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

Re: books

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Sounds like a great place to begin if you re someone who professes a genuine interest in Existentialism. I tried to find something like that about 15 years
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Sounds like a great place to begin if you're someone who professes a genuine interest in Existentialism. I tried to find something like that about 15 years ago, yet I also don't regret having taken the time to read some of the authors themselves. Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy. At least Merlin and Bill admitted they had no use for it!

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, christopher arthur <chris.arthur1@...> wrote:
      >
      > I just bought "Existentialism for Dummies" for my kindle. Has anyone
      > looked at this book?
      >
    • eduardathome
      “Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy.” Prove it
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        “Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy.”

        Prove it Mary! Tell us how Sartre was not using his brain when he wrote L'étre et le néant. Tell us how Husserl did not use his brain.

        eduard



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:51 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Re: books

        Sounds like a great place to begin if you're someone who professes a genuine interest in Existentialism. I tried to find something like that about 15 years ago, yet I also don't regret having taken the time to read some of the authors themselves. Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy. At least Merlin and Bill admitted they had no use for it!

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, christopher arthur <chris.arthur1@...> wrote:
        >
        > I just bought "Existentialism for Dummies" for my kindle. Has anyone
        > looked at this book?
        >




        ------------------------------------

        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mary
        But, Eduard, no one is saying philosophers don t use their brains. I maintain that you aren t using yours for understanding Existential concepts.Thinking about
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 16, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          But, Eduard, no one is saying philosophers don't use their brains. I maintain that you aren't using yours for understanding Existential concepts.Thinking about neural transmission is doing electrical engineering and thankfully, for this forum, not even rising to the expertise of actual neuroscience, but it's not philosophy. I doubt my neurosurgeon would claim he was performing philosophy when he removed splinters of vertebrae from my spinal cord. And, if he did have an interest in Husserl, he'd never confuse the two.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
          >
          > “Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy.”
          >
          > Prove it Mary! Tell us how Sartre was not using his brain when he wrote L'étre et le néant. Tell us how Husserl did not use his brain.
          >
          > eduard
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mary
          > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:51 PM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: books
          >
          > Sounds like a great place to begin if you're someone who professes a genuine interest in Existentialism. I tried to find something like that about 15 years ago, yet I also don't regret having taken the time to read some of the authors themselves. Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy. At least Merlin and Bill admitted they had no use for it!
          >
          > Mary
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, christopher arthur <chris.arthur1@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I just bought "Existentialism for Dummies" for my kindle. Has anyone
          > > looked at this book?
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
          >
          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • christopher arthur
          Well, anyway, the book is very easy to read. I have actually read all of Being and Time, and I am almost sure I didn t understand most of it, so I m trying a
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 16, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, anyway, the book is very easy to read. I have actually read all
            of Being and Time, and I am almost sure I didn't understand most of it,
            so I'm trying a new approach.



            On 6/16/2013 7:11 PM, Mary wrote:
            >
            > But, Eduard, no one is saying philosophers don't use their brains. I
            > maintain that you aren't using yours for understanding Existential
            > concepts.Thinking about neural transmission is doing electrical
            > engineering and thankfully, for this forum, not even rising to the
            > expertise of actual neuroscience, but it's not philosophy. I doubt my
            > neurosurgeon would claim he was performing philosophy when he removed
            > splinters of vertebrae from my spinal cord. And, if he did have an
            > interest in Husserl, he'd never confuse the two.
            >
            > Mary
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>,
            > eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > âEURoeGenerally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire
            > to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing
            > philosophy.âEUR?
            > >
            > > Prove it Mary! Tell us how Sartre was not using his brain when he
            > wrote L'étre et le néant. Tell us how Husserl did not use his brain.
            > >
            > > eduard
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Mary
            > > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:51 PM
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
            > > Subject: [existlist] Re: books
            > >
            > > Sounds like a great place to begin if you're someone who professes a
            > genuine interest in Existentialism. I tried to find something like
            > that about 15 years ago, yet I also don't regret having taken the time
            > to read some of the authors themselves. Generally it seems some here
            > have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that
            > simply using their brain is doing philosophy. At least Merlin and Bill
            > admitted they had no use for it!
            > >
            > > Mary
            > >
            > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>, christopher arthur
            > <chris.arthur1@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I just bought "Existentialism for Dummies" for my kindle. Has anyone
            > > > looked at this book?
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
            > nothing!
            > >
            > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • eduardathome
            Mary, That is precisely what you are saying. You said .... “simply using their brain is doing philosophy”. Of course, you actually wanted to make a
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 17, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Mary,

              That is precisely what you are saying. You said .... “simply using their brain is doing philosophy”. Of course, you actually wanted to make a cutting remark against me as is evidenced by the “some here”.

              On what basis can you say that that looking at existentialism through the lens of neurology is not speaking in regard to philosophy??

              According to Wikipedia, philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge,values, reason, mind, and language.

              What you are doing is to object to a particular mode of this study. It’s Ok to talk about consciousness of the mind but under no circumstances can one speak about what actually occurs in the mind ... that is, in the brain. Probably because you are not familiar with the approach and perhaps because it is threatening.

              Your example is false. Of course, your neurosurgeon would not claim he is performing philosophy [if philosophy could be performed]. But how would he react if you forbid him using his knowledge of neurology to examine Husserl’s phenomenology??

              By the way, there is such a thing as “philosophy of mind”. See .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

              eduard


              -----Original Message-----
              From: Mary
              Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:11 PM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [existlist] Re: books

              But, Eduard, no one is saying philosophers don't use their brains. I maintain that you aren't using yours for understanding Existential concepts.Thinking about neural transmission is doing electrical engineering and thankfully, for this forum, not even rising to the expertise of actual neuroscience, but it's not philosophy. I doubt my neurosurgeon would claim he was performing philosophy when he removed splinters of vertebrae from my spinal cord. And, if he did have an interest in Husserl, he'd never confuse the two.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
              >
              > “Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy.”
              >
              > Prove it Mary! Tell us how Sartre was not using his brain when he wrote L'étre et le néant. Tell us how Husserl did not use his brain.
              >
              > eduard
              >
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Mary
              > Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:51 PM
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [existlist] Re: books
              >
              > Sounds like a great place to begin if you're someone who professes a genuine interest in Existentialism. I tried to find something like that about 15 years ago, yet I also don't regret having taken the time to read some of the authors themselves. Generally it seems some here have neither ability nor desire to think abstractly but insist that simply using their brain is doing philosophy. At least Merlin and Bill admitted they had no use for it!
              >
              > Mary
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, christopher arthur <chris.arthur1@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I just bought "Existentialism for Dummies" for my kindle. Has anyone
              > > looked at this book?
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >




              ------------------------------------

              Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

              Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mary
              Thanks for this h. I finally got a chance to view the Physical theory won t do the job portion of the interview. I ve followed Chalmers on and off for about
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 17, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for this h. I finally got a chance to view the "Physical theory won't do the job" portion of the interview. I've followed Chalmers on and off for about 10 years as he's probably the most comprehensive compiler and critique of all the various philosophies of mind. I like what he says about needing an explanation which is not only physical but one which also incorporates experience. For our present discussion, the experience of thought is different from the neural process of thought.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:
                >
                > http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1187
                >
                > David Chalmers (The Conscious Mind) and John Horgan (Stevens Center for Science Writings, Cross-check)
                >
                > Why consciousness captivates David 5:23
                > The Woodstock of consciousness studies 8:29
                > Physical theory won't do the job 5:37
                > Why can't a thermostat be conscious? 7:57
                > Can we study consciousness without a consciousness meter? 9:33
                > John's enthusiasm for The Matrix nosedives 16:32
                >
                > I recommend this fascinating video interview which addresses some of the questions brought up here lately.
                >
                > More Chalmers info:
                > http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chalmers/
                >
                > h.
                >
              • existlist
                Yeah, qualia is a real mystery. :) I m glad you find it interesting. I started to watch some here too but then got busy with other stuff.
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 17, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yeah, qualia is a real mystery. :) I'm glad you find it interesting. I started to watch some here too but then got busy with other stuff.
                  http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/David-Chalmers/18

                  h.

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Thanks for this h. I finally got a chance to view the "Physical theory won't do the job" portion of the interview. I've followed Chalmers on and off for about 10 years as he's probably the most comprehensive compiler and critique of all the various philosophies of mind. I like what he says about needing an explanation which is not only physical but one which also incorporates experience. For our present discussion, the experience of thought is different from the neural process of thought.
                  >
                  > Mary
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1187
                  > >
                  > > David Chalmers (The Conscious Mind) and John Horgan (Stevens Center for Science Writings, Cross-check)
                  > >
                  > > Why consciousness captivates David 5:23
                  > > The Woodstock of consciousness studies 8:29
                  > > Physical theory won't do the job 5:37
                  > > Why can't a thermostat be conscious? 7:57
                  > > Can we study consciousness without a consciousness meter? 9:33
                  > > John's enthusiasm for The Matrix nosedives 16:32
                  > >
                  > > I recommend this fascinating video interview which addresses some of the questions brought up here lately.
                  > >
                  > > More Chalmers info:
                  > > http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chalmers/
                  > >
                  > > h.
                  > >
                  >
                • existlist
                  At first I thought I may have read that once but I think it was Philosophy for Dummies that I owned. Not sure. I do remember it being helpful. The Dummies
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 29, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At first I thought I may have read that once but I think it was Philosophy for Dummies that I owned. Not sure. I do remember it being helpful. The Dummies books are great.

                    h.

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, christopher arthur <chris.arthur1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I just bought "Existentialism for Dummies" for my kindle. Has anyone
                    > looked at this book?
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.