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

Re: [existlist] Digest Number 201

Expand Messages
  • Randy Zeitman
    ... No problem with the rant but I don t find any distinction between what you just said and Existentialism. Existentialism recognizes that all choices are
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 13, 2001
      >Hi:
      >
      >I have to disagree with selecting Rand (objectivism) as a starting
      >point for existentialism. I am very passionately opposed to Rand's
      >philosophical thought as I find it disturbing and too true to the
      >capitalist mind. although I'm not a huge fan of socialism, I do not
      >agree with the theory of objectivism and the quest to totally detach
      >oneself from society's influence. In my opinion objectivism is a
      >very selfish and egotistic philsophy, putting way too much credit on
      >one's self.

      No problem with the rant but I don't find any distinction between
      what you just said and Existentialism.

      Existentialism recognizes that all choices are selfish...simply
      because you chose them. There's nothing about Objectivism that says
      you shouldn't be socially conscious if that's what you want. Ayn
      Rand's personal views are her views, not the philosophy of
      Objectivism...just as Sartres views are his and I don't much care
      about them. When I read the Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology
      it reads like Existentialism to me (because it's about rational,
      'objective', thought).

      I don't at all believe that Objectivism is about detaching oneself
      from social influence, it's about honoring one's desires (existential
      'good-faith'). I don't act morally because it's in a social best
      interest, I do so out of selfishness because I want to live in a
      moral world.

      The only distinction I continue to see between Objectivism and
      Existentialism is Objectivism denotes things as 'real' when we have
      good evidence for them and Existenialism recognizes that since all
      evidence is derived one can't definitively say something is 'real'.

      Randy
      --
      **This signature sponsored by GuitarList.com - the most powerful
      musical instrument search engine on the net!**

      "I've gotten so out of shape sittin' at the computer all day that I
      get out of breath when I have to reach for the percent key!" -
      Zeitman
    • Cris
      Hi: I thought a note I sent to Sarte list would be of interest here. The problem with theories, and Existentialism is a Theory and practice as also
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 13, 2001
        Hi: I thought a note I sent to Sarte list would be of interest here.

        The problem with theories, and Existentialism is a Theory and practice as
        also Behaviorism, is that the theoreticians want to explain the totality,
        with their theory. All embracing and exclusive.
        Existentialism is a tentative to explain the world, but many of the
        concepts have not been look into exhaustively. Like mind, existence, or
        knowledge, language and totality. Since then, many studies and thought has
        been done around these issues, so we have now different schools around them,
        like Structuralists, and Post Post Moderns like the actual Eco , or
        Cognitive Psychology, Science and Neurology.
        Adapting a position that Rorty might take, (I haven't read that much about
        him yet), we have to consider the merits and the practice of the theories.
        Cognitive science, with many different positions, that include the positive
        elements of behaviorism, but not restricting their positions, studying the
        Mind, and intenationality as well as the new discoveries of Neurology. No
        empty Box, No empty Brain, Not mindless. Input and Output Matrices are very
        useful in Cybernetics, but have a limit explaining human experience and
        behavior.
        To refute Heidegger and existentialism,is easy since the theory was
        formulated almost a century ago. Around 1920.
        But if we study existentialism for a reason, we should see what elements can
        be used, and the actuality of the philosophy.
        Structuralism and Post Post Moderns incorporate much, use a clear vocabulary
        and variables based on much research, and reject themes like totality for a
        limited structure or context for example. They incorporate the latest
        studies on language, with more precise concepts, as also do the Cognitive
        Scientists.
        If you want to refute behaviorism then you should not look at Sartre for
        this. Many a study of neurology will confirm some elements of behaviorism
        and are useful, like for training the marines and only to certain extent.
        But to base society as whole on the very limited philosophy of Behaviorism
        would be false and part of an authoritarian philosophy that Orwell
        criticized.
        I wonder how much intenationality the Controllers or operant have? Do they
        have a mind and a conscious or are also part of the controlling system?
        Fascism is built around this concept.
        It is obvious that a society need a controlling authority , but authority
        can be also negative, destructive power, that has to be scrutinized buy a
        society that has some possibilities of Freedom and Justice. Like a
        representative democracy with various parties.
        Cris




        eGroups Sponsor


        Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/

        To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...

        <A
        HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+S
        artre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul
        Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>

        age -----
        From: Randy Zeitman <randzman@...>
        To: <existlist@egroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:12 AM
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Digest Number 201


        > >Hi:
        > >
        > >I have to disagree with selecting Rand (objectivism) as a starting
        > >point for existentialism. I am very passionately opposed to Rand's
        > >philosophical thought as I find it disturbing and too true to the
        > >capitalist mind. although I'm not a huge fan of socialism, I do not
        > >agree with the theory of objectivism and the quest to totally detach
        > >oneself from society's influence. In my opinion objectivism is a
        > >very selfish and egotistic philsophy, putting way too much credit on
        > >one's self.
        >
        > No problem with the rant but I don't find any distinction between
        > what you just said and Existentialism.
        >
        > Existentialism recognizes that all choices are selfish...simply
        > because you chose them. There's nothing about Objectivism that says
        > you shouldn't be socially conscious if that's what you want. Ayn
        > Rand's personal views are her views, not the philosophy of
        > Objectivism...just as Sartres views are his and I don't much care
        > about them. When I read the Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology
        > it reads like Existentialism to me (because it's about rational,
        > 'objective', thought).
        >
        > I don't at all believe that Objectivism is about detaching oneself
        > from social influence, it's about honoring one's desires (existential
        > 'good-faith'). I don't act morally because it's in a social best
        > interest, I do so out of selfishness because I want to live in a
        > moral world.
        >
        > The only distinction I continue to see between Objectivism and
        > Existentialism is Objectivism denotes things as 'real' when we have
        > good evidence for them and Existenialism recognizes that since all
        > evidence is derived one can't definitively say something is 'real'.
        >
        > Randy
        > --
        > **This signature sponsored by GuitarList.com - the most powerful
        > musical instrument search engine on the net!**
        >
        > "I've gotten so out of shape sittin' at the computer all day that I
        > get out of breath when I have to reach for the percent key!" -
        > Zeitman
        >
        > From The Exist List...
        > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        >
      • Gareb20@aol.com
        Randy: I appreciate your feedback, and I realized I didn t explain my position and just went off on a rant (that s what Rand does to me!) Anyway, you re right
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 13, 2001
          Randy:

          I appreciate your feedback, and I realized I didn't explain my position and
          just went off on a rant (that's what Rand does to me!) Anyway, you're right
          Existentialism is a philosophy like most philosophies that can be molded to
          fit your life. Especially, existentialism, it is a philosophy that allows an
          individual to define the philosophy around a specific individual life.
          Saying that, I view Existentialism as a philosophy that keeps the well-being
          of others in mind during all decisions are made. Not all decisions are
          selfish, as existential beings are expected to make a decision that has the
          least consequences and does not harm other's existence. The decisions are
          also supposed to further the individual's existence, but he and she must take
          into consideration the people around them. After reading Rand (I've only
          read her since she is considered the focal personality of objectivism) I get
          the impression that her individuals do not take into account the
          consenquences of a decision on society. To me, it is the equivalent of the
          government of capitalism, which does not take into account social advancement
          as a whole. Now, this semester I had some really good classes on the social
          movements of the 60s and the thoery of Marxism and Socialism. If i had to
          choose a government in equivalent to a philosphy I would say Existentialism
          represents Socialism. I would say Objectivism represents Capitalism. We all
          know that social classes create the struggling and bitter human who strives
          for freedom. Also, wealth creates poverty. To me objectivism praises those
          who succeed in wealth and personal advancement but does not care for the poor
          and struggling. Maybe now you will understand my belief of some very big
          distinctions between existentialism and objectivism...they are two totally
          different philosophies even though they share some common traits.

          Thanks for listening.

          Lou
        • Gareb20@aol.com
          I understand your exlanations, and I appreciate them. I must admit, although I have been interested and reading existential works for five years, I do not
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 14, 2001
            I understand your exlanations, and I appreciate them. I must admit, although I have been interested and reading existential works for five years, I do not proclaim myself as an existentialist. As I said before, philosophies can be molded to fit a lifestyle. I have indeed taken some, not all, existential principles and molded them to my life. I do not agree with all existential principles, and I certainly do not totally agree with Sartre's point of view. However, I do subscribe to most existential principles. there is no thing I know for sure, I know I do not favor ayn rand or her opinions. that is my opinion and I hope I have explained why I do not favor her position.

            thanks for listening.

            Lou
          • Cris
            Hi: I have never Ann Ryand? Any one book to read? Cris Or A short review on the Internet? ... From: To: Sent: Sunday,
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 15, 2001
              Hi:
              I have never Ann Ryand? Any one book to read?
              Cris
              Or A short review on the Internet?

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <Gareb20@...>
              To: <existlist@egroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 5:29 PM
              Subject: Re: [existlist] Digest Number 201


              > I understand your exlanations, and I appreciate them. I must admit,
              although I have been interested and reading existential works for five
              years, I do not proclaim myself as an existentialist. As I said before,
              philosophies can be molded to fit a lifestyle. I have indeed taken some,
              not all, existential principles and molded them to my life. I do not agree
              with all existential principles, and I certainly do not totally agree with
              Sartre's point of view. However, I do subscribe to most existential
              principles. there is no thing I know for sure, I know I do not favor ayn
              rand or her opinions. that is my opinion and I hope I have explained why I
              do not favor her position.
              >
              > thanks for listening.
              >
              > Lou
              >
              > From The Exist List...
              > http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
              >
            • Gareb20@aol.com
              Cris: Fountainhead Lou
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 15, 2001
                Cris:

                Fountainhead

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