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

Not modern

Expand Messages
  • William
    I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 27, 2011
      I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not universal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Bill, Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 27, 2011
        Bill,

        Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had the more pessimistic attitude toward science. See his "Crisis..." texts. And for all of the "Spirit" stuff in Hegel, it was Husserl who ended up with a mystical and metaphysical view of things in his mid and late works ("eternal monads", etc.). Husserl ended up with an odd quasi-Platonic philosophy; Hegel with a quasi-Aristotelian this-worldly one.

        Wil




        -----Original Message-----
        From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 3:07 pm
        Subject: [existlist] Not modern





        I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not un iversal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • William
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 27, 2011
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > Bill,
          >
          > Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had the more pessimistic attitude toward science. See his "Crisis..." texts. And for all of the "Spirit" stuff in Hegel, it was Husserl who ended up with a mystical and metaphysical view of things in his mid and late works ("eternal monads", etc.). Husserl ended up with an odd quasi-Platonic philosophy; Hegel with a quasi-Aristotelian this-worldly one.
          >
          > Wil
          > Wil, Husseryl was a jew and must have held Judaic theistic views. It seems Hegel put religion and god aside after his early works , he went secular. Both Hegel and his suicide sister suffered from depression , such people are not known for idealisms. Could it be that FN and Hegel had their world views scewered by pshchological ,depressive problems? All the angst filled growth in existentialism was just the mindset of some of its founders. Kirkegaar in his refudiation of Hegel might have been countering Hegels mental disease and all the religosity in Kirkegaar just an affront to mindsets Kirkegaar detested? Trying to understand today from the mindsets of these relatively ancient men presents unsurpassable problems. As I learn more about existentialism I see a thinner philosophy that has perhaps five or six salient concepts. The rest might be little but random conjecture. Bill
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
          > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 3:07 pm
          > Subject: [existlist] Not modern
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not un iversal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          Bill, Didn t know that about Hegel (depression), but who doesn t suffer from depression? I ve never known anyone who hasn t! Husserl, by the way, was a
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 27, 2011
            Bill,

            Didn't know that about Hegel (depression), but who doesn't suffer from depression? I've never known anyone who hasn't! Husserl, by the way, was a practicing Lutheran, although in Germany, especially then, once a Jew, always one, I guess.

            Wil


            -----Original Message-----
            From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
            To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 5:09 pm
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Not modern







            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
            >
            >
            > Bill,
            >
            > Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had the more pessimistic attitude toward science. See his "Crisis..." texts. And for all of the "Spirit" stuff in Hegel, it was Husserl who ended up with a mystical and metaphysical view of things in his mid and late works ("eternal monads", etc.). Husserl ended up with an odd quasi-Platonic philosophy; Hegel with a quasi-Aristotelian this-worldly one.
            >
            > Wil
            > Wil, Husseryl was a jew and must have held Judaic theistic views. It seems Hegel put religion and god aside after his early works , he went secular. Both Hegel and his suicide sister suffered from depression , such people are not known for idealisms. Could it be that FN and Hegel had their world views scewered by pshchological ,depressive problems? All the angst filled growth in existentialism was just the mindset of some of its founders. Kirkegaar in his refudiation of Hegel might have been countering Hegels mental disease and all the religosity in Kirkegaar just an affront to mindsets Kirkegaar detested? Trying to understand today from the mindsets of these relatively ancient men presents unsurpassable problems. As I learn more about existentialism I see a thinner philosophy that has perhaps five or six salient concepts. The rest might be little but random conjecture. Bill
            >
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
            > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 3:07 pm
            > Subject: [existlist] Not modern
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not un ive rsal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >









            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • William
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 27, 2011
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
              >
              >
              > Bill,
              >
              > Didn't know that about Hegel (depression), but who doesn't suffer from depression? I've never known anyone who hasn't! Husserl, by the way, was a practicing Lutheran, although in Germany, especially then, once a Jew, always one, I guess.
              >
              > Wil
              > Wil, exploring the so called psychological explanation for existentialism takes for granted that psychology itself was a contemporary of existentialism. The real game breakers were still to come, evolution, nuclear science,cosmology just blew the old world and its institutions apart. Now the only remaining superpower reigns in a turbid world while it suffers terrible internal dissent and political divisions. The decency of liberal moderate modernism fulfills the investigations of phenominology and so I know my general course. Was it Hegel or Husserel who demanded reduction of information to empiracally reliable information? Bill
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
              > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 5:09 pm
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: Not modern
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > Bill,
              > >
              > > Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had the more pessimistic attitude toward science. See his "Crisis..." texts. And for all of the "Spirit" stuff in Hegel, it was Husserl who ended up with a mystical and metaphysical view of things in his mid and late works ("eternal monads", etc.). Husserl ended up with an odd quasi-Platonic philosophy; Hegel with a quasi-Aristotelian this-worldly one.
              > >
              > > Wil
              > > Wil, Husseryl was a jew and must have held Judaic theistic views. It seems Hegel put religion and god aside after his early works , he went secular. Both Hegel and his suicide sister suffered from depression , such people are not known for idealisms. Could it be that FN and Hegel had their world views scewered by pshchological ,depressive problems? All the angst filled growth in existentialism was just the mindset of some of its founders. Kirkegaar in his refudiation of Hegel might have been countering Hegels mental disease and all the religosity in Kirkegaar just an affront to mindsets Kirkegaar detested? Trying to understand today from the mindsets of these relatively ancient men presents unsurpassable problems. As I learn more about existentialism I see a thinner philosophy that has perhaps five or six salient concepts. The rest might be little but random conjecture. Bill
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > -----Original Message-----
              > > From: William <v.valleywestdental@>
              > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              > > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 3:07 pm
              > > Subject: [existlist] Not modern
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not un ive rsal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              Husserl s phenomenological reduction was meant to excise from phenomena any encrusted historical theoretical assumptions about the things . Hegel s approach
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 27, 2011
                Husserl's phenomenological reduction was meant to excise from phenomena any encrusted historical theoretical assumptions about 'the things'. Hegel's approach was completely different. In his Phenomenology, he starts with what appears immediate and simple and shows how it is self-contradictory, leading one through stages of conceptual truth. The simple facts of Husserl were abstractions in Hegel.





                -----Original Message-----
                From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
                To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 6:19 pm
                Subject: [existlist] Re: Not modern







                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                >
                >
                > Bill,
                >
                > Didn't know that about Hegel (depression), but who doesn't suffer from depression? I've never known anyone who hasn't! Husserl, by the way, was a practicing Lutheran, although in Germany, especially then, once a Jew, always one, I guess.
                >
                > Wil
                > Wil, exploring the so called psychological explanation for existentialism takes for granted that psychology itself was a contemporary of existentialism. The real game breakers were still to come, evolution, nuclear science,cosmology just blew the old world and its institutions apart. Now the only remaining superpower reigns in a turbid world while it suffers terrible internal dissent and political divisions. The decency of liberal moderate modernism fulfills the investigations of phenominology and so I know my general course. Was it Hegel or Husserel who demanded reduction of information to empiracally reliable information? Bill
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: William <v.valleywestdental@...>
                > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 5:09 pm
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Not modern
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Bill,
                > >
                > > Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had the more pessimistic attitude toward science. See his "Crisis..." texts. And for all of the "Spirit" stuff in Hegel, it was Husserl who ended up with a mystical and metaphysical view of things in his mid and late works ("eternal monads", etc.). Husserl ended up with an odd quasi-Platonic philosophy; Hegel with a quasi-Aristotelian this-worldly one.
                > >
                > > Wil
                > > Wil, Husseryl was a jew and must have held Judaic theistic views. It seems Hegel put religion and god aside after his early works , he went secular. Both Hegel and his suicide sister suffered from depression , such people are not known for idealisms. Could it be that FN and Hegel had their world views scewered by pshchological ,depressive problems? All the angst filled growth in existentialism was just the mindset of some of its founders. Kirkegaar in his refudiation of Hegel might have been countering Hegels mental disease and all the religosity in Kirkegaar just an affront to mindsets Kirkegaar detested? Trying to understand today from the mindsets of these relatively ancient men presents unsurpassable problems. As I learn more about existentialism I see a thinner philosophy that has perhaps five or six salient concepts. The rest might be little but random conjecture. Bill
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > -----Original Message-----
                > > From: William <v.valleywestdental@>
                > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 3:07 pm
                > > Subject: [existlist] Not modern
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not u n ive rsal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >









                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Mary
                Bill, Existentialism for me hinges on two important concepts: the tension between personal freedom and social responsibility and whether choices are free or
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 27, 2011
                  Bill,

                  Existentialism for me hinges on two important concepts: the tension between personal freedom and social responsibility and whether choices are free or determined. When I read philosophers it's with attention to these. Whenever freedom and the ability to choose are respected I concur. The struggle is to believe in such possibilities when all around seems otherwise.

                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Bill,
                  > >
                  > > Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had the more pessimistic attitude toward science. See his "Crisis..." texts. And for all of the "Spirit" stuff in Hegel, it was Husserl who ended up with a mystical and metaphysical view of things in his mid and late works ("eternal monads", etc.). Husserl ended up with an odd quasi-Platonic philosophy; Hegel with a quasi-Aristotelian this-worldly one.
                  > >
                  > > Wil
                  > > Wil, Husseryl was a jew and must have held Judaic theistic views. It seems Hegel put religion and god aside after his early works , he went secular. Both Hegel and his suicide sister suffered from depression , such people are not known for idealisms. Could it be that FN and Hegel had their world views scewered by pshchological ,depressive problems? All the angst filled growth in existentialism was just the mindset of some of its founders. Kirkegaar in his refudiation of Hegel might have been countering Hegels mental disease and all the religosity in Kirkegaar just an affront to mindsets Kirkegaar detested? Trying to understand today from the mindsets of these relatively ancient men presents unsurpassable problems. As I learn more about existentialism I see a thinner philosophy that has perhaps five or six salient concepts. The rest might be little but random conjecture. Bill
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: William <v.valleywestdental@>
                  > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  > > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 3:07 pm
                  > > Subject: [existlist] Not modern
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not un iversal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  >
                • Mary
                  Bill, The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a skewered mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 28, 2011
                    Bill,

                    The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below

                    http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full

                    Mary
                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Bill,
                    > >
                    > > Not sure what you read on Hegel, but he certainly was interested in the science of his day, as well as economics and mathematics. Husserl actually had the more pessimistic attitude toward science. See his "Crisis..." texts. And for all of the "Spirit" stuff in Hegel, it was Husserl who ended up with a mystical and metaphysical view of things in his mid and late works ("eternal monads", etc.). Husserl ended up with an odd quasi-Platonic philosophy; Hegel with a quasi-Aristotelian this-worldly one.
                    > >
                    > > Wil
                    > > Wil, Husseryl was a jew and must have held Judaic theistic views. It seems Hegel put religion and god aside after his early works , he went secular. Both Hegel and his suicide sister suffered from depression , such people are not known for idealisms. Could it be that FN and Hegel had their world views scewered by pshchological ,depressive problems? All the angst filled growth in existentialism was just the mindset of some of its founders. Kirkegaar in his refudiation of Hegel might have been countering Hegels mental disease and all the religosity in Kirkegaar just an affront to mindsets Kirkegaar detested? Trying to understand today from the mindsets of these relatively ancient men presents unsurpassable problems. As I learn more about existentialism I see a thinner philosophy that has perhaps five or six salient concepts. The rest might be little but random conjecture. Bill
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: William <v.valleywestdental@>
                    > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    > > Sent: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 3:07 pm
                    > > Subject: [existlist] Not modern
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I have been rereading the biographies of Husseryl and Hegel. As I read those men I see I have little in common with the way they think. Reading their list of books I saw they wrote of religion in their early manuscripts. They seemed to view religion as a separate study from philosophy. Hegel did not include scientific knowledge as pertinant to philosophy. Those two distinctions are more than enough to sever my thinking from theirs. Without a god and with modern cosmology the questions I might ask are vastly different from the things considered by these preexistentialists. The pulling apart of galaxys would never have occured to those who did not understand galaxys. Those men were still dealing with god and trying to put that concept away.Hegel believed all thought was rewritten by later thought and that was a radical idea for any time. Now as I see Andromeda approaching Milky Way rather than flying away I must conclude that dark energy studies are not un iversal in their application. Entities as big as galaxies might obey laws more applicable to light speed reactions. Huge masses bend light and change trajectories of equations. Hegel and Husseryl had no view into such knowledge and so could not think like a modern. It is not their fault ,it is evolution which they did not understand at all. Bill
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                  • William
                    I think I can state that Husserel and Hegel considered themselves philosophers. So did FN. Since the time of their writings the great discoveries of man have
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 28, 2011
                      I think I can state that Husserel and Hegel considered themselves philosophers. So did FN. Since the time of their writings the great discoveries of man have been scientific in nature while philosophy has put forth little new and produced few if any great minds. So I begin to separate the age of existentialism and these mentioned great men from modernism. It might be rash to state that existentialism is dead but modernism,driven by science surly is not dead.
                      Writers like Zizak seen small in stature compaired to Hegel or Sartre. If Zizek is an existentialist he is a minor one.Biology and physics have supplanted philosophy as the major contributors to human progress. Indeed Steven Hawkings has jolted reality to a much greater degree than Zizak or Ponte. Watson and Krick have changed medicine and genetics in ways that continue to change the species. Badou and Zizak do not and should not profess science and more and more scientists refuse to discuss philosophy. The former philosophy of science is seldom spoken of. I begin to see existentialism as the last gasp of philosophy while passing the tourch of modernism to scientific discovery. I do not expect any here to agree with that last statement but I see the vocabulary of essence and phenominology and even existance to be captured by existentialism in its last gasps. Bill
                    • Mary
                      Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His
                      Message 10 of 18 , Nov 28, 2011
                        Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Bill,
                        >
                        > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                        >
                        > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                        >
                        > Mary
                      • William
                        ... Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                        Message 11 of 18 , Nov 28, 2011
                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
                          >
                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Bill,
                          > >
                          > > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                          > >
                          > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                          > >
                          > > Mary
                          >
                          Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                        • irvhal
                          While researching Nietzsche recently I was happy to come upon a book, The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche by, of all people, H. L. Mencken. It s a clear
                          Message 12 of 18 , Nov 29, 2011
                            While researching Nietzsche recently I was happy to come upon a book, "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" by, of all people, H. L. Mencken. It's a clear and concise work that gives us a biographical sketch of Nietzsche, including his relationship with Wagner, and a clear exposition of his philosophy and its pertinence to the modernity of Mencken's time.

                            Irvin

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
                            > >
                            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Bill,
                            > > >
                            > > > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                            > > >
                            > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                            > > >
                            > > > Mary
                            > >
                            > Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                            >
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            Menckin s book was the first on Nietzsche in English, I believe. He also translated The AntiChrist, and it is pretty good. Wil ... From: irvhal
                            Message 13 of 18 , Nov 29, 2011
                              Menckin's book was the first on Nietzsche in English, I believe. He also translated The AntiChrist, and it is pretty good.

                              Wil


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: irvhal <i99hj@...>
                              To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 7:04 am
                              Subject: [existlist] Re: American Nietzsche





                              While researching Nietzsche recently I was happy to come upon a book, "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" by, of all people, H. L. Mencken. It's a clear and concise work that gives us a biographical sketch of Nietzsche, including his relationship with Wagner, and a clear exposition of his philosophy and its pertinence to the modernity of Mencken's time.

                              Irvin

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
                              > >
                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Bill,
                              > > >
                              > > > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                              > > >
                              > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                              > > >
                              > > > Mary
                              > >
                              > Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                              >









                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Mary
                              Wil, Regarding the influence of RWE on FN, it seems this was historically underexposed but in recent years perhaps overexposed as FN s letters and notations
                              Message 14 of 18 , Nov 29, 2011
                                Wil,

                                Regarding the influence of RWE on FN, it seems this was historically underexposed but in recent years perhaps overexposed as FN's letters and notations have become available. There are quite a few books available on this subject out there, and I just finished reading a book review at NDPR for Mikics' "The Romance of Individualism in Emerson and Nietzsche". Do you have any thoughts on the value of such scholarship?

                                Mary

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Menckin's book was the first on Nietzsche in English, I believe. He also translated The AntiChrist, and it is pretty good.
                                >
                                > Wil
                                >
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: irvhal <i99hj@...>
                                > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 7:04 am
                                > Subject: [existlist] Re: American Nietzsche
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > While researching Nietzsche recently I was happy to come upon a book, "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" by, of all people, H. L. Mencken. It's a clear and concise work that gives us a biographical sketch of Nietzsche, including his relationship with Wagner, and a clear exposition of his philosophy and its pertinence to the modernity of Mencken's time.
                                >
                                > Irvin
                                >
                                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Bill,
                                > > > >
                                > > > > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                                > > > >
                                > > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Mary
                                > > >
                                > > Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • eupraxis@aol.com
                                Mary, Who isn t a fan of RWE. I have his complete essays five feet to my left over here, and somewhere in this rat s nest I have the complete works. The Essays
                                Message 15 of 18 , Nov 29, 2011
                                  Mary,

                                  Who isn't a fan of RWE. I have his complete essays five feet to my left over here, and somewhere in this rat's nest I have the complete works. The Essays are a classic, especially "On Self Reliance" -- which unfortunately has taken on a right-wing fan base recently, showing how tea-party folks cannot or do not read well (the same for Tom Paine). In any case, Nietzsche and Emerson are ultimately about as far apart as one can get as soon as we bring into the mix "world souls" and transcendentalism. Emerson was a romantic; Nietzsche was precisely anti-Romantic. While it is true that Emerson scandalized the Puritanical protestants of his day (who live on as the core of American stupidity), I cannot imagine how Emerson would have reacted to The AntiChrist! The thing is, while there may be aspects of Emerson that stuck with Fritz, as far as proper influences go he pales to a minor detail in the face of FN's European and Classical roots.

                                  Wil




                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
                                  To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 9:19 am
                                  Subject: [existlist] Re: American Nietzsche





                                  Wil,

                                  Regarding the influence of RWE on FN, it seems this was historically underexposed but in recent years perhaps overexposed as FN's letters and notations have become available. There are quite a few books available on this subject out there, and I just finished reading a book review at NDPR for Mikics' "The Romance of Individualism in Emerson and Nietzsche". Do you have any thoughts on the value of such scholarship?

                                  Mary

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Menckin's book was the first on Nietzsche in English, I believe. He also translated The AntiChrist, and it is pretty good.
                                  >
                                  > Wil
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: irvhal <i99hj@...>
                                  > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 7:04 am
                                  > Subject: [existlist] Re: American Nietzsche
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > While researching Nietzsche recently I was happy to come upon a book, "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" by, of all people, H. L. Mencken. It's a clear and concise work that gives us a biographical sketch of Nietzsche, including his relationship with Wagner, and a clear exposition of his philosophy and its pertinence to the modernity of Mencken's time.
                                  >
                                  > Irvin
                                  >
                                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Bill,
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Mary
                                  > > >
                                  > > Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >









                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Mary
                                  Wil, Thank you. I was long ago more enthralled with Walden and Thanatopsis of that tradition. What seems the tenuous thread for at least Mikac s is that of
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Nov 29, 2011
                                    Wil,

                                    Thank you. I was long ago more enthralled with Walden and Thanatopsis of that tradition. What seems the tenuous thread for at least Mikac's is that of individualism and the diverse paths RWE and FN traveled in that regard, but that is the point after all, the difference.

                                    Mary

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Mary,
                                    >
                                    > Who isn't a fan of RWE. I have his complete essays five feet to my left over here, and somewhere in this rat's nest I have the complete works. The Essays are a classic, especially "On Self Reliance" -- which unfortunately has taken on a right-wing fan base recently, showing how tea-party folks cannot or do not read well (the same for Tom Paine). In any case, Nietzsche and Emerson are ultimately about as far apart as one can get as soon as we bring into the mix "world souls" and transcendentalism. Emerson was a romantic; Nietzsche was precisely anti-Romantic. While it is true that Emerson scandalized the Puritanical protestants of his day (who live on as the core of American stupidity), I cannot imagine how Emerson would have reacted to The AntiChrist! The thing is, while there may be aspects of Emerson that stuck with Fritz, as far as proper influences go he pales to a minor detail in the face of FN's European and Classical roots.
                                    >
                                    > Wil
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                    > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
                                    > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 9:19 am
                                    > Subject: [existlist] Re: American Nietzsche
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Wil,
                                    >
                                    > Regarding the influence of RWE on FN, it seems this was historically underexposed but in recent years perhaps overexposed as FN's letters and notations have become available. There are quite a few books available on this subject out there, and I just finished reading a book review at NDPR for Mikics' "The Romance of Individualism in Emerson and Nietzsche". Do you have any thoughts on the value of such scholarship?
                                    >
                                    > Mary
                                    >
                                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Menckin's book was the first on Nietzsche in English, I believe. He also translated The AntiChrist, and it is pretty good.
                                    > >
                                    > > Wil
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > -----Original Message-----
                                    > > From: irvhal <i99hj@>
                                    > > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > > Sent: Tue, Nov 29, 2011 7:04 am
                                    > > Subject: [existlist] Re: American Nietzsche
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > While researching Nietzsche recently I was happy to come upon a book, "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" by, of all people, H. L. Mencken. It's a clear and concise work that gives us a biographical sketch of Nietzsche, including his relationship with Wagner, and a clear exposition of his philosophy and its pertinence to the modernity of Mencken's time.
                                    > >
                                    > > Irvin
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Bill,
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Mary
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • William
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Nov 29, 2011
                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "irvhal" <i99hj@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > While researching Nietzsche recently I was happy to come upon a book, "The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche" by, of all people, H. L. Mencken. It's a clear and concise work that gives us a biographical sketch of Nietzsche, including his relationship with Wagner, and a clear exposition of his philosophy and its pertinence to the modernity of Mencken's time.
                                      >
                                      > Irvin
                                      >Irvin, Your use of the terms "the modernity of Menckins time" I find most telling. Indeed modernism changes with the times but the core principles of existentialism may or may not change with the times and people dealing with existentialism. Many considered the strident individualism of Anne Rand to mirror existential precepts. Do not tell that to Wil, he will chew your head off. Because I have long been associated with capitalistic individualism I did not find Rand`s business characters unusual or eccentric. They were greedy and aggressive just as the business people of that time. They were not as crooked as the bankers and brokers we deal with today. I take from all of this that one should not look to existentialism for business ethics or even law giving. You seem to understand this. Bill
                                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Follow-up to the review link. . . at Google books on-line there is a great preview of the aforementioned "American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas" By Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Bill,
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > The question of whether or not some ideas conceived by a "skewered" mind are worthy of consideration by those supposedly less skewered has always interested me. You mention Nietzsche again and here's a review of a new book called "American Nietzsche" which deals with the puzzling reception of Nietzsche in America and confirms? the heretofore controversial claim that Emerson influenced him to some degree. Link below
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > http://www.thenation.com/article/164321/american-idol-nietzsche-america?page=full
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Mary
                                      > > >
                                      > > Mary, I read it and refuse homework. Please write ,not underline. I have my own topics to pic. Bill
                                      > >
                                      >
                                    • Mary
                                      Wil, Ratner-Rosenhagen writes in American Nietzsche that one of FN s rare discouraging remarks he made about Emerson was that he wished he were a little
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Nov 29, 2011
                                        Wil,

                                        Ratner-Rosenhagen writes in "American Nietzsche" that one of FN's "rare discouraging remarks he made about Emerson was that he wished he were a little more American, or at least less `beclouded' by the obfuscating `milk glass' of `German philosophy'". Since I'm reading this from the preview at Google Books, I've no access to the footnoted source.

                                        Mary

                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                        The thing is, while there may be aspects of Emerson that stuck with Fritz, as far as proper influences go he pales to a minor detail in the face of FN's European and Classical roots.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.