message dated 3/3/08 7:05:17 AM, jjimstuart1@... writes:


                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Wil,
                                                  >
                                                  > I have enjoyed reading your exchange of posts with Louise. I think you
                                                  > both make some good points and you both write with decisiveness and
                                                  > passion.
                                                  >
                                                  > I am not in complete agreement with what you write about Sartre.
                                                  >
                                                  > My understanding is that Sartre's famous expression "existence
                                                  > precedes essence" was to apply to human beings, and only human beings.
                                                  > He introduced this expression in order to contrast human beings with
                                                  > all other entities in the world.
                                                  >
                                                  > Because human beings have absolute freedom, they cannot have an
                                                  > essence as to have an essence is to lack absolute freedom. I (and
                                                  > other human beings who grasp their freedom) choose how to act, and in
                                                  > this choice I create myself anew at each moment of choice. By
                                                  > contrast, animals, plants, trees, chairs, tables, buildings, etc.,
                                                  > lack choice and in these cases we can justifiably speak of such
                                                  > entities having essences.
                                                  >
                                                  > So, on my reading of Sartre, he does not deny essences in toto, he
                                                  > just denies that free individuals like you or me have essences.
                                                  >
                                                  > In this regard Nietzsche is different to Sartre. Nietzsche did, I
                                                  > think, deny essences across the board, even to scientific entities
                                                  > like gold, lead, water, etc. For Nietzsche, human beings were not
                                                  > essentially different to animals, plants, trees, etc., in that all
                                                  > lacked essences.
                                                  >
                                                  > I don't think an existentialist has to deny essences to scientific
                                                  > entities. I view existentialism as a philosophy concerned with the
                                                  > human being and her choices in an inhospitable, purposeless world. I
                                                  > don't think such a view necessarily excludes a belief in logic, nor a
                                                  > belief that scientific entities have essences.
                                                  >
                                                  > Jim
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >




                                                  **************
                                                  Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.

                                                  (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
                                                  2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)


                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • mary.jo11
                                                  Although uncomfortable with notions of orthodoxy, I accept this one. The other is nothingness, since it also binds and liberates existential thought. Legal
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Although uncomfortable with notions of orthodoxy, I accept this one.
                                                    The other is nothingness, since it also binds and liberates
                                                    existential thought. Legal definitions of when life begins and ends
                                                    are less relevant to the existentialist than personal situation. Mary

                                                    eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                    To the end, Sartre was a committed atheist.
                                                  • Exist List Moderator
                                                    ... Not my lexicon, in general. It is a recovery of The New Dictionary of Existentialism, a text from the late 1960s. I have expanded some entries and continue
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Mar 5, 2008
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Mar 02, 2008, at 14:13, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                                      > I haven't looked at CS's lexicon, and I will leave aside any remarks
                                                      > that
                                                      > interpret Hegel as an otherworldly theorist for now (no, thank me
                                                      > later).


                                                      Not my lexicon, in general. It is a recovery of The New Dictionary of
                                                      Existentialism, a text from the late 1960s. I have expanded some
                                                      entries and continue to do so with quotes directly from the thinkers
                                                      profiled so as to avoid any notion that the definitions are mine or
                                                      any other "expert's" because it is always best to let the author
                                                      define his or her own terms.

                                                      I also note that the same terms were often used in different ways, to
                                                      different ends, by the authors.

                                                      Also... I never read anywhere that someone suggested Sartre renounced
                                                      atheism. That was a curious mention on the list that I skimmed. Wil is
                                                      definitely correct on this matter, based on the contacts I have had
                                                      with historians and biographers. I cannot imagine Sartre as anything
                                                      other than an atheist... just as I can't imagine him ever humble. I
                                                      would cite "Adieux" as my primary source for Sartre's finals days.

                                                      - C. S. Wyatt
                                                      I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
                                                      that I shall be.
                                                      http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                      http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                                    • bhvwd
                                                      ... remarks ... me ... of ... thinkers ... or ... to ... renounced ... is ... had ... anything ... I ... all ... year they appear and youn have seen what you
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Mar 5, 2008
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
                                                        <existlist1@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > On Mar 02, 2008, at 14:13, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > > I haven't looked at CS's lexicon, and I will leave aside any
                                                        remarks
                                                        > > that
                                                        > > interpret Hegel as an otherworldly theorist for now (no, thank
                                                        me
                                                        > > later).
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > Not my lexicon, in general. It is a recovery of The New Dictionary
                                                        of
                                                        > Existentialism, a text from the late 1960s. I have expanded some
                                                        > entries and continue to do so with quotes directly from the
                                                        thinkers
                                                        > profiled so as to avoid any notion that the definitions are mine
                                                        or
                                                        > any other "expert's" because it is always best to let the author
                                                        > define his or her own terms.
                                                        >
                                                        > I also note that the same terms were often used in different ways,
                                                        to
                                                        > different ends, by the authors.
                                                        >
                                                        > Also... I never read anywhere that someone suggested Sartre
                                                        renounced
                                                        > atheism. That was a curious mention on the list that I skimmed. Wil
                                                        is
                                                        > definitely correct on this matter, based on the contacts I have
                                                        had
                                                        > with historians and biographers. I cannot imagine Sartre as
                                                        anything
                                                        > other than an atheist... just as I can't imagine him ever humble.
                                                        I
                                                        > would cite "Adieux" as my primary source for Sartre's finals days.
                                                        >
                                                        > - C. S. Wyatt
                                                        > I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not
                                                        all
                                                        > that I shall be.
                                                        > http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
                                                        > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
                                                        >I would go througe the ancient broyhers of the north. In a cold
                                                        year they appear and youn have seen what you as yet do not recognise.
                                                        Will they keep you ? This place has its merits if you can fite ice,
                                                        Bill
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.