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

Re: [Sartre] general opinion

Expand Messages
  • Christopher Bobo
    ... phenomonology. I wouldn t care to make bolder statements than that. I still haven t found too many loopholes with his notions of freewill. However, I
    Message 1 of 2 , May 22, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Mike Wrote:
      >>To start with, I think Sartre is still very much active in terms of
      phenomonology.  I wouldn't care to make bolder statements than that.
      I still haven't found too many loopholes with his notions of
      freewill.  However, I would never go as far as to say he was right
      about everything and sometimes his lack of system building really
      left him open for attack.   But, that was also a product of his times
      and the aftermath of Kant, Hegel, and Husserl (as begun by
      Neitsche).<<
      Rorty devided philosophy into the systematic and the edifying.  Kant, Hegel and maybe Husserl are clearly systematic, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre fall into the edifying category.  Rorty's implication is that it is improper to evaluate the edifying philosophers by the standards of the systematic and vice versa. 
       
      Mike also wrote:
      >>I find that I'm still interested in questions that relate to more
      trivial pursuits, but still might get at something.  Art, for
      example, which I took to be a central idea in Hegel's "Phenomenology
      of the Spirit" (however much my professor at the time seemed
      determined to cast the book as political.)  Art is communication, in
      this case a deeply psychological experience which could be shared by
      many.  I always believed as Sartre does that this communication was
      something far above its description.  And, the measure of success of
      an artistic endeavor must lie in its ability to communicate what the
      artist was thinking or feeling.<<

      Art is one of my favorite subjects.  I think what is attractive--to me--about art is that it stimulates the viewers' thoughts and emotions.  It's successful not because it communicates what the artist is thinking and feeling, but because it  makes the viewer have his or her own personal and private thoughts and emotions.  The most successful work of art, in my humble opinion, provokes the most amount and the deepest thought and reflection in its highest number of its viewers. 


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Mike
      Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 5:54 AM
      To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Sartre] general opinion

      To start with, I think Sartre is still very much active in terms of
      phenomonology.  I wouldn't care to make bolder statements than that.
      I still haven't found too many loopholes with his notions of
      freewill.  However, I would never go as far as to say he was right
      about everything and sometimes his lack of system building really
      left him open for attack.   But, that was also a product of his times
      and the aftermath of Kant, Hegel, and Husserl (as begun by
      Neitsche).

      I find that I'm still interested in questions that relate to more
      trivial pursuits, but still might get at something.  Art, for
      example, which I took to be a central idea in Hegel's "Phenomenology
      of the Spirit" (however much my professor at the time seemed
      determined to cast the book as political.)  Art is communication, in
      this case a deeply psychological experience which could be shared by
      many.  I always believed as Sartre does that this communication was
      something far above its description.  And, the measure of success of
      an artistic endeavor must lie in its ability to communicate what the
      artist was thinking or feeling.

      The current debate in "cognitive science" (a term which seems more
      sham than truth) is directed at finding some working definition for
      art ... specifically, a PRESCRIPTIVE definition of art which is
      good.  If we follow Sartre on this one, the very idea is ludicris.

      When I read Hegel, I started from this point.  My thinking was that
      Jesus was, essentially, the greatest performance artist of all-time.
      I think this may actually be a correct reading of the book.
      Certainly Jesus was a moment and this moment was his crucifiction.

      Where I am going with this is back to Sartre.  It was him who gave me
      the basis for these thoughts.  Clearly, historically at any rate, he
      came after Hegel and owed his debt to him.  Sartre I think understood
      this a little better (as a fiction writer) than Hegel ... perhaps it
      was second nature.  At any rate, the central notion of communication
      (and its subsequent phenomena), which is a product of freewill, is an
      idea that I will always return to.

      Just an idea of my own interests in the subject.

      Mike



      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.