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

Re: Self / Other

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Ethics: Sartre didn t publish Truth and Existence because he didn t want to taint his philosophy with moralizing and his inability to reconcile private
    Message 1 of 67 , Apr 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Ethics: Sartre didn't publish "Truth and Existence" because he didn't want to taint his philosophy with moralizing and his inability to reconcile private predilections, efforts for which he criticized Camus.

      Virtue: Authenticity and good faith are not merely virtues acquired through practice but psychological states necessary for developing relationships with others. They project us toward greater mutual freedom and responsibiity, manfestations of the Ideal. which Sartre saw as absolute not abstract. There is no eschaton, only process.

      Neighbor: With an existentialist reading of the parable of the Good Samaritan, we see he acted in good faith, by following his own sense of sympathy/empathy and by not following tradition or apologetics which could have caused him to turn away. The assumption in the parable is an awareness of the prohibition of contact between Jews and Samaritans, which can easily be applied to current segregation and immigration realities. The Good Samaritan didn't see the world as a bad place but saw a fellow in a bad situation and chose (essence) to act on their shared humanity (existence).

      Also, Zizek turns the notion of neighbor topsy turvy and suggests a neighbor might not only be someone in need, but someone who doesn't want to be bothered, someone who rejects proximity, or someone content in their `alien' culture. Doesn't this require reflection on freedom and responsibility on the part of those who espouse them? When people of the same and/or conflicting cultures value one at the expense of the other--freedom or responsibility--they experience neither.

    • Herman
      Thanks for your thoughts, Bill, Mary and Jim, Much appreciated. Cheers Herman ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 67 of 67 , Apr 23, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for your thoughts, Bill, Mary and Jim,

        Much appreciated.



        On 24 April 2011 03:30, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:

        > Herman,
        > I wonder if you have read Schopenhauer on music. My guess is you have and
        > you agree with his take on music. He argues that music connects us with the
        > underlying oneness of ultimate reality, whereas language and science are
        > part of the veil of Maya. For Schopenhauer conceptual thought is bad because
        > it is all part of the will-to-live, whereas music is not at all part of
        > conceptual thought, but is more like a direct intuition of
        > reality-in-itself.
        > So for Schopenhauer only music without lyrics would be considered untainted
        > by our concepts and reasoning abilities.
        > Music has been a positive presence in my life. Like Bill I prefer
        > contemporary popular music to classical music, although I appreciate
        > different genres of music.
        > As a teenager I identified with the punk movement that developed in the UK
        > in the late seventies. Then music was all about rebellion and distancing
        > oneself from the boring and hypocritical establishment.
        > I still prefer music with an edge to it, but I appreciate more calm
        > harmonies rather than just the rebel yells these days.
        > Jim
        > P.S. Louise, I don't know what kind of music you like these days, but I
        > wonder if you would like P. J. Harvey's latest release "Let England Shake".
        > The subject matter makes me think you may enjoy it.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.