Subject: RE: Death of God for Kids Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:00:49 +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: donderdag 19 juni 2003 15:29 Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Onderwerp: Death of God for Kids In a message dated 19/06/2003 13:40:59 GMT Daylight Time, R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes: Subj: RE: the death of god for kids Date: 19/06/2003 13:40:59 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: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Jud: May I in all courtesy ask 3 questions? (1) What exactly is meant by "faggotism?" I Brit. Eng it either means a bundle of wood with which to light the fire or a form of fried food. Rene: Faggots are those who sacrifice others to save themselves. I limit myself to the philosophical variant. Jud: Where did this philosophical variant usage come from? I mean when did it come into use with this meaning? I know it is used in USA as an offensive term for an openly homosexual man, but I find it difficult to believe that the millions of people who once belonged to the communist parties of the former Communist bloc countries, or the thousand million or so members of the Chinese CP., etc., are gay? What's wrong with being gay anyway? I understand it's quite a natural state to be in for those who are born that way? The use of the word to describe communists or religious fanatics may well be successful as a slur, but isn't this at the expense of the millions of gays in the world, who, as far as I can see haven't offended anybody? rene: It's my use. I took the word from Eminem, who treats faggottism at the 'ontic' basis. But all philosphers have their faggots. Nietzsche calls the faggot: the inner cattle. Heidegger: the great pretender (Vormacher) with his/her idols. He couldn't say much anymore though after 1945, so now I am making that up. I've already said, that homosexuality is not intended. Rene: Philosophy is not without engagement, or responsibility. 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. Jud: Does this mean that there the alternative form of faggotism which applies to religiosity, where the polluting of children's minds with weirdo ideas and taking away its ability to think rationally is considered reprehensible? Surely one doesn't need to look far to see that it is the struggle to the death between Christianity/Judaism and Islam which is threatening our world with oblivion? I don't wish to argue, I am simply interested in your point of view. Does believing in Heidegger presuppose being anti-happy or anti-successful in one's career or in business? Rene: Worried about happiness? We're in a world, of which the oil is happiness, consumerist happiness. That's disastrous. Not religion. Islam is not terrorism, Jud. Christianity is not terrorism. Consumerism just needs an enemy, as every power. A new notion of man brings with it another notion of happiness, not an egocentric notion. But that is an illusion anyway: faggot happiness. Jud: Why this Heideggerian emphasis on angst and unavoidable future death? Do the H-crowd believe that to be happy is to be in some way inauthentic? Does the H-crowd hold that if someone is happy or successful that they can only be in that state because they haven't "got the message" of doom and gloom as per the comportment towards death theme that runs through Heidegger's writings like a spoilsport at a children's party? Rene: On the contrary: Heidegger is the only one to break through the doom, that to the deniers of death can only grow. He shows another way, precisely into the other direction: earliness. (Trakl) It's really surprising. I'm an extremely optimist and cheerful person, Jud. Jud [earlier] (2) Is not the state of being happy [and rich too, if one works hard enough by hand & brain?] not something which most human beings on our planet strive for? Rene: Happiness, as victories, can be despicable. Jud: I wasn't talking about happiness as a victory, but rather as an achievement which humankind of all races and nationalities strives toward. Rene: Sorry. Happiness, LIKE victories, can be despicable. Meanwhile, when you want to talk about the aims of mankind, you've got to have an idea of what man is. But you "faggotly" are forgetting that all the time, because of your ontological angst to commit.. Nietzsche is more consequently: the end of God is the end of man. And of his happiness. Happiness as a pseudo-religious end is faggottish nihilism, uncomparingly worse than all religion so far. Jud:[earlier] How can "God" be dead if "he" [like all the other countless millions of "Gods" throughout history] has never existed? Rene: A god has probably something better to do than 'exist', that is: satisfy the needs of humans. Jud: If "he" is not interested in the "needs" of humans, then why did he create the earth and send his "only begotten son" with a message to mankind re: how to behave properly, [don't steal - don't shag the neighbour's wife, etc.,] if he was disinterested in the needs of humans? rene: I know nothing of all that. You brought up the existence of a god , or God, or whatever, many many times. Then you must know what you're talking about. hurried, rene --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005