It's very easy to conclude that Nature is not under our control.
mando
On Mar 24, 2009, at 5:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
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/
