Very rational, Vera Mont. I’d suggest that all of us who could give did, it would make a huge difference.

Hi All,
The reason I asked the question, was because after reading Rawls' A Theory of Justice, he states, page 13, in the revised version, that, "Offhand it hardly seems likely that persons who view themselves as equals, entitled to press their claims upon one another, would agree to a principle which may require lesser life prospects for some simply for the sake of greater sum advantages enjoyed by others."

Based upon the majority of replies to this tread, Rawls is right. We have proved his statement to be correct. It seems most are in favour of not redistributing wealth so others can have the basic goods to the extent that others have them. Or am I wrong?

However, I was thinking, and I am assuming this here, most of us do not have excess wealth to give away to those who may be in need of help. So it's simply a matter of supply and demand. We don't have the supply to meet their demand.

When I look at things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others, and the good they do, does this prove Rawls wrong? Does it mean if you have enough wealth and you have the opportunity to increase the prospects of others you should.

I give a small amount each month to a charity. I always think that those who can afford to do this should. It could only help make things more equal for some others.

That why you don’t impose equality. You set up safety nets to help people who are not able to help themselves. Then, when basic needs are met, people can focus on personal growth, development and advancing society. This already happens in many countries. Sometimes its effective, sometimes not, but at least they are trying.

Hey BC,

It sounds like you are saying there is no point in even raising the question.

For me, it’s a question that needs to be asked if the human race wants equality. For it is inequality that separates humanity. Maybe most of us don’t want equality, but I don’t believe that. There is good will, but at what point does that good will stop?

Should it come down to people who have a lot, having most of their lot taken away to support those that don’t? You know, the greatest good for the greatest number.

I hope that is taught in schools everywhere, Frank.

Everyone has the choice to disobey. It's in human nature, look at any child. We need more individual rebellion.

what do you think would happen if every soldier refused their orders?

To do your questions justice Tom, would require a book length response. But I will say that existentialism appeals to me because it speaks directly to me. Part of the theory says, once you are born, you are responsible. I believe, that where posiible, if we were all more responsible for our descisions, we would have a better world. For me, that is the whole point of philosophy. And that's to make a better world.

As philosophy is a non-subject for about 98% of humanity, I’d say it compares pretty low.

36%, so far.

Yes, Jack, I agree. When someone asked me if I was, I was relectant to answer. I think if one was to afirm their loyalities to one philosophy or another, you would have had to spent a lifetime inside that philosophy. I have not.

Well, I don’t agree with you Abhiram.

Both Sartre and de Beauvoir said that existentialism is best understood through plays, literature and poetry. The unified structure you speak of is completely inherent and obvious in these formats.

Can you prove there can’t be a perfect definition of existentialism?

If you’ve read the novels of existentialists writers, you will find in them, the structure of the philosophy of existentialism.

Rob

Well 180 Proof, as it’s the philosophy I have read about the most, and the one that interests me the most, I’d have to say yes.

I have read about 50% of everything that Simone de Beauvoir wrote, plus books by Robert G. Olson and Hazel Barnes, plus Sartre, whom I find rather impenetrable, especially Being and Nothingness. So, I’ve still a long way to go to understand it better; it does attract me.

I read the other day that Sartre wrote 17 pages of text for everyday he was alive. And I’d be willing to bet that de Beauvoir did the same. So lots to read, just from those two.

After reading all the replies to this subject, it's clear that metaphysics means different things to different people. With something that is "non-physical", I understand why this would be so.

The reason I asked the question, "what is your best description of Metaphysics?", was because I wanted to see how other saw metaphysics, and now, I've got that.

However, I'm still captured by the English philosopher and historian R. G. Collingwood's description. One, because as someone pointed out, it is poetic, and two, obviously for Collingwood, his description best expressed metaphysics for him, and it fits my description of metaphysics.

I feel we have expanded on the description and hopefully, for others, and myself, it has made the subject clearer.

Here's Collingwood's description again, just for the sake of clarity.

“I write these words sitting on the deck of a ship’; his pen moves across the page. ‘I lift my eyes and see a piece of string – a line, I must call it at sea – stretched more or less horizontally above me. I find myself thinking “that is a clothes-line”.’ But this single proposition, ‘that is a clothes-line’, cannot be verified by observation. A minute examination of the string, a scientific investigation of its parts, cannot reveal its truth, because ‘that is a clothes-line’ means, in part: ‘it was put there to hang washing on. And this at once situates the object against a vast, rationally structured background of human life and history – a background that contains clothes and baths and soap, hygiene and standards of taste, ideas about cleanliness and smell and beauty, and reasons and motives and desires.

This transcendent background, the reality that surrounds us, is the subject matter of metaphysics, and without it Ayer’s favoured propositions are left, like the clothes-line, hanging in the air.“

I can understand love letter to the two. After reading about Chateaubriand, I think I might have done the same thing.

Yes, corporate speak is the death of originality.

Hi Tom,

I'm learning French and all French translations to English are never word for word, they can't be. So yes, translations often distort.

I like SbDs writing and thoughts. Her ideas are not philosophical, as she said many times, "Sartre is the philosopher”. I think the best way into her non-fiction is through her diaries. I've read America Day by Day and herWar Diary.

I said earlier that, "I can tell how aligned their thoughts are to mine", because my thoughts on many subjects were aligned to her’s even before I ever heard of her. Take this example, it's about something I hate, small talk.

Simone de Beauvoir framed this problem well in her America, Day by Day diary written in 1947. After a heated discussion one day with people she has just met, and whereupon meeting them the next day, she noted, “it is not customary in the country to push discussions very far. Polite speech curbs passions; if some sharp difference of opinion suddenly threatened to reveal itself, the conversation ceased and they fell back on polite formulas. We misunderstood each other in our politeness: they agreed to everything I said”.

I had this thought well before I ever read her diary. There are many other instances.

What I also find amazing is the number of ideas she had, well, about almost everything. I read somewhere that Sartre wrote 17 pages of text for every day he was alive. SdB would be the same I reckon.

I ain’t bright, what’s AVL?

Me too. Wish I could get the first 30 years back.

Hi Josh,

When I look at the state of the world, we are urgently ineed of transformative thinking. And, it is only medical science that can change us. Human nature is fixed.

Rob

Well, I belevie that there should be "paradigm shifts or revolutions in philosophy".

Look at the advances in Neuroscince over the last five years, surely some of these must make us assess philosophicl thinking.

Sartre thought human conflict and constant struggle were just a normal part of our condition. Could the need for conflict be driven out of us by rewiring our brains? John Locke said, “Good and evil, reward, and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature”. Our motives could be altered by medically changing our brains.

We have neurological methods of fixing problems with the brain, such as in people with speech impediments. We can translate brain activity into words and sentences through speech synthesis. When speaking, we can correlate the pattern of electrical activity that happens in the brain to consonants and vowels. This has given light to the neural code of speech. Through an implant, brain activity can be translated into a machine speech synthesis, which might give speechless people their spoken words back.

These and the many other advances in neuroscience make me think that philosophy might have to change its mind.

I'd rather not.

Agreed, Relavitist.

Essence is not a useful concept, but what I know of Sartre, I can understand why he focused on it at one point.

I have a friend who works for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. And, they want to know what his essence is. He tells me they have regular meeting about how him and his staff feel about themselves and the company. Are they asking if the essence of the company is alligning to the essence of the employee? He thinks they are. This companies mission statment is, the essence of the company. And employees are expected to not just agree with it, but to own the same essence to correctly align themselves to their priorities.

So maybe, for some, their essence is changable depending on their situation and who they are with. I think that is possible. Maybe essence should just be our biological design. The rest is too arbitary.

Hi Jack,

I figure our biology has to be a part of human essence. Our essence can't be just what we think we are. But is this only a philosophical viewpoint? Outside of philosophy, poetry and religion, I can't hear anyone else talking about human essence. So there may be no such thing. Like the soul or god, is essence just another human construct? I'd say that mostly it is. However, I feel in describing human essence, or at least what I think it is, it can be put this way, after reading so much by Simone de Beauvoir, her essence is made up of her strength, truth, individulity and dertimination. Take any one of them away, and she would not be Simone de Beauvoir, she would be someone else.

Hi Relativist,

Words send us in circles. But for me, my definition of essence includes our biological makeup, which drives primary functions and attitudes, and, we obtain a large part of our essence from the way we have been treated by others. Some have a loving and caring essence, some don’t because of our upbringing.

Hi Manual,

I never said there weren’t Australian philosopher, just a dearth of philosophical discussion in Australia, except on here of course.

I agree with your statement "If it is intended to elaborate some kind of existentialist viewpoint, then that claim has to be defended under such a context".

I've long held the view that in place of us inventing things that have to be explained, why don't we explain the things that we can invent? The world would be such a more coherent place.

Hi Lionino, I'll take a look at that and see if it helps. Thank you. Rob.

Hi, Yes, I could kill my parents for giving me such a name. To top it off, my middle name is John. Guess when I was born?

All I can say abuout junior is that JFK must be rolling in his grave.

The definition, as with most words used in a philosophical manner is always the stumbling point. When I say essence, I mean it from a poetic sence. Please don't ask me to define that, we'll be here for ever. But, taking essence to mean a person biological makeup, that changes everything.

If your sex is part of your essence, your predetermined attributes guide your essence. At least, that's what I think.
Rob

OK, which pub? I'll go.

Thanks for the info on Aristotle's Concept of Heredity, I'll have a read.

Best,

Rob

Hi Tom,

You ask, "Do you mean is the nature of what is human constrained by our biology?"

Basically yes. So if your biology is a part of your essence, and there are a lot of pre-defined attributes in your biology, your essence must come before your birth. I think the tricky thing here is what was Sartre calling existence? I'm saying birth, but do the two words equate?

I'm glad there are other Australians interested in philosophy. The reason I joined this forum is I can't find anyone to talk to about philosophy. I live in Canberra, and I've been to a few ANU philosophy talks, but most are all on their "academic philosophy", which I find impenetrable.

Outside of that and The Philosophers Zone on the ABC, there is no philosophy discussed in my circles. I don't know anyone who is interested in the subject.