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

Re: [Sartre] Freedom, existentialism and war (was: What does it really mean?)

Expand Messages
  • Marc Girod
    Hi Christopher, [ Technical detail: in your postings, the chaining is systematically lost, i.e. the relationship to the previous posting you are replying to.
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 4, 2001
      Hi Christopher,

      [ Technical detail: in your postings, the chaining is systematically
      lost, i.e. the relationship to the previous posting you are replying
      to. Cannot you do something to this? ]

      >>>>> "CB" == Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...> writes:

      CB> Here, when Marc says "Just freedom", I fear that he has made the
      CB> very mistake Sartre warned us away from.

      Quite on the contrary, I would claim: if freedom is my very
      experience, freedom of others (but those with whom we can make deals
      -- i.e. animals, small children. Note that this is not the same thing
      as denying them freedom) is irrelevant.

      But also, looking at the world through freedom is a paradigm shift:
      there is nothing left.

      Also, could you please give me some indication about where to look
      more precisely in BN for the excerpt you referred to? Thanks.

      CB> But it is not for the natural sciences.

      Oh! This is what you meant.
      But relativity was not a shift for Newtonian mechanics. A shift is a
      shift _out_ of assumptions. "Natural sciences" make an assumption of
      universality which is historically dated, class based etc.

      And btw, quantum physics _do_ shift out of some of the fundamental
      assumptions of classical physics.

      --
      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
      Hi Marc: You inquired about the loss of the chaining in my messages. I don t think I do much differently from what you are doing. I copy that portion of the
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 5, 2001
        Hi Marc:
        You inquired about the loss of the chaining in my messages.  I don't think I do much differently from what you are doing.  I copy that portion of the previous message that I intend to respond to, paste it to my reply, identify it as a statement from the sender, and type my response underneath.  I think you have done exactly the same in your current e-mail, which I will leave in (pretty much) in it's entirety for your reference; otherwise, I would delete it before sending this reply.  My understanding from prior posts from the Moderator is that the length of posts should be reduced by deleting the prior message(s) from your response.  What's more, I've found that the fewer bytes one sends, the more quickly one's e-mail makes its way through cyberspace.
         
         
        Marc wrote:
        >>Quite on the contrary, I would claim: if freedom is my very
        experience, freedom of others (but those with whom we can make deals
        -- i.e. animals, small children. Note that this is not the same thing
        as denying them freedom) is irrelevant.<<

        Freedom of others is not entirely "irrelevant" as the freedom of others impinges on your own freedom. Your projects conflict with, encounter or coincide with the projects of others.  What's more, we in the West have the peculiar notion that when enough people agree on something, they get to limit everyone's freedom by the enactment of laws and the deployment of coercive police  agencies. As for making deals with animals, I do not think that I have ever done so.  Have you made deals with animals and what kind of "deals" would these be?
         
        Mark said:
        >>But also, looking at the world through freedom is a paradigm shift:
        there is nothing left.<<

        Yes, but it is only the human world (the world of being-for-itself) that we look at existentially, everything else (the world of being-in-itself) is left undisturbed. Being-in-itself remains as deterministic and de trop as it ever was.
         
        The passages I quoted from B&N came from Part Four - Having, Doing, and Being, and Chapter One, Being and Doing: Freedom, about twelve paragraphs into the chapter. The paragraph begins "In our attempt to reach to the hear of freedom we may be helped by a few observations which we have made on the subject in the course of this work and which we must summarzie here."
         
        Marc observed:
        >>Oh! This is what you meant.
        But relativity was not a shift for Newtonian mechanics. A shift is a
        shift _out_ of assumptions. "Natural sciences" make an assumption of
        universality which is historically dated, class based etc.

        And btw, quantum physics _do_ shift out of some of the fundamental
        assumptions of classical physics.<<
         
        I'm not sure what your getting at here.  However, I think this topic is a departure from the discussion of existentialism which is appropriate to this list.  I'd be happy to discuss the philosophy of science with you off-list, as it is one of my areas of interest.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Marc Girod
        Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 11:05 PM
        To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [Sartre] Freedom, existentialism and war (was: What does it really mean?)
         
        Hi Christopher,

        [ Technical detail: in your postings, the chaining is systematically
          lost, i.e. the relationship to the previous posting you are replying
          to. Cannot you do something to this? ]

        >>>>> "CB" == Christopher Bobo <cbobo@...> writes:

        CB> Here, when Marc says "Just freedom", I fear that he has made the
        CB> very mistake Sartre warned us away from.

        Quite on the contrary, I would claim: if freedom is my very
        experience, freedom of others (but those with whom we can make deals
        -- i.e. animals, small children. Note that this is not the same thing
        as denying them freedom) is irrelevant.

        But also, looking at the world through freedom is a paradigm shift:
        there is nothing left.

        Also, could you please give me some indication about where to look
        more precisely in BN for the excerpt you referred to? Thanks.

        CB> But it is not for the natural sciences.

        Oh! This is what you meant.
        But relativity was not a shift for Newtonian mechanics. A shift is a
        shift _out_ of assumptions. "Natural sciences" make an assumption of
        universality which is historically dated, class based etc.

        And btw, quantum physics _do_ shift out of some of the fundamental
        assumptions of classical physics.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.