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

Re: WWFND

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Mary and Jim, Sorry, but I am aghast at this exchange. Please count me out of these assumptions. God knows what Nietzsche s poetic morality would be. I am
    Message 1 of 6 , May 28 1:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Mary and Jim,

      Sorry, but I am aghast at this exchange. Please count me out of these assumptions. God knows what "Nietzsche's poetic morality" would be. I am not being terribly courteous here, but desperation calls. The fact is, my priority is to fulfil certain existential commitments of my own, and to post the results here. Don't know how long this will take. In the meantime, will be interested to follow discussion among regulars and newcomers, as it happens. Just to be clear, I am NOT a utilitarian, not anything like that sort of a liberal - Christian, humaist, atheist, Muslim or otherwise. Pleasure, wow. Dangerous entity to fit into philosophical schema. I believe in giving it a hard time, first. Questions, questions.

      Louise

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      > Now you are back let me respond to your provocative email of a couple of weeks ago. You raise a number of challenges, so I will split up your comments and respond in chunks.
      >
      > Mary: Jim, much like Louise, typically focuses on FN's poetic morality.
      >
      > Response: Yes, like Louise I am keen on Nietzsche's "poetic morality". FN re-evaluates all values, and his new values for the free spirit are well worth careful consideration.
      >
      > Mary: However...WE ARE ON OUR OWN WHEN IT COMES TO MORAL DILEMMAS.
      >
      > Response: I agree with you here. It is up to ME to decide how to act. Of course, I can draw on the thoughts of dead philosophers when I am deliberating. But any ethical decision is MY decision, for which I am fully responsible.
      >
      > Mary: Existentialism is a discussion beyond the pale of any particular philosopher, journalist, moralist, or artist.
      >
      > Response: Yes, but I can still benefit from reading dead philosophers, and I can accept some of the things that some of them said as both true and useful to me in my current situation.
      >
      > Anyway, don't you accept someone the things Sartre and Camus wrote?
      >
      > Mary: We don't have a moral compass for most of our situations, and often we must tortuously consider only what is right for us. The foundation of contemporary existentialism is the alienation we experience, how it sets the individual apart from our society, nation, etc. It isn't whether we hold the majority or popular position, or accept media propaganda; it's whether we can survive our differences.
      >
      > Response: Yes, I can accept these existentialist ideas. We are unique individuals who work out for ourselves what we think it best to believe, and how we think it best to act – or, at least, we should do these things.
      >
      > Mary: I agree with Louise that we needn't be versed in all the canon, especially analytical, abstract or theoretical texts; but a basic understanding of experiential existentialism is necessary. So if Tom and Jim or anybody else want to discuss war, immigration, science, etc. I for one would appreciate discussing how the tenets of freedom and responsibility, and the realities of power and pleasure, are involved, not what's good or bad.
      >
      > Response: This is the crucial bit. I am happy to discuss "the reality of power and pleasure". I am tempted to ask whose pleasure. Does the pleasure of a fundamentalist Muslim count as much as my own pleasure counts? (I would say "Yes" – the pleasure of each human being counts equally.)
      >
      > I don't think I use the terms `good' and `bad' overmuch. However I would say that for a human being to possess freedom is good, and for a human being to accept full responsibility for his/her own actions is good. I guess you wouldn't want to say these things.
      >
      > However, I am not sure if even you can manage without `good' and `bad' completely. Don't you want to say that pleasure is better than pain? That freedom is better than slavery? That responsibility is better than irresponsibility? Isn't that the same as saying pleasure is good, pain is bad, etc.?
      >
      > Jim
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Jim, much like Louise, typically focuses on FN's poetic morality. Actually, Camus comprehended and expounded FN better than his (Camus) peers. However...WE ARE ON OUR OWN WHEN IT COMES TO MORAL DILEMMAS. Existentialism is a discussion beyond the pale of any particular philosopher, journalist, moralist, or artist. We don't have a moral compass for most of our situations, and often we must tortuously consider only what is right for us. The foundation of contemporary existentialism is the alienation we experience, how it sets the individual apart from our society, nation, etc. It isn't whether we hold the majority or popular position, or accept media propaganda; it's whether we can survive our differences.
      > >
      > > I agree with Louise that we needn't be versed in all the canon, especially analytical, abstract or theoretical texts; but a basic understanding of experiential existentialism is necessary. So if Tom and Jim or anybody else want to discuss war, immigration, science, etc. I for one would appreciate discussing how the tenets of freedom and responsibility, and the realities of power and pleasure, are involved, not what's good or bad.
      > >
      > > I'm taking off until the end of the month. What was it Melville said about taking to the sea so he doesn't go about knocking off hats?
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.