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

heidegger not agreeing with sartre on being an exestentialist

Expand Messages
  • Hélène
    I know u dont know me but I really need some help if you could: can u pls tell me the similarities and differences between Sartre and Heidegger and what
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 15, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I know u dont know me but I really need some help if you could:
      can u pls tell me the similarities and differences between Sartre and
      Heidegger and what exsistence preceeds essence means, I'm so confused
      and I have a paper to do on this and I long to understand, what is a
      definition for exentialism, the thought that we all are free tthus we
      make who we are? what about being lazy, that is no excuse our essence
      is notlazy we become lazy, yet what does that mean?
    • David Kovar
      It is very difficult to try to explain existentialist very easily...But it is not just the idea that we are free...Kiergaard (excuse my spelling) once said
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 15, 2001
      • 0 Attachment



        It is very difficult to try to explain existentialist very easily...But it is not just the idea that we are free...Kiergaard (excuse my spelling) once said that why didn't God let him choose before he was born and why he wasnt given that choice.   Kiergaard goest to explain that without that we are not free....The same idea goes in Sartre's existentialist...Sartre says we are condemned to be free......and this is what he tries to say in nausea.........And because we are condemened to be free....not to choose is to have chosen.....Freedom is our greatest responsibility....but then heidegger describes our existence as being thrown in this world....it is important to realize what freedom entails in in existentialism...it is freedom that allows humans to create, manifest... (dont know right word here) their own essence, their own being...or what are in our values, attitudes, and everything that makes us who we are....in contemporary period this may not seem that important but it is because it counters the idea of the soul or the idea that essence precedes existence....so existentialism can be defined as existence precedes essence...    It is the reason that Sartre names his book being and nothingness and heiddegger being and time......that little differences is I think the key to that gap......I would say more but time is limited...

         

        >From: "H�l�ne "
        >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [Sartre] heidegger not agreeing with sartre on being an exestentialist
        >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 04:36:35 -0000
        >
        >I know u dont know me but I really need some help if you could:
        >can u pls tell me the similarities and differences between Sartre and
        >Heidegger and what exsistence preceeds essence means, I'm so confused
        >and I have a paper to do on this and I long to understand, what is a
        >definition for exentialism, the thought that we all are free tthus we
        >make who we are? what about being lazy, that is no excuse our essence
        >is notlazy we become lazy, yet what does that mean?
        >


        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
      • Tommy Beavitt
        ... These are good questions, Hélène, and I concur largely with David Kovar s reply. You should get lots of help with questions like this! Especially I agree
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 16, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          >I know u dont know me but I really need some help if you could:
          >can u pls tell me the similarities and differences between Sartre and
          >Heidegger and what exsistence preceeds essence means, I'm so confused
          >and I have a paper to do on this and I long to understand, what is a
          >definition for exentialism, the thought that we all are free tthus we
          >make who we are? what about being lazy, that is no excuse our essence
          >is notlazy we become lazy, yet what does that mean?

          These are good questions, Hélène, and I concur largely with David
          Kovar's reply. You should get lots of help with questions like this!

          Especially I agree with David's claim that "existence precedes
          essence... counters the idea of the soul or the idea that essence
          precedes existence". I had never thought about it quite like that but
          it lends a certain authority to those who claim that existentialism
          is at core an atheistic philosophy.

          However, to deconstruct that idea a bit, we have to emphasise that
          existence doesn't *replace* essence; in other words, it is possible
          to be an existentialist and believe in the existence of a soul. Its
          just that we have to view that soul not as something which has been
          given to us already complete but something that we create in every
          moment. I haven't read a lot of Kierkegaard but I think that
          distinction may be something that he contributed to religious
          existentialism.

          Heidegger of course was a trained theologian who originally wished to
          become a professional churchman. It was, some have said, something of
          an accident that he ended up contributing so much to what many view
          as an atheistic philosophy. Herman Philipse's 'Heidegger's Philosophy
          of Being' is one critical work which takes this line. According to
          Philipse, Heidegger's existentialism is an attempt to build a
          religious or pseudo-religious system of thought from the ground up;
          you can interpret him this way but it is interesting to note that he
          never uses words like 'God'. There is something of an air of mystery
          to much of Heidegger's work and on this question in particular it
          seems he wanted to keep us guessing.

          Sartre, on the other hand, comes right out with his atheism. In his
          view, existentialism is incompatible with religion. I think this is
          the main difference between the two philosophers.

          David's point about Heidegger's concept of 'thrown-ness' is good. So
          we are free and responsible for everthing which happens us but this
          is in the context of our having been thrown into this world. There is
          no way to undo or reverse our thrown-ness other than by taking a
          premature exit, in which case the context of everything - the fact of
          our existence - will no longer be true.

          To answer your question about laziness I hope you don't mind if I
          deviate from orthodox existentialist writing and offer my own view!

          Laziness is something which is attributed to one's attitude or
          actions, usually by others. The context of these attributions is the
          existence both of Self and Other (and the society that interactions
          between them produces). Value is something which is determined on an
          ongoing basis by the interactions between the numerous Selves and
          their corrolary, Other. The concept of work, in which we create value
          by our actions in time is itself subject to constant revision as what
          is valued changes according to supply and demand or changing social
          attitudes.

          As an existentialist you are responsible for the definitions of work
          and value to which you choose to subscibe. If you can justify lying
          in bed in the morning and staring at the ceiling as work then that is
          your choice. You may even find a way to have society recognise this
          as work by selling some product of this activity such as, for
          example, footage from a web-cam of you lying in bed staring at the
          ceiling. But that is not the point.

          The point is that there is always a tension between your definition
          of your own self and the definitions that various others use to
          define both themselves and you. Part of the responsibility of
          defining your own essence is to understand this process and to
          counter others' definitions with your own.
          'Laziness' is a prime example.

          Hope this helps

          Tommy Beavitt
        • Steve Christensen
          Another important point about Sartre is the idea that freedom brings responsibility. If we are indeed free to choose and our choice is all that we have, then
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 16, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Another important point about Sartre is the idea that freedom brings
            responsibility. If we are indeed free to choose and our choice is all that
            we have, then we also have a responsibility to make an appropriate choice.
            Not only do we choose for ourselves, but in a sense, we also choose for
            everyone.

            That idea has caused me more arguments than perhaps any other. Of course,
            it's not my argument, it's Sartre's. People don't want to believe that their
            choices have any bearing on anyone else. That freedom should allow me to do
            anything I want to do.

            Sartre believed the opposite. Freedom brings incredible responsibility.
            Every choice must be made with the good of the world in mind. I am all that
            I have. The world can only be as good as I make it. If I don't make the best
            choice, then I have somehow let the collective world down. Of course,
            everyone has the same responsibility.

            The problem arises in that everyone looks at things differently, so my
            choices, even made with the best intentions, are not necessarily the same as
            yours. Nevertheless, I think this is one of the most practical and far
            reaching philosophical ideas ever proposed. I suppose that's why I call
            myself an existentialist.

            Steve

            > From: Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...>
            > Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:47:05 +0000
            > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [Sartre] heidegger not agreeing with sartre on being an
            > exestentialist
            >
            >> I know u dont know me but I really need some help if you could:
            >> can u pls tell me the similarities and differences between Sartre and
            >> Heidegger and what exsistence preceeds essence means, I'm so confused
            >> and I have a paper to do on this and I long to understand, what is a
            >> definition for exentialism, the thought that we all are free tthus we
            >> make who we are? what about being lazy, that is no excuse our essence
            >> is notlazy we become lazy, yet what does that mean?
            >
            > These are good questions, Hélène, and I concur largely with David
            > Kovar's reply. You should get lots of help with questions like this!
            >
            > Especially I agree with David's claim that "existence precedes
            > essence... counters the idea of the soul or the idea that essence
            > precedes existence". I had never thought about it quite like that but
            > it lends a certain authority to those who claim that existentialism
            > is at core an atheistic philosophy.
            >
            > However, to deconstruct that idea a bit, we have to emphasise that
            > existence doesn't *replace* essence; in other words, it is possible
            > to be an existentialist and believe in the existence of a soul. Its
            > just that we have to view that soul not as something which has been
            > given to us already complete but something that we create in every
            > moment. I haven't read a lot of Kierkegaard but I think that
            > distinction may be something that he contributed to religious
            > existentialism.
            >
            > Heidegger of course was a trained theologian who originally wished to
            > become a professional churchman. It was, some have said, something of
            > an accident that he ended up contributing so much to what many view
            > as an atheistic philosophy. Herman Philipse's 'Heidegger's Philosophy
            > of Being' is one critical work which takes this line. According to
            > Philipse, Heidegger's existentialism is an attempt to build a
            > religious or pseudo-religious system of thought from the ground up;
            > you can interpret him this way but it is interesting to note that he
            > never uses words like 'God'. There is something of an air of mystery
            > to much of Heidegger's work and on this question in particular it
            > seems he wanted to keep us guessing.
            >
            > Sartre, on the other hand, comes right out with his atheism. In his
            > view, existentialism is incompatible with religion. I think this is
            > the main difference between the two philosophers.
            >
            > David's point about Heidegger's concept of 'thrown-ness' is good. So
            > we are free and responsible for everthing which happens us but this
            > is in the context of our having been thrown into this world. There is
            > no way to undo or reverse our thrown-ness other than by taking a
            > premature exit, in which case the context of everything - the fact of
            > our existence - will no longer be true.
            >
            > To answer your question about laziness I hope you don't mind if I
            > deviate from orthodox existentialist writing and offer my own view!
            >
            > Laziness is something which is attributed to one's attitude or
            > actions, usually by others. The context of these attributions is the
            > existence both of Self and Other (and the society that interactions
            > between them produces). Value is something which is determined on an
            > ongoing basis by the interactions between the numerous Selves and
            > their corrolary, Other. The concept of work, in which we create value
            > by our actions in time is itself subject to constant revision as what
            > is valued changes according to supply and demand or changing social
            > attitudes.
            >
            > As an existentialist you are responsible for the definitions of work
            > and value to which you choose to subscibe. If you can justify lying
            > in bed in the morning and staring at the ceiling as work then that is
            > your choice. You may even find a way to have society recognise this
            > as work by selling some product of this activity such as, for
            > example, footage from a web-cam of you lying in bed staring at the
            > ceiling. But that is not the point.
            >
            > The point is that there is always a tension between your definition
            > of your own self and the definitions that various others use to
            > define both themselves and you. Part of the responsibility of
            > defining your own essence is to understand this process and to
            > counter others' definitions with your own.
            > 'Laziness' is a prime example.
            >
            > Hope this helps
            >
            > Tommy Beavitt
          • Cohen Gavreelah
            thank you everyone for all of your help, my prof believes in the students rising up to the material not dumping down the material for us to understand it
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 16, 2001
            • 0 Attachment

              thank you everyone for all of your help, my prof believes in the students "rising up to the material not dumping down the material for us to understand it" which makes it very hard for me to grasp somtimes..I will read over this and will ask more questions if I still dont understand thank you very much again!

              helene

                Steve Christensen <soitgos@...> a écrit :

              Another important point about Sartre is the idea that freedom brings
              responsibility. If we are indeed free to choose and our choice is all that
              we have, then we also have a responsibility to make an appropriate choice.
              Not only do we choose for ourselves, but in a sense, we also choose for
              everyone.

              That idea has caused me more arguments than perhaps any other. Of course,
              it's not my argument, it's Sartre's. People don't want to believe that their
              choices have any bearing on anyone else. That freedom should allow me to do
              anything I want to do.

              Sartre believed the opposite. Freedom brings incredible responsibility.
              Every choice must be made with the good of the world in mind. I am all that
              I have. The world can only be as good as I make it. If I don't make the best
              choice, then I have somehow let the collective world down. Of course,
              everyone has the same responsibility.

              The problem arises in that everyone looks at things differently, so my
              choices, even made with the best intentions, are not necessarily the same as
              yours. Nevertheless, I think this is one of the most practical and far
              reaching philosophical ideas ever proposed. I suppose that's why I call
              myself an existentialist.

              Steve

              > From: Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...>
              > Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 11:47:05 +0000
              > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [Sartre] heidegger not agreeing with sartre on being an
              > exestentialist
              >
              >> I know u dont know me but I really need some help if you could:
              >> can u pls tell me the similarities and differences between Sartre and
              >> Heidegger and what exsistence preceeds essence means, I'm so confused
              >> and I have a paper to do on this and I long to understand, what is a
              >> definition for exentialism, the thought that we all are free tthus we
              >> make who we are? what about being lazy, that is no excuse our essence
              >> is notlazy we become lazy, yet what does that mean?
              >
              > These are good questions, Hélène, and I concur largely with David
              > Kovar's reply. You should get lots of help with questions like this!
              >
              > Especially I agree with David's claim that "existence precedes
              > essence... counters the idea of the soul or the idea that essence
              > precedes existence". I had never thought about it quite like that but
              > it lends a certain authority to those who claim that existentialism
              > is at core an atheistic philosophy.
              >
              > However, to deconstruct that idea a bit, we have to emphasise that
              > existence doesn't *replace* essence; in other words, it is possible
              > to be an existentialist and believe in the existence of a soul. Its
              > just that we have to view that soul not as something which has been
              > given to us already complete but something that we create in every
              > moment. I haven't read a lot of Kierkegaard but I think that
              > distinction may be something that he contributed to religious
              > existentialism.
              >
              > Heidegger of course was a trained theologian who originally wished to
              > become a professional churchman. It was, some have said, something of
              > an accident that he ended up contributing so much to what many view
              > as an atheistic philosophy. Herman Philipse's 'Heidegger's Philosophy
              > of Being' is one critical work which takes this line. According to
              > Philipse, Heidegger's existentialism is an attempt to build a
              > religious or pseudo-religious system of thought from the ground up;
              > you can interpret him this way but it is interesting to note that he
              > never uses words like 'God'. There is something of an air of mystery
              > to much of Heidegger's work and on this question in particular it
              > seems he wanted to keep us guessing.
              >
              > Sartre, on the other hand, comes right out with his atheism. In his
              > view, existentialism is incompatible with religion. I think this is
              > the main difference between the two philosophers.
              >
              > David's point about Heidegger's concept of 'thrown-ness' is good. So
              > we are free and responsible for everthing which happens us but this
              > is in the context of our having been thrown into this world. There is
              > no way to undo or reverse our thrown-ness other than by taking a
              > premature exit, in which case the context of everything - the fact of
              > our existence - will no longer be true.
              >
              > To answer your question about laziness I hope you don't mind if I
              > deviate from orthodox existentialist writing and offer my own view!
              >
              > Laziness is something which is attributed to one's attitude or
              > actions, usually by others. The context of these attributions is the
              > existence both of Self and Other (and the society that interactions
              > between them produces). Value is something which is determined on an
              > ongoing basis by the interactions between the numerous Selves and
              > their corrolary, Other. The concept of work, in which we create value
              > by our actions in time is itself subject to constant revision as what
              > is valued changes according to supply and demand or changing social
              > attitudes.
              >
              > As an existentialist you are responsible for the definitions of work
              > and value to which you choose to subscibe.  If you can justify lying
              > in bed in the morning and staring at the ceiling as work then that is
              > your choice. You may even find a way to have society recognise this
              > as work by selling some product of this activity such as, for
              > example, footage from a web-cam of you lying in bed staring at the
              > ceiling. But that is not the point.
              >
              > The point is that there is always a tension between your definition
              > of your own self and the definitions that various others use to
              > define both themselves and you. Part of the responsibility of
              > defining your own essence is to understand this process and to
              > counter others' definitions with your own.
              > 'Laziness' is a prime example.
              >
              > Hope this helps
              >
              > Tommy Beavitt



              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.
              you



              Yahoo! Courrier -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !

            • Cohen Gavreelah
              I was told today that nothingness and consiousness are common, are similar, how so? I believe that nothingness is a concept of sartre s and consiousness is
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 16, 2001
              • 0 Attachment

                  I was told today that nothingness and consiousness are common, are similar, how so? I believe that nothingness is a concept of sartre's and consiousness is Heidegger's..sorry if I am wrong this is a grand abyss for me.

                and so the meaning of "exsistence preceeds essence" is that we must make our essence as we go on in life, as long as it has meaning to us and builds our character it gives us another part of our forever growing essence whether it be pulling weeds in a back yard or talking to a friend on the phone. does this mean that the free will we have says that we can do whatever we want though what ever we do connects with someone else, which could help ir harm, so is there a higher being?

                who is teh athiest heideger or sartre??   Heidegger obviously is not for refusing the fact that sartre called him one.

                merci beaqucoup pour votre aid, je sais que je ne sais pas beaucoup mais j'essaie.

                Hélène

                ps what si nothingness???? it is obviously is not "nothing"



                Yahoo! Courrier -- Une adresse @... gratuite et en français !
              • Christopher Bobo
                Actually, Heidegger wrote about nothingness also in his essay What is Metaphysics? Heidegger also wrote about nothingness in his book An Introduction to
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 16, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Actually, Heidegger wrote about nothingness also in his essay "What is Metaphysics?"  Heidegger also wrote about nothingness in his book An Introduction to Metaphysics, where he spoke about it as the second half of the fundamental question of being.  But if you really want to understand nothingness's role in existentialism, you need to read Nietzsche, who heavily influenced Heidegger.  I suggest that you look at the metaphysical (Heideggerian) problem of nothingness and the phenomenological ontology (Sartrean) problem of nothingess as ways of addressing the moral and ideological (Nietzschean) problem of nihilism.  The transvaluation of values is Nietzsche's solution to the problem of nihilism and for Sartre, values come into the world because of man's innate nothingness, the realization of that something is lacking.
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Cohen Gavreelah
                  Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 2:39 PM
                  To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [Sartre] being and nothingness, nothingness??
                   

                    I was told today that nothingness and consiousness are common, are similar, how so? I believe that nothingness is a concept of sartre's and consiousness is Heidegger's..sorry if I am wrong this is a grand abyss for me.

                  and so the meaning of "exsistence preceeds essence" is that we must make our essence as we go on in life, as long as it has meaning to us and builds our character it gives us another part of our forever growing essence whether it be pulling weeds in a back yard or talking to a friend on the phone. does this mean that the free will we have says that we can do whatever we want though what ever we do connects with someone else, which could help ir harm, so is there a higher being?

                  who is teh athiest heideger or sartre??   Heidegger obviously is not for refusing the fact that sartre called him one.

                  merci beaqucoup pour votre aid, je sais que je ne sais pas beaucoup mais j'essaie.

                  Hélène

                  ps what si nothingness???? it is obviously is not "nothing"

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