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

What does it really mean?

Expand Messages
  • silk
    Existentialism: A branch of philosophy based on the concept of an absurd universe where humans have free will. Existentialists argue that philosophy must begin
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Existentialism: A branch of philosophy based on the concept of an absurd
      universe where humans have free will. Existentialists argue that philosophy
      must begin from the concrete situation of the individual in such a world and
      that humans are responsible for and the sole judge of their actions as they
      affect others, though no one elses's existence is real to the individual.
      The orgin of existentialism is usually traced back to the Danish philosopher
      Kierkegaard: among its proponents were Martin Heidegger in Germany & Jean
      Paul Sarte in France. Personally I consider anything to do with existence as
      fitting into the category of existentialism, some of course with limited
      experience tend to "straightjacket" existentialism, I being a European am
      certainly not of that persuasion & welcome, most enthusiastically, all that
      which concerns mankinds struggle with this thing called existence on this
      tiny pebble in the universe refered to as earth, should any of you take
      issue with my posts please do not hesitate to bring it to my attention.
      chao/Silk
    • Marc Girod
      ... silk Existentialism: A branch of philosophy based on the concept of silk an absurd universe where humans have free will. Until Copernicus, one believed
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >>>>> "silk" == smbc1@... writes:

        silk> Existentialism: A branch of philosophy based on the concept of
        silk> an absurd universe where humans have free will.

        Until Copernicus, one believed that the sun turned around the earth.
        This didn't account well for observations made. Copernicus noticed
        that making the sun fixed, and having the earth turn around it greatly
        simplified the model.

        In the end of the XIXth, Maxwell equations explained the propagation
        of electro-magnetic waves. They even made it possible to calculate the
        pace of this propagation. There was just a problem: this pace was not
        relative to any referential. For 40 years, physicists tried to figure
        out what was this implicit "ether" c was relative to, until Einstein
        noticed that it was a good idea to make instead the universe relative
        to c.

        Existentialism follows the same pattern. If you try to understand
        freedom relatively to "Nature", you get into unsolvable
        contradictions. Everything gets much simpler if you turn things
        around, and make the world a result of freedom.

        Is this absurd?

        --
        Marc Girod P.O. Box 370 Voice: +358-71 80 25581
        Nokia NBI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
        Karaportti 2 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 66204
      • Christopher Bobo
        ... Is this absurd?
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 28, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Marc wrote:
          >>Existentialism follows the same pattern. If you try to understand freedom relatively to "Nature", you get into unsolvable contradictions. Everything gets much simpler if you turn thingsaround, and make the world a result of freedom.

          Is this absurd?<<
           
          I think you have to add here "human" freedom.  It is not Nature that is being turned around but the place of humanity in nature.  I really don't see how this is analogous to the Copernican Revolution or to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  What existentialism is proposing is not a complete paradigm shift, but rather an ad hoc theory of freedom.  Human consciousness is simply made an exception to nature and it's seeming determinism.  This is more like epicycles and ether than heliocentrism and relativity.  To answer your question, it is not absurd if you view existentialism as articulating an exception to the general rule as opposed to turning the general rule on its head.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Marc Girod
          Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 10:59 PM
          To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: sartre@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [Sartre] What does it really mean?
           
          >>>>> "silk" == smbc1@... writes:

          silk> Existentialism: A branch of philosophy based on the concept of
          silk> an absurd universe where humans have free will.

          Until Copernicus, one believed that the sun turned around the earth.
          This didn't account well for observations made. Copernicus noticed
          that making the sun fixed, and having the earth turn around it greatly
          simplified the model.

          In the end of the XIXth, Maxwell equations explained the propagation
          of electro-magnetic waves. They even made it possible to calculate the
          pace of this propagation. There was just a problem: this pace was not
          relative to any referential. For 40 years, physicists tried to figure
          out what was this implicit "ether" c was relative to, until Einstein
          noticed that it was a good idea to make instead the universe relative
          to c.

          Existentialism follows the same pattern. If you try to understand
          freedom relatively to "Nature", you get into unsolvable
          contradictions. Everything gets much simpler if you turn things
          around, and make the world a result of freedom.

          Is this absurd?

          --
          Marc Girod        P.O. Box 370        Voice:  +358-71 80 25581
          Nokia NBI         00045 NOKIA Group   Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
          Karaportti 2      Finland             Fax:    +358-71 80 66204
        • Tommy Beavitt
          ... It always surprises me when people makes statements like this. How can we be sure that other kinds of beings don t have freedom? There is simply no way of
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 29, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            At 23:19 -0800 28/10/01, Christopher Bobo wrote:
            >I think you have to add here "human" freedom. It is not Nature that
            >is being turned around but the place of humanity in nature. I
            >really don't see how this is analogous to the Copernican Revolution
            >or to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What existentialism is
            >proposing is not a complete paradigm shift, but rather an ad hoc
            >theory of freedom. Human consciousness is simply made an exception
            >to nature and it's seeming determinism. This is more like epicycles
            >and ether than heliocentrism and relativity. To answer your
            >question, it is not absurd if you view existentialism as
            >articulating an exception to the general rule as opposed to turning
            >the general rule on its head.

            It always surprises me when people makes statements like this. How
            can we be sure that other kinds of beings don't have freedom? There
            is simply no way of telling. Your statement reveals an
            anthropo-centrism which I would term arrogant (I won't bring
            nationality into it this time!)

            You wriggled nicely out of my last accusation of arrogance by saying
            that, while you accepted that the Other had a different perspective
            which might or might not be valid for him/her, from your "personal
            moral perspective" the Other was wrong.

            Now you say that beings other than humans don't have freedom and you
            say this as if it were an objective fact (because you refer to the
            place of beings in Nature).

            I find it entirely reasonable to suppose that a sparrow sees a world
            that constructs itself according to that sparrow's projects.

            I find it plausible that a dog feels anxiety.

            I don't see any reason why we should suppose that a dolphin's essence
            is prior to its existence.

            The only way I can be certain that another being doesn't have freedom
            is by depriving it of its existence.. But then it wouldn't be a being
            any more...

            As far as I can see Marc has already been proven to be right when he says:

            At 08:58 +0200 29/10/01, Marc Girod wrote:
            >If you try to understand
            >freedom relatively to "Nature", you get into unsolvable
            >contradictions.

            Tommy
          • Christopher Bobo
            Now I feel that I must defend myself from the twin charges of arrogance and anthropo-centrism, or perhaps I should just plead guilty. Guilty as charged. I
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 29, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Now I feel that I must defend myself from the twin charges of arrogance and anthropo-centrism, or perhaps I should just plead guilty. Guilty as charged.  I like dogs, dolphins and birds too, but I really don't think they enjoy the same consciousness and mental life as humans.  I'm sorry, I just don't think that they do.  Still, I love my dog like a child.  What's more, I am not aware of any existential philosophers who advocated existentialism for animals.  Does any one know of any? 
               
              My dog may feel anxiety, but I don't think it is because he is confronted with an existential choice and the need to exercise his radical freedeom.  Indeed, I detected a little anxiety in my dog the other day when I gave him a bath. Seeing it coming, he grew most downtrodden and hung his head low, but afterwards he was his usual frisky self. Sparrows may have projects, but they are not the product of their freedom as much as the exercise of their instinctual powers. Surely, Dolphins are very smart creatures, but I don't see them as defining their essence as the product of the free choices they make in their existence.  But even they are, so much the better.  I never claimed that other creatures could not share in our existential freedom, as a matter of principle, I'm just saying that I see no convincing evidence of it at this time, as a matter of empirical fact. 
               
              Marc's observation that trying to understand freedom relatively to nature immediately plunges one into unsolvable contradictions is probably correct.  But you seem to be doing the same thing here.  You found yourself in the position of seeming trying to claim that all of nature is radically free--this is yet another unsolvable contradiction. 
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Tommy Beavitt
              Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:26 AM
              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Sartre] What does it really mean?
               
              At 23:19 -0800 28/10/01, Christopher Bobo wrote:
              >I think you have to add here "human" freedom.  It is not Nature that
              >is being turned around but the place of humanity in nature.  I
              >really don't see how this is analogous to the Copernican Revolution
              >or to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  What existentialism is
              >proposing is not a complete paradigm shift, but rather an ad hoc
              >theory of freedom.  Human consciousness is simply made an exception
              >to nature and it's seeming determinism.  This is more like epicycles
              >and ether than heliocentrism and relativity.  To answer your
              >question, it is not absurd if you view existentialism as
              >articulating an exception to the general rule as opposed to turning
              >the general rule on its head.

              It always surprises me when people makes statements like this. How
              can we be sure that other kinds of beings don't have freedom? There
              is simply no way of telling. Your statement reveals an
              anthropo-centrism which I would term arrogant (I won't bring
              nationality into it this time!)

              You wriggled nicely out of my last accusation of arrogance by saying
              that, while you accepted that the Other had a different perspective
              which might or might not be valid for him/her, from your "personal
              moral perspective" the Other was wrong.

              Now you say that beings other than humans don't have freedom and you
              say this as if it were an objective fact (because you refer to the
              place of beings in Nature).

              I find it entirely reasonable to suppose that a sparrow sees a world
              that constructs itself according to that sparrow's projects.

              I find it plausible that a dog feels anxiety.

              I don't see any reason why we should suppose that a dolphin's essence
              is prior to its existence.

              The only way I can be certain that another being doesn't have freedom
              is by depriving it of its existence.. But then it wouldn't be a being
              any more...

              As far as I can see Marc has already been proven to be right when he says:

              At 08:58 +0200 29/10/01, Marc Girod wrote:
              >If you try to understand
              >freedom relatively to "Nature", you get into unsolvable
              >contradictions.

              Tommy

            • Lorna
              Chris, I must agree with you in regard to Sartre and his idea of freedom - He makes a clear distinction between human existence and nature, and goes so far as
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 29, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Chris, I must agree with you in regard to Sartre and his idea of freedom - He makes a clear distinction between human existence and nature, and goes so far as to say that even CHILDREN are not "existing" to the extent that they are not absolutely free.
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...>
                To: Sartre_yahoogr <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
                Date: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:49 AM
                Subject: Re: [Sartre] What does it really mean?

                Now I feel that I must defend myself from the twin charges of arrogance and anthropo-centrism, or perhaps I should just plead guilty. Guilty as charged.  I like dogs, dolphins and birds too, but I really don't think they enjoy the same consciousness and mental life as humans.  I'm sorry, I just don't think that they do.  Still, I love my dog like a child.  What's more, I am not aware of any existential philosophers who advocated existentialism for animals.  Does any one know of any? 
                 
                My dog may feel anxiety, but I don't think it is because he is confronted with an existential choice and the need to exercise his radical freedeom.  Indeed, I detected a little anxiety in my dog the other day when I gave him a bath. Seeing it coming, he grew most downtrodden and hung his head low, but afterwards he was his usual frisky self. Sparrows may have projects, but they are not the prod uct of their freedom as much as the exercise of their instinctual powers. Surely, Dolphins are very smart creatures, but I don't see them as defining their essence as the product of the free choices they make in their existence.  But even they are, so much the better.  I never claimed that other creatures could not share in our existential freedom, as a matter of principle, I'm just saying that I see no convincing evidence of it at this time, as a matter of empirical fact. 
                 
                Marc's observation that trying to understand freedom relatively to nature immediately plunges one into unsolvable contradictions is probably correct.  But you seem to be doing the same thing here.  You found yourself in the position of seeming trying to claim that all of nature is radically free--this is yet another unsolvable contradiction. 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Tommy Beavitt
                Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:26 AM
                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [Sartre] What does it really mean?
                 
                At 23:19 -0800 28/10/01, Christopher Bobo wrote:
                >I think you have to add here "human" freedom.  It is not Nature that
                >is being turned around but the place of humanity in nature.  I
                >really don't see how this is analogous to the Copernican Revolution
                >or to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  What existentialism is
                >proposing is not a complete paradigm shift, but rather an ad hoc
                >theory of freedom.  Human consciousness is simply made an exception
                >to nature and it's seeming determinism.  This is more like epicycles
                >and ether than heliocentrism and relativity.  To answer your
                >question, it is not absurd if you view existentialism as
                >articulating an exception to the general rule as opposed to turning
                >the general rule on its head.

                It always surprises me when people makes statements like this. How
                can we be sure that other kinds of beings don't have freedom? There
                is simply no way of telling. Your statement reveals an
                anthropo-centrism which I would term arrogant (I won't bring
                nationality into it this time!)

                You wriggled nicely out of my last accusation of arrogance by saying
                that, while you accepted that the Other had a different perspective
                which might or might not be valid for him/her, from your "personal
                moral perspective" the Other was wrong.

                Now you say that beings other than humans don't have freedom and you
                say this as if it were an objective fact (because you refer to the
                place of beings in Nature).

                I find it entir ely reasonable to suppose that a sparrow sees a world
                that constructs itself according to that sparrow's projects.

                I find it plausible that a dog feels anxiety.

                I don't see any reason why we should suppose that a dolphin's essence
                is prior to its existence.

                The only way I can be certain that another being doesn't have freedom
                is by depriving it of its existence.. But then it wouldn't be a being
                any more...

                As far as I can see Marc has already been proven to be right when he says:

                At 08:58 +0200 29/10/01, Marc Girod wrote:
                >If you try to understand
                >freedom relatively to "Nature", you get into unsolvable
                >contradictions.

                Tommy



                Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/

                To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...

                <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.
              • Tommy Beavitt
                ... Hi Lorna, Have you got a reference for this? I was going to remark that in Being and Nothingness Sartre is careful never to say humans for the subjective
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 29, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 09:16 -0800 29/10/01, Lorna wrote:
                  >Chris, I must agree with you in regard to Sartre and his idea of
                  >freedom - He makes a clear distinction between human existence and
                  >nature, and goes so far as to say that even CHILDREN are not
                  >"existing" to the extent that they are not absolutely free.

                  Hi Lorna,

                  Have you got a reference for this? I was going to remark that in
                  Being and Nothingness Sartre is careful never to say "humans" for the
                  subjective consciousness, always l'etre pour soi, being-for-itself.

                  But yes I had started to realise that I was floundering. I still
                  don't think it makes sense to say that only humans have freedom in
                  the context of "Nature" but certainly it quickly becomes meaningless
                  if we begin to extend concepts beyond our own realms of experience.

                  Chris, you know I didn't mean personally arrogant. Actually you are
                  very polite!

                  Tommy
                • Justinian C. Habner
                  Justin writes: Champigny actually wrote a book about what he saw as Sartre s human racism, of anthropomania! Sartre suggested in response, and here I agree,
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 29, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Justin writes:

                    Champigny actually wrote a book about what he saw as Sartre's human racism,
                    of anthropomania!

                    Sartre suggested in response, and here I agree, that is is hard to really discuss
                    the consciousness of animals in relation to humans. animals have consciousness,
                    because you can understand their attitudes if you admit that they have a consciousness
                    (like that of humans). However, Sartre stopped short of describing what this
                    animal consciousness actually was like - suggesting that one day perhaps we
                    could understand their consciousness.

                    Sartre also considered plants (albeit briefly [from my memory]), where he claimed
                    that he had no idea if they had consciousness.

                    Really Sartre seems to think that consciousness and life do not necessarily
                    go together - but they may do, as in the case of humans or dogs. But this consciousness
                    is perhaps different, we really do not know - at least at this stage?!?

                    >Now I feel that I must defend myself from the twin charges of arrogance and>
                    anthropo-centrism, or perhaps I should just plead guilty. Guilty as charge>d.
                    I like dogs, dolphins and birds too, but I really don't think they enjo>y the
                    same consciousness and mental life as humans. I'm sorry, I just don'>t think
                    that they do. Still, I love my dog like a child. What's more, I a>m not aware
                    of any existential philosophers who advocated existentialism fo>r animals.
                    Does any one know of any?
                    >
                    >My dog may feel anxiety, but I don't think it is because he is confronted w>ith
                    an existential choice and the need to exercise his radical freedeom. I>ndeed,
                    I detected a little anxiety in my dog the other day when I gave him >a bath.
                    Seeing it coming, he grew most downtrodden and hung his head low, b>ut afterwards
                    he was his usual frisky self. Sparrows may have projects, but> they are not
                    the product of their freedom as much as the exercise of their> instinctual powers.
                    Surely, Dolphins are very smart creatures, but I don't> see them as defining
                    their essence as the product of the free choices they> make in their existence.
                    But even they are, so much the better. I never >claimed that other creatures
                    could not share in our existential freedom, as> a matter of principle, I'm just
                    saying that I see no convincing evidence o>f it at this time, as a matter of
                    empirical fact.
                    >
                    >Marc's observation that trying to understand freedom relatively to nature i>mmediately
                    plunges one into unsolvable contradictions is probably correct. > But you seem
                    to be doing the same thing here. You found yourself in the p>osition of seeming
                    trying to claim that all of nature is radically free--th>is is yet another unsolvable
                    contradiction.
                    >----- Original Message -----
                    >From: Tommy Beavitt
                    >Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 12:26 AM
                    >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                    >Subject: Re: [Sartre] What does it really mean?
                    >
                    >At 23:19 -0800 28/10/01, Christopher Bobo wrote:
                    >>I think you have to add here "human" freedom. It is not Nature that
                    >>is being turned around but the place of humanity in nature. I
                    >>really don't see how this is analogous to the Copernican Revolution
                    >>or to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. What existentialism is
                    >>proposing is not a complete paradigm shift, but rather an ad hoc
                    >>theory of freedom. Human consciousness is simply made an exception
                    >>to nature and it's seeming determinism. This is more like epicycles
                    >>and ether than heliocentrism and relativity. To answer your
                    >>question, it is not absurd if you view existentialism as
                    >>articulating an exception to the general rule as opposed to turning
                    >>the general rule on its head.
                    >
                    >It always surprises me when people makes statements like this. How
                    >can we be sure that other kinds of beings don't have freedom? There
                    >is simply no way of telling. Your statement reveals an
                    >anthropo-centrism which I would term arrogant (I won't bring
                    >nationality into it this time!)
                    >
                    >You wriggled nicely out of my last accusation of arrogance by saying
                    >that, while you accepted that the Other had a different perspective
                    >which might or might not be valid for him/her, from your "personal
                    >moral perspective" the Other was wrong.
                    >
                    >Now you say that beings other than humans don't have freedom and you
                    >say this as if it were an objective fact (because you refer to the
                    >place of beings in Nature).
                    >
                    >I find it entirely reasonable to suppose that a sparrow sees a world
                    >that constructs itself according to that sparrow's projects.
                    >
                    >I find it plausible that a dog feels anxiety.
                    >
                    >I don't see any reason why we should suppose that a dolphin's essence
                    >is prior to its existence.
                    >
                    >The only way I can be certain that another being doesn't have freedom
                    >is by depriving it of its existence.. But then it wouldn't be a being
                    >any more...
                    >
                    >As far as I can see Marc has already been proven to be right when he says:

                    >
                    >At 08:58 +0200 29/10/01, Marc Girod wrote:
                    >>If you try to understand
                    >>freedom relatively to "Nature", you get into unsolvable
                    >>contradictions.
                    >
                    >Tommy
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    Justinian C. Habner
                    Honours Student
                    School of Government
                    University of Tasmania
                    PO Box 252-22 Hobart
                    Tasmania Australia 7001

                    Tel: (03) 6226 2331
                    Fax: (03) 6226 2864
                    Mobile: 0401 023543
                  • Tommy Beavitt
                    ... Well, thanks for that. I think I should be reading Champigny! Do you know the name of this book? ... Yes, I was starting to run into this problem. ... If
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 30, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 17:27 +1000 30/10/01, Justinian C. Habner wrote:
                      >Champigny actually wrote a book about what he saw as Sartre's human racism,
                      >of anthropomania!

                      Well, thanks for that. I think I should be reading Champigny! Do you
                      know the name of this book?

                      >Sartre suggested in response, and here I agree, that is is hard to
                      >really discuss
                      >the consciousness of animals in relation to humans. animals have
                      >consciousness,
                      >because you can understand their attitudes if you admit that they
                      >have a consciousness
                      >(like that of humans). However, Sartre stopped short of describing what this
                      >animal consciousness actually was like - suggesting that one day perhaps we
                      >could understand their consciousness.

                      Yes, I was starting to run into this problem.

                      >Sartre also considered plants (albeit briefly [from my memory]),
                      >where he claimed
                      >that he had no idea if they had consciousness.

                      If we are going to include plants perhaps minerals should also be in
                      the running?

                      >Really Sartre seems to think that consciousness and life do not necessarily
                      >go together - but they may do, as in the case of humans or dogs.
                      >But this consciousness
                      >is perhaps different, we really do not know - at least at this stage?!?

                      I agree with you, Justinian. One is not the necessary and sufficient
                      precondition of the other.

                      With regard to our/Sartre's anthropomania it is our lack of
                      experience/knowledge that leads us to claim that only humans qualify
                      for subjective consciousness status.

                      I am interested to know what others think about whether subjective
                      consciousness can only exist at the *individual* human level. What
                      about groups: tribes, cultures, communities, nations? When we talk
                      about the Other (eg. terrorists, Muslims) from the perspective of Us
                      (eg. the West, America) are we necessarily acting in bad faith?

                      Tommy
                    • landrywc@globalserve.net
                      Off the top of my head, I do not have a reference for this, but I will investigate and get back to you. I am almost certain that Sartre hasn t got much to say
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 31, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Off the top of my head, I do not have a reference for this, but I
                        will investigate and get back to you. I am almost certain that Sartre
                        hasn't got much to say about children and freedom in Being &
                        Nothingness, but at some point in his writings he discusses the
                        topic.I'll see what I can find.
                        -Lorna
                      • Justinian C. Habner
                        The book is called: Humanisme et racisme humain . It was published in 73 or 72. And I think that there is an English translation available, but I have not
                        Message 11 of 12 , Nov 1, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The book is called: "Humanisme et racisme humain". It was published in '73 or
                          '72. And I think that there is an English translation available, but I have
                          not seen it? But the original French is avaialble, so if you can cope with
                          French you will be fine.

                          It is an interesting book, but fundamentally flawed - I think. Champigny, basically
                          takes insult to a off the cuff comment by Sartre that: "An anti-communist is
                          a dog". Champigny produces a whole critique from that! (I think he misses
                          the real point of the comment, namely, that Sartre used the expression in the
                          normal way... slang so to say... not as an insult for dogs).

                          Anyway, the book is nonetheless interesting.

                          Enjoy!!

                          Justin







                          >At 17:27 +1000 30/10/01, Justinian C. Habner wrote:
                          >>Champigny actually wrote a book about what he saw as Sartre's human racism,

                          >>of anthropomania!
                          >
                          >Well, thanks for that. I think I should be reading Champigny! Do you
                          >know the name of this book?
                          >
                          >>Sartre suggested in response, and here I agree, that is is hard to
                          >>really discuss
                          >>the consciousness of animals in relation to humans. animals have
                          >>consciousness,
                          >>because you can understand their attitudes if you admit that they
                          >>have a consciousness
                          >>(like that of humans). However, Sartre stopped short of describing what this

                          >>animal consciousness actually was like - suggesting that one day perhaps we

                          >>could understand their consciousness.
                          >
                          >Yes, I was starting to run into this problem.
                          >
                          >>Sartre also considered plants (albeit briefly [from my memory]),
                          >>where he claimed
                          >>that he had no idea if they had consciousness.
                          >
                          >If we are going to include plants perhaps minerals should also be in
                          >the running?
                          >
                          >>Really Sartre seems to think that consciousness and life do not necessarily

                          >>go together - but they may do, as in the case of humans or dogs.
                          >>But this consciousness
                          >>is perhaps different, we really do not know - at least at this stage?!?
                          >
                          >I agree with you, Justinian. One is not the necessary and sufficient
                          >precondition of the other.
                          >
                          >With regard to our/Sartre's anthropomania it is our lack of
                          >experience/knowledge that leads us to claim that only humans qualify
                          >for subjective consciousness status.
                          >
                          >I am interested to know what others think about whether subjective
                          >consciousness can only exist at the *individual* human level. What
                          >about groups: tribes, cultures, communities, nations? When we talk
                          >about the Other (eg. terrorists, Muslims) from the perspective of Us
                          >(eg. the West, America) are we necessarily acting in bad faith?
                          >
                          >Tommy
                          >
                          >Sartre homepage: http://www.Sartre.org.uk/
                          >
                          >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@...
                          >
                          ><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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          Justinian C. Habner
                          Honours Student
                          School of Government
                          University of Tasmania
                          PO Box 252-22 Hobart
                          Tasmania Australia 7001

                          Tel: (03) 6226 2331
                          Fax: (03) 6226 2864
                          Mobile: 0401 023543
                        • Christopher Bobo
                          Sartre probably actually meant to say running dog lackey... :) ... From: Justinian C. Habner Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:02 PM To:
                          Message 12 of 12 , Nov 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Sartre probably actually meant to say "running dog lackey..."  :)
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Justinian C. Habner
                            Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 3:02 PM
                            To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [Sartre] What does it really mean?
                             
                            The book is called: "Humanisme et racisme humain".  It was published in '73 or
                            '72.  And I think that there is an English translation available, but I have
                            not seen it?  But the original French is avaialble, so if you can cope with
                            French you will be fine.

                            It is an interesting book, but fundamentally flawed - I think.  Champigny, basically
                            takes insult to a off the cuff comment by Sartre that: "An anti-communist is
                            a dog".  Champigny produces a whole critique from that!  (I think he misses
                            the real point of the comment, namely, that Sartre used the expression in the
                            normal way... slang so to say... not as an insult for dogs).

                            Anyway, the book is nonetheless interesting.

                            Enjoy!!

                            Justin
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.