In order to think as an unattached thinkers we have to separate ourselves from human ego as much as practically possible. And of course if cancer exists it is 'needed' by biochemical conditions but not individual desire. Why it is so difficult to understand? Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Boris claims if X exists... Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:12:04 EDT
I despise the effect Heidegger achieved by his use of profound-seeming, occult, opaque, and unexplained terminology. The line 'What exists must be needed' is, call it, bogus. I was making a much grosser distinction than William explores in his more subtle response. E.g. how many things do you eat in a day that you desire but, in no interesting sense of the word, "need"? We all of us have given things -- toys, photos, jewelry, tickets to the ball game -- that are desired but not needed. I'd recommend that we also maintain a distinction between "necessary" and "needed". Certain inexorable biochemical facts may mean that various events necessarily left us with cancer or a heart condition, but it seems silly and vacuous to say portentously, "If your cancer exists, it was needed." In a message dated 3/24/09 11:01:27 AM, [email protected] writes: > My hunch is that Boris was writing casually to make a point of distinction > between human and cockroach attributes, whatever they may be. I am not so > sure that clear distinctions like that can be made when we can't get inside > the organism of another species with respect to nerve responses, etc. He > concludes that cockroaches don't make art. That's a purely rhetorical > comment > for effect since we don't know what nerve vibrations, etc., might qualify as > cockroach art for cockroaches. That is not as ridiculous as it sounds since > we > know that many species do display themselves in artful ways for mating > advantages. In fact, see the science section of today's NYTimes for an > article about evolved features of insects and animals that have no purpose > other than display for mating advantage. > > But more to the point: The two concepts desire and need are complex enough > to > require close analysis. Does need precede desire or follow it or are the > two > states merely different on the basis of amplification? Aristotle said that > desire is a condition of sensing and fantasy. My own idea is that need and > desire (I prefer desire as willful or concscious desire and need as > unconscious desire) are constructed subjectively and thus filter or shape > our > sensing of experience. > > WC > > --- On Mon, 3/23/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Subject: Boris claims if X exists... > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Monday, March 23, 2009, 11:31 PM > > Boris claims if X exists, it must be > > NEEDED. Can't anyone on our forum think > > of a rebuttal to this? (Maybe try distinguishing 'needed' > > from 'desired'?) > ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under $10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002) ____________________________________________________________ Learn how to earn more. Get a Marketing Degree online or in person. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYRbhtO56WuhPDJWR7EZ5fsQ0 tbVr8hFSts5UkoGIPVbeKaS54yAG8/
