Hi, Gilberto,
I wrote:
However, I assume you believe in contextualizing some sort of timeless (?)
essentialist morality.
You replied:
Sure. Except I'm not sure I can clearly even imagine the alternative. My
understanding of existentialism would suggest an individual boldly making
whatever
Gilberto,
At 06:50 PM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
Yes, I know. Existentialism and Essentialism are often contrasted. So if Mark
is opposing essentialist morality it suggests or at least raises the
possibility that he is defending some version of existentialism.
Okay. I wasn't sure why you referred
In my personal gestalt, I have often equated Sartre with Warholesque
theatricalism. For existential think, I far prefer Albert Camus and Soren
Kirkegaard.
Well, Camus certainly perfected the art of tragedy.
What about Sartre do you think is pop culturist?
Regards, Mark A. Foster
Gilberto,
At 07:55 AM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
I gave this a little more thought and I think that perhaps we could all agree
that morality can be situational and that what is appropriate or
inappropriate can depend on the concrete specifics of a situation, but I
think that would still see
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:36:14 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 07:55 AM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
I gave this a little more thought and I think that perhaps we could all
agree that morality can be situational and that what is appropriate or
inappropriate can depend
In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:52:43 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That would be my view, yes. However, I assume you believe in contextualizing some sort of timeless (?) essentialist moralitySure. Except I'm not sure I can clearly even imagine the alternative.My
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:09:27 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/30/2005 12:52:43 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That would be my view, yes. However, I assume you believe in
contextualizing some sort of timeless (?) essentialist morality
