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

Try existentialism

Expand Messages
  • William
    Certainly Mary understands existentialism and I like her updated conclusions about the philosophy. I would ask her if she thinks herself an existentialist in
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Certainly Mary understands existentialism and I like her updated conclusions about the philosophy. I would ask her if she thinks herself an existentialist in the present time.
      Dick,of course just rambles aimlessly and screams when we try to write on topic existentialism. In recent counts it seems Dick floods the site with about four to one number of posts to what the rest put out. The greater number are about mysticism and I repeat this is not the mystical site,it is the existentialism site.Dick, Did you read the owners posting about rules and customs of the site. You trash them just as you always have.
      I am continully attempting to relate new science to the old body of existentialism. Seti is a part of that science but it has hit a dead end. In any practical sense we are alone in the universe. That relates to our existential situation. There is no other sentient beings close enough to communicate with. The cosmos is just too big and distances too great for any contact with other beings. It seems being alone will be our situation for the duration of the earth and our chances of interstellar travel are slight. We are alone on this rock and we are responsible for what goes on here. That is an existential viewpoint and is in direct contention with religionism,mysticism and any faith based system. We are all alone but with total freedom to take our own chances for better or worse. Certainly some things are bigger than we can manipulate just as distance holds us captive here. But to the level of our ability we are in charge of our own lives with no alligeance to priests ,wisards or mystics. Within the bounds of existentialism I can write what I want, read what I want and think what I want. Dick can do the same but most of the time his mysticism puts him off topic. I suggest he try thinking about our species position of solitude in this cosmos. Forget the dream state that continually surroundsand fogs your perspective and see this world as it is. You don`t get to be a special guru or have special knowledge. You have the same information available to you that the rest of us do. I will argue with you but grant you no special knowledge from your made up world. Try straight line,rational thought and you might die Homo Sapiens not some made up extrapolation. Sincerely,Bill
    • Mary
      Yes, Bill, if I need to apply a label, this would be the one. I relate to Beauvoir s commitment and unfortunately to her sick relationship with Sartre; to his
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 4, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, Bill, if I need to apply a label, this would be the one. I relate to Beauvoir's commitment and unfortunately to her sick relationship with Sartre; to his inquiry into reason, but not his sensibilities; to Camus' sensibilities and understanding of our absurd position in the universe though not his intellectual exposition. The only problem I have with existentialism is when I compare it with Hegel's depth in phenomenology, but that's probably because I haven't read enough Sartre, the only one took on Hegel in his own work. I don't like Sartre's fiction much compared to Camus and think Beauvoir the better novelist.

        We are alone here but also together, and this paradox is most addressed in existentialism. Joy and terror, as you also mentioned, go hand in hand, as do many oppositions in reason. A flight to certain beliefs is understandable but not with the existential condition. The lack of incorporation of science into existentialism is an arguable problem but so are attempts to dilute it to specific philosophers. Looking at the whole body of the philosophy's writers, it easy to observe the differences, but this is a good thing, not a negative. That Heidegger and Nietzsche are in the pantheon is a positive. What do they have in common?

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
        >
        > Certainly Mary understands existentialism and I like her updated conclusions about the philosophy. I would ask her if she thinks herself an existentialist in the present time.
      • William
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
          >
          > Yes, Bill, if I need to apply a label, this would be the one. I relate to Beauvoir's commitment and unfortunately to her sick relationship with Sartre; to his inquiry into reason, but not his sensibilities; to Camus' sensibilities and understanding of our absurd position in the universe though not his intellectual exposition. The only problem I have with existentialism is when I compare it with Hegel's depth in phenomenology, but that's probably because I haven't read enough Sartre, the only one took on Hegel in his own work. I don't like Sartre's fiction much compared to Camus and think Beauvoir the better novelist.
          >
          > We are alone here but also together, and this paradox is most addressed in existentialism. Joy and terror, as you also mentioned, go hand in hand, as do many oppositions in reason. A flight to certain beliefs is understandable but not with the existential condition. The lack of incorporation of science into existentialism is an arguable problem but so are attempts to dilute it to specific philosophers. Looking at the whole body of the philosophy's writers, it easy to observe the differences, but this is a good thing, not a negative. That Heidegger and Nietzsche are in the pantheon is a positive. What do they have in common?
          >
          > Mary
          > Mary, I think it is their germanness. They have the hard,analytic minds that demand rigorous standards and hard thinking. I think it is good that they wrote before Sarter and Camus. They laid down a base that the Frenchmen could color in. I find it easy to relate good science to existentialism and am happy to hear you consider yourself in the existential camp.You certainly understand science and existentialism . Now I will try to pull Dick away from his personal obsessions and back to a more rational base. I really do not expect much success but it is not if you win or lose but how you play the game. Bill
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Certainly Mary understands existentialism and I like her updated conclusions about the philosophy. I would ask her if she thinks herself an existentialist in the present time.
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.