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

RE: Detrimental to democracy?

Expand Messages
  • existlist
    Mary, I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that he sort of addresses some of your questions here.
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Mary,

      I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that

      he sort of addresses some of your questions here.


      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw


      @hermitcrab 



      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      Today, I suspect that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre have each in their unique way accelerated the demise of democracy. Nietzsche most clearly with his disdain for democracy; Kierkegaard with his isolationist Christianity; Heidegger with his Fatherland; and Sartre through his turn to Stalin and Mao. Though not as radically subjectivist as nihilists or postmodernists, they've been complicit in the creation of cynicism, apathy, and self-centeredness within a burgeoning corporate aristocracy. Where are our representatives in the corridors of power? Who bothers to vote? Who bothers to let their representatives hear their opinions, and why don't representatives vote their constituency? I know I haven't made a clear connection between existentialism and democracy but hoping someone can argue this. I'm disgusted with our obstructionist U.S. Congress but very anxious about their eagerness to embroil us in the Syrian and growing Middle Eastern conflagration.  Mary
    • Mary
      Thanks for the video link. It would be nice to live in this kind of vibrant democracy Graeber imagines, since our so called democracy is dominated by big
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the video link. It would be nice to live in this kind of vibrant democracy Graeber imagines, since our so called democracy is dominated by big money, and hence media, So many people are told which of only two perspectives they should adopt while falsely believing they are thinking for themselves. I like the idea of a participatory democracy which involves policy making by the many instead of the few wealthy. I wonder how the consensus arrived at by people who are willing to surrender their selves to a common goal would be met my the powerful. In other words, how would this consensus translate to actual powerful changes? I do lots of little things like sign petitions, but so much money is required to take issues to court and to counter special interests I fear it wouldn't work. Other than putting financial pressure on corporations through boycotts and counter advertising to cease their sponsoring of unpopular laws and policies and chairing
        committees and commissions in which citizens have no voice, I'm afraid any pleasure I have is small but nevertheless valuable. Where I see the existentialist topic of individuality and meaning in this video is in surrender to the common good which is also what the powerful/wealthy imagine they are accomplishing for the good of the few.   


        Mary 


        ________________________________
        From: "hermitcrab65@..." <hermitcrab65@...>
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:05 PM
        Subject: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?








        Mary,
        I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that
        he sort of addresses some of your questions here.


        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw


        @hermitcrab 




        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:




        Today, I suspect that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre have each in their unique way accelerated the demise of democracy. Nietzsche most clearly with his disdain for democracy; Kierkegaard with his isolationist Christianity; Heidegger with his Fatherland; and Sartre through his turn to Stalin and Mao. Though not as radically subjectivist as nihilists or postmodernists, they've been complicit in the creation of cynicism, apathy, and self-centeredness within a burgeoning corporate aristocracy. Where are our representatives in the corridors of power? Who bothers to vote? Who bothers to let their representatives hear their opinions, and why don't representatives vote their constituency? I know I haven't made a clear connection between existentialism and democracy but hoping someone can argue this. I'm disgusted with our obstructionist U.S. Congress but very anxious about their eagerness to embroil us in the Syrian and growing Middle Eastern
        conflagration.  Mary
         
      • hermit crab
        Yeah, I don t have answers. Just thought I d throw it into the pot. :) h.
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Yeah, I don't have answers. Just thought I'd throw it into the pot. :)


          h.


          On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
          > Thanks for the video link. It would be nice to live in this kind of vibrant democracy Graeber imagines, since our so called democracy is dominated by big money, and hence media, So many people are told which of only two perspectives they should adopt while falsely believing they are thinking for themselves. I like the idea of a participatory democracy which involves policy making by the many instead of the few wealthy. I wonder how the consensus arrived at by people who are willing to surrender their selves to a common goal would be met my the powerful. In other words, how would this consensus translate to actual powerful changes? I do lots of little things like sign petitions, but so much money is required to take issues to court and to counter special interests I fear it wouldn't work. Other than putting financial pressure on corporations through boycotts and counter advertising to cease their sponsoring of unpopular laws and policies and chairing
          > committees and commissions in which citizens have no voice, I'm afraid any pleasure I have is small but nevertheless valuable. Where I see the existentialist topic of individuality and meaning in this video is in surrender to the common good which is also what the powerful/wealthy imagine they are accomplishing for the good of the few.
          >
          >
          > Mary
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: "hermitcrab65@..." <hermitcrab65@...>
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:05 PM
          > Subject: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Mary,
          > I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that
          > he sort of addresses some of your questions here.
          >
          >
          > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw
          >
          >
          > @hermitcrab
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Today, I suspect that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre have each in their unique way accelerated the demise of democracy. Nietzsche most clearly with his disdain for democracy; Kierkegaard with his isolationist Christianity; Heidegger with his Fatherland; and Sartre through his turn to Stalin and Mao. Though not as radically subjectivist as nihilists or postmodernists, they've been complicit in the creation of cynicism, apathy, and self-centeredness within a burgeoning corporate aristocracy. Where are our representatives in the corridors of power? Who bothers to vote? Who bothers to let their representatives hear their opinions, and why don't representatives vote their constituency? I know I haven't made a clear connection between existentialism and democracy but hoping someone can argue this. I'm disgusted with our obstructionist U.S. Congress but very anxious about their eagerness to embroil us in the Syrian and growing Middle Eastern
          > conflagration. Mary
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
          >
          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
        • Mary
          Here s another video to throw in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ugb7Pdqi-U I m enjoying it and look forward to your response. Mary
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 27, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Here's another video to throw in.


            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ugb7Pdqi-U


            I'm enjoying it and look forward to your response.


            Mary


            ________________________________
            From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:02 PM
            Subject: Re: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?








            Yeah, I don't have answers.  Just thought I'd throw it into the pot.  :)


            h.


            On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
            > Thanks for the video link. It would be nice to live in this kind of vibrant democracy Graeber imagines, since our so called democracy is dominated by big money, and hence media, So many people are told which of only two perspectives they should adopt while falsely believing they are thinking for themselves. I like the idea of a participatory democracy which involves policy making by the many instead of the few wealthy. I wonder how the consensus arrived at by people who are willing to surrender their selves to a common goal would be met my the powerful. In other words, how would this consensus translate to actual powerful changes? I do lots of little things like sign petitions, but so much money is required to take issues to court and to counter special interests I fear it wouldn't work. Other than putting financial pressure on corporations through boycotts and counter advertising to cease their sponsoring of unpopular laws and policies and chairing
            >  committees and commissions in which citizens have no voice, I'm afraid any pleasure I have is small but nevertheless valuable. Where I see the existentialist topic of individuality and meaning in this video is in surrender to the common good which is also what the powerful/wealthy imagine they are accomplishing for the good of the few.
            >
            >
            > Mary
            >
            >
            > ________________________________
            > From: "hermitcrab65@..." <hermitcrab65@...>
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:05 PM
            > Subject: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Mary,
            > I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that
            > he sort of addresses some of your questions here.
            >
            >
            > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw
            >
            >
            > @hermitcrab
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Today, I suspect that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre have each in their unique way accelerated the demise of democracy. Nietzsche most clearly with his disdain for democracy; Kierkegaard with his isolationist Christianity; Heidegger with his Fatherland; and Sartre through his turn to Stalin and Mao. Though not as radically subjectivist as nihilists or postmodernists, they've been complicit in the creation of cynicism, apathy, and self-centeredness within a burgeoning corporate aristocracy. Where are our representatives in the corridors of power? Who bothers to vote? Who bothers to let their representatives hear their opinions, and why don't representatives vote their constituency? I know I haven't made a clear connection between existentialism and democracy but hoping someone can argue this. I'm disgusted with our obstructionist U.S. Congress but very anxious about their eagerness to embroil us in the Syrian and growing Middle Eastern
            >  conflagration.  Mary
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >

            > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
            >
            > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >


               
          • Mary
            ... From: Mary To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Cc: Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 4:16 PM Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Forwarded Message -----
              From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
              To: "existlist@yahoogroups.com" <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
              Cc:
              Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 4:16 PM
              Subject: Re: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?


              Here's another video to throw in.


              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ugb7Pdqi-U


              I'm enjoying it and look forward to your response.


              Mary


              ________________________________
              From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:02 PM
              Subject: Re: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?








              Yeah, I don't have answers.  Just thought I'd throw it into the pot.  :)


              h.


              On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              > Thanks for the video link. It would be nice to live in this kind of vibrant democracy Graeber imagines, since our so called democracy is dominated by big money, and hence media, So many people are told which of only two perspectives they should adopt while falsely believing they are thinking for themselves. I like the idea of a participatory democracy which involves policy making by the many instead of the few wealthy. I wonder how the consensus arrived at by people who are willing to surrender their selves to a common goal would be met my the powerful. In other words, how would this consensus translate to actual powerful changes? I do lots of little things like sign petitions, but so much money is required to take issues to court and to counter special interests I fear it wouldn't work. Other than putting financial pressure on corporations through boycotts and counter advertising to cease their sponsoring of unpopular laws and policies and chairing
              >  committees and commissions in which citizens have no voice, I'm afraid any pleasure I have is small but nevertheless valuable. Where I see the existentialist topic of individuality and meaning in this video is in surrender to the common good which is also what the powerful/wealthy imagine they are accomplishing for the good of the few.
              >
              >
              > Mary
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: "hermitcrab65@..." <hermitcrab65@...>
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:05 PM
              > Subject: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Mary,

              > I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that
              > he sort of addresses some of your questions here.
              >
              >
              > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw
              >
              >
              > @hermitcrab
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              >

              > Today, I suspect that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre have each in their unique way accelerated the demise of democracy. Nietzsche most clearly with his disdain for democracy; Kierkegaard with his isolationist Christianity; Heidegger with his Fatherland; and Sartre through his turn to Stalin and Mao. Though not as radically subjectivist as nihilists or postmodernists, they've been complicit in the creation of cynicism, apathy, and self-centeredness within a burgeoning corporate aristocracy. Where are our representatives in the corridors of power? Who bothers to vote? Who bothers to let their representatives hear their opinions, and why don't representatives vote their constituency? I know I haven't made a clear connection between existentialism and democracy but hoping someone can argue this. I'm disgusted with our obstructionist U.S. Congress but very anxious about their eagerness to embroil us in the Syrian and growing Middle Eastern
              >  conflagration.  Mary
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

              >
              >
              >


                 
            • hermit crab
              Just now watching it Mary. I don t think individualism will ever be the problem and that it IS the market that has taken everything over. This seems to be
              Message 6 of 23 , Oct 6, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Just now watching it Mary. I don't think individualism will ever be
                the problem and that it IS the market that has taken everything over.
                This seems to be what the first speaker is saying. Individualism vs
                Collectivism is not the issue. Maybe someone else is watching it. I
                just now found the video in my inbox and don't know how long ago it
                arrived.


                The war on individualism is about control.


                @hermitcrab65 (twitter)


                On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                > Here's another video to throw in.
                >
                >
                > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ugb7Pdqi-U
                >
                >
                > I'm enjoying it and look forward to your response.
                >
                >
                > Mary
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:02 PM
                > Subject: Re: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yeah, I don't have answers. Just thought I'd throw it into the pot. :)
                >
                >
                > h.
                >
                >
                > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                >> Thanks for the video link. It would be nice to live in this kind of vibrant democracy Graeber imagines, since our so called democracy is dominated by big money, and hence media, So many people are told which of only two perspectives they should adopt while falsely believing they are thinking for themselves. I like the idea of a participatory democracy which involves policy making by the many instead of the few wealthy. I wonder how the consensus arrived at by people who are willing to surrender their selves to a common goal would be met my the powerful. In other words, how would this consensus translate to actual powerful changes? I do lots of little things like sign petitions, but so much money is required to take issues to court and to counter special interests I fear it wouldn't work. Other than putting financial pressure on corporations through boycotts and counter advertising to cease their sponsoring of unpopular laws and policies and chairing
                >> committees and commissions in which citizens have no voice, I'm afraid any pleasure I have is small but nevertheless valuable. Where I see the existentialist topic of individuality and meaning in this video is in surrender to the common good which is also what the powerful/wealthy imagine they are accomplishing for the good of the few.
                >>
                >>
                >> Mary
                >>
                >>
                >> ________________________________
                >> From: "hermitcrab65@..." <hermitcrab65@...>
                >> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                >> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:05 PM
                >> Subject: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> Mary,
                >> I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that
                >> he sort of addresses some of your questions here.
                >>
                >>
                >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw
                >>
                >>
                >> @hermitcrab
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> Today, I suspect that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre have each in their unique way accelerated the demise of democracy. Nietzsche most clearly with his disdain for democracy; Kierkegaard with his isolationist Christianity; Heidegger with his Fatherland; and Sartre through his turn to Stalin and Mao. Though not as radically subjectivist as nihilists or postmodernists, they've been complicit in the creation of cynicism, apathy, and self-centeredness within a burgeoning corporate aristocracy. Where are our representatives in the corridors of power? Who bothers to vote? Who bothers to let their representatives hear their opinions, and why don't representatives vote their constituency? I know I haven't made a clear connection between existentialism and democracy but hoping someone can argue this. I'm disgusted with our obstructionist U.S. Congress but very anxious about their eagerness to embroil us in the Syrian and growing Middle Eastern
                >> conflagration. Mary
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> ------------------------------------
                >>
                >
                >> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                >>
                >> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >

                > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                >
                > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
              • jimstuart51
                h, Mary, Thank you very much for posting those two videos on the forum. I have watched them over the last day or so and they are both very stimulating and
                Message 7 of 23 , Oct 8, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  h, Mary,


                  Thank you very much for posting those two videos on the forum. I have watched them over the last day or so and they are both very stimulating and insightful.

                  I was really keen on what David Graeber said - if only politics could be like that!

                  What he said is very similar to what a philosopher friend of mine here in Nottingham has been arguing for. My friend has found these particular ideas in the writing of Hannah Arendt and Jurgen Habermas. Both argue that politics should be about debating together as a group with the aim of solving problems which respect everybody's preferences and can be agreed to by all.

                  Graeber makes the valid point, in my view, that democracy and equality very much go together - you can't have one without the other. 

                  The longer discussion about individualism contained a lot of interesting and sensible ideas. The central idea, which I think all the speakers agreed on, was that the market has far too much influence in current Western societies, and a smaller role for the market would do us all a favour.

                  Jim

                   

                  ---In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:

                  Just now watching it Mary. I don't think individualism will ever be
                  the problem and that it IS the market that has taken everything over.
                  This seems to be what the first speaker is saying. Individualism vs
                  Collectivism is not the issue. Maybe someone else is watching it. I
                  just now found the video in my inbox and don't know how long ago it
                  arrived.


                  The war on individualism is about control.


                  @hermitcrab65 (twitter)


                  On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                  > Here's another video to throw in.
                  >
                  >
                  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ugb7Pdqi-U
                  >
                  >
                  > I'm enjoying it and look forward to your response.
                  >
                  >
                  > Mary
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:02 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yeah, I don't have answers. Just thought I'd throw it into the pot. :)
                  >
                  >
                  > h.
                  >
                  >
                  > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                  >> Thanks for the video link. It would be nice to live in this kind of vibrant democracy Graeber imagines, since our so called democracy is dominated by big money, and hence media, So many people are told which of only two perspectives they should adopt while falsely believing they are thinking for themselves. I like the idea of a participatory democracy which involves policy making by the many instead of the few wealthy. I wonder how the consensus arrived at by people who are willing to surrender their selves to a common goal would be met my the powerful. In other words, how would this consensus translate to actual powerful changes? I do lots of little things like sign petitions, but so much money is required to take issues to court and to counter special interests I fear it wouldn't work. Other than putting financial pressure on corporations through boycotts and counter advertising to cease their sponsoring of unpopular laws and policies and chairing
                  >> committees and commissions in which citizens have no voice, I'm afraid any pleasure I have is small but nevertheless valuable. Where I see the existentialist topic of individuality and meaning in this video is in surrender to the common good which is also what the powerful/wealthy imagine they are accomplishing for the good of the few.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Mary
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> ________________________________
                  >> From: "hermitcrab65@..." <hermitcrab65@...>
                  >> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  >> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:05 PM
                  >> Subject: [existlist] RE: Detrimental to democracy?
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Mary,
                  >> I was watching this David Graeber video a day or so ago and suddenly today it hit me that
                  >> he sort of addresses some of your questions here.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eR_95slEFw
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> @hermitcrab
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Today, I suspect that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre have each in their unique way accelerated the demise of democracy. Nietzsche most clearly with his disdain for democracy; Kierkegaard with his isolationist Christianity; Heidegger with his Fatherland; and Sartre through his turn to Stalin and Mao. Though not as radically subjectivist as nihilists or postmodernists, they've been complicit in the creation of cynicism, apathy, and self-centeredness within a burgeoning corporate aristocracy. Where are our representatives in the corridors of power? Who bothers to vote? Who bothers to let their representatives hear their opinions, and why don't representatives vote their constituency? I know I haven't made a clear connection between existentialism and democracy but hoping someone can argue this. I'm disgusted with our obstructionist U.S. Congress but very anxious about their eagerness to embroil us in the Syrian and growing Middle Eastern
                  >> conflagration. Mary
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> ------------------------------------
                  >>
                  >
                  >> Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                  >>
                  >> Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >

                  > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                  >
                  > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • poseidon715
                  Just going through the archives and noticed that a year ago as of last year (September 2013) the conversations seemed to drop off. Mary, this is an insightful
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 30, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Just going through the archives and noticed that a year ago as of last year (September 2013) the conversations seemed to drop off.

                    Mary, this is an insightful analysis and while I don't know if I agree with this opinion completely, I will say that I have been uncomfortable with the paranoid religiousity of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, and the shakey moral ground in regards to society in Heidegger and Sartre. I stand firm in my beliefs of radical freedom, the primacy of the Subjective individual, etc, but this criticism against existentialism is one of the strongest and must be addressed in any serious existential philosophy beyond the $4.00 latte discussions.
                  • josephson45r
                    I suppose a passionate individual who risks the Public s scorn can lead others by example in the political arena, but it wouldn t be with the hope of changing
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 30, 2014
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I suppose a passionate individual who risks the Public's scorn can lead others by example in the political arena, but it wouldn't be with the hope of changing the Public. The "knight of faith" is motivated by their own fidelity to what they believe to be true, whether others follow or not. Is that right? I imagine Kierkegaard is more concerned with concrete relationship and community versus abstract democracy. 


                    • poseidon715
                      I imagine that the closest realization of a concrete body politic would be direct democracy.
                      Message 10 of 23 , Oct 1, 2014
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I imagine that the closest realization of a concrete body politic would be direct democracy.  
                      • Mary
                        But a similar danger appears with direct democracy as with the representative form if each vote is based in abstract Public Reflection rather than on the
                        Message 11 of 23 , Oct 2, 2014
                        • 0 Attachment
                          But a similar danger appears with direct democracy as with the representative form if each vote is based in abstract Public Reflection rather than on the individual conviction. I would think Kierkegaard envisions the concrete body politic as those rare individuals who act and vote, rightly or wrongly, on their personal convictions rather than those of Public Reflection, whether religious or not. 

                          The obvious fact that there aren't enough politically diverse candidates for us to choose between indicates that Reflection dictates only two possibilities which actually present no choice at all. The status quo must continue, and most voters are afraid to vote for a write-in candidate or a third party candidate since they consider such a vote a wasted vote. Here we see levelling and acquiescence at their best.

                          Mary  


                          On Thursday, October 2, 2014 12:43 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                           
                          I imagine that the closest realization of a concrete body politic would be direct democracy.  


                        • poseidon715
                          Any form of government, be it democratic or autocratic, indeed suffers from this moral ambiguity brought on by the Public. Government, in this sense, can hold
                          Message 12 of 23 , Oct 2, 2014
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Any form of government, be it democratic or autocratic, indeed suffers from this moral ambiguity brought on by the Public.  Government, in this sense, can hold no moral weight upon the individual.  The Public realm can involve decision making within the bounds of “better and worse”, but never purely “Moral and Immoral”, for pure morality lies within the reach of the individual only.

                             

                            I completely agree with you concerning the bankrupt state of the Western two-party system (and here I assume you are speaking of America in particular).  The American political machine is fueled on the idea that the Public will decide together which choices are best for the citizenry to discuss and “decide” upon.  The existence of the possibility of the “write-in candidate” is more important for the communication of the appearance of choice than any actual meaningful mechanism for electing a real grass-roots alternative.  

                          • Anton Cagle
                            Would you consider some of these existential ideals ( particularly Kierkegaard s, but others as well), to point toward a kind of Platonic Republicanism, with
                            Message 13 of 23 , Oct 2, 2014
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Would you consider some of these existential ideals ( particularly Kierkegaard's, but others as well), to point toward a kind of Platonic Republicanism, with enlightened philosopher kings calling the shots for the Public herd?

                              Sent from my iPhone

                              On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Mary josephson45r@... [existlist] <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                               

                              But a similar danger appears with direct democracy as with the representative form if each vote is based in abstract Public Reflection rather than on the individual conviction. I would think Kierkegaard envisions the concrete body politic as those rare individuals who act and vote, rightly or wrongly, on their personal convictions rather than those of Public Reflection, whether religious or not. 

                              The obvious fact that there aren't enough politically diverse candidates for us to choose between indicates that Reflection dictates only two possibilities which actually present no choice at all. The status quo must continue, and most voters are afraid to vote for a write-in candidate or a third party candidate since they consider such a vote a wasted vote. Here we see levelling and acquiescence at their best.

                              Mary  


                              On Thursday, October 2, 2014 12:43 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                               
                              I imagine that the closest realization of a concrete body politic would be direct democracy.  


                            • Mary
                              I d hate to think so. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, one Christian one seemingly not, wrote as if they vehemently opposed democracy. Other existentialists (avowed
                              Message 14 of 23 , Oct 2, 2014
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I'd hate to think so. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, one Christian one seemingly not, wrote as if they vehemently opposed democracy. Other existentialists (avowed or disavowed) threw in with either communism or fascism. It's difficult to discern whether any of them gave a whit about other individuals in an abstract sense, or in a concrete sense for that matter.

                                Mary


                                On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:08 AM, "Anton Cagle poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                 
                                Would you consider some of these existential ideals ( particularly Kierkegaard's, but others as well), to point toward a kind of Platonic Republicanism, with enlightened philosopher kings calling the shots for the Public herd?

                                Sent from my iPhone

                                On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Mary josephson45r@... [existlist] <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                 
                                But a similar danger appears with direct democracy as with the representative form if each vote is based in abstract Public Reflection rather than on the individual conviction. I would think Kierkegaard envisions the concrete body politic as those rare individuals who act and vote, rightly or wrongly, on their personal convictions rather than those of Public Reflection, whether religious or not. 

                                The obvious fact that there aren't enough politically diverse candidates for us to choose between indicates that Reflection dictates only two possibilities which actually present no choice at all. The status quo must continue, and most voters are afraid to vote for a write-in candidate or a third party candidate since they consider such a vote a wasted vote. Here we see levelling and acquiescence at their best.

                                Mary  


                                On Thursday, October 2, 2014 12:43 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                 
                                I imagine that the closest realization of a concrete body politic would be direct democracy.  




                              • poseidon715
                                I am sensing some vitriol against our existential philosophic forerunners. Do you have a line of existential or political thought that you find more
                                Message 15 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I am sensing some vitriol against our existential philosophic forerunners. Do you have a line of existential or political thought that you find more enlightening. I am very interested...
                                • Mary
                                  No not really, only about halfway through these writers and yet to find any I m completely in sync with. Partial resonance is okay though, right? Either
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    No not really, only about halfway through these writers and yet to find any I'm completely in sync with. Partial resonance is okay though, right? Either they're sexist, fascist, theist or communist but I'll keep on. Any suggestions?

                                    Mary  


                                    On Friday, October 3, 2014 9:58 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                     
                                    I am sensing some vitriol against our existential philosophic forerunners. Do you have a line of existential or political thought that you find more enlightening. I am very interested...


                                  • poseidon715
                                    I actually find some political solace in the anarchist line of thought found in existentialism - particularly Kierkegaard and Camus. Camus s sentiment that
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      I actually find some political solace in the anarchist line of thought found in existentialism - particularly Kierkegaard and Camus.  Camus's sentiment that rebellion is the natural state of man did not make sense to me until I placed it within a political context.  I loved The Myth of Sisyphus as a student, but my thought was always “how can someone devote their entire life to pointless rebellion?”  I read it again many years later, not long after the Occupy movement (of which I played a small part – virtually at least), and I watched a short documentary on his relationship with Sartre and the effects of the French Resistance on each of them.  It then occurred to me that his entire worldview was essentially colored by that direct political action, and the immediate fallout in France after WWII as the French attempted to find their place on the world stage between the two new superpowers.  Sartre sided with the East and Camus sided with neither. Speaking of both East and West he made the famous statement, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”  Later French thinkers, such as Jacques Ellul, continued in this anarchist tradition, and while Ellul is not considered an existentialist (he is typically grouped with Chomsky as a philosophical anarchist), his views of individuality and rebellion clearly place him in a line of thought bookended between Sartre and Camus on one side and Baudrillard on the other.

                                       

                                      In terms of 18th century thinking, I find Kierkegaard’s radical views of the individual to be a direct influence on Tolstoy, one of the two great European anarchists of that century.  While Nietzsche did have a great influence on political thinkers who came later, I am less interested in any political or social ideas he may have espoused and more fascinated by his proto-deconstruction of power structures that opened the way to the great social-political critiques of Foucault a century later. 

                                    • Mary
                                      Camus rejected the label of existentialist and is often described as a moralist. He definitely isn t an anarchist, since his rebellion is the artist s
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Camus rejected the label of existentialist and is often described as a moralist. He definitely isn't an anarchist, since his rebellion is the artist's rebellion rather than political revolt. If I had to choose a favorite writer between Sartre, Beauvoir and Camus, hands down it would be Camus. Not the most studied philosopher of the three, but definitely warmer and more authentic. His political opinions aren't radical enough for some people, but I appreciate his solidarity in solitude approachwe're alone in this together.

                                        Mary




                                        On Friday, October 3, 2014 11:33 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                         
                                        I actually find some political solace in the anarchist line of thought found in existentialism - particularly Kierkegaard and Camus.  Camus's sentiment that rebellion is the natural state of man did not make sense to me until I placed it within a political context.  I loved The Myth of Sisyphus as a student, but my thought was always “how can someone devote their entire life to pointless rebellion?”  I read it again many years later, not long after the Occupy movement (of which I played a small part – virtually at least), and I watched a short documentary on his relationship with Sartre and the effects of the French Resistance on each of them.  It then occurred to me that his entire worldview was essentially colored by that direct political action, and the immediate fallout in France after WWII as the French attempted to find their place on the world stage between the two new superpowers.  Sartre sided with the East and Camus sided with neither. Speaking of both East and West he made the famous statement, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”  Later French thinkers, such as Jacques Ellul, continued in this anarchist tradition, and while Ellul is not considered an existentialist (he is typically grouped with Chomsky as a philosophical anarchist), his views of individuality and rebellion clearly place him in a line of thought bookended between Sartre and Camus on one side and Baudrillard on the other.
                                         
                                        In terms of 18th century thinking, I find Kierkegaard’s radical views of the individual to be a direct influence on Tolstoy, one of the two great European anarchists of that century.  While Nietzsche did have a great influence on political thinkers who came later, I am less interested in any political or social ideas he may have espoused and more fascinated by his proto-deconstruction of power structures that opened the way to the great social-political critiques of Foucault a century later. 


                                      • Anton Cagle
                                        If you don t mind me asking, what angle are you coming from as someone interested in existentialism? Sent from my iPhone ... If you don t mind me asking, what
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          If you don't mind me asking, what angle are you coming from as someone interested in existentialism? 

                                          Sent from my iPhone

                                          On Oct 3, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Mary josephson45r@... [existlist] <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                           

                                          Camus rejected the label of existentialist and is often described as a moralist. He definitely isn't an anarchist, since his rebellion is the artist's rebellion rather than political revolt. If I had to choose a favorite writer between Sartre, Beauvoir and Camus, hands down it would be Camus. Not the most studied philosopher of the three, but definitely warmer and more authentic. His political opinions aren't radical enough for some people, but I appreciate his solidarity in solitude approachwe're alone in this together.

                                          Mary




                                          On Friday, October 3, 2014 11:33 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                           
                                          I actually find some political solace in the anarchist line of thought found in existentialism - particularly Kierkegaard and Camus.  Camus's sentiment that rebellion is the natural state of man did not make sense to me until I placed it within a political context.  I loved The Myth of Sisyphus as a student, but my thought was always “how can someone devote their entire life to pointless rebellion?”  I read it again many years later, not long after the Occupy movement (of which I played a small part – virtually at least), and I watched a short documentary on his relationship with Sartre and the effects of the French Resistance on each of them.  It then occurred to me that his entire worldview was essentially colored by that direct political action, and the immediate fallout in France after WWII as the French attempted to find their place on the world stage between the two new superpowers.  Sartre sided with the East and Camus sided with neither. Speaking of both East and West he made the famous statement, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”  Later French thinkers, such as Jacques Ellul, continued in this anarchist tradition, and while Ellul is not considered an existentialist (he is typically grouped with Chomsky as a philosophical anarchist), his views of individuality and rebellion clearly place him in a line of thought bookended between Sartre and Camus on one side and Baudrillard on the other.
                                           
                                          In terms of 18th century thinking, I find Kierkegaard’s radical views of the individual to be a direct influence on Tolstoy, one of the two great European anarchists of that century.  While Nietzsche did have a great influence on political thinkers who came later, I am less interested in any political or social ideas he may have espoused and more fascinated by his proto-deconstruction of power structures that opened the way to the great social-political critiques of Foucault a century later. 


                                        • bob
                                          I agree, Camus is the best of modern philosophers!  I am 74 years old and I majored in philosophy in college back in the early 60 s Camus was still alive! 
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I agree, Camus is the best of modern philosophers!  I am 74 years old and I majored in philosophy in college back in the early 60's Camus was still alive!  I liked Existentialism more than anything else we read, and even though Camus was not considered an Existentialist by most, I thought his thinking made more sense than anyone else  I have lived by.  For my oral final in my French class, I read some of Camus.  --Bob Miller, San Jose, Ca.



                                            To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Fri, Oct 3, 2014 12:19 pm
                                            Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Detrimental to democracy?

                                             
                                             
                                            If you don't mind me asking, what angle are you coming from as someone interested in existentialism? 

                                            Sent from my iPhone

                                            On Oct 3, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Mary josephson45r@... [existlist] <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                             
                                            Camus rejected the label of existentialist and is often described as a moralist. He definitely isn't an anarchist, since his rebellion is the artist's rebellion rather than political revolt. If I had to choose a favorite writer between Sartre, Beauvoir and Camus, hands down it would be Camus. Not the most studied philosopher of the three, but definitely warmer and more authentic. His political opinions aren't radical enough for some people, but I appreciate his solidarity in solitude approachwe're alone in this together.

                                            Mary




                                            On Friday, October 3, 2014 11:33 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                             
                                            I actually find some political solace in the anarchist line of thought found in existentialism - particularly Kierkegaard and Camus.  Camus's sentiment that rebellion is the natural state of man did not make sense to me until I placed it within a political context.  I loved The Myth of Sisyphus as a student, but my thought was always “how can someone devote their entire life to pointless rebellion?”  I read it again many years later, not long after the Occupy movement (of which I played a small part – virtually at least), and I watched a short documentary on his relationship with Sartre and the effects of the French Resistance on each of them.  It then occurred to me that his entire worldview was essentially colored by that direct political action, and the immediate fallout in France after WWII as the French attempted to find their place on the world stage between the two new superpowers.  Sartre sided with the East and Camus sided with neither. Speaking of both East and West he made the famous statement, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”  Later French thinkers, such as Jacques Ellul, continued in this anarchist tradition, and while Ellul is not considered an existentialist (he is typically grouped with Chomsky as a philosophical anarchist), his views of individuality and rebellion clearly place him in a line of thought bookended between Sartre and Camus on one side and Baudrillard on the other.
                                             
                                            In terms of 18th century thinking, I find Kierkegaard’s radical views of the individual to be a direct influence on Tolstoy, one of the two great European anarchists of that century.  While Nietzsche did have a great influence on political thinkers who came later, I am less interested in any political or social ideas he may have espoused and more fascinated by his proto-deconstruction of power structures that opened the way to the great social-political critiques of Foucault a century later. 


                                          • poseidon715
                                            Camus s work embodies a kind of living philosophy that is, I think, at the core of what many existentialist philosophers strive toward. This aesthetic was
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Camus's work embodies a kind of "living philosophy" that is, I think, at the core of what many existentialist philosophers strive toward.  This aesthetic was the reason existentialism quickly moved beyond academia and into popular culture - in the same way that I imagine some of the ancient Greek philosophies of Stoicism or Pythagoreanism.  It is an attempt to answer deep questions of meaning in a post-christian western culture, and this makes existentialism as a philosophy resonate at a much deeper level than philosophies such as rationalism, utilitarianism, logical positivism, etc.
                                            • Mary
                                              For about 30 thirty years I was a voluntary, uninformed then informed Christian, then for the next 30 as an atheist including the last 15 as an existentialist.
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Oct 3, 2014
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                For about 30 thirty years I was a voluntary, uninformed then informed Christian, then for the next 30 as an atheist including the last 15 as an existentialist. Recently my desire to balance reason with faith has taken hold, and I'm acquainting myself writers who are considered theistic existentialists. Ironically, it was the philosopher of Reason himself, Hegel, whose writing I've wrestled with over the past two years, who led me back. I'm going to familiarize myself with Gabriel Marcel's work over the weekend and a few others in the coming weeks. 

                                                Sometimes the idea which causes a split in wholeness is the very thing which heals.

                                                Mary


                                                On Friday, October 3, 2014 2:19 PM, "Anton Cagle poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                                 
                                                If you don't mind me asking, what angle are you coming from as someone interested in existentialism? 

                                                Sent from my iPhone

                                                On Oct 3, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Mary josephson45r@... [existlist] <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                                                 
                                                Camus rejected the label of existentialist and is often described as a moralist. He definitely isn't an anarchist, since his rebellion is the artist's rebellion rather than political revolt. If I had to choose a favorite writer between Sartre, Beauvoir and Camus, hands down it would be Camus. Not the most studied philosopher of the three, but definitely warmer and more authentic. His political opinions aren't radical enough for some people, but I appreciate his solidarity in solitude approachwe're alone in this together.

                                                Mary




                                                On Friday, October 3, 2014 11:33 AM, "poseidon715@... [existlist]" <existlist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                                                 
                                                I actually find some political solace in the anarchist line of thought found in existentialism - particularly Kierkegaard and Camus.  Camus's sentiment that rebellion is the natural state of man did not make sense to me until I placed it within a political context.  I loved The Myth of Sisyphus as a student, but my thought was always “how can someone devote their entire life to pointless rebellion?”  I read it again many years later, not long after the Occupy movement (of which I played a small part – virtually at least), and I watched a short documentary on his relationship with Sartre and the effects of the French Resistance on each of them.  It then occurred to me that his entire worldview was essentially colored by that direct political action, and the immediate fallout in France after WWII as the French attempted to find their place on the world stage between the two new superpowers.  Sartre sided with the East and Camus sided with neither. Speaking of both East and West he made the famous statement, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”  Later French thinkers, such as Jacques Ellul, continued in this anarchist tradition, and while Ellul is not considered an existentialist (he is typically grouped with Chomsky as a philosophical anarchist), his views of individuality and rebellion clearly place him in a line of thought bookended between Sartre and Camus on one side and Baudrillard on the other.
                                                 
                                                In terms of 18th century thinking, I find Kierkegaard’s radical views of the individual to be a direct influence on Tolstoy, one of the two great European anarchists of that century.  While Nietzsche did have a great influence on political thinkers who came later, I am less interested in any political or social ideas he may have espoused and more fascinated by his proto-deconstruction of power structures that opened the way to the great social-political critiques of Foucault a century later. 




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