New Angel

But if I understand existentialism, what you are saying is the
direct opposite?? They feel man is doomed unless he believes in
something. Well, kinda. They waffle a bit.

Dianne


No - existentialism is the ultimate statement of do what you damn
well please, there is no reason to do otherwise.

Cheryl

Well, that's not *quite* right. Man is doomed unless he believes in
something. But existentialists know there isn't anything to believe in.
So, they feel we're doomed. That we can't possibly have any
enlightened bone in our poor bodies. Therefore, we should just "let it
all hang out".

I get it. But I think they're not very clear in thought, either, and
"waffle". The quote I posted did a good job of showing the waffling, if
you take one sentence at a time and then try to connect the dots.

Dianne

In article , "Dr. Brat"
writes:

The point is
that living well is the best way to overcome the obstacles that life
puts in front of you. Live well in spite of those things.

Absolutely!

Life has handed me a whole ton of lemons. I made lemonade, and lemon sherbet,
and lemon pie with them.

I'm enjoying working at something I'd always wanted to do and couldn't because
it didn't pay well enough to support Worthless Lout. I'm rid of him, and I'm
too sick to pursue my long-time career, so now I get paid to lie on the couch
and read. I'm sick enough that no one expects me to do much housework
drudgery. How could I see my glass as anything other than half-full?

In a couple weeks, I'm going in front of a judge to ask him to order the false
"long history of depression" removed from my medical records, and the doctor
fined (or his license revoked) for numerous instances of placing false
information in medical records. Given that the handwritten notes taken while I
was giving my history are radically different from the typed notes, there's no
question that the doctor was intentionally falsifying the records. My friends
call me Pollyanna, which is a loooooong way from "long history of depression".


--
Finished 5/21/04 - Fireman's Wife
WIP: Fireman's Prayer (#2), Amid Amish Life, Angel of Autumn, Calif Sampler,
Holiday Snowglobe

Paralegal - Writer - Editor - Researcher
http://hometown.aol.com/kmc528/KMC.html

On 6/27/04 12:28 PM, in article , "Dianne
Lewandowski" wrote:

But if I understand existentialism, what you are saying is the
direct opposite?? They feel man is doomed unless he believes in
something. Well, kinda. They waffle a bit.

Dianne


No - existentialism is the ultimate statement of do what you damn
well please, there is no reason to do otherwise.

Cheryl

Well, that's not *quite* right. Man is doomed unless he believes in
something. But existentialists know there isn't anything to believe in.
So, they feel we're doomed. That we can't possibly have any
enlightened bone in our poor bodies. Therefore, we should just "let it
all hang out".

I get it. But I think they're not very clear in thought, either, and
"waffle". The quote I posted did a good job of showing the waffling, if
you take one sentence at a time and then try to connect the dots.

Dianne


Did you ever read the original?
Cheryl

K had some very interesting things to say about
O.T. Newsreaders:

Netscape does
not have killfile abilities in this version.
And that's one reason why I dislike using multi-purpose web browsers as
newsreaders. :-) If you feel like changing (I realize there are a multitude
of reasons why one wouldn't), I highly recommend Xnews. It's free,
powerful, and has great killfiles...

Agent's good too, but the free version does not have killfiles.

--
"Don't mess with major appliances unless you know what you are doing
(or unless your life insurance policy is up-to-date)." - John, RCFL

Did you ever read "The Plague"?
No, I haven't read the complete writings of Camus or Sartre. Camus'
book was depressing enough.
Did you read their writings? If so, more power to you.

Dianne

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
Did you ever read the original?

"escapee" wrote:
Existentialism: "a philosophical movement stressing individual
existence
and holding that man is totally free and responsible for his acts."
In
other words, we are neither conditioned by, nor responsible to society
at large nor other people.


Go reread Camus and Sartre

Actually, it means taking responsibility for ourselves and our acts, not
the
*******ization which was given by Elizabeth. I posted the definition,
she added
her little slant to it. Does it often. So do I. We all do. I'm
finished with
this discussion, it's utterly pointless.
Actually what Elizabeth wrote would be considered an accurate and
objective definition of "Existentialism", considered as a movement within
Western Philosophy.
Dawne, not commenting on whether or not the movement has value

On 6/27/04 3:13 PM, in article , "Dianne
Lewandowski" wrote:

Did you ever read "The Plague"?
Yes - twice, once in high school again in college
No, I haven't read the complete writings of Camus or Sartre. Camus'
book was depressing enough.
Did you read their writings? If so, more power to you.
Required reading in college for the survey of "modern literature"

Dianne

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
Did you ever read the original?

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
Required reading in college for the survey of "modern literature"

Ah. Thank goodness I had a different teacher! It's really impossible,
in 2 years, to cover all this stuff. Lots of Shakespeare in high
school, late 19th and early 20th century literature.

Each teacher has his own bent. My high school history teacher talked me
into reading Mein Kampf. Well, I never finished it, but felt lucky to
have him as a teacher. He was very much into the "why" things happened.
He made us think. I wasn't a terribly good student in those days. As
I said earlier, a very late bloomer.

Dianne

Lucretia Borgia wrote:

I hear Mozilla is just as good too.

DH uses Mozilla. Perhaps I will bug him about it. Thanks for the tip!

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

escapee wrote:

Not one shred of evidence in the Paula Jones case, which in case you forgot, was
dismissed.

Dismissed based on Clinton's perjury.

Let's see, young woman vows to be on her knees in the presidents office, she
does, now that's betrayal? To whom? She did it to herself.

She had help. Without him, she just had a crush. With him, she had
adultery.

To me, it's the duty of a *real* man to realize what damage he can do to
an underling who has a crush on him. College professors are one group
who deal with this daily. *Most* of them resist. Most of them care more
about their students (and/or their "significant others") than about
their own, momentary gratification.

That's one betrayal - taking advantage of a vulnerable person.

Of course, maybe he and Hillary had one of those artsy-fartsy,
responsibility-avoiding, made up marriage ceremonies, so maybe he wasn't
breaking another sacred oath when he committed adultery.

But to me, any cheating is a betrayal; married or no. A cheater is
saying, "You're not worth a little self denial. Having an orgasm is more
important to me than you are."

That's another betrayal.

And what about Chelsea? What has she learned? That you can't expect a
man to resist any woman who tempts him?

That's another betrayal.


This means now that, if you file an EEOC complaint about someone, you
have to have witnesses.


or evidence.

Semantic quibble. A tape recorder is a witness. So is a video camera.

None, when I was raped it was in a hole in the ground by the side of the Belt
Parkway in Brooklyn. I was eleven.

I have two responses to this:

First, huge hugs to your eleven-year-old self. Sorrow and pity.

Second - you want to play one-upsmanship? I can top your experience.

Ruthie in CO