[lit-ideas] Undisposed (Is: Okshewski)
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:09:58 EDT
"I wouldn't know where to begin untangling the conceptual confusions and
illicit
attributions present in the interpretation of my position on autonomy as a
possible character disposition that you provide below."
Well, you did say (to Geary's amazement since he was never trained as a
philosopher):
autonomy is a 'character disposition'.
by which I take you mean a disposition on the part of one's character.
So you think it's because some people are _disposed_ to be so that they feel
"AUTONOMOUS".
I think that's wrong and that Jean-Paul Sartre was right that ALL HUMAN
BEINGS (by definition) _are_ autonomous. We are all _Disposed_ to be
autonomous
(if they let us). And it's _not_ a character trait (as 'simpatico' and
'antipatico' are trains of the Italian character).
Note too that 'disposed' and 'undisposed' have (like "I have a headache")
different meanings in male and female gender. In female gender, "She's
undisposed" means she's with 'the period'.
Cheers,
JL
************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Undisposed (Is: Okshewski)
