Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 11:00:56 -0800
From: hugh bone <hughbone-AT-worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: healthy human sense


W.F. Wong wrote:
> 
> Ian wrote:
> 
> >Hi Wong! See you have your spirits up and have coaxed a few responses. The argument about "common sense" or "human nature" is the same as "sanity"; if you claim to order things in the world of human relations without sanity, or a healthy sense of self, you get to known as the philosopher of the mad, the morbid, and the stupid, since they truely reject the 'closing-thinking' of the sane. De Sade made the same argument as you in rejecting "bourgeois" values for unlimited rape and assassination.<
> 
> Hi Ian, "Common sense" doesn't mean "human nature" (you point out "sanity",actually I haven't used "sanity" in my last mails). "Gesunder "Menschenverstand" (common sense) doesn't equal to all the meaning of  "human thiniking", besides, "Gesunder Menschenverstand" is critized in the history of philosophy (from Romantic till today). There are many philosophical literatures in criticizing this term (such thought) now.
> 
> Sanity is not equal to "common sense" and "common sense" is also not equal to the right way in thinking, actually there is not any absolute right way in thinking. "Healthy" is a  word, it can point to the way of "unhealthy" and "illness", actually such words often do that. Besides, "relations" don't just mean "human relations", if you have read Deleuze or Derrida, then I don't need to explain here. "Abschied von Humanismus" wurde seit einiger Zeit aufgerufen. Besides, I don't see any relation be
> 
> 
> 
> For me, thinking of sane (I don't like to use this word, but in contrast to your opinion, I have to use it) is to accept our finiteness and relations, as relations are not finished facts, they (relations) are the "potential of changing", they are not closed but open. I would like to say human nature is not closed but open.
> 
> Wong
*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!**!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*

We may not be wight but we are never wong.

HB