Ok, before we launch into the formalities of debate-team politics (and btw, I don't even know what that looks like so forgive me for any formal, philosophical faux pax in advance, (and unfortunate tendency to weak rhetorical attempts..)) but as I was climbing I-80 over Donner Summit, all cloudy after the rains, it was mostly Ham I was contemplating. He got the last word in as I was out the door, his perusal, encapsulation and dismissal of my offering of Roycean Logic, so quick, neat and tidy... I had stuff to think about as I dropped over and down the Sierras and the flat desert of Nevada where the sun broke out.
So thanks Ham, for that. I do disagree with your dismissal, because as a Pirsigian I attach a completely different value to the endeavor to logically deduce the Kantian categories. I see a value attained in striving for the good, independent of the likelihood of success. Or as I like to say, "Shoot for the stars, even though you'll fall short your aim will be correct. Unless that damn moon gets in the way." Now, into it: Straight outta the Wiki: Existentialism was coined by Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that for human beings "existence precedes essence." In as much as "essence" is a cornerstone of all metaphysical philosophy and the grounding of Rationalism, Sartre's statement was a refutation of the philosophical system that had come before him (and, in particular, that of Husserl, Hegel, and Heidegger). Instead of "is-ness" generating "actuality," he argued that existence and actuality come first, and the essence is derived afterward. For Kierkegaard, it is the individual person who is the supreme moral entity, and the personal, subjective aspects of human life that are the most important. So Ham, I guess I'm getting some insight into Essentialism through my adoption or realization of Existentialism. Although what Kierkegaard is on about sounds an awful lot like you, and perhaps we have reason to think agreement might be found between us. But the heart of difference is found in: Existence is logically prior to Essence, Seems about as clear a definition of the boundary between the two sides as you could ask for. To me, anyway. What do you think? I do see existence as fundamental. My experience is my existence. Your existence is yours. The interesting parts to talk about are found in the commons - those instances of experience you discover in common with mine. Subjective in comparison, objective in person, that's my aim of choice, my self, my existence, my fundamental. You? You seem to seek that uncreated source as your fundamental, the basis of your existence. An Essentialist "worships", that is, takes as highest value, what "is". An Existentialist agrees, but claims that Existence IS what is. Thus logically prior to Essence. Have I got that about right so far? If not, please correct me, if so, then have at it. Explain how your Essentialism is gooder than my existence. Give me a pragmatic reason to change my mind, and I will attempt to do the same for you. Oh. That's what we've been doing, hasn't it? Well that's ok too. An Existentialism's primary goal is not changing reality, his primary goal is recognizing it. Existentially yours, John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
