Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation  (Read 37174 times)

multiplechoice

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #120 on: August 02, 2008, 10:26:14 PM »

[...] Do individuals control history, or do history and fate control individuals? The prescience of genius is an argument in favor of fate, and an argument against free will; if events can be foreseen long before they occur, they must have been caused neither by individuals nor by circumstances, but by history and fate. It appears that Hitler was the cause of the Holocaust, and that the Depression was the cause of Hitler's rise to power. But if the Holocaust was foreseen a century before it occurred, then it can't be ascribed to particular individuals, or to particular circumstances. While Hitler was the proximate cause of the Holocaust, and while the Depression was the proximate cause of Hitler's rise to power, the root causes of these events lie far deeper than any particular individuals or particular circumstances.

[...]


Interesting, could you please elaborate a bit more on this?


sinus, my brother, what kind of @ # ! * i n' elaboration do you think it's needed?! You are saying it all yourself!
[Referring to a glass of water:]
I mixed this myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust anybody!

just sex

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #121 on: August 07, 2008, 11:19:51 PM »

Think of all the fun I've missed
Think of all the fellas that I haven't kissed
Next year I could be just as good
If you'd check off my Christmas list
Boo doo bee doo


Great signature, downthechimney!
I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park anywhere near the place.

mapit

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #122 on: August 16, 2008, 01:48:49 PM »

.*., I'm kinda baffled as to why you wanted to explain to us that Mafia doesn't kill people for the hell of it? :)


??
Thanks for giving name to my pain and suffering.

grand/grand

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #123 on: August 26, 2008, 04:02:56 PM »

[...] In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.


That's basically the existential credo, I believe. Remember Professor Irwin Corey? He was a comedian who played a mad professor. He gave lectures. And he used to say "If God exists, then anything is possible. If God doesn't exist, then everything is permissible."

The movie "The Ice Harvest" exemplifies the meme idea — because these are characters who are clearly on the existential slide; life has very little meaning for them. Billy Bob said to John, "If you are what you do, and you never do anything, then what the @ # ! * are you?" And then John says, "So what do you want to do?" And Billy Bob says, "I don't know." And so they hatch the plan to commit the crime. It's like a joke setup: "Two guys are sitting in a bar ..."

rent a car

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #124 on: August 27, 2008, 01:13:59 PM »

[...] In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.


That's basically the existential credo, I believe. Remember Professor Irwin Corey? He was a comedian who played a mad professor. He gave lectures. And he used to say "If God exists, then anything is possible. If God doesn't exist, then everything is permissible."

The movie "The Ice Harvest" exemplifies the meme idea — because these are characters who are clearly on the existential slide; life has very little meaning for them. Billy Bob said to John, "If you are what you do, and you never do anything, then what the @ # ! * are you?" And then John says, "So what do you want to do?" And Billy Bob says, "I don't know." And so they hatch the plan to commit the crime. It's like a joke setup: "Two guys are sitting in a bar ..."


Existence is undoubtedly problematic and disturbing. In one weekend strip, in Sartre's "Peanuts," Schulz succinctly describes the horror of discovering one's own existence in the world:

Quote
Linus: I'm aware of my tongue... It's an awful feeling! Every now and then I become aware that I have a tongue inside my mouth, and then it starts to feel lumped up... I can't help it... I can't put it out of my mind... I keep thinking about where my tongue would be if I weren't thinking about it, and then I can feel it sort of pressing against my teeth...

Sartre devoted an entire book to this experience – his 1938 novel "Nausea" in which his character Roquentin is alarmed to discover his own actuality. But Linus sums the point up very well in a few frames.

m a y a

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #125 on: August 29, 2008, 02:19:41 PM »

Existence is undoubtedly problematic and disturbing. In one weekend strip, in Sartre's "Peanuts," Schulz succinctly describes the horror of discovering one's own existence in the world:

Quote
Linus: I'm aware of my tongue... It's an awful feeling! Every now and then I become aware that I have a tongue inside my mouth, and then it starts to feel lumped up... I can't help it... I can't put it out of my mind... I keep thinking about where my tongue would be if I weren't thinking about it, and then I can feel it sort of pressing against my teeth...

Sartre devoted an entire book to this experience – his 1938 novel "Nausea" in which his character Roquentin is alarmed to discover his own actuality. But Linus sums the point up very well in a few frames.


No offense to Sartre and company, but I was feeling exactly like the guy he writes about when I was homeless a couple of years back!

small turkey man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #126 on: August 29, 2008, 06:40:34 PM »

[...] In other words, each person potentially is the world's best expert on himself and has the best information about himself. What drives a person to live, interact with the environment, his "motivation" if you will, is the overall characteristic of simply being alive. No special concepts are required to understand why people are motivated and active: every person is motivated for no other reason that he is alive. The individual is what he does and comes to know his nature by seeing what he is doing. There is no human nature -- man simply is, and he is nothing else but what he makes of himself.


That's basically the existential credo, I believe. Remember Professor Irwin Corey? He was a comedian who played a mad professor. He gave lectures. And he used to say "If God exists, then anything is possible. If God doesn't exist, then everything is permissible."

The movie "The Ice Harvest" exemplifies the meme idea — because these are characters who are clearly on the existential slide; life has very little meaning for them. Billy Bob said to John, "If you are what you do, and you never do anything, then what the @ # ! * are you?" And then John says, "So what do you want to do?" And Billy Bob says, "I don't know." And so they hatch the plan to commit the crime. It's like a joke setup: "Two guys are sitting in a bar ..."


Living a life defined by one's occupation, social, racial or economic class, is the very faith of "bad faith", the condition in which people cannot transcend their situations in order to realize what they must be (human) and what they are not. It is also essential for an existent to understand that negation allows the self to enter what Sartre calls the "great human stream". The great human stream arises from a singular realization that nothingness is a state of mind in which we can become anything, in reference to our situation, that we desire. Additionally, an important tenet of bad faith is that we must enact a bit of good faith in order to take advantage of our role to reach an authentic existence. The authentic domain of bad faith, is realizing that the role we are playing is the lie. The goal of authenticity can be traced back to the works of Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground who is often declared "The Grandfather of existentialism". To live and project into the future as a project of a self, while keeping out of bad faith and living by the will of the self is living life authentically. This is perhaps one of the main goals of Sartre's opus.

One of the most important implications of bad faith is the abolition of traditional ethics and morality. As being a "moral person" requires one to deny authentic impulses (everything that makes us human) and change one's actions on the will of another person. Being a moral person is one of the most severe forms of bad faith. Essentially Sartre characterizes this as "the faith of bad faith" which is and should not be, in Sartre's opinion, at the heart of their existence. Sartre has a very low opinion of conventional morality for this reason, condemning it as a tool of the bourgeoisie to control the masses. Examples such as signs that say "Keep Off The Grass" deriving "its being from its exigency and not its exigency from its being."

The Look

The mere appearance of another person causes one to look at him/herself as an object, and see his/her world as it appears to the other. This is not done from a specific location outside oneself, it is non-positional. This is a recognition of the subjectivity in others. Sartre describes being alone in a park, at this time, all relations in the park (e.g. the bench is between two trees) are available, accessible and occurring -- for him. When another person arrives in the park, there is now a relation between that person and the bench, and this is not entirely available to him. The relation is presented as an object (e.g. man glances at watch), but is really not an object, it cannot be known. It flees from him. The other person is a "drainhole" in the world, they disintegrate the relations of which Sartre was earlier the absolute centre. This transformation is most clear when one sees a mannequin that they confuse for a real person for a moment.

Quote
While they are believing it is a person, their world is transformed, and everything exists as an object that partially escapes them. During this time the world comes on to you differently, and you can no longer have a total subjectivity. The world is now his world, a foreign world that no longer comes from you, but from him. The other person is a "threat to the order and arrangement of your whole world…Your world is suddenly haunted by the Other's values, over which you have no control."

When they realise it is a mannequin, and is not subjective, the world seems to transfer back, and they are again in the center.


This is back to the pre-reflective mode of being, it is "the eye of the camera that is always present but is never seen". The person is occupied, and too busy for self-reflection. This process is continual and unavoidable. Subjectivity is competitive. This explains why it can be difficult to look someone in the eye. Sartre does mention another man in the park who is reading a newspaper. This man is different because he is so engaged in a project, that he allows himself to be completely the object -- "a man reading."

in lieu of

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #127 on: August 29, 2008, 08:43:54 PM »

There are several forms of reincarnation in many Hindu religions. In Buddhism too, a person is born and reborn dozens of times until he learns to master his emotions and desires. Life is believed to be for the purpose of overcoming the desires of the body. Through a series of births and deaths a person finally achieves Nirvana, when the cycle of births and deaths ends, and one is born no more. Nirvana is supposed to be a state of bliss where one has reached the state beyond birth and death. In some Hindu religions, one can be reborn as an animal, an insect, a worm... etc. One Indian saint told his disciples that he would come as a rat in the next life. There is an Indian temple in his honor where they still continue to feed and protect rats of the neighborhood daily for fear that one of them might be the reincarnation of that saint. There is another Hindu god, Hanuman, who was incarnated as a monkey in his last appearance. They have a temple for him too, where they feed monkeys daily, protect and care for them in the environs of the temple.


That is a good thing I guess -- it encourages people to treat other animals with respect!


Are you being sarcastic? If that's the case, I seriously urge you to reconsider your position, attitude and words!
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

c l o g

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #128 on: September 02, 2008, 10:56:53 PM »

[...]

Like authenticity, the topic of fate recurs throughout NBK. "Do you believe in fate?" is one of the first questions that Mickey asks Mallory. During the conversation in the prison after Mickey has been apprehended for grand theft, he tells Mallory that nothing can stop fate. (Fate is defined as the inevitability of a course of events predetermined by God or other agency beyond human control. Fatalism is the acceptance of all events as inevitable.) He also describes himself to Wayne Gayle as "fate's messenger." Mickey is a fatalist, which is to say that he accepts all events as inevitable. As a result, he is unburdened by any sense of responsibility for his actions. Ironically, it is Mickey's rejection of the concept of free will that makes him so free to be authentic. In his world all events are determined by factors beyond his control, thus the concepts of good and evil or guilt and innocence, are artificial constructs. This theory was also that of Nietzsche, who rejected free will and joyfully embraced fatalism. Nietzsche writes:

Quote
The fable of intelligible freedom: Now one finally discovers that this human nature, too, cannot be accountable, in as much as it is a necessary consequence and assembled from the elements and influences of things past and present: That is to say that man can be made accountable for nothing, not for his nature, nor for his motives, nor for his actions, nor for the effects he produces. One has thereby attained to the knowledge that the history of the moral sensations is the history of an error, the error of accountability which rests on the error of freedom of the will...The proposition is as clear as daylight, and yet here everyone prefers to retreat back into the shadows and untruth: from fear of the consequences.

Like Nietzsche's superman, Mickey embraces fatalism and places himself beyond the categories of good and evil. Unburdened by guilt and responsibility, he is free do whatever he wants. Needless to say, Mickey is an unsavory example of what denial of free will and personal responsibility might lead to. As Nietzsche points out, the arguments against free will are very convincing but one is loathe to accept them because of the possible consequences. For Nietzsche, human beings have not only an instinct to survive, they incessantly strive to amplify and intensify their life experience and constantly endeavor to express their own vitality and strength. [...]


In Gay Science, Nietzsche puts the news of God's death in the mouth of a madman. People take no notice of him -- yet the image is striking: he carries a lantern in the morning, searching everywhere for God who cannot be found.

We have killed him, you and I. We are all his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? Realizing that no one believes him, the madman considers the bystanders: "I come too early. My time has not yet come. This great event is still on its way, still traveling; it has not yet reached the ears of men... This deed os still more distant from them than the most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves." Later that day, he visits the churches in the town and sings a requiem aeternam deo. "What are these churches now, if not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

marshallah

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #129 on: September 03, 2008, 06:39:40 PM »

[...]

Like Nietzsche's superman, Mickey embraces fatalism and places himself beyond the categories of good and evil. Unburdened by guilt and responsibility, he is free do whatever he wants. Needless to say, Mickey is an unsavory example of what denial of free will and personal responsibility might lead to. As Nietzsche points out, the arguments against free will are very convincing but one is loathe to accept them because of the possible consequences. For Nietzsche, human beings have not only an instinct to survive, they incessantly strive to amplify and intensify their life experience and constantly endeavor to express their own vitality and strength. [...]


A virtuous (i.e. good) person is praised by others for the good he does to them. The virtues -- obedience, chastity, justness, industriousness, etc. -- will actually harm the person who possesses them! If you possess a virtue... you are its victim! Thus we praise virtue in others because we derive advantages from it.

And as far as moral beliefs are concerned, they are always group beliefs, and the group is greater than any dissenting individual. With morality, the individual can only ascribe value to himself as a function of the mass. Moral censure and control can only emerge through social consensus. Morality is thus the herd-instinct in the individual. It represents the power of those who are individually weak but collectively strong. Their moral laws will (they hope) protect them, as well as justify them and the way they live.