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 =
between De Sade and my opinions.
Thinking of sane is not common sense! Today we know very well, we are =
limited, maybe we can oder the relations in a little fragement (actually =
relations mostly can't be ordered by us, but "we are in relations"), but =
there are still a lot of fragments which we don't know and we can't =
order even think of. We are not God, we can't see all the relaltions at =
the same time. Is that not too naive to think that human beings can =
order or controll all the relations? If so, "Entfremdung" would not =
appear, but unfortunately, the world goes in an opposite direction: we =
built up our systems but we are also under their impacts and can't get =
rid of them, and a lot of people are not conscious of that. =20
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 =20
>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 =
between De Sade and my opinions.
Thinking of sane is not common sense! Today we know very well, we are =
limited, maybe we can oder the relations in a little fragement (actually =
relations mostly can't be ordered by us, but "we are in relations"), but =
there are still a lot of fragments which we don't know and we can't =
order even think of. We are not God, we can't see all the relaltions at =
the same time. Is that not too naive to think that human beings can =
order or controll all the relations? If so, "Entfremdung" would not =
appear, but unfortunately, the world goes in an opposite direction: we =
built up our systems but we are also under their impacts and can't get =
rid of them, and a lot of people are not conscious of that. =20
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 =20