Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (192048)	6/19/2012 11:40:38 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543776

Yes, I generally agree with that article and am glad to see you asking the right questions and taking, IMO the right approach to the question. And yes there are many definitions of existentialism, so coming to an agreement specifically is not possible. And where it gets confusing is when we try to look back and attribute existentialism to past thinkers. If we use Sartre as our template, he wrote the book Nausea. Worth a look. But, here is where most people get lost, IMO. Including academics. Existentialism requires one to see in their minds eye something much differently than most people see now. That is very hard to do for anyone. It is like trying to get a religious person to change their religion. Good luck. It was years after college that I finally saw it, but I really don't know how to explain the vision or the subject. Only that I believe it is something one can see with lots of thought. en.wikipedia.org <<Second, I am somewhat mystified about how my assertions that the student protests of the 60's were first driven by objections to racism and segregation (in the early 60's) and later by opposition to the draft (and an immoral war in the eyes of the protesters) has morphed into a discussion of counterculture. I am familiar with Kersey and his "bus ride" and have read accounts of it. Additionally, I've read "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Sometimes a Great Notion". However, I fail to see the connection between Kersey and the main forces driving student protest. Kersey (and Leary) were more about dropping out, turning on, and tuning in. The student protest movement was not so much about that, but more of a mainstream youth movement, who were not about dropping out, but were objecting to specific governmental (immoral) policies. Do you agree with this? Or if not, why not?>> I disagree totally. Your problem here is simply a lack of experience. I can see by your post that you have bits and pieces of the 60's, but your mental image is sort of like looking at a butchered elephant with only 20% of the pieces availabe and no idea of how they go together to make a whole elephant. What happened is this. First one has to believe that all our cultures in the 50's were antiquated in relation to a more sophisticated understanding of things e.g. civil rights, womens lib, gay rights and reality itself. Think about the crazy things our culture was teaching the kids in the 50's. That segregation was OK. That sexism was OK. That wars should not be questioned. That there was no larger reality than what our culture was dishing out to us. That conformity was necessary e.g. long hair was even considered bad on boys. It was blind conformity that might be the thesis. Some of the smartest kids saw this was nuts and as they rebelled, more and more kids caught on. And so the 60's began and changed our culture forever. Now tattoos piercings and long hair are common place.