>From: Chuck Grimes <cgrimes at tsoft.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: RE: Survivor!
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>Does the inability to answer the egoist mean that _we_ have no reason
>to care about one another, those of us who are not egoist? Of course
>not: our feeling for each other is a reason to act on it. I really
>suspect that this is the best we can do. I do not regard the egoist's
>challenge as very important because there are few if any real
>egoists. --jks
>
>-------------
>
>You're right. I read this answer, and then forgot it. Why? There were
>a lot posts and this response came up early on the list. But there is
>another reason.
>
>Your response didn't have that hard ass, in you're face quality that I
>was looking for. After all you concede the point, there is no
>answer. I wanted something that would match the callous self-interest
>in the original question, why care, with an equally callous answer.
>
>The harshness of Rousseau's answer was exactly the kind of obnoxious
>retort I was looking for, and was lucky to find. It poses
>the answer back in terms that the question was issued and is a
>reciprocity of callousness.
>
>Now I think the reason for Rousseau's ability to come up with that
>kind of response is also interesting. The egotism of the
>why-care-and-we-are-individuals-of-importance crowd was readily
>available to Rousseau, through the immediate presence of an extremely
>arrogant nobility, monarchy and bourgeoisie. He had to live with this
>crap in his face, and he knew how to goad them back.
>
>Chuck Grimes
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.