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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
      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 2 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
        --- 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 3 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
          --- 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 4 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
            --- 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 5 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
              "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 6 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                --- 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 7 of 26 , Mar 2, 2008
                  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 8 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                    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 9 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                      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 10 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                        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 11 of 26 , Mar 3, 2008
                          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 12 of 26 , Mar 5, 2008
                            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 13 of 26 , Mar 5, 2008
                              --- 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.