Subject: RE: the death of god for kids
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:35:55 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: dinsdag 17 juni 2003 20:44
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Re: the death of god for kids


In a message dated 17/06/2003 13:27:06 GMT Daylight Time, 
R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes:


> Subj:RE: the death of god for kids
> Date:17/06/2003 13:27:06 GMT Daylight Time
> From:    R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl (Bakker, R.B.M. de)
> Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all what I wrote on the death of god, that is the end of metaphysics, or
> metaphysics as nihilism, is made into a philosophical item, held separated
> from concrete parents and children, then we are at philosophical fagottism. 
> (fatal disease, apparently)
> 
> 
> Anthony's ontological and Jud's ontic: just 2 ways how you get stuck, 
> although
> with more chances to be 'happy' and rich and all that.
> 
> No, it is certainly not the 'moral depravity' of the sixties, that makes 
> these kids
> into what they are now. Very intelligently, causes and effects will be 
> confounded
> forever. 
> 
> But first comes the death of God, and only in that region the father and the 
> child
> and the mother become what they are. 

Jud:
May I in all courtesy ask 3 questions?

(1)  What exactly is meant by "faggotism?"  I Brit.Eng is either means a 
bundle of wood with which to light the 
fire or a form of fried food.



Faggots are those who sacrifice others to save themselves. I limit myself
to the philosophical variant. Philosophy is not without engagement, or
responsability. It is though, when used for one's own sake. Because I've already
written on it very very much, dear Jud, I'll limit myself to the fagottism
called atheism, and to a biographical remark of Botho Strauss: the first thing the
'others' want to take away from a child, is his God. the God of a child does not fall
under an atheist verdict. It's like stealing from the blind. 


(2) Is not the state of being happy [and rich too, if one works hard enough 
by hand & brain?]


(Is this a well-formed formula? )

Happiness, as victories, can be despicable.

(3) How can "God" be dead if "he" [like all the other countless millions of "
Gods" throughout history] has never existed?

A god has probably something better to do than 'exist', that is: satisfy the
needs of humans.

 
> These are genuine questions - not "wind-ups."

Sure, and I too have been serious all the time, and am more than ever.

regards

rene


Cheers,

Jud.



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---