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

Re: [existlist] Down the rabbit hole

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Tim Leary is no hero of mine, you simply mistake my revulsion at you wishing to have him shot for adulation. That s just indiscriminate thinking. Your posts
    Message 1 of 171 , Jan 2, 2010
      Tim Leary is no hero of mine, you simply mistake my revulsion at you
      wishing to have him shot for adulation. That's just indiscriminate
      thinking. Your posts are shrouded in a lexicon of violence, and you
      have no means to step outside of that to see it. Until one knows
      themself, there is no freedom in anything said or done, one simply is
      a made to measure product of their society, made to be who they are so
      that their society can be what it is. The land of the free? My ass.

      You might like to check out the history between G. Gordon Liddy and
      Tim Leary. From arch nemesis to pals with common economic interests.

      If G. Gordon Liddy can be vomited out by the system that spawned him,
      and so become a less serious being, there's hope for us all.


      2010/1/3 William <v.valleywestdental@...>:
      > I would shoot him because he was an escaping criminal. My great grandfather did that kind of work and so did my grandfather. What would you have done,cupcake, Blow him a kiss? You are the one who ratted the nutty professor out. I did not know the maniac escaped jail. You have childish heros , you will fail to make him a person of honor. At least to me. Bill
      > ------------------------------------
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • Jim
      Hi Polly, You write: Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates philosophy was to drink hemlock when
      Message 171 of 171 , Jan 28, 2010
        Hi Polly,

        You write:

        "Philosophy, if it is not reflected in what people do, is more akin to armchair trivia. Socrates' philosophy was to drink hemlock when push came to shove; all conceptual thinking notwithstanding."

        Yes, I completely agree with your first sentence. I certainly try to act in line with my philosophical views which combine elements of virtue ethics with existentialism.

        Socrates certainly lived his philosophy. He drank the hemlock as he argued that it was the just thing to do, rather than save his skin by escaping the death sentence passed on him by the Athenian Justice System.

        Unlike you, I have a very high opinion of Socrates who was courageous enough to speak out and act as he felt he should, even when it was dangerous for him to do so.

        In my last post to you, I wrote:

        "I am interested in the sort of questions Socrates asked. I am primarily interested in the two questions: "What am I?" and "How should I live?" I am certainly not interested in the question "What is a question?".

        You replied:

        "That's fine, of course. It does however mean you will not be able to come anywhere near Descartes or his method of doubt, or proceed beyond him. Or in other words, you are rather fond of your ideal, a priori world, and you fully intend to cling to it for dear life."

        I am not sure why you say that I have an "ideal, a priori world, and … fully intend to cling to it for dear life." My ethical views are a posteriori, as they are based on my experience of what actions and attitudes cause human beings either benefit or harm.

        I am not sure what "a priori" beliefs you are thinking of.

        You suggest that to be consistent with my own outlook, I need to put some time and effort investigating the question "What is a question?"

        However, I think if I did spend time studying this question, I would be guilty of the "armchair trivia" you rightly criticise above. Further, I have already said that I know what a question is. Why should I spend time and effort examining a phenomenon I already fully understand?

        Philosophy, in my view, is all about starting off with the things one knows, and trying to learn significant things one does not know, all the while applying one's knowledge in one's actions in the world.

        As I say above, I am not aware of clinging to unexamined attitudes and beliefs "for dear life", but if you and others think I am guilty of that so be it.

        It seems to me that you do not favour asking philosophical questions, nor trying to provide philosophical answers. Such conceptual activity only prevents the person from gaining uncluttered access to the real.

        You criticise Socrates, but surely you must criticise all philosophers (including all existentialists) for promoting the very thing you think is most harmful to human beings – conceptual thinking.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.