ModernArchitect

This is a qoute by Franz Kafka from a book I am reading Existentialism this explains things a little more to me. I don't know, I would have choose to be king. Couriers They were given the choice between becoming kings or the couriers of kings. In the manner of children, they all wanted to be couriers. As a result, there are only couriers. They gallop through the world shouting to each other messages that, since there are no kings, have become meaningless. Gladly would they put an end to their miserable existence, but they dare not, because of their oaths of service.

Isn't one of the purposes of philosophy to discuss and understand someone else's views along with your own? I think to better understand philosophy is is necessary to understand both sides in order to come up with your own. I don't know, maybe I misunderstood your reply.

I read this book back in 5th grade along with "Adam of The Road" my girlfriend had this obsession with it so I read it again. This book is like a childrens vision of "Anthem". Are there any other thoughts. Like the rules of the reciever of memory? It is him being given the right to be an individual. The pills they give him to reprise the "Stirrings" (Basically when he is getting horny) just like the "Anthem" the comparsions are uncanny. Ayn Rand just takes it there fully. <FC: Fixed the thread title written in CAPS. Please don't write this way in the future.>

I just got done reading Kierkegaard's Journals, I am not saying that I agree or would want to follow his philosophy but I believe his idea of a theological existentialism has a little more backbone in comparison to Sartre.

Thanks, I read "The Emotions" and heard Sartre's 1946 speech and something wasn't clicking. I understand the absurdity of it now.

I have been aware of existentialism for a few years now and something just doesn't sit well with me. The only problem I can find is this. The belief that you must never hinder the freedom of others? Ever action has an equal or opposite reaction correct? So, how can this belief system be followed on just that alone? I know that there are more things wrong with the philosophy and I've been wondering what (if any) problems you see with it.

I apologize if my question was unclear. I was having a conversation with a friend on Schaefer's "What Ever Happened to the Human Race?" I was just wanting so other input.

Can you say that man is finite without implying that there is an infinite source? That the proposal of finite man also introduces the existence of a deity? I am just curious.