Sartre : Messages : 2546-2575 of 8184

#2547 From: dpbxx@...
Date: Mon Jun 25, 2001 11:58 am
Subject: Re: A question dpbxx@...
Send Email

Just to jump in w/ a thought:

The misunderstanding in this particular discussion originates w/ the term
"intuition". Sarte, in the passage cited, does not use the term and, I believe,
for good reason.

At the point of intuition, the for-itself is already engaged in its primary
activity of representation - objectifying or creating an object of reflection.
An intuition may be understood as the beginning of that process, somewhere
between pre-reflective (non-thetic, in Sartre's term) and fully reflective
(thetic) thought. It is as though the image to be reflected is emerging through
the glass darkly, it is an impression of something not quite yet clear - an
intuition of a presence that has yet to be fully constructed.

In the passage cited Sartre is clearly referring to the fact of consciousness
itself, non-thetic and purely a function of the original emergence of for-itself
from in-itself as awareness. There is no specific content here, intuitive or
otherwise. The notion of God, in this framework, is as universal Otherness - a
reflective meta-object (if you will) of consciousness that connects all
experience of otherness and universalizes it.

#2548 From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
Date: Mon Jun 25, 2001 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Trapped.................. tyjfk@...
Send Email

your reaction is perfectly understandable, given the cause of it. you have
but no choice to react in this way, given your great intellect and
character. so much, silk; the button has been pushed, and i am glad you
react the way you did. you have no free will indeed, poor thing.

james.


From: "silk" <smbc1@...>
Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
To: <sartre@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Fw: [Sartre] Fw: Trapped..................
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:40:27 +0200

Hi me Silk: Your sort I have dealt with on numerous occasions
I welcome your intrusion. I have killed 18 people in Vietnam,
you shall be childs play for me. how do yoU want to go?
GUN, KNIFE OR BROKEN NECK? COME ON PUNK i SHALL SEEK YOU OUT!  gODS GREATEST
GIFT TO MAN IS DEATH, i AM THE ANGEL OF DEATH, WAIT FOR ME FOR i AM COMING!
aND NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON!              yOU WILL GET YOUR WISH!
A DEATH WISH!..................



----- Original Message -----
From: james tan <tyjfk@...>
To: <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Sartre] Fw: Trapped..................


  > silk,
  >
  > i understand what you are saying, and i do know i am coming up your
  > apartment to kill you now..i am not free not to do it, i am not
responsible
  > because i have no free will, and i have to do it, out of necessity.
  > everything happens because it has to, like what you love to banter about,
  > and i have to believe in what you said. and just as i have to come and
slit
  > your throat. i know where you are working and staying, and you would love
to
  > see me, your secret admirer, you are my intellectual hero. i kill those
whom
  > i adore: and this...is the end product of evolution, at least in me. your
  > theory of no free will is so correct and true. i don't have free will,
and
i
  > have to kill you. maybe you'd like to get ready. but not to fear, all
things
  > is fixed and determined, including my act and your subsequent death, all
  > this events are but chain of causes and effect, so why worry if all is
  > fixed? and i have done it once before when i was in the military, the
poor
  > fellow just gave a short cry and a little jerk, that is all, everything
will
  > be over in a second. i will give you a clue though when you know i come:
i
  > will be wearing a brown jacket, i will be standing outside your apartment
  > for half an hour so that you may notice me, yes that is the idea, and
then
  > you may like to decide to call the police or not. if you were to die,
which
  > may not since you may call the police, i.e. in time, though they can't be
  > there 24 hours a day everyday, though of course you may outpower me
  > yourself,... though you may not; but ...if you were to die, i am sure i
will
  > attend your funeral and pay my last respect to a smart alex like you, and
  > surely your mother can't blame me because i am not responsible for it,
for
  > how can i be if i have no free will? it just has to happen?!!! i have no
  > control, i have no 'i', i have no freedom. it just have to happen. are
you
  > free tonight?
  >
  > james.
  >
  > ps: just joking.
  >
  >
  > From: "silk" <smbc1@...>
  > Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
  > To: <sartre@yahoogroups.com>
  > Subject: [Sartre] Fw: Trapped..................
  > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:55:36 +0200
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > And of course there are those who will say that while they agree that the
  > physical may be a thing of inheritance & fixed at that, the mental
aspects
  > are not. "Tabula Rasa", a blank tablet! A perception of mentality at
birth
  > with no conceptions, simply awaiting "experience" so as to develop ideas
&
  > preferences. These are nothing more than groundless opinions advanced by
  > dull men to conceal the poverty of their imaginations! And what do you
  > suppose these opinions which they can't in any way substantiate are based
  > upon? What all embraced falsehoods evolve from, fear! It is this very
fear
  > of helplessness which pre-destination suggests & engenders that is
  > responsible for its rejection by humans. You can't change your
fingerprints
  > nor even the color of your skin or height. I am of the "opinion" that
just
  > as surely as these things are fixed at the instant of conception, if not
  > before, so is one's mental make up & I am prepared to state why I do so
  > believe & not like others only offering up "I just do" in defense of my
  > stand. Such things as character, personality, intelligence, talents or
lack
  > of them along with one's ways & their favorite color & all the rest of
their
  > compulsions. Why do I believe this? First of all I do not believe mother
  > nature makes mistakes & that all that "is" "is" for a distinct purpose. A
  > "creation" would never be allowed to do its "own thing" but rather is
meant
  > to be interdependent in a symbiotic state with all else that "is" & this
  > fact is over & over again consistently demonstrated in the theme of
natures
  > handiwork. This interdependence completely rules out free will but by no
  > means chaos & hazard. Anyone who has ever studied or taken time to
observe
  > the workings of nature has certainly marveled at the wonder & intricacy
of
  > it all. It is also this very intricacy which could never permit nor allow
  > anything but the strictest of planning & organization so don't, under any
  > circumstances, ever confuse fixed evolution with free will. I won't even
  > refer to it as evolution but rather the "unfolding" of a pre-ordained
plan!
  > The "other" animals lack what we have "gained", discontent with our
  > situation, depression & torment as concerns our unalterable condition
  > however they appear to still have what we have lost & that is
"acceptance".
  > Having long ago made this negative observation a wise scribe wrote "god
give
  > me the whatwithall to change the things that can be changed, the strength
to
  > accept what can not be changed & the wisdom to know the difference" & all
  > this culminating, hopefully, in serenity. Never compare yourself to
others!
  > The enormous price of our particular type of mentality is the capacity to
  > imagine & its consequent outgrowth & manifestation to compare & the
ensuing
  > disappointment & torment it precipitates as one see's, as a result, that
  > which they are & that which they wish they were but are not! And if this
  > attitude is consistent, which I believe it to be, were they what they
wished
  > to be they would be wishing they were something else! This then is the
mind
  > set of the human, perpetual discontent. Some believe it to be a positive
  > evolutionary force which keeps the machinery of mankind in motion.
  > Comparison; When people see some things as beautiful, by virtue of
opposites
  > which must exist, other things naturally appear ugly. If we allow
ourselves
  > to be trapped between the jaws of our imagination & our reality, between
  > that better world we dream of & the worse one we inhabit, we may find our
  > condition a very unsatisfactory one indeed.      chao/Silk
  >
  > _________________________________________________________________________
  > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
  >
  >
  > Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/
  >
  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
  >
  > <A
HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+S
artre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul
Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2549 From: "silk" <smbc1@...>
Date: Mon Jun 25, 2001 9:40 am
Subject: The many "Me's" smbc1@...
Send Email

Everybodys crazy around here except us two & I'm not so sure
of you!

I've started a support group for my personalities.
We go around the room and share with all the other me's.
I've numbered them from 1 through 10 so I can keep them
straight. But 4 eloped with 7, so for now I'm down to eight.

Number 9 is suing me, he claims he's been abused,
Because I never let him out, his self esteem is bruised.
Number 3's a lawyer and he took 9's case for gratis.
8 and 6 agree with 9 and want class action status.

10 approached me yesterday...could he live on his own?
he's found a job but needs a car...would I co-sign a loan?
I've been told that number 1 revealed in therapy
That he has several egos too, and one of them is me.

Number 5 just cracks me up. I love his sense of humor.
3 tells me that 5 is twisted, but 8 says that's just rumor.
The strangest one is number 2. I think his brain is fried.
he's always playing with her guns and speaks of homicide.

I've talked about each one of them with my psychiatrist.
They won't come to his office so he thinks they don't exist.
He says that I'm just paranoid and schizophrenic too.
But they all think that he's a quack who doesn't have a clue.

So I began my little group so they could be involved
In helping one another see their issues get resolved.
Although there are a bunch of me's who feel the need to share,
They're easy to accommodate...we only need one
"chair!"

#2550 From: RickG15@...
Date: Mon Jun 25, 2001 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: A question RickG15@...
Send Email

In a message dated 6/25/2001 11:38:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cbobo@...
writes:

I'm certainly no judge of respectability, so I'll leave that to you. I
certainly believe that established philosophers and scientists are entitled
to their beliefs and would not gainsay them. However, a vague appeal to
authority such as you have mounted here is arguably fallacious, since it
does not advance a rational or logical argument. What evidence do these
people have that there is no free will?

What scientific study do you point to that sets out to disprove freedom?
This doesn't seem like a very scientific undertaking at all. I did not say
that anything was "obvious" to me nor was I trying to convince anyone of
anything. This forum is devoted to existentialism, Sartre's philosophy and
writings, phenomenology and other such subjects. I was merely making what
I hoped were topical comments within in the context of the discussion.

Well I would imagine that neither of us are adequately qualified for a
full-blown debate on the free-will issue.
My only complaint was your claim that free-will exists because of the human
intuition that it exists, which is, I think, quite obviously not sufficient
evidence on which to establish the existence of free-will.

Rick

#2551 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2001 3:09 pm
Subject: Sams's Question cbobo@...
Send Email

I sent this message once but it got lost in cyberspace, so I'm resending it.

Sam, Sartre's method seems adequate to me. Consider the following reading of Sartre.

The Sartrean person is not indifferent to the world, he or she is engaged

in and with it. "I can assume consciousness of myself," according to Sartre, "only as a particular man engaged in this or that enterprise, anticipating this or that success, fearing this or that result, and by means of the ensemble of these anticipations, outlining his whole figure." (B&N, p. 438) Where in this description is there room for indifference? We make our ultimate and original project--the solution of the problem of being--exist by means of our engagement with the world, or in other words, by living it. Suppose we do find ourselves "indifferent" as between two possible courses of action. Still we must chose in light of our fundamental project. "There is not here an act deprived of motives and causes" Sartre says, "but rather a spontaneous invention of motives and causes, which placed within the compass of my fundamental choice thereby enriches it.

" (B&N, p. 446) If you are feeling indifferent, then you are lacking in spontaneity and inventiveness. In other words, you are avoiding and denying your freedom. But you are the author of your world. You are wholly responsible for the situation in which you find yourself. You are responsible for everything, including the very desire to flee responsibility. True, to make yourself passive in the world, to tear yourself away from this responsibility and to refuse to act on things and others is still to choose yourself. But then you would simply have lived your life as a lacked and neglected opportunity. You would be a failure and you yourself would be responsible for being a failed human project. You might be described as a living suicide, one of the walking dead. Isn't this the worst

form of bad faith--pretending to be alive when really you're dead, or conversely, acting like a dead person when you are alive?

Do you see a moral, ethical or existential problem in these comments?

----- Original Message -----

From: Sam Carter

Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 3:55 PM

Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

Chris: According to Sartre, it would indeed be equally as authentic and

valid, 100% so. Of course to most of us such indifference even if

"authentic" in that situation would horrify us, me included. So maybe

there's a problem with Sartre's philosophy there. We are clearly all aware

of other factors within ourselves and within the situation that determine

the morality / validity of a situation besides whether it's authentic or

not... and thus Sartre's method of judgement seems insufficient.

#2552 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Mon Jun 25, 2001 12:08 am
Subject: Re: A question cbobo@...
Send Email

Sam, Sartre's method seems adequate to me. Consider the following reading of Sartre.

The Sartrean person is not indifferent to the world, he or she is engaged in and with it. "I can assume consciousness of myself," according to Sartre, "only as a particular man engaged in this or that enterprise, anticipating this or that success, fearing this or that result, and by means of the ensemble of these anticipations, outlining his whole figure." (B&N, p. 438) Where in this description is there room for indifference? We make our ultimate and original project--the solution of the problem of being--exist by means of our engagement with the world, or in other words, by living it. Suppose we do find ourselves "indifferent" as between two possible courses of action. Still we must chose in light of our fundamental project. "There is not here an act deprived of motives and causes" Sartre says, "but rather a spontaneous invention of motives and causes, which placed within the compass of my fundamental choice thereby enriches it." (B&N, p. 446) If you are feeling indifferent, then you are lacking in spontaneity and inventiveness. In other words, you are avoiding and denying your freedom. But you are the author of your world. You are wholly responsible for the situation in which you find yourself. You are responsible for everything, including the very desire to flee responsibility. True, to make yourself passive in the world, to tear yourself away from this responsibility and to refuse to act on things and others is still to choose yourself. But then you would simply have lived your life as a lacked and neglected opportunity. You would be a failure and you yourself would be responsible for being a failed human project. You might be described as a living suicide, one of the walking dead. Isn't this the worst form of bad faith--pretending to be alive when really you're dead, or conversely, acting like a dead person when you are alive?

Do you see a moral, ethical or existential problem in these comments?

----- Original Message -----

From: Sam Carter

Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 3:55 PM

To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

Chris: According to Sartre, it would indeed be equally as authentic and
valid, 100% so. Of course to most of us such indifference even if
"authentic" in that situation would horrify us, me included. So maybe
there's a problem with Sartre's philosophy there. We are clearly all aware
of other factors within ourselves and within the situation that determine
the morality / validity of a situation besides whether it's authentic or
not... and thus Sartre's method of judgement seems insufficient.

#2553 From: "CeCelia Anne Destiny Beamon" <soibewhoiam@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2001 3:32 pm
Subject: D & N soibewhoiam@...
Send Email

I would like to take the time to introduce myself.  I am currently the
president of the Philosophy club at a local community college.  I happened
to stumble upon this web group one day and I have been following the
comments and questions for about a month or so.  I was wondering if someone
would be willing to inform me of the title of book "D & N" that is being
refered to so that I can get one (shy smile), as I would like to purchase
it.  And I was also wondering if anyone would mind if I shared some of the
comments or questions that are posted to the group in our club discussion
meetings?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

#2554 From: "Sam Carter" <Codboy56@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2001 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: A question Codboy56@...
Send Email

Chris: I think what you're talking about is existential indifference - ie
bad faith - not taking responsibility, refusing to make a choice. And I
totally agree with you - that's a negative attitude and an attempt to run
away from freedom. But I'm talking about emotional indifference - I think it
is possible to be emotionally indifferent to the consequences of a choice
and still to make that choice without falling into "bad faith". For example,
I'm choosing to sit here and write this email, even though I have the choice
of many other courses of action at present - I could get a drink, go watch
TV, play some Hendrix on my geetar, read, etc. and I'd be equally happy
whatever I decided to do - although I've made a choice to sit here and write
this. Thus I can still be fully engaged in this world on the rational plane
and be on another planet emotionally.


>From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
>Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question
>Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 17:08:16 -0700
>
>Sam, Sartre's method seems adequate to me.  Consider the following reading
>of Sartre.
>
>The Sartrean person is not indifferent to the world, he or she is engaged
>in and with it.  "I can assume consciousness of myself," according to
>Sartre, "only as a particular man engaged in this or that enterprise,
>anticipating this or that success, fearing this or that result, and by
>means of the ensemble of these anticipations, outlining his whole figure."
>(B&N, p. 438) Where in this description is there room for indifference?  We
>make our ultimate and original project--the solution of the problem of
>being--exist by means of our engagement with the world, or in other words,
>by living it.  Suppose we do find ourselves "indifferent" as between two
>possible courses of action.  Still we must chose in light of our
>fundamental project.  "There is not here an act deprived of motives and
>causes" Sartre says, "but rather a spontaneous invention of motives and
>causes, which placed within the compass of my fundamental choice thereby
>enriches it." (B&N, p. 446)  If you are feeling indifferent, then you are
>lacking in spontaneity and inventiveness. In other words, you are avoiding
>and denying your freedom.  But you are the author of your world.  You are
>wholly responsible for the situation in which you find yourself.  You are
>responsible for everything, including the very desire to flee
>responsibility.  True, to make yourself passive in the world, to tear
>yourself away from this responsibility and to refuse to act on things  and
>others is still to choose yourself.  But then you would simply have lived
>your life as a lacked and neglected opportunity.  You would be a failure
>and you yourself would be responsible for being a failed human project.
>You might be described as a living suicide, one of the walking dead.  Isn't
>this the worst form of bad faith--pretending to be alive when really you're
>dead, or conversely, acting like a dead person when you are alive?
>
>Do you see a moral, ethical or existential problem in these comments?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Sam Carter
>Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 3:55 PM
>To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question
>
>Chris: According to Sartre, it would indeed be equally as authentic and
>valid, 100% so. Of course to most of us such indifference even if
>"authentic" in that situation would horrify us, me included. So maybe
>there's a problem with Sartre's philosophy there. We are clearly all aware
>of other factors within ourselves and within the situation that determine
>the morality / validity of a situation besides whether it's authentic or
>not... and thus Sartre's method of judgement seems insufficient.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

#2555 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2001 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: D & N cbobo@...
Send Email

Welcome CeCelia,

If you are referring to my posts, it's B&N (not D&N), which stands for Being and Nothingness by Jean Paul Sartre. If you haven't read it, I urge you to get down to your local bookstore or library and pick up a copy. Although at times it is difficult reading, when your finished you will realize that it took you on an absolutely wonderful intellectual adventure. I have no objection to your sharing any comment that I have made to your discussion group. This is, after all, a public place.

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: CeCelia Anne Destiny Beamon

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:50 AM

To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Sartre] D & N

I would like to take the time to introduce myself. I am currently the
president of the Philosophy club at a local community college. I happened
to stumble upon this web group one day and I have been following the
comments and questions for about a month or so. I was wondering if someone
would be willing to inform me of the title of book "D & N" that is being
refered to so that I can get one (shy smile), as I would like to purchase
it. And I was also wondering if anyone would mind if I shared some of the
comments or questions that are posted to the group in our club discussion
meetings?

#2556 From: Jivko Georgiev <jivkox43georgiev@...>
Date: Tue Jun 26, 2001 11:14 pm
Subject: Re: D & N jivkox43georgiev@...
Send Email

Being and Nothingness ( by the way , the orriginal title is "L'Etre et Le Neant", neant does not mean nothingness, but a ...emm..an act, a verb, anyway) is a book that have to be read!

Regards!

Zhivko

Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...> wrote:

Welcome CeCelia,

If you are referring to my posts, it's B&N (not D&N), which stands for Being and Nothingness by Jean Paul Sartre. If you haven't read it, I urge you to get down to your local bookstore or library and pick up a copy. Although at times it is difficult reading, when your finished you will realize that it took you on an absolutely wonderful intellectual adventure. I have no objection to your sharing any comment that I have made to your discussion group. This is, after all, a public place.

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: CeCelia Anne Destiny Beamon

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 8:50 AM

To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Sartre] D & N

I would like to take the time to introduce myself. I am currently the
president of the Philosophy club at a local community college. I happened
to stumble upon this web group one day and I have been following the
comments and questions for about a month or so. I was wondering if someone
would be willing to inform me of the title of book "D & N" that is being
refered to so that I can get one (shy smile), as I would like to purchase
it. And I was also wondering if anyone would mind if I shared some of the
comments or questions that are posted to the group in our club discussion
meetings?

Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@eGroups.com <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+Sartre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

#2557 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Wed Jun 27, 2001 1:51 am
Subject: Re: A question cbobo@...
Send Email

Sam,

I think you, I and Sartre are talking about the same thing. I don't know that Sartre made a sharp distinction between the intellect and the passions, or reasons and feelings. In his autobiography, Sartre speaks of throwing himself heart and soul into what ever he undertakes--his work, his hostilities, his friendships, etc.

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: Sam Carter

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:47 AM

To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

Chris: I think what you're talking about is existential indifference - ie
bad faith - not taking responsibility, refusing to make a choice. And I
totally agree with you - that's a negative attitude and an attempt to run
away from freedom. But I'm talking about emotional indifference - I think it
is possible to be emotionally indifferent to the consequences of a choice
and still to make that choice without falling into "bad faith". For example,
I'm choosing to sit here and write this email, even though I have the choice
of many other courses of action at present - I could get a drink, go watch
TV, play some Hendrix on my geetar, read, etc. and I'd be equally happy
whatever I decided to do - although I've made a choice to sit here and write
this. Thus I can still be fully engaged in this world on the rational plane
and be on another planet emotionally.

#2558 From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
Date: Wed Jun 27, 2001 4:22 am
Subject: Re: A question tyjfk@...
Send Email

sam,

i am not sure if i and sartre are talking about the same thing, but i do
think that if you want to make a difference between intellect and the
passion (or emotion), i would say that which emotion you adopt (such as
indifference that you mentioned) is in and of itself a choice; yes, you have
a situation, you decide not only your actions, you choose your emotion as
well to appropriate and cope with that situation (thus you see that the
emotion of a person in a situation is a pretty good indicator of his
maturity level and kind). yes, if you sam wish to be indifferent, that is
your pregorative; that defines sam anyway, i mean your choice. but to think
that you have no choice in any given situation, be it intellect or emotion,
is running away from your 'essence', which is freedom. the essence of human
is in a sense to have no essence; you, and you alone, attribute meaning to
whatever is in your situation, and being angry, insulted or indifferent is a
way you attribute meanings. there is no inherent meaning to things, you see.
of course you may beg to differ.

james.




From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:51:19 -0700

Sam,
I think you, I and Sartre are talking about the same thing.  I don't know
that Sartre made a sharp distinction between the intellect and the passions,
or reasons and feelings.  In his autobiography, Sartre speaks of throwing
himself heart and soul into what ever he undertakes--his work, his
hostilities, his friendships, etc.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Carter
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:47 AM
To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

Chris: I think what you're talking about is existential indifference - ie
bad faith - not taking responsibility, refusing to make a choice. And I
totally agree with you - that's a negative attitude and an attempt to run
away from freedom. But I'm talking about emotional indifference - I think it
is possible to be emotionally indifferent to the consequences of a choice
and still to make that choice without falling into "bad faith". For example,
I'm choosing to sit here and write this email, even though I have the choice
of many other courses of action at present - I could get a drink, go watch
TV, play some Hendrix on my geetar, read, etc. and I'd be equally happy
whatever I decided to do - although I've made a choice to sit here and write
this. Thus I can still be fully engaged in this world on the rational plane
and be on another planet emotionally.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

#2559 From: "CeCelia Anne Destiny Beamon" <soibewhoiam@...>
Date: Wed Jun 27, 2001 4:41 am
Subject: Thank You soibewhoiam@...
Send Email

Thank you for the information about "Being & Nothingness," I appreciate your
willingness for me to share your comments within our club discussions.  I
look forward to the readings, and following the comments (hopefully with a
little more knowledge of where the discussion is stemming from).  From time
to time I will post responses from any of our club members who are
interested (so Sam doesn't feel so alone) and I will as well once I have
completed my 75 page journey (hopefully in less than 6 months *wink wink*).

CeCelia Beamon
(Warm smile @ Sam)
Sorry I didn't mention it earlier as I was just getting home from work after
a long shift, hence the misspelled initials and such from the title.  Thanks
again, and nice to "meet" you all!

(As she fades back into the shadows to continue watching the group
discussion in silence with a welcomed feeling and a gentle smile for all!)




----Original Message Follows----
From: Jivko Georgiev <jivkox43georgiev@...>
Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sartre] D & N
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:14:03 -0700 (PDT)


    Being and Nothingness ( by the way , the orriginal title is "L'Etre et Le
Neant", neant does not mean nothingness, but a ...emm..an act, a verb,
anyway) is a book that have to be read!
Regards!

Zhivko

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2560 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Wed Jun 27, 2001 6:45 am
Subject: Re: Thank You cbobo@...
Send Email

CeCelia,

I, for one, look forward to your posts and hope that you do not fade too far into the background. I'm not sure what you were referring to when you mentioned your 75 page journey, but if you found a copy of Being and Nothingness that's less than 500 pages, I can only suggest that you throw it away and go in search of another copy.

Chris

----- Original Message -----

From: CeCelia Anne Destiny Beamon

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 10:32 PM

To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Sartre] Thank You

Thank you for the information about "Being & Nothingness," I appreciate your
willingness for me to share your comments within our club discussions. I
look forward to the readings, and following the comments (hopefully with a
little more knowledge of where the discussion is stemming from). From time
to time I will post responses from any of our club members who are
interested (so Sam doesn't feel so alone) and I will as well once I have
completed my 75 page journey (hopefully in less than 6 months *wink wink*).

CeCelia Beamon
(Warm smile @ Sam)
Sorry I didn't mention it earlier as I was just getting home from work after
a long shift, hence the misspelled initials and such from the title. Thanks
again, and nice to "meet" you all!

(As she fades back into the shadows to continue watching the group
discussion in silence with a welcomed feeling and a gentle smile for all!)

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#2561 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:12 am
Subject: Re: A question cbobo@...
Send Email

Sartre said in Words that he fulfills his commitments like anyone else, that he was steadfast in his affections and behavior, but that he was unfaithful to his emotions. I think what he was getting at here was that when it came to being-for-others, he was there for them. He lived up to his societal and interpersonal obligations. He was not indifferent to other people and he did not let his emotions sway him when it came to doing what he was supposed to do, or expected to do. But when he came to his own emotions, he ran hot and cold. One day he would be completely enthralled by something; the next day-- it would leave him cold. "Because I did not love myself sufficiently," he said, "I fled forward."

----- Original Message -----

From: james tan

Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:24 PM

To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

sam,

i am not sure if i and sartre are talking about the same thing, but i do
think that if you want to make a difference between intellect and the
passion (or emotion), i would say that which emotion you adopt (such as
indifference that you mentioned) is in and of itself a choice; yes, you have
a situation, you decide not only your actions, you choose your emotion as
well to appropriate and cope with that situation (thus you see that the
emotion of a person in a situation is a pretty good indicator of his
maturity level and kind). yes, if you sam wish to be indifferent, that is
your pregorative; that defines sam anyway, i mean your choice. but to think
that you have no choice in any given situation, be it intellect or emotion,
is running away from your 'essence', which is freedom. the essence of human
is in a sense to have no essence; you, and you alone, attribute meaning to
whatever is in your situation, and being angry, insulted or indifferent is a
way you attribute meanings. there is no inherent meaning to things, you see.
of course you may beg to differ.

james.

#2562 From: cbobo@...
Date: Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:32 am
Subject: Re: A question cbobo@...
Send Email

--- In Sartre@y..., dpbxx@a... wrote:
> Just to jump in w/ a thought:
>
> The misunderstanding in this particular discussion originates w/
the term "intuition". Sarte, in the passage cited, does not use the
term and, I believe, for good reason.
>
> At the point of intuition, the for-itself is already engaged in its
primary activity of representation - objectifying or creating an
object of reflection. An intuition may be understood as the beginning
of that process, somewhere between pre-reflective (non-thetic, in
Sartre's term) and fully reflective (thetic) thought. It is as though
the image to be reflected is emerging through the glass darkly, it is
an impression of something not quite yet clear - an intuition of a
presence that has yet to be fully constructed.
>
> In the passage cited Sartre is clearly referring to the fact of
consciousness itself, non-thetic and purely a function of the
original emergence of for-itself from in-itself as awareness. There
is no specific content here, intuitive or otherwise. The notion of
God, in this framework, is as universal Otherness - a reflective meta-
object (if you will) of consciousness that connects all experience of
otherness and universalizes it.

This seems quite right.  Feel free to correct my misnomers any time.

#2563 From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
Date: Wed Jun 27, 2001 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: A question tyjfk@...
Send Email

hi chris,

although i have not read sartre's work thoroughly, and least of all adore
his life, i only pondered on his "existence precede essence", i think i see
the gist of his philosophy (yes, one line is enough). your last posting
really reminds me of some of my friends who are christian; i mean, they
refer to the bits and pieces of life of their spiritual hero as a guide of
their OWN. and for the muslim, because their beloved prophet muhammad love
to wear green color, it has now officially become a holy color for them (you
are talking about millions and millions of muslim all over the world). and
because muhammad like cats, cat has become THE pet for muslims. as far as i
am concerned, sartre is not an authority for me, and i will not quote him
nor his life like a bible as if it is the final word (yes, i read his
autobiography Words).

and gee, i am not very sure if we use the word 'emotion' in the same way.
but starting at 'existence precede essence', the spirit of sartre's
philosophy (which i basically adopt, god being dead, said nietzsche): can we
say that it is a 'fact' that sartre is committed as if this is a inborn
nature of his? can we say that it is a 'fact' that sam is indifferent as if
it is irrevocably part of being sam? can we say it is a 'fact' celia is very
courteous? or that sartre is a coward? or that i am insensitive? it is put
as if they are not choices of the person but simply part of what he is. as
such, they are as if foreign determinants of his state of mind and his
behaviour. it is easy to see how traditional theories of determinism of
human behaviours found a convenient take-off point from such 'facts'. is
sartre committment and his sense of interpersonal obligation facts about
him? i beg to differ, chris; they were values or consciously chosen project.
and this with the implication that man, being an individual, has to choose
for himself mode of existence. if sam chooses to be indifferent, then it
doesn't matter a shit that sartre was not; because sam is a individual who
is not sartre; and it is only sam, and sam alone (not sartre or his mother)
who is ultimately responsible for his values and emotions, may that emotions
be self-defeating. quoting how sartre, buddha or jesus lived their lives is
beside the points, for it is their f--king business how THEY lived THEIR
lives. that said, one's choices are to fall within the parameter of what the
laws and constitution condone.

james.


From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:12:24 -0700

Sartre said in Words that he fulfills his commitments like anyone else, that
he was steadfast in his affections and behavior, but that he was unfaithful
to his emotions.  I think what he was getting at here was that when it came
to being-for-others, he was there for them.  He lived up to his societal and
interpersonal obligations.  He was not indifferent to other people and he
did not let his emotions sway him when it came to doing what he was supposed
to do, or expected to do.  But when he came to his own emotions, he ran hot
and cold.  One day he would be completely enthralled by something; the next
day-- it would leave him cold.  "Because I did not love myself
sufficiently," he said, "I fled forward."

----- Original Message -----
From: james tan
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 9:24 PM
To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

sam,

i am not sure if i and sartre are talking about the same thing, but i do
think that if you want to make a difference between intellect and the
passion (or emotion), i would say that which emotion you adopt (such as
indifference that you mentioned) is in and of itself a choice; yes, you have
a situation, you decide not only your actions, you choose your emotion as
well to appropriate and cope with that situation (thus you see that the
emotion of a person in a situation is a pretty good indicator of his
maturity level and kind). yes, if you sam wish to be indifferent, that is
your pregorative; that defines sam anyway, i mean your choice. but to think
that you have no choice in any given situation, be it intellect or emotion,
is running away from your 'essence', which is freedom. the essence of human
is in a sense to have no essence; you, and you alone, attribute meaning to
whatever is in your situation, and being angry, insulted or indifferent is a
way you attribute meanings. there is no inherent meaning to things, you see.
of course you may beg to differ.

james.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

#2564 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:40 am
Subject: Re: A question: Activism or Quietism cbobo@...
Send Email

Hello James:

Although I do not want to suggest that the ideas of philosophers can be correlated simply and directly to how their lived their lives, there does seem to be some connection between the ideas expressed by a philosopher and that philosopher's behavior--especially where the philosopher in question purports to explicate the ethical, moral and political realms. Just as Christ's life and suffering are thought to reflect on Christianity, just as the life and death of Socrates are thought to reflect on Socrates' philosophy, so too can be life of Sartre be thought of as a reflection of his philosophy. After all, it only makes sense to speak of existentialism as offering a bases for a form of psychoanalysis if existentialism can serve as a normative and regulative guide for human behavior. I think it's appropriate to ask: Is Sartrean existentialism equally supportive of a life of quietism as it is of a life of activisim? My reading of Sartre is that in his view, from the moral point of view with respect to assign responsibility, Sartre existentialism is capable of addressing the full range of human behavior. It has something to say about what is both healthy and unhealthy, good faith and bad faith, right and wrong. I think the language used by Sartre to describe the life of quietism and indifference is negative evaluative language, whereas the language he uses to described the engaged, activist, interested life is positive evaluative language. If Sartre can be viewed as having tried to live existentialism, then clearly he thought that it required and activists life and required one to be interested and engaged in the world. He holds up to this type of life the examples of the military deserter and the suicide. These are hardly positive role models.

So I don't think Sartre would say that Sam's indifference is justified in any sense by existentialism. I think he would prefer to say that Sam's indifference is condemned by existentialism. I think this is supported accross the broad spectrum of Sartre's writing, from his autobiograhpical materials, to his fiction and by his philosophical works. Sorry if we disagree on this.

Of course, wearing green because Muhammed did is absurd. As for whether we should have a cat or a dog for a pet, all philosophers know that dogs are better pets because Plato said as much. The dog is most like the philosopher in that he gets the scent of something, stays on the track and is loyal to the pursuit and his master. And, of course, that's why I have a dog :) and not a cat.

----- Original Message -----

From: james tan

Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:53 AM

To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

hi chris,

although i have not read sartre's work thoroughly, and least of all adore
his life, i only pondered on his "existence precede essence", i think i see
the gist of his philosophy (yes, one line is enough). your last posting
really reminds me of some of my friends who are christian; i mean, they
refer to the bits and pieces of life of their spiritual hero as a guide of
their OWN. and for the muslim, because their beloved prophet muhammad love
to wear green color, it has now officially become a holy color for them (you
are talking about millions and millions of muslim all over the world). and
because muhammad like cats, cat has become THE pet for muslims. as far as i
am concerned, sartre is not an authority for me, and i will not quote him
nor his life like a bible as if it is the final word (yes, i read his
autobiography Words).

and gee, i am not very sure if we use the word 'emotion' in the same way.
but starting at 'existence precede essence', the spirit of sartre's
philosophy (which i basically adopt, god being dead, said nietzsche): can we
say that it is a 'fact' that sartre is committed as if this is a inborn
nature of his? can we say that it is a 'fact' that sam is indifferent as if
it is irrevocably part of being sam? can we say it is a 'fact' celia is very
courteous? or that sartre is a coward? or that i am insensitive? it is put
as if they are not choices of the person but simply part of what he is. as
such, they are as if foreign determinants of his state of mind and his
behaviour. it is easy to see how traditional theories of determinism of
human behaviours found a convenient take-off point from such 'facts'. is
sartre committment and his sense of interpersonal obligation facts about
him? i beg to differ, chris; they were values or consciously chosen project.
and this with the implication that man, being an individual, has to choose
for himself mode of existence. if sam chooses to be indifferent, then it
doesn't matter a shit that sartre was not; because sam is a individual who
is not sartre; and it is only sam, and sam alone (not sartre or his mother)
who is ultimately responsible for his values and emotions, may that emotions
be self-defeating. quoting how sartre, buddha or jesus lived their lives is
beside the points, for it is their f--king business how THEY lived THEIR
lives. that said, one's choices are to fall within the parameter of what the
laws and constitution condone.

james.

#2565 From: Marc Girod <girod@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 9:06 am
Subject: Re: D & N girod@...
Send Email

>>>>> "JG" == Jivko Georgiev <jivkox43georgiev@...> writes:

JG> by the way , the original title is "L'Etre et Le Neant", neant
JG> does not mean nothingness, but a ...emm..an act, a verb

To restore the diacritics and the original capitalization, "L'�tre et
le n�ant" (OK... this is for purists -- and I can find a lot of
references to other forms; besides, it doesn't follow the usual rules
for titles in French).

And no, "n�ant" is neither an act nor a verb.
Sartre uses it in his own way, from an originally Hegelian concept.
He created (AFAIK) the derivatives "n�antiser" and "n�antisation",
which imply the (active) negation _of_ something.

So, you are right in that, in Sartre's use, a "n�ant" is the result of
an act.

I guess that "nothingness" is a linguistic creation as well, isn't it?

--
Marc Girod        P.O. Box 310        Voice:  +358-71 80 25581
Nokia IM          00045 NOKIA Group   Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
UPS1 2/4          Finland             Fax:    +358-71 80 22227

#2566 From: Marc Girod <girod@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 9:17 am
Subject: Re: A question girod@...
Send Email

>>>>> "jt" == james tan <tyjfk@...> writes:

jt> i only pondered on his "existence precede essence", i think i see
jt> the gist of his philosophy (yes, one line is enough).

Despite this sentence with which I don't agree --there is more in
Sartre's philosophy than this, which is only a starting point-- I
think I agree with you to be suspicious about making a strong
distinction between emotional and intellectual indifference.

Either result from our own choices.

--
Marc Girod        P.O. Box 310        Voice:  +358-71 80 25581
Nokia IM          00045 NOKIA Group   Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
UPS1 2/4          Finland             Fax:    +358-71 80 22227

#2567 From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 9:45 am
Subject: Re: A question: Activism or Quietism tyjfk@...
Send Email

hi chris,

there is no doubt that there is some correlation between a person's values
or ideas and his behaviours, else cognitive dissonance might just prompt him
to decide once and for all so that he might be consistent. but that is not
what i was contending. (i quite lose track of sam's original 'problem'; was
he asking, can he choose to be indifferent as a way to avoid angst?)

that approach is silly of course, as i've also mentioned it. i have
described that as a ostrich approach to life (we all know how ostrich deal
with stress, threats or anxiety), a way he copes with anxiety or angst, some
kind of freudian ego defence mechanism, but sartre would described it as bad
faith. in doing so, he escapes responsibility for himself to lead a
meaningful life, the greatest 'sin' one can commit. the greatest sin is sin
against oneself (not god). that said, it is still his pregorative to sin
against himself. if bon jovi sings, "it's my life", then so be it. it is his
life.

what i thought is that, you approach sam in this way: look, sartre was
someone great, he lived in this way, you should also lived in that way;
sartre believed in this, sam should also believe in this. of course, what
sartre said was a way to lead a abundant life, but sartre's choice is not
necessarily sam's choice. yes, indifference is the royal road to a
meaningless and passionless life (almost tautological), but existentialism
does not tell you what to do; it just say you are responsible for your life.
eg, i know that being unkind can hurt someone, does it mean therefore that
existentialism teaches me to be kind? not necessarily. existentialism simply
say: you choose for yourself what you want to be your value; you do not
depend on anything else, not god, not society, not parents, not social
norms, not even sartre, UNTIL AND UNLESS you first choose god, society,
parents, social norms to be your values. i.e. god, for example, is your
guide if only because YOU choose him to be your guide, i.e. the ultimate
critiron for choosing lies not in god but in yourself. (but in a sense, you
have to choose sartre's ideas, because sartre said: be true to yourself, and
to contradict sartre is to contradict self; however, whether sartre prefer
cat or dog for his pet is insignificant). to be responsible does not mean to
be kind, good, or socially responsible; it does means you are the author and
creator of your values, which may include kindness, goodness or being
socially responsible, but not necessarily. for someone who chose to be
indifferent, he has chosen, and good luck to him. but it is his business.
indifference is a very paradoxical value; it is like a snake choosing to eat
its own tail.

last but not least, you need not feel sorry that we differ.

james.


From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question:  Activism or Quietism
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:40:41 -0700

Hello James:

Although I do not want to suggest that the ideas of philosophers can be
correlated simply and directly to how their lived their lives, there does
seem to be some connection between the ideas expressed by a philosopher and
that philosopher's behavior--especially where the philosopher in question
purports to explicate the ethical, moral and political realms.  Just as
Christ's life and suffering are thought to reflect on Christianity, just as
the life and death of Socrates are thought to reflect on Socrates'
philosophy, so too can be life of Sartre be thought of as a reflection of
his philosophy.  After all, it only makes sense to speak of existentialism
as offering a bases for a form of psychoanalysis if existentialism can serve
as a normative and regulative guide for human behavior. I think it's
appropriate to ask:  Is Sartrean existentialism equally supportive of a life
of quietism as it is of a life of activisim?  My reading of Sartre is that
in his view, from the moral point of view with respect to assign
responsibility, Sartre existentialism is capable of addressing the full
range of human behavior.  It has something to say about what is both healthy
and unhealthy, good faith and bad faith, right and wrong.  I think the
language used by Sartre to describe the life of quietism and indifference is
negative evaluative language, whereas the language he uses to described the
engaged, activist, interested life is positive evaluative language.  If
Sartre can be viewed as having tried to live existentialism, then clearly he
thought that it required and activists life and required one to be
interested and engaged in the world.  He holds up to this type of life the
examples of the military deserter and the suicide.  These are hardly
positive role models.

So I don't think Sartre would say that Sam's indifference is justified in
any sense by existentialism.  I think he would prefer to say that Sam's
indifference is condemned by existentialism.  I think this is supported
accross the broad spectrum of Sartre's writing, from his autobiograhpical
materials, to his fiction and by his philosophical works.  Sorry if we
disagree on this.

Of course, wearing green because Muhammed did is absurd.  As for whether we
should have a cat or a dog for a pet, all philosophers know that dogs are
better pets because Plato said as much.  The dog is most like the
philosopher in that he gets the scent of something, stays on the track and
is loyal to the pursuit and his master.  And, of course, that's why I have a
dog :) and not a cat.
----- Original Message -----
From: james tan
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:53 AM
To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question

hi chris,

although i have not read sartre's work thoroughly, and least of all adore
his life, i only pondered on his "existence precede essence", i think i see
the gist of his philosophy (yes, one line is enough). your last posting
really reminds me of some of my friends who are christian; i mean, they
refer to the bits and pieces of life of their spiritual hero as a guide of
their OWN. and for the muslim, because their beloved prophet muhammad love
to wear green color, it has now officially become a holy color for them (you
are talking about millions and millions of muslim all over the world). and
because muhammad like cats, cat has become THE pet for muslims. as far as i
am concerned, sartre is not an authority for me, and i will not quote him
nor his life like a bible as if it is the final word (yes, i read his
autobiography Words).

and gee, i am not very sure if we use the word 'emotion' in the same way.
but starting at 'existence precede essence', the spirit of sartre's
philosophy (which i basically adopt, god being dead, said nietzsche): can we
say that it is a 'fact' that sartre is committed as if this is a inborn
nature of his? can we say that it is a 'fact' that sam is indifferent as if
it is irrevocably part of being sam? can we say it is a 'fact' celia is very
courteous? or that sartre is a coward? or that i am insensitive? it is put
as if they are not choices of the person but simply part of what he is. as
such, they are as if foreign determinants of his state of mind and his
behaviour. it is easy to see how traditional theories of determinism of
human behaviours found a convenient take-off point from such 'facts'. is
sartre committment and his sense of interpersonal obligation facts about
him? i beg to differ, chris; they were values or consciously chosen project.
and this with the implication that man, being an individual, has to choose
for himself mode of existence. if sam chooses to be indifferent, then it
doesn't matter a shit that sartre was not; because sam is a individual who
is not sartre; and it is only sam, and sam alone (not sartre or his mother)
who is ultimately responsible for his values and emotions, may that emotions
be self-defeating. quoting how sartre, buddha or jesus lived their lives is
beside the points, for it is their f--king business how THEY lived THEIR
lives. that said, one's choices are to fall within the parameter of what the
laws and constitution condone.

james.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

#2568 From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 9:49 am
Subject: Re: A question tyjfk@...
Send Email

did you confuse me for christopher?

From: Marc Girod <girod@...>
Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question
Date: 28 Jun 2001 12:17:09 +0300

  >>>>> "jt" == james tan <tyjfk@...> writes:

jt> i only pondered on his "existence precede essence", i think i see
jt> the gist of his philosophy (yes, one line is enough).

Despite this sentence with which I don't agree --there is more in
Sartre's philosophy than this, which is only a starting point-- I
think I agree with you to be suspicious about making a strong
distinction between emotional and intellectual indifference.

Either result from our own choices.

--
Marc Girod        P.O. Box 310        Voice:  +358-71 80 25581
Nokia IM          00045 NOKIA Group   Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
UPS1 2/4          Finland             Fax:    +358-71 80 22227

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

#2569 From: "Sam Carter" <Codboy56@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 12:52 pm
Subject: Re: A question: Activism or Quietism Codboy56@...
Send Email

James: I've come to pick you up on one particular issue - that dogs are
better than dogs. You are soooo wrong! What do dogs do huh? They do exactly
what we tell them to do. How stupid is that? If you know a person who does
exactly what everyone tells them to do, you call them a sheep, a conformist.
It's the height of stupidity to do everything people tell you, especially
for a reward - hmmm just like soldiers in fact. Now think about cats. Do
cats do what you tell them to? No, they give you a gone-out look and bugger
off somewhere else. If you don't feed them, they don't care, they'll go
somewhere else. They spend the whole day sitting around, probably mulling
over intricate philosophical issues. Hehehe. So, cats are better!

Yes, I too have lost the plot on the indifference issue - originally,
responded to someone's depiction of the origins of "angst" as coming from
the awesome sense of responsibility we experience as a result of freedom. My
question was, surely the sense that this freedom is "awesome" is the result
of the choice of the individual to consider it so. I could as equally
decide, in full awareness of my freedom, to attribute no such significance
to the consequences of my freedom, ie, (and this is where that word
originally entered into our discussion) to be indifferent to the
consequences, but still fully aware that I have a free choice to make. Of
course there are many other alternative views but I chose indifference as an
example. I was trying to determine then, whether "angst" originated as a
result of personal choice and thus whether it could be avoided - to which
you answered "no". You would therefore seem to be suggesting (a suggestion I
thought you made in your original definition of the origins of angst) that
this sense of the "awesome" weight of freedom is an absolute, and objective
fact. This is near enough to proposing absolute meaningfulness (a term you
yourself used in that mail). Of course, we can't have that can we - not in
existentialism. So - if there is no absolute significance to the
consequences of our choices, and this  awesome significance doesn't orignate
with the individuals free choice do consider it so, where the hell does
"angst" come from??

I believe that was where I was trying get to originally but I didn't quite
make it! And you're right, it doesn't matter if we disagree - this
discussion has been an interesting experience in itself which was all I was
looking for.

Sam

>From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
>Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question: Activism or Quietism
>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 09:45:34 -0000
>
>hi chris,
>
>there is no doubt that there is some correlation between a person's values
>or ideas and his behaviours, else cognitive dissonance might just prompt
>him
>to decide once and for all so that he might be consistent. but that is not
>what i was contending. (i quite lose track of sam's original 'problem'; was
>he asking, can he choose to be indifferent as a way to avoid angst?)
>
>that approach is silly of course, as i've also mentioned it. i have
>described that as a ostrich approach to life (we all know how ostrich deal
>with stress, threats or anxiety), a way he copes with anxiety or angst,
>some
>kind of freudian ego defence mechanism, but sartre would described it as
>bad
>faith. in doing so, he escapes responsibility for himself to lead a
>meaningful life, the greatest 'sin' one can commit. the greatest sin is sin
>against oneself (not god). that said, it is still his pregorative to sin
>against himself. if bon jovi sings, "it's my life", then so be it. it is
>his
>life.
>
>what i thought is that, you approach sam in this way: look, sartre was
>someone great, he lived in this way, you should also lived in that way;
>sartre believed in this, sam should also believe in this. of course, what
>sartre said was a way to lead a abundant life, but sartre's choice is not
>necessarily sam's choice. yes, indifference is the royal road to a
>meaningless and passionless life (almost tautological), but existentialism
>does not tell you what to do; it just say you are responsible for your
>life.
>eg, i know that being unkind can hurt someone, does it mean therefore that
>existentialism teaches me to be kind? not necessarily. existentialism
>simply
>say: you choose for yourself what you want to be your value; you do not
>depend on anything else, not god, not society, not parents, not social
>norms, not even sartre, UNTIL AND UNLESS you first choose god, society,
>parents, social norms to be your values. i.e. god, for example, is your
>guide if only because YOU choose him to be your guide, i.e. the ultimate
>critiron for choosing lies not in god but in yourself. (but in a sense, you
>have to choose sartre's ideas, because sartre said: be true to yourself,
>and
>to contradict sartre is to contradict self; however, whether sartre prefer
>cat or dog for his pet is insignificant). to be responsible does not mean
>to
>be kind, good, or socially responsible; it does means you are the author
>and
>creator of your values, which may include kindness, goodness or being
>socially responsible, but not necessarily. for someone who chose to be
>indifferent, he has chosen, and good luck to him. but it is his business.
>indifference is a very paradoxical value; it is like a snake choosing to
>eat
>its own tail.
>
>last but not least, you need not feel sorry that we differ.
>
>james.
>
>
>From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
>Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question:  Activism or Quietism
>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:40:41 -0700
>
>Hello James:
>
>Although I do not want to suggest that the ideas of philosophers can be
>correlated simply and directly to how their lived their lives, there does
>seem to be some connection between the ideas expressed by a philosopher and
>that philosopher's behavior--especially where the philosopher in question
>purports to explicate the ethical, moral and political realms.  Just as
>Christ's life and suffering are thought to reflect on Christianity, just as
>the life and death of Socrates are thought to reflect on Socrates'
>philosophy, so too can be life of Sartre be thought of as a reflection of
>his philosophy.  After all, it only makes sense to speak of existentialism
>as offering a bases for a form of psychoanalysis if existentialism can
>serve
>as a normative and regulative guide for human behavior. I think it's
>appropriate to ask:  Is Sartrean existentialism equally supportive of a
>life
>of quietism as it is of a life of activisim?  My reading of Sartre is that
>in his view, from the moral point of view with respect to assign
>responsibility, Sartre existentialism is capable of addressing the full
>range of human behavior.  It has something to say about what is both
>healthy
>and unhealthy, good faith and bad faith, right and wrong.  I think the
>language used by Sartre to describe the life of quietism and indifference
>is
>negative evaluative language, whereas the language he uses to described the
>engaged, activist, interested life is positive evaluative language.  If
>Sartre can be viewed as having tried to live existentialism, then clearly
>he
>thought that it required and activists life and required one to be
>interested and engaged in the world.  He holds up to this type of life the
>examples of the military deserter and the suicide.  These are hardly
>positive role models.
>
>So I don't think Sartre would say that Sam's indifference is justified in
>any sense by existentialism.  I think he would prefer to say that Sam's
>indifference is condemned by existentialism.  I think this is supported
>accross the broad spectrum of Sartre's writing, from his autobiograhpical
>materials, to his fiction and by his philosophical works.  Sorry if we
>disagree on this.
>
>Of course, wearing green because Muhammed did is absurd.  As for whether we
>should have a cat or a dog for a pet, all philosophers know that dogs are
>better pets because Plato said as much.  The dog is most like the
>philosopher in that he gets the scent of something, stays on the track and
>is loyal to the pursuit and his master.  And, of course, that's why I have
>a
>dog :) and not a cat.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: james tan
>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 10:53 AM
>To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question
>
>hi chris,
>
>although i have not read sartre's work thoroughly, and least of all adore
>his life, i only pondered on his "existence precede essence", i think i see
>the gist of his philosophy (yes, one line is enough). your last posting
>really reminds me of some of my friends who are christian; i mean, they
>refer to the bits and pieces of life of their spiritual hero as a guide of
>their OWN. and for the muslim, because their beloved prophet muhammad love
>to wear green color, it has now officially become a holy color for them
>(you
>are talking about millions and millions of muslim all over the world). and
>because muhammad like cats, cat has become THE pet for muslims. as far as i
>am concerned, sartre is not an authority for me, and i will not quote him
>nor his life like a bible as if it is the final word (yes, i read his
>autobiography Words).
>
>and gee, i am not very sure if we use the word 'emotion' in the same way.
>but starting at 'existence precede essence', the spirit of sartre's
>philosophy (which i basically adopt, god being dead, said nietzsche): can
>we
>say that it is a 'fact' that sartre is committed as if this is a inborn
>nature of his? can we say that it is a 'fact' that sam is indifferent as if
>it is irrevocably part of being sam? can we say it is a 'fact' celia is
>very
>courteous? or that sartre is a coward? or that i am insensitive? it is put
>as if they are not choices of the person but simply part of what he is. as
>such, they are as if foreign determinants of his state of mind and his
>behaviour. it is easy to see how traditional theories of determinism of
>human behaviours found a convenient take-off point from such 'facts'. is
>sartre committment and his sense of interpersonal obligation facts about
>him? i beg to differ, chris; they were values or consciously chosen
>project.
>and this with the implication that man, being an individual, has to choose
>for himself mode of existence. if sam chooses to be indifferent, then it
>doesn't matter a shit that sartre was not; because sam is a individual who
>is not sartre; and it is only sam, and sam alone (not sartre or his mother)
>who is ultimately responsible for his values and emotions, may that
>emotions
>be self-defeating. quoting how sartre, buddha or jesus lived their lives is
>beside the points, for it is their f--king business how THEY lived THEIR
>lives. that said, one's choices are to fall within the parameter of what
>the
>laws and constitution condone.
>
>james.
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

#2570 From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 2:57 pm
Subject: Re: A question: Activism or Quietism cbobo@...
Send Email

James wrote:

>>that said, it is still his pregorative to sinmagainst himself. if bon jovi sings, "it's my life", then so be it. it is his life.<<

This is true of course. If someone chooses to be a ciphere that's their choice, and they are responsible for that choice. However, existentialism doesn't stop there. I don't see existentialism as being affraid to judge or even condemn others for the bad choices they have made.

James also said:

>>what i thought is that, you approach sam in this way: look, sartre was
someone great, he lived in this way, you should also lived in that way;
sartre believed in this, sam should also believe in this. of course, what
sartre said was a way to lead a abundant life, but sartre's choice is not
necessarily sam's choice. yes, indifference is the royal road to a
meaningless and passionless life (almost tautological), but existentialism
does not tell you what to do; it just say you are responsible for your life.
eg, i know that being unkind can hurt someone, does it mean therefore that
existentialism teaches me to be kind? <<

Well, I do think that Sartre's life is an exemplary expression of existentialism. Actions do sometimes speak louder than words. Sam must make his own choices, but Sam can certainly consider the guidance offered by philosophy and the example set by historical figures.

James further observed:

>>to be responsible does not mean to be kind, good, or socially responsible; it does means you are the author and creator of your values, which may include kindness, goodness or being
socially responsible, but not necessarily. for someone who chose to be indifferent, he has chosen, and good luck to him. but it is his business. indifference is a very paradoxical value; it is like a snake choosing to eat its own tail.<<

Surely we are called upon to be creative by Sartre. But I'm not so sure that Sartre maintained that we could create our own values unfettered by regulative considerations, facts, or principles. I really don't think that Sartre would say "Good luck" to the indifferent person. He would say that they suffer from a lack of creativity and have failed to make necessary choices. He might even think that they were in need of existential psychoanalysis. A snake that eats its own tail is one dumb snake.

#2571 From: "Sam Carter" <Codboy56@...>
Date: Thu Jun 28, 2001 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: A question: Activism or Quietism Codboy56@...
Send Email

An indifferent snake is content with half a body. Hehe.


>From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
>Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
>To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question: Activism or Quietism
>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:57:15 -0700
>
>James wrote:
> >>that said, it is still his pregorative to sinmagainst himself. if bon
>jovi sings, "it's my life", then so be it. it is his life.<<
>
>This is true of course.  If someone chooses to be a ciphere that's their
>choice, and they are responsible for that choice.  However, existentialism
>doesn't stop there.  I don't see existentialism as being affraid to judge
>or even condemn others for the bad choices they have made.
>
>James also said:
> >>what i thought is that, you approach sam in this way: look, sartre was
>someone great, he lived in this way, you should also lived in that way;
>sartre believed in this, sam should also believe in this. of course, what
>sartre said was a way to lead a abundant life, but sartre's choice is not
>necessarily sam's choice. yes, indifference is the royal road to a
>meaningless and passionless life (almost tautological), but existentialism
>does not tell you what to do; it just say you are responsible for your
>life.
>eg, i know that being unkind can hurt someone, does it mean therefore that
>existentialism teaches me to be kind? <<
>
>Well, I do think that Sartre's life is an exemplary expression of
>existentialism.  Actions do sometimes speak louder than words.  Sam must
>make his own choices, but Sam can certainly consider the guidance offered
>by philosophy and the example set by historical figures.
>
>James further observed:
> >>to be responsible does not mean to be kind, good, or socially
>responsible; it does means you are the author and creator of your values,
>which may include kindness, goodness or being
>socially responsible, but not necessarily. for someone who chose to be
>indifferent, he has chosen, and good luck to him. but it is his business.
>indifference is a very paradoxical value; it is like a snake choosing to
>eat its own tail.<<
>
>Surely we are called upon to be creative by Sartre.  But I'm not so sure
>that Sartre maintained that we could create our own values unfettered by
>regulative considerations, facts, or principles.  I really don't think that
>Sartre would say "Good luck" to the indifferent person.  He would say that
>they suffer from a lack of creativity and have failed to make necessary
>choices.  He might even think that they were in need of existential
>psychoanalysis.  A snake that eats its own tail is one dumb snake.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

#2572 From: Jivko Georgiev <jivkox43georgiev@...>
Date: Fri Jun 29, 2001 7:10 am
Subject: Re: D & N jivkox43georgiev@...
Send Email

I told You its act of nentisation - its specific, diferent from nothingness. Its hegelian neantisation, not haidegerian.

Marc Girod <girod@...> wrote:

>>>>> "JG" == Jivko Georgiev <jivkox43georgiev@...> writes: JG> by the way , the original title is "L'Etre et Le Neant", neant JG> does not mean nothingness, but a ...emm..an act, a verb To restore the diacritics and the original capitalization, "L'�tre et le n�ant" (OK... this is for purists -- and I can find a lot of references to other forms; besides, it doesn't follow the usual rules for titles in French). And no, "n�ant" is neither an act nor a verb. Sartre uses it in his own way, from an originally Hegelian concept. He created (AFAIK) the derivatives "n�antiser" and "n�antisation", which imply the (active) negation _of_ something. So, you are right in that, in Sartre's use, a "n�ant" is the result of an act. I guess that "nothingness" is a linguistic creation as well, isn't it? -- Marc Girod P.O. Box 310 Voice: +358-71 80 25581 Nokia IM 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415 UPS1 2/4 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 22227

Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@eGroups.com <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+Sartre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

#2573 From: "Jud Evans" <Jud@...>
Date: Fri Jun 29, 2001 11:25 am
Subject: Re: God's Bad Grammar. Jud@...
Send Email

Dear all,
It is when I read stuff like has been appearing on this this that I
appreciate that mankind has got its scale of attainment measurement
completely out of kilter.  We pay homage to film actors who couldn't string
an intelligent sentence together without the assistance of a script, and
idolise football stars who find it difficult to total up the cost of a round
of drinks and yet the brilliant folk on this list go largely unregarded in
the world and certainly don't reap the huge financial guerdons that their
stupendous brains and intelligence merit.
I've been lapping up the messages on this list, but because I am researching
for a long piece on ancient grammar in relation to the copula, I've been
quiet.

I'm coming to the conclusion that apart from the farcical and illogical
concept of 'Being,' and its parrot-like Latin import 'essence': [from esse
'be,'] that perhaps NO verb of pure existence is logically possible. Even
the English intransitive verb 'to exist'  [from Latin exsistere - ex-stare
'stand'] needs a capacity or form or state. To simply express the concept:
"I exist" without an attendant predicate is a tautology, for the "I" already
proclaims actuality. It is almost as illogical as the risible as the Lone
Ranger: "I am," whereas ""I am British." Is fine.  All these 'so-called
verbs' of existence are really referents to the WAY things exist rather than
authenticators of the FACT that things exist.  Because of this these marker
words 'exist,' and  'is' and 'was' etc ALWAYS need a predicational mode to
bespeak.  Thus:  "I exist. " is inapt and barely admissible, whereas: "I
exist AS a car-park attendant."  or "I exist on a diet of raw carrots." is
syntactically and semantically sound. So too with "He is. " which is
uncompleted without an existential modality, whereas "He is tired." makes
sense. Following this logic the word  'Being' is only logically permissible
when employed as a noun as in 'human being' and as a marker of the
continuous present as in; "He is being sick in a paper bag. " In spite of
the abnormal dependency on this word in transcendentalist texts it is
impossible for anyone or anything to HAVE a 'Being' any more than he or she
can have a 'dancing' or a 'parachuting. ' or any other gerundive fantasy.
Even God himself avoids this silly usage in the bible and [for the most
part] observes the inexorable ironbound semantic logic of predication when
he addresses his prophets:  "Abram: I am thy shield, " and "I am the LORD"
etc.   Indeed even in some of his more questionable uses of language he toes
the line for with his: "I AM THAT I AM: he has, [though he walks a formal,
semantic and syntactical tightrope,] the decency to incorporate a phrase
that functions as a verb, [though a tautologic echoicant.].  God's only real
lapse into bad grammar, as far as I can see, is when he says to Moses in Ex
3: 14: "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me
unto you." This can easily be resolved by inserting the words "the big"
before "I am" to tidy it up.
  It was Walt Disney's Popeye who echoed God's useless but amusing
repetitional echoicant with: "I yam whad I yam whad I yam.  "


Best wishes,

Jud.

#2574 From: Hamdi Ali Serdar <huseyin_bey@...>
Date: Fri Jun 29, 2001 12:22 pm
Subject: I and Myself huseyin_bey@...
Send Email

Topic : I and Myself


    Since it is quite explicit that I is(am) different
from Myself, it is wrong to make them the same in the
meaning. It should mean to us that the difference
between I and Myself is not only a difference but also
a distinction! Considering Myself as I or considering
I as Myself is not fair and something that should be
corrected in some way. Neither Myself can be used
instead of I nor I can be used instead of Myself.
Everything should be placed correctly.

    When the difference between  Myself and I is made
clear, then it is understood that Myself is more and
more important than I. Those who know Themselves know
their Lord. Can I know Myself? We are going to seek
the answer for this question...

    As far as I am concerned, I can know Myself, which
is worth doing, because Myself is something that must
be known certainly. In the cases I do not know
anything about Myself, I cannot be Myself. I must know
Myself because I need(s) it. It is here understood
that Myself is something that can be known by I. That
is, the aim of I is to reach the knowledge of Myself,
which is called real knowledge.

    If I cannot get high in the knowledge of Myself
then I do not  have any meaning to make I(me)
meaningful. I gain the meaning of Myself by knowing
about Myself. I am here whereas Myself is there beause
there is Myself whereas there is not I(me). I have
enough stamina to get knowledge about Myself.

    What I can say last is that I need(s) Myself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

#2575 From: "james tan" <tyjfk@...>
Date: Sat Jun 30, 2001 5:14 am
Subject: Re: A question: Activism or Quietism tyjfk@...
Send Email

c=chris, j=james

c: However, existentialism doesn't stop there.  I don't see existentialism
as being affraid to judge or even condemn others for the bad choices they
have made.

j: i tend to think this..if one can sin against the whole world, one cannot
sin against oneself. we have to be careful as to exactly what existentialism
says. i don't think it purports to teach us what is right and wrong in terms
of some values that we SHOULD have, OTHER than being true to oneself. 'being
true to oneself' is the one and only thing that it teaches, and lying to
oneself is the greatest of all 'sins', the mother of all 'sins'. at least,
all subsequent values must be based on that. e.g., does it teach that
killing is wrong? yes and no..the bible may say, thou should not kill, but
existentialism (as in nietzsche and sartre) says: you decide. you act. then
we will know if killing is right or wrong. if you decide to kill in a
certain situation, then killing is right for that situation, whatever the
law may say. you may end up being hanged for trangressing the laws, but you
did not transgress against yourself. mcveigh is authentic in that sense. he
would rather die as mcveigh than to live as your ordinary conformist crowd
of people, and though i personally condemn his actions, and he was put to
death by society, he died an INDIVIDUAL, unrepentant and keeping to his
beliefs to the very end of his life; much as i hate his guts, i think
mcveigh had an idea he could live, and die for. he did live and die for his
beliefs (which was translated into drastic actions), something most of us
cannot claim to have. he fought and killed in the gulf war because he
believed in it, and was ready to die in that war; he didn't - but he did die
for another of his belief. he may not be your christian hero, or even social
hero, but i regard him as an existentiallist hero, someone whom sartre would
probably write a whole book on (just as he had written on genet, the thief
and homosexual, someone your neighbourhood christians and the 'good
respectable' guy next door would love to despise and condemn). i am not
saying mcvegh would deny he was a murderer, and that is precisely the point;
what i am saying is that mcveigh would gladly admit he was a murderer, and
it is murdering as a means of attaining his goal that he would declare once
and again, if not in words, then in actions if he had chance. 'no f--king
regrets. that is it, that is the way i am, and i declare once again i am a
murderer if i have to', he might say in a more dramatic moment. he would
never attempt or pretend to separate his conduct from who he was. while
chris grasps bad faith, i think he seems to think there is a essence to what
is good and what is bad; he trys to move on, illegitimately in my view,
beyond bad faith and tries to put an essence to goodness and badness.
nietzsche has said that god is dead, who is to tell us what is right and
wrong? your nursery teachers, parents, society, bible? i am not talking
about the legal sphere here, but the moral one. if there is any
transgression at all, it is the transgression against oneself and one's
freedom and denying one's responsibility that is the greatest transgression;
that, mcveigh did not commit. what is the use of a pallid existence if there
is nothing one can live for and die for? mcveigh would rather die than to
live such existence; but it was truly 'unfortunate' that he should have that
particular goal; but then again, it is unfortunate because i am not mcveigh,
and i am seeing thing from my pt of view - and mcveigh is certainly not me.
if i say, i think one should not kill, mcveigh happened not to be the type
who say, "me too". if you want to live the 'exemplary' life of sartre,
mcveigh might not be the type who will say, "me too". he is not the type who
react and imitate; he acted and became mcveigh. and he must be glad he was
not sartre. let sartre be sartre, mcveigh be mcveigh, and sam be sam. (but
sam, you can choose anything you want, don't choose to deny yourself - never
ever pretend, not even pretending sartre - it'd be silly and a
self-contradiction - if you want to be a satan, then be a satan, and if
necessary or happened, die and perish like a satan, knowing that you died a
satan, but for goodness' sake, and i define goodness for the first time,
i.e. for your OWN sake, don't be confused about your identity, about who you
are; it is a either/or situation, not a both/and). and here, when i use
freedom, i am not saying you can do as you pleases, but the power to realise
yourself, even IF yourself is the devil. but if the power to realise
yourself involve killing and other anti-social behaviours, then so be it;
you are responsible for it (responsible in the sense that you are the
creator of that action and hence value; don't worry about what your pastor
say; he has his life, you have yours; you are not responsible for his life,
and neither is he yours; you are responsible for your own life, and he his).
but sam, what is important is really not sartre, but yourself; sartre did
not live in bad faith, and that is about the only thing you need to learn
from him, for that particular concept is just another way to say you should
not bluff yourself. other than that, look for your own truth, for nothing
matters but passion and subjectivity, something that give YOU meaning. what
others find meaningful, such as writing books (sartre), fighting for the
welfare for all in politics (sartre), or selling apples and oranges for a
living (me), may be good for them, but not necessarily for you. and if you
think joining the u.s. marines is a good idea, then so be it, even if sartre
was no soldier in any professional sense. you simply have to act without any
guarantee that you are doing the right thing. there isn't a single right way
to behave (contra chris who love to exhort sartre's life); there is only
WHAT IS RIGHT FOR YOU, and you're the only judge of that. deciding how to
live is not a intellectual choice, it requires passionately committing to
something, and what is at stake is one's very identity as a person. there is
much in the crowd, but yet it is a 'nothing'. the crowd is what heidegger
meant by the 'theyself'; be yourself.

james.

From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question: Activism or Quietism
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:57:15 -0700

James wrote:
  >>that said, it is still his pregorative to sinmagainst himself. if bon
jovi sings, "it's my life", then so be it. it is his life.<<

This is true of course.  If someone chooses to be a ciphere that's their
choice, and they are responsible for that choice.  However, existentialism
doesn't stop there.  I don't see existentialism as being affraid to judge or
even condemn others for the bad choices they have made.

James also said:
  >>what i thought is that, you approach sam in this way: look, sartre was
someone great, he lived in this way, you should also lived in that way;
sartre believed in this, sam should also believe in this. of course, what
sartre said was a way to lead a abundant life, but sartre's choice is not
necessarily sam's choice. yes, indifference is the royal road to a
meaningless and passionless life (almost tautological), but existentialism
does not tell you what to do; it just say you are responsible for your life.
eg, i know that being unkind can hurt someone, does it mean therefore that
existentialism teaches me to be kind? <<

Well, I do think that Sartre's life is an exemplary expression of
existentialism.  Actions do sometimes speak louder than words.  Sam must
make his own choices, but Sam can certainly consider the guidance offered by
philosophy and the example set by historical figures.

James further observed:
  >>to be responsible does not mean to be kind, good, or socially
responsible; it does means you are the author and creator of your values,
which may include kindness, goodness or being
socially responsible, but not necessarily. for someone who chose to be
indifferent, he has chosen, and good luck to him. but it is his business.
indifference is a very paradoxical value; it is like a snake choosing to eat
its own tail.<<

Surely we are called upon to be creative by Sartre.  But I'm not so sure
that Sartre maintained that we could create our own values unfettered by
regulative considerations, facts, or principles.  I really don't think that
Sartre would say "Good luck" to the indifferent person.  He would say that
they suffer from a lack of creativity and have failed to make necessary
choices.  He might even think that they were in need of existential
psychoanalysis.  A snake that eats its own tail is one dumb snake.

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.