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

meaning

Expand Messages
  • Eduard Alf
    john, Not necessarily my own religion, but I am certainly working on the one I should think will develop for the 21st Century. I can only develop elements
    Message 1 of 298 , Apr 6 12:27 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      john,

      Not necessarily my own religion, but I am certainly working on the one I
      should think will develop for the 21st Century. I can only develop elements
      that are individualistic, as may be the afterlife.

      As to "meaning", although it can be individualistic, it is better on a
      social basis, so that you are aware of your role in relation to others.

      eduard
      -----Original Message-----
      From: John Taft [mailto:J-Taft@...]
      Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:05 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] (unknown)


      Eduard,

      I agree with you that "meaning" is an individual philosophy. Frankl's
      book
      on "Man's search for the ultimate meaning (of life)" is as he stated it
      one
      needs to find the meaning of one's own life, that there is only a myth of
      the meaning of life by virtue that we are humans.

      Organized religions all claim to (each) have the reason of life, they
      can't
      all be right; but they could all be wrong?

      Existentialism seems to direct us, should we individially need a meaning
      to
      life, to be authentic to do whatever it is that is oriented toward that
      personal meaning. As all important decisions in our lives, to be true to
      ourselves we have to evaluate the alternatives and implement what we are
      able to.

      Eduard, you said you were looking for a religion (afterlife research),
      have
      you ever considered starting your own? You would have only one member,
      yourself; but perhaps God is an existentialist?

      John


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Mary
      Tom, Yes, most military intervention is not related to freedom or democracy. One of the discussions I m lobbying for concerns the organized use of force in the
      Message 298 of 298 , Mar 25, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom,

        Yes, most military intervention is not related to freedom or democracy. One of the discussions I'm lobbying for concerns the organized use of force in the cause of freedom which is a universally recognized philosophical ideal. I obviously don't equate freedom with capitalism or capitalism with democracy. And while I don't think it possible to impose any of these, we can assist their development, if we're commercially involved. I'm also anxious to hear a philosophical argument for the separation of the ideal from the activites of trade and politics. If one argues the practical is ideal, what is practical about abandoning the freedom of the group for the freedom of the individual? How are they separable?

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, tsmith17_midsouth1@... wrote:
        >
        > Mary and Jim,
        >
        > I think one of my biggest objections toward going all over the world ostensibly fighting for democracy and freedom is the historical reality that since humans began to move from nomadic hunting tribes toward agriculture and commerce, nations have generally spun military aggression into whatever form the citizens are likely to consider as desirable, whither that being saving people's souls to the citizens of a theocracy, or initiating democracy and freedom to citizens of modern western nations. Hitler even spun his invasion of France in terms of liberating France. Operation Free Iraq was in my opinion as much of a spin as Hitler's claim of liberating France. We are told that US troops are all around the world defending freedom etc. The CIA Director under Nixon, Colby, said in the 70s that we own everyone of significance in the major media.I read that CNN had two versions of the Afghanistan War, a sugar coated version for US audiences, and a more realistic version for viewers outside the states. A USSR citizen in the states in the 80s said that American propaganda was much more effective than Soviet propaganda, because of the advertising inherent in capitalism can readily be applied to propaganda. He said that in the USSR propaganda is seldom believed;whereas in your country much of it is believed. In addition to highly developed skill in advertising in the US, the fact that there are a number of ostensibly independent news sources also tends to add credibility.
        >
        >
        >
        > John Quincy Adams wrote that the U.S. "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
        >
        > Adams' statement fits in well with a statement made by Nietzsche "Beware when you fight monsters, lest you become one."
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The same groups that are now spun by western media as terrorists were spun as freedom fighters when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan. It is akin to Orwell's 1984 where good guy nations would be spun overnight into bad guy nations overnight, and vice versa. Looked at from the perspective of what is often accomplished in wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, there seems to be very little considering the huge costs in lives and money spent. However, from the point of view of the military industrial establishment, these wars sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, ammunition, bombs etc.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Switzerland has existed peacefully as a tiny nation of 9 million in the middle of Europe for many years. I believe we could learn much from them. Their foreign policy is similar to what the founding fathers of the US espoused. I favor the idea of the creation of a cabinet level Dept of Peace. We had an Institute of Peace, but I think it is being eliminated. It only cost about 40 million a year, a pittance when you consider the astronomical costs of the total military industrial complex in the US. Interestingly, I understand the true costs of the US defense is grosly understated, as things like pensions and health care for military retirees are put in another category.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Peace
        >
        > Tom.
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Mary" <josephson45r@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:55:15 PM
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: The Arab demonstrators
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Jim and Tom,
        >
        > I haven't been communicating very clearly of late, but when someone agrees with me, I'm more likely to reexamine what I've written :)
        >
        > My concern for democratic movements involves the question of force. If violence is rationalized for protecting commerce, it certainly is justified for protecting democratic movements. I don't mean this only for internal conflicts but also in the case of U.N. resolutions. My hope is to advance the particular argument of whether fighting for freedom, passively or aggressively, is futile, as Herman suggests, not whether our countries should impose a particular form of democracy or capitalism.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Mary,
        > >
        > > Yes, I completely agree.
        > >
        > > I have been wondering whether to follow up your post as you are spot on with your observations of political events both in the West and in the Arab World. So I hope what I add here does not detract or distract from your perceptive remarks.
        > >
        > > As you say, democracy isn't just about the party with the most votes governing for four or five years, it ought to be about justice and protecting minority interests. It should be about protecting the minority from the majority, and allowing sufficient diversity that all citizens can flourish irrespective of religious, political, cultural or sexual orientation.
        > >
        > > The trouble with theocracies is that they want to outlaw those activities they consider immoral. Islamic theocracies don't like independent women and alcohol, Christian theocracies don't like abortion and euthanasia. Both kinds of theocracies don't like extra-marital sex and homosexuality.
        > >
        > > But let's not look down with superiority from our atheistic vantage point. There's many an atheist who is homophobic and misogynist.
        > >
        > > I am sometimes accused on this forum of attempting to force my ethical views on others. Certainly I would like others (whether the ruling elite or the ordinary grass roots) to be more tolerant of alternative lifestyles.
        > >
        > > However is this me just being intolerant of intolerant people?
        > >
        > > Finally it occurs to me that as the Arab spring develops, hopefully, into an Arab summer, it may be that over the coming weeks, and months, and years, we in the West can learn more about the nature of true democracy from our Arab brothers and sisters.
        > >
        > > Jim
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Jim,
        > > >
        > > > A theocracy is what the neoconservatives envision. In the U.S. now, victorious political parties declare mandates and quickly initiate power grabs to stave off defeat in the next elections. There is currently no serious regard for or compromise with minority interests. This more closely resembles what Tom fears in the Middle East. The democratic process is difficult with interrupting periods of totalitarianism almost inevitable, so fears of theocracy abroad are concurrent with fears of democracy at home!
        > > >
        > > > Mary
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Yes, it would probably result in a theocracy similar to the US where it is currently not possible to become President unless you claim to believe in God.
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.