a cry towards the absurd

The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.Camus
mail list ° site map ° @  

  existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine
( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board

Re: what about individuality itself?


[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [(the cry) philosophy discussion board]


Posted by Spratley on Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 11:33:51 :

In Reply to: what about individuality itself? posted by trablano on Thursday, December 19, 2002 at 03:56:39 :

: In older times people were often thinking about the value of principles and virtues. Do these values have the necessary meaning, and values like honor and dignity?
-------------------------------------
Principles and virutes exist in relation to things. The older time people had a much more objectified, idealistic percetion of the world. To them, a virtue could be a thing in itself, a good in itself, athing with properties like an object that exists inside us. A person WAS charitable or HAD temperance. I do not see the world like this, so my ideas differ.

I beleive in behaviors and beleifs, not virtues-as-things to have or embody. I beleive a virtue only exists in practice.

But I think I got off the track. It is the human mind that distinguishes and perceives. It is the perfect instrument for determining what is larger than ourselves and what is not. The human mind is a meaning machine, an idea factory, a belief generator. IF the human mind perceives something as larger than one's self, then that is certainly open as grounds for justification. God, I think, is the perfect example. I beleive that God is an idea used by people throughout history to justify beleifs and actions and desires. . . and to direct people's behavior.

The problem with using beliefs as justifiers is that the beleif exists in someone's head, but the person who beleives, beleives that their beleif has some real existence outsdie of their head. This makes them debatable, controversial. I mentione natural laws origially because I beleive they can be confirmed in a scientific-type manner. If one does not eat, they will die, therefore the need to eat is a good way of justifying why someone hunts or raises cattle.

But beleifs are different, more subjective, less justifiable. The measure of a belief, therefore must fall to --again-- something larger than itself. . . does the beleif bear fruit in the conditions in which it is applied? Is the belief voluntarily accepted (either as true or as tolerable) by a group of people larger than the single individual.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Message:
Optional Link
URL:
Title:
Optional Image Link
URL:

thecry!!! existentialism