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

Re: [existlist] Re: Relevance of NDEs to Existentialism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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.