Lets say that nothing has an essence
What would that mean?
And if it is so - is it necessary to know it?
On the second question I guess the answer is no.
Not many people care about the question.
An even fewer care about an answer.
Existentialism via Sartre's pen has about the same view;
existence comes before essence.
Your actions are important, not what you are.
Sartre takes the example of a man working as a porter. He is no porter, as he has no essence.
He can quit his job, and look for a new.
He is doomed to freedom and responsible for his actions.
Lets have a look at these statements.
Sartre says that if he i looking for freedom he also wants to free everyone.
His freedom is dependent on others freedom.
But this is an act without autonomous values, since no God has decided them.
First when we do our actions the freedom will be there.
It-s sounds true but there are some questions there.
If we interact with others, how can we be totally free.
And what about our actions; Isn't the intention important?
If I as a porter quit my job after a fight with my chief, it can mean trouble for me...
And more; a handshake can be seen as a good action, but if you do it like Trump....?
So Sartre misses, or is not interested in the mood we are in when we act.
Hume, the Scottish philosopher in the 1800-century, understood the importance of feelings.
Reason is slave to our passion, he writes. Reason, was for Hume, a very weak thing.
Buddhist philosophy also regards feelings and specially intentions to be important.
It also regards change as fundamental.
That resembles Hume's words about identity. We are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement.
Actually Sartre, in older days, changed his mind about the possibility for total freedom for humans.
If Hume and Buddhist philosophy is right we may be quite lost in space.
Yes in many sense we are...
Buddhist philosophy though cares for animals and nature too.
The deer you want too shoot may be your mother from a former life.
Even taken metaphorically this can make sense; we are very near related to other animals end even to bananas and trees. We share about half of our DNA with them!
If we for a moment change perspective from our anthropocentric view to a more open view its quite easy to understand this.
And a way to do this is to be aware of our feelings and thoughts.
They may not stop cause they are shaped by our heritage and our mileage.
If they are bundles of perceptions we share it with other animals.
And if we have the opportunity to sometimes quieten our minds -we also can feel the connection and dependence to insects and vegetation...
When we see bears playing we see more similarities than differences compared with human children
We all move in space
like melodies
not sure of
where we are going
or where we come from
or what we are
But we all know
that we should
sing as loud as we can
do someone
hear us?
But we can hear
other melodies
a choir
both near and far
like singing
telephone wires
on a windy nigh
And if it is so - is it necessary to know it?
On the second question I guess the answer is no.
Not many people care about the question.
An even fewer care about an answer.
Existentialism via Sartre's pen has about the same view;
existence comes before essence.
Your actions are important, not what you are.
Sartre takes the example of a man working as a porter. He is no porter, as he has no essence.
He can quit his job, and look for a new.
He is doomed to freedom and responsible for his actions.
Lets have a look at these statements.
Sartre says that if he i looking for freedom he also wants to free everyone.
His freedom is dependent on others freedom.
But this is an act without autonomous values, since no God has decided them.
First when we do our actions the freedom will be there.
It-s sounds true but there are some questions there.
If we interact with others, how can we be totally free.
And what about our actions; Isn't the intention important?
If I as a porter quit my job after a fight with my chief, it can mean trouble for me...
And more; a handshake can be seen as a good action, but if you do it like Trump....?
So Sartre misses, or is not interested in the mood we are in when we act.
Hume, the Scottish philosopher in the 1800-century, understood the importance of feelings.
Reason is slave to our passion, he writes. Reason, was for Hume, a very weak thing.
Buddhist philosophy also regards feelings and specially intentions to be important.
It also regards change as fundamental.
That resembles Hume's words about identity. We are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement.
Actually Sartre, in older days, changed his mind about the possibility for total freedom for humans.
If Hume and Buddhist philosophy is right we may be quite lost in space.
Yes in many sense we are...
Buddhist philosophy though cares for animals and nature too.
The deer you want too shoot may be your mother from a former life.
Even taken metaphorically this can make sense; we are very near related to other animals end even to bananas and trees. We share about half of our DNA with them!
If we for a moment change perspective from our anthropocentric view to a more open view its quite easy to understand this.
And a way to do this is to be aware of our feelings and thoughts.
They may not stop cause they are shaped by our heritage and our mileage.
If they are bundles of perceptions we share it with other animals.
And if we have the opportunity to sometimes quieten our minds -we also can feel the connection and dependence to insects and vegetation...
When we see bears playing we see more similarities than differences compared with human children
We all move in space
like melodies
not sure of
where we are going
or where we come from
or what we are
But we all know
that we should
sing as loud as we can
do someone
hear us?
But we can hear
other melodies
a choir
both near and far
like singing
telephone wires
on a windy nigh
Comments
Post a Comment