True Freedom

Sorry, I can't step down and provide a post lacking substance.That's great you read, maybe you can incorporate the ideas of a few of these names into your posts.I will be following up this post with a few more utilizing men I've read if you want a good idea.Why people think I'm whining is funny.... I will address this point and more points stipulated by others here with literature from Sartre,
the work Existentialism.I'm not one to create lists of names, I try to express ideas. You'll see who I read through my posts(hopefully) I hope you follow suit.Actually, I have no idea what you are complaining about or talking about.I will admit I was a little disturbed when you assumed I don't know who Augustine is. I believe in soul.In future convey the ideas along with the names, if you want.For example I'll pick a name from your list: Descartes. To make substance from this name you could discuss the mind-body problem from what he said in Meditations and maybe we could talk about if we agree with his dualist view of the mind and body. I would love a discussion such as this.I'm sorry if I offended you.sidenote(I was hesitant to say this):
3rd day of the fall semester for me, I attended summer courses also, I have two classes with other early admits they labelled "honors". Those replies were actually posted from there.

quote:

---

You talk about freedom, but you really want people to think the things you say to think and do the things you say to do. You are angry when they disobey orders. You are intolerant of dissent. You would persecute them if you had the power.

---

Before I begin, I find it necessary to address this point. I openly admit frustration towards the human condition. But the type of anger you imply is not true of me. You said I am insulted at this assertion. You must not pay attention to my posts.
I've written: An argument for altruismI would never harm another human being. I believe human life is sacred. Your assertion stands in direct contrast to my beliefs and actions. Please retract this statement.
It's not anyone's fault that they are caught up on trivialities, it's all most know, it's all most are taught, who am I to persecute another? I would infringe upon one's natural rights(Rousseau), I would not have a sociologically sound mind, I would hurt myself for we are but ONE but most importantly I would hurt a human being, another in this experience, I would take one's freedom, one's self-determination(Mill, Wilson).You assert that I want everyone to do as I say. Being able to have everyone do as I do is the mark of a sound philosophy.Jean-Paul Sartre speaks of this very thing in his work Existentialism (his first major work translated into english):

quote:

---

If on the otherhand, existence precedes essence, and if we grant that we exist and fashion our image at one and the same time, the image is valid for everybody and for our whole age. Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed, because it involves all mankind. If I am a workingman and choose to join a Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a member I want to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the kingdom of man is not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want ot be resigned for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all of humanity.

---

he continues later on

quote:

---

But really, one should always ask himself, "What would happen if everybody looked at things that way?"

---

To move on..... before you attempted to justify your existence in your passion, your love. Kierkegaard wrote in
Either/Or I believe man is free an it is a part of an a priori knowledge and if would excuse me I must go finish up a song. My time has been limited these days unfortuantely.Edited by -messenjah of one, : "intentionally"

I'm interested in your reply to my query about your service. I hope you're insulted by my even asking the question.Edited by -messenjah of one, : grammar

You are correct. I agree 100%. I am not sure why I worded it that way.For example: I no longer speed for every action has a consequence.I am ashamed for saying that, it goes against my beliefs

I must admit that I had originally thought you said you've read every work by each person you mentioned and I had reasoned that you should be incorporating those ideas in then!, though my reply is still valid.

quote:

---

Since I joined, of course the answer is yes.

---

Why? Do you not understand the sociological factors involved in you killing another man at the very least? I thought you may have been a Nathaniel Fick type...Edited by -messenjah of one, : fick comment

You must realize I defended my stance on this exact point with excerpts and a critique from Jean-Paul Sartre. In response to my post you only responded to a brief musing of mine made by Kierkegaard. I did not appreciate this because I was merely quotin a poetic sentence, you critiqued liek it was a view. You went on to ignore the scholarly content of my post, perhaps because you have no knowledge of Sartre or anyone worth mentioning.In a post following this(within next two) I will issue a defense against a critique of Kantian ethics made by Sartre in ExistentialismRead some of the names on kuresu's reading list, which I will query what works he has read on Kant.I suggest you look up Kant and please read this:You assert that I want everyone to do as I say. Being able to have everyone do as I do is the mark of a sound philosophy.Jean-Paul Sartre speaks of this very thing in his work Existentialism (his first major work translated into english):

quote:

---

If on the otherhand, existence precedes essence, and if we grant that we exist and fashion our image at one and the same time, the image is valid for everybody and for our whole age. Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed, because it involves all mankind. If I am a workingman and choose to join a Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a member I want to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the kingdom of man is not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want ot be resigned for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all of humanity.

---

he continues later on

quote:

---

But really, one should always ask himself, "What would happen if everybody looked at things that way?"

---

Edited by -messenjah of one, : No reason given.Edited by -messenjah of one, : No reason given.

Forgive me,
I'm not interestd in such trite.When I quoted Christ it was for another reason and meaning then how it has been interpreted, and no I don't have time to tell you what i mean't.

Dear Archer, **edit:I meant to say Kuresu,**What exactly have you read of Kant? Or Descartes? "the nice guy" empiricist Hume?Just wondering.Mainly interested in what you've read by Kant, my next post is why.Edited by -messenjah of one, : So kuresu when you see this replyEdited by -messenjah of one, : double sentence

In Existentialism Sartre attempts to reason that Kantian ethics are inadequate to the following real life example:
p28-30

quote:

---

His father was on bad terms with his mother, and, moreover, was inclined to be a collaborationist; his older brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940, and the young man, with somewhat immature but generous feelings, wanted to avenge him. His mother lived alone with him, very much upset by the half-treason of her older son; the boy was her only consolation.

​

The boy was faced with the choice of leaving for England and joining the Free French Forces-tht is, leaving his mother behind-or remaining with his mother and helping her carry on....................... On the one hand, an ethics of sympathy, of personal devotion; on the other, a broader ethics, but one whose efficacy was dubious. He had to choose between the two. Who could help him choose? Christian doctrine says, "Be charitable, love your neighbor, take the more rugged path, etc., etc." But which is the more rugged path?.............Who can decide a priori? Nobody. No book of ethics can tell him. The Kantian ethics says, "Never treat any person as a means, but as an end." Very well, if I stay with my mother, I'll treat her as an end and not as a means; but by virtue of this very fact, I'm running the risk of treating the people around me who are fighting, as means; and, conversely, if I go to join those who are fighting, I'll b treating them as an end, and by doing that, I run the risk of treating my mother as a means.

---

Firstly he asserts that the Christian doctrine can not resolve this moral dilemma but it surely can.
The young man wants vengeance but the Christian doctrine says to "Turn the other cheek", and to "love thy enemy". Fighting in a war stands in contrast to "love thy enemy" and fighting for retribution surely stands in contrast to "Turn the other cheek".He then goes on to claim that Kantian ethics do not resolve this moral dilemma.
He says if the boy stays with his mother he will be treating her as an end but if he doesn't go fight in the war he will be treating those fighting as means.Sartre does not realize that when one fights and kills other human beings for any reason, they are being treated as means.

​

This decison could have been made a priori though obviously not fully a priori because aposteriori or imperical(experience) knowledge precedes a priori knowledge.Sartre harbored misunderstandings of the christian doctrine and of Kantian ethics itself, or at least the reality of war and the tragedy that it is BECAUSE men are not being treated as human beings but as means.

Walden is a great example for freedom and has some of the essence of the OP. I was telling Prophex this the other day!nice post

It's common knowledge, really. Widely regarded as the nice guy of philosophy.I will quote sources from my collection when I get home for you.

Yeah, they had a falling out. I guess it is better to be safe then sorry when generalizing knowledge known.

Dear kuresu,
Did you see my request?

quote:

---

It funny how you can waxy all day about various philosophical and ontological concern but cannot answer simple questions as put forward by Schraf, myself and others.

---

Key word: simple.