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: epicure who wrote (192129)	6/19/2012 8:38:57 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543799

No, no, what you are saying is correct. I agree with you. I was not saying what you think I was saying. Existential behavior is totally subjective. In fact that is the point. One creates their reality. And we have more or less become an existential world (happened post 60's). But being an existentialist is different from understanding it. It is the understanding most people don't get, IMO. As I said, it requires one change how they see the world in their minds eye. So a Morman or ghetto gangster would need to understand, more or less, what Sartre and Camus were getting at and see it in their minds eye. That is a tall order to change ones view of the world in their minds eye. Most ghetto gangsters and Mormons have a very different minds eye view of reality -g. The irony is, the ghetto gangster is probably living an existential life more or less, but not the Mormon. I am an existentialist, but I doubt BOTW is-lol. <<<What I get here, from Koan, is an idea that existentialism leads to one place. IMO that makes no sense at all. You and Koan could both be existentialists, and come to completely different POVs. I mean if the whole thing is based upon the individual, than it's going to be subjective. So you can't really tell other people they aren't being existential enough, or they aren't doing it "right" or that they got "lost"- especially not when the existentialist philosophers themselves often seem to disagree.

To: epicure who wrote (192129)	6/19/2012 8:52:16 PM
From: koan	Respond to of 543799

This one place you refer to is simply an awareness built on layers of awareness of how the world works. That is why it is near impossible for kids or highly uneducated folks to understand existentialism. It may help to explain it if you think of trying to teach existentialism to primitive tribes in the deep jungles of New Guinea or the Amazon without spending many years. Think how hard it would to explain Sartre or Camus to them. Nearly impossible.

To: epicure who wrote (192129)	6/20/2012 12:17:54 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543799

What I get here, from Koan, is an idea that existentialism leads to one place. IMO that makes no sense at all. You and Koan could both be existentialists, and come to completely different POVs. I mean if the whole thing is based upon the individual, than it's going to be subjective. So you can't really tell other people they aren't being existential enough, or they aren't doing it "right" or that they got "lost"- especially not when the existentialist philosophers themselves often seem to disagree. I think I have to agree with that more or less. I put the more or less in there because I do not have as much background in the field as either John or Koan and cannot bring the perspective they do to the discussion. When I started my discussion with Koan I thought, "Well existentialism is just another philosophical field/branch like "Idealism" or "Empiricism" and all one has to do is learn the terms that apply to it and we can define it". And if that was the case I thought Koan was really out of it with respect to this individual approach to it. But then after reading the Wiki article on it I did realize that it is the individual who gets to "exist", to define his being by his actions (if I've understood the Wiki dissertation correctly) so in that sense Koan's definition of existentialism as being nothing but consciousness I could see being more or less in play if that consciousness led to action ("being" in existentialist philosophical terms). Still Koan loses me when he gets into these seemingly mystical approaches about existentialism when he says it is really hard to see and when has to use his mind's eye to see it. I frankly don't know want he is talking about there. Obviously it must relate to his own personal experience of it, but how one could relate this to others in any meaningful way I don't know. And if John has the heart for it I 'd like to hear from him how the Christian existentialists get to "be" when there is all that religious doctrine throne into the mix.