Re: [Sartre] A question
- 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 CarterSent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 3:55 PMTo: Sartre@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [Sartre] A question
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.
- i did not quote chris in full messages.
From: Marc Girod <girod@...>
Subject: Re: [Sartre] A question
Date: 04 Jul 2001 20:26:58 +0300
>>>>> "jt" == james tan <tyjfk@...> writes:jt> did you confuse me for christopher?
Strange. I cannot see how you can ask this.
Didn't you write the words I quoted?
Anyway, sorry if I did confuse you with Chris. Please avoid quoting
full messages in your replies.
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