Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6232Re: [Sartre] Discussions

Expand Messages
  • Leon McQuaid
    Nov 1, 2003
      I bielieve that Nietzsche wrote something along the lines of, "A unity
      diminishes all of its parts." And I am sure Sartre, in Anti-semite and Jew
      says that "Spiritualization is enfeeblement." This seems hard to deny, but
      what are the concequences of it? As most of you already know, I am obssesed
      with Nietzsche. So, with that said you should know I am always thinking of
      will and power. I reciently wrote a paper in which I spoke of the universal
      will being a fabricated idea of the limits of ones own will. Something which
      comes about primarily through fear and fears rationalization. In any case
      of whether the universal will actually is or exists, whether we have free
      will or actually only think we do, underneth all these perceptions lies the
      extent of all precieved potentiality. What then is a law but externalized
      egoism. I precieve that this such-and-such 'is/ought to be' such-and-such,
      on the basis that I cannot control it, it controls me. Isn't this still an
      extention of my will. Still I require others to agree that law is law. I
      limit myself through law, and others follow suite. In a sense I am
      stronger, in that my will is inforced. Yet on a personal level, I have
      abdicated part of my will, part of my potentiality. Have I created a
      spiritual-link by abdicating my will to something external along with all
      others like me--in creating objective reality? In a way in establishing an
      objective reality we all become alike. Nietzsche once said something along
      the lines of 'man had to be MADE rational (made the same) before he could
      reason.' Made by what/who? And through this spiritualization, am I
      negating my potentiality or am I merely trading it for a different set of
      potential. What significantce does overdependance on others have on a long
      evoloutionary time-line? Does any of this make sense?

      What it comes down to is a affirmation of N's strong/weak dichotomy. If one
      is strong enough, one is ones own law, and is fearless in that. He is free,
      not because he is lawless(in some villenous kind of way), but because he has
      no restrictions to pursue his genius, to exploit his complete and limitless
      potentiality. This is indeed, to a large extent, impossible in this day and
      age. It follows that the weak individual, through laws, is kept weak. He
      doesn't grow. There is no motivation to grow. His only motivation is in
      creating law so that he might live without fear. And so what is to be
      feared is the law itself, that which through it a sembalence of freedom is
      attained (a very Christian ideology). Yet, it can never be absolute feedom.

      Obviously all this is a very simplistic line of thinking that I am just
      begining to explore, and is not so cut and dry.

      >From: "Elaine Phipps-Earl" <lizral@...>
      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: [Sartre] Discussions
      >Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:38:22 +1000
      >Over the years i have found being on philosophical discussion groups very
      >rewarding. For some odd reason, over the past two years these deep
      >discussions have become almost non-existent on all forums. Yesterday i sent
      >in an email, hoping for a discussion to evolve and not one person has
      >offered any insight. It seems so strange to me that a serious topic for
      >discussion is passed over without comment and yet everyone is willing to
      >have a say in relation to off-topic arguments. Please guys and gals (if
      >there are any gals on this forum apart from me lol) i would really
      >appreciate a good discussion on the topic i sent in.
      >Here is another section which would be very interesting to discuss:-
      >Rousseau also associated our other-dependence and opinions with excessive
      >need and consumption. Embracing Stoic ideals, he perceived human weakness
      >excessive need. The man who is strong in his convictions, content to be
      >himself, strives merely for his basic needs. For excessive need fosters our
      >over-dependence. Dependence upon others, on appearances and opinions
      >multiplies our wants and only served to further our dependence, wherein we
      >are entrapped in the dense web of opinion, unable to hear the voice of
      >Natures reason. Apart from health, strength and a good conscience, all the
      >good things in life have become merely matters of opinion and apart from
      >bodily suffering and remorse, all other woes are mere delusions. Hence,
      >Rousseau proclaimed true freedom could only be found in austerity (p.359).
      >Of course i have my own opinions, which i must admit agree with Rousseau.
      >However, i would be extremely interested to hear the opinion of others.
      >Kind Regards

      Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic