William Barrett on Existentialism, part 1 of 3

  Рет қаралды 2,207

Stanley Sfekas

Stanley Sfekas

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 7
@dadadrew
@dadadrew 2 жыл бұрын
The superb and sublime William Barrett…what a book, what a title…where is the primer on contemporary philosophy that pairs with the genius of “Irrational Man”
@300PercentFlyingV
@300PercentFlyingV 5 жыл бұрын
Barrett's "Irrational Man" a masterful explanation for how the Western world came to see itself post WWII. And though he doesn't use the term "postmodern", it goes a long way to set the scene for the nihilistic, relativistic, yet identitarian outlook so dominant among Western progressives today.
@PaulWegmann
@PaulWegmann 3 жыл бұрын
The problem of Heidegger is not “what is to be”, but “what is the meaning of be”. Is a very subtle difference, with enormous consequences.
@vgfxworks
@vgfxworks 2 жыл бұрын
2 of 3 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKGVfIqfjauEbKc
@hanskung3278
@hanskung3278 Жыл бұрын
I wish I had a British accent, then I could fool people into thinking I was smart.
@keithperreur-lloyd7844
@keithperreur-lloyd7844 6 жыл бұрын
E=W/A [Existence is Word By Agreement - Summary] “n.b” [hopefully unnecessary] - speaks for nobody other than me.* All serious comments and questions will be happily responded to. ___________________ Understanding the Unhappening. “A rose by any other name….” is not ! What I, (“man”) have been taught to observe, I organise and then manage - with my tool; vocabulary. Only ‘words’ define and proclaim The Existent. Remove ‘word[s]’ from humans, and their mode of communication would be similar to that of, say, dogs. A dog ‘recognises’ what it observes, through emulation and familiarity of encounter. The human mother enunciates “chair”, and points at it, teaching the child to identify it. To be and not to be If I declare that Existence simply “IS”, with or without me* - (or any ‘observer’) - this can only be conjecture. In order to ‘be’, a thing must be perceivable or demonstrably observable in some way. (How can it be here if it is not observed to be here?) So, ‘Existence’ is my deciding/agreeing that it is so. My [perceived] consciousness is the sole ‘creator' of what I [agree to] call Existence. I can postulate that ‘other’ “exists in any case” if I wish; but unless I myself perceive that to be so, it cannot be so! Homomal Not Man, the myth, but I, Homomal *, [animal-with-word], perpetually edit and ‘rewrite’, (to my ultimate satisfaction), what I observe and how I see it. My conclusion/acceptance that this is ‘The Here-And-Now’, is the only ‘proof’ I will ever have of it. “Immortality”[!] Today consists of the sum total of my perceived, [including remembered], existence. Tomorrow is not a reality; it is, at most, a presumption. Not waking up, [e.g., “Death”], cannot be experienced by me, so I live “forever”. As I will not be conscious of witnessing any 'ending', (and I can never know when I did not wake up!), my life can be said to ‘terminate’ whenever I next sleep. ‘I think therefore I am’ NOT. The human creature classifies the sounds he makes, as ‘words’. That there is no communicating to anyone or anything whatsoever UNLESS AND WHILE I AM ‘CONSCIOUSLY’ DECREEING IT TO BE SO, does not in any way, diminish my respect for, or pleasure in doing so - or in anything I do.* Quite the contrary! Finally released from guilt, doubt, and pointless illusion, I now freely and intensively enjoy all experience, to a far greater degree than previously. A better standing of the happening! Being delivered of the [‘fairy-tale-like’] expectations of Homo Sapiens, (dotingly bred into me), I now expect far less, (if anything at all), of anyone or of myself. I, (“Life’s” creator*), CHOOSE to be at least as responsible for and to “Life’s” rules and requirements as I was when I assumed “Life” was here of itself: (until I realised that it conjectured that something ‘other’ is responsible for “Life” being here.) The source of much of “man’s” misery is rooted in his unease and confusion as to ‘how everything got here in the first place’: but he truly underestimates his powers of invention. Staring straight at him, is the answer to the dilemma. In the mirror. ___________________________________ The full version of E=W/A is on LinkedIn: (5 mins reading time) www.linkedin.com/pulse/life-after-death-keith-perreur-lloyd-2c/
William Barrett on Existentialism, part 2 of 3
15:19
Stanley Sfekas
Рет қаралды 785
How Strong Is Tape?
00:24
Stokes Twins
Рет қаралды 96 МЛН
Don’t Choose The Wrong Box 😱
00:41
Topper Guild
Рет қаралды 62 МЛН
Chain Game Strong ⛓️
00:21
Anwar Jibawi
Рет қаралды 41 МЛН
Гениальное изобретение из обычного стаканчика!
00:31
Лютая физика | Олимпиадная физика
Рет қаралды 4,8 МЛН
Existential Man - William Barrett (1968)
32:27
Philosophy Overdose
Рет қаралды 8 М.
WHAT IS THE MEISNER TECHNIQUE? (Acting Coach NYC)
14:56
John Windsor-Cunningham
Рет қаралды 366 М.
Existentialism: Crash Course Philosophy #16
8:54
CrashCourse
Рет қаралды 7 МЛН
Continental Philosophy: What is it, and why is it a thing?
33:10
Overthink Podcast
Рет қаралды 73 М.
Noam Chomsky full length interview: Who rules the world now?
17:14
Channel 4 News
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
Gavin de Becker, The Gift of Fear
52:45
St. Francis College
Рет қаралды 246 М.
Frank McCourt: The Journey of an Ordinary Teacher
13:18
NYU Steinhardt
Рет қаралды 48 М.
2014 "Noam Chomsky": Why you can not have a Capitalist Democracy!
17:47
How Strong Is Tape?
00:24
Stokes Twins
Рет қаралды 96 МЛН