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

The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    I have just found my way into this club and have noticed that part of the dialogue about Kierkegaard I was having over in the Wisdom forum with SWM has found
    Message 1 of 26 , Jan 27, 2002
      I have just found my way into this club and have noticed that part of
      the dialogue about Kierkegaard I was having over in the Wisdom forum
      with SWM has found its way over here. Well, the SWM part anyway. My
      intent here is to come to the horse's mouth, as it were, and ask some
      questions re Sartre I have been puzzling over for some time. I have
      read that Sartre was influenced by Heidegger, who was influenced by
      Kierkegaard. I can easily follow Kierkegaard's influence into
      Heidegger, but I can not find Kierkegaard's influence in Sartre; it
      seems to me he has missed K's boat completely. Since it is highly
      likely that I am not understanding Sartre correctly, I appeal to the
      denizens of the Sartre Group to complete the connection for me. For
      those whose nature is as suspicious as mine, my question is for real.

      The way I look at Kierkegaard, for Sartre to be speaking
      Kierkegaard-eze, as it were, the notion of "bad faith," as applying to
      the consciousness of being a self, which I think Sartre is doing,
      there must be some transformation in the consciousness itself for "bad
      faith" to come to an end. I don't see, but it does not mean it is not
      there. Of course, the problem might be in my view of Kierkegaard.
    • zooink
      If you look at the difference beween Sartre s and Kieerkegaard s choice, I would say you are right. ... of ... some ... real. ... to ... bad ... not
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 1, 2002
        If you look at the difference beween Sartre's and Kieerkegaard's
        choice, I would say you are right.

        --- In Sartre@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
        > I have just found my way into this club and have noticed that part
        of
        > the dialogue about Kierkegaard I was having over in the Wisdom forum
        > with SWM has found its way over here. Well, the SWM part anyway. My
        > intent here is to come to the horse's mouth, as it were, and ask
        some
        > questions re Sartre I have been puzzling over for some time. I have
        > read that Sartre was influenced by Heidegger, who was influenced by
        > Kierkegaard. I can easily follow Kierkegaard's influence into
        > Heidegger, but I can not find Kierkegaard's influence in Sartre; it
        > seems to me he has missed K's boat completely. Since it is highly
        > likely that I am not understanding Sartre correctly, I appeal to the
        > denizens of the Sartre Group to complete the connection for me. For
        > those whose nature is as suspicious as mine, my question is for
        real.
        >
        > The way I look at Kierkegaard, for Sartre to be speaking
        > Kierkegaard-eze, as it were, the notion of "bad faith," as applying
        to
        > the consciousness of being a self, which I think Sartre is doing,
        > there must be some transformation in the consciousness itself for
        "bad
        > faith" to come to an end. I don't see, but it does not mean it is
        not
        > there. Of course, the problem might be in my view of Kierkegaard.
      • wilbro99
        For what it is worth, I think I have found the answer to my own question in the appended site. The Buddhist/existentialism connection is also explored in this
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 2, 2002
          For what it is worth, I think I have found the answer to my
          own question in the appended site. The Buddhist/existentialism
          connection is also explored in this site. It contains the most
          thorough explication of Sartre's thought I have found anywhere, web or
          otherwise, and if it faithful to what JPS meant, tells me that SK and
          JPS do not connect. If SK is taken to be the father of existentialism,
          JPS is not his kid. The basic difference, as I see it, lies in the
          their view of what despair is and how it is cured.

          JPS says that the cause of despair is the connection between in-itself
          and for-itself, where for-itself is a self-consciousness that finds
          its in-itself as nothingness. The only answer is to make that
          for-itself something. It does not speak to curing the connection for
          that is the nature of it. SK says that the bad connection is in
          self-consciousness itself and that the cure is bring the bad
          connection to an end. In fact, SK defines despair, or the bad
          connection, as engendering what JPS sees as the cure.

          http://www.mcu.ac.th/e-book/English/manual/sartre/contens.html


          --- In Sartre@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
          > I have just found my way into this club and have noticed that part
          of
          > the dialogue about Kierkegaard I was having over in the Wisdom forum
          > with SWM has found its way over here. Well, the SWM part anyway. My
          > intent here is to come to the horse's mouth, as it were, and ask
          some
          > questions re Sartre I have been puzzling over for some time. I have
          > read that Sartre was influenced by Heidegger, who was influenced by
          > Kierkegaard. I can easily follow Kierkegaard's influence into
          > Heidegger, but I can not find Kierkegaard's influence in Sartre; it
          > seems to me he has missed K's boat completely. Since it is highly
          > likely that I am not understanding Sartre correctly, I appeal to the
          > denizens of the Sartre Group to complete the connection for me. For
          > those whose nature is as suspicious as mine, my question is for
          real.
          >
          > The way I look at Kierkegaard, for Sartre to be speaking
          > Kierkegaard-eze, as it were, the notion of "bad faith," as applying
          to
          > the consciousness of being a self, which I think Sartre is doing,
          > there must be some transformation in the consciousness itself for
          "bad
          > faith" to come to an end. I don't see, but it does not mean it is
          not
          > there. Of course, the problem might be in my view of Kierkegaard.
        • zooink
          Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized as an occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere. I have finally read through Part
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 3, 2002
            Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized as an
            occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere. I have
            finally read through Part II and though I agree with you, I see it a
            little differently. I think what Sartre has done is create a
            structure
            out of what Kierkegaard calls despair and made that structure as
            representing what is. Maybe I am saying the same thing you are saying
            because we come out in the same place. I think Sartre has made
            freedom
            equal to despair which means there is really no exit. If we follow
            Kierkegaard's spheres, the ethical sphere is the leap that negates
            Sartre's whole structure because suffering, and the desire to be,
            comes to an end. It really turns out that the desire to be is what
            creates the sense of not-being in the first place.

            What I found interesting was Sartre's defining of basic desire as the
            drive of for-itself to become in-itself, as the desire to be, and
            powering that drive by the disconnect between the two as engendering
            a
            nothingness to be filled. I think you are right in stating that
            Sartre
            confines himself solely to Kierkegaard's esthetic sphere. No wonder
            there is talk of absurdity.


            --- In Sartre@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
            > For what it is worth, I think I have found the answer to my
            > own question in the appended site. The Buddhist/existentialism
            > connection is also explored in this site. It contains the most
            > thorough explication of Sartre's thought I have found anywhere, web
            or
            > otherwise, and if it faithful to what JPS meant, tells me that SK
            and
            > JPS do not connect. If SK is taken to be the father of
            existentialism,
            > JPS is not his kid. The basic difference, as I see it, lies in the
            > their view of what despair is and how it is cured.
            >
            > JPS says that the cause of despair is the connection between
            in-itself
            > and for-itself, where for-itself is a self-consciousness that finds
            > its in-itself as nothingness. The only answer is to make that
            > for-itself something. It does not speak to curing the connection
            for
            > that is the nature of it. SK says that the bad connection is in
            > self-consciousness itself and that the cure is bring the bad
            > connection to an end. In fact, SK defines despair, or the bad
            > connection, as engendering what JPS sees as the cure.
            >
            > http://www.mcu.ac.th/e-book/English/manual/sartre/contens.html
            >
          • Marc Girod
            ... zi Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized as zi an occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere. But if Sartre could
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 3, 2002
              >>>>> "zi" == zooink@... writes:

              zi> Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized as
              zi> an occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere.

              But if Sartre could be put into the esthetic sphere, in what sphere
              would you put Kierkegaard himself?

              Kierkegaard's spheres do not make up a Venn diagram supporting sets
              containing themselves...

              --
              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
            • wilbro99
              ... as ... I see SK s spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or discontinuity, between the
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
                --- In Sartre@y..., Marc Girod <girod@s...> wrote:
                > >>>>> "zi" == zooink@y... writes:
                >
                > zi> Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized
                as
                > zi> an occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere.
                >
                > But if Sartre could be put into the esthetic sphere, in what sphere
                > would you put Kierkegaard himself?
                >
                > Kierkegaard's spheres do not make up a Venn diagram supporting sets
                > containing themselves...
                >
                > --
                > 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

                I see SK's spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically placed
                nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or discontinuity, between
                the esthetic sphere and the ethico-religious sphere. K did say in his
                book, _Stages_ , that the ethical sphere was a passage way between the
                esthetic and the religious. In _Fear & Trembling_, SK has his
                pseudonym say that he, the pseudonym, could exit the esthetic sphere
                for the ethical whenever he became aware of dwelling again in the
                esthetic.

                I place JPS in the esthetic sphere because I see nothing in his
                writings to tell me he knows of the transition. Since I assume SK
                knows of it, and is speaking to it, I would place him, at the most, as
                an occasional occupant of the esthetic sphere, with the ability to
                make the movement of infinite resignation whenever required.

                "For the act of resignation faith is not required, for what I gain by
                resignation is my eternal consciousness, and this I am able to make if
                it is required, and which I train myself to make, for whenever
                finiteness would get mastery over me, I starve myself until I can make
                the movement…In resignation, I make renunciation of everything, this
                movement I make by myself, and what I gain is myself in my eternal
                consciousness." (F&T, Lowrie, p. 59)
              • Marc Girod
                ... wb I see SK s spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically wb placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or wb discontinuity, between
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
                  >>>>> "wb" == wilbro99@... writes:

                  wb> I see SK's spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically
                  wb> placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or
                  wb> discontinuity, between the esthetic sphere and the
                  wb> ethico-religious sphere.

                  I agree, but I see this as a weakness: it assumes yet an external
                  point of view, which --again I agree-- cannot be resumed to any of the
                  spheres. In this way, it is unfair to place Sartre in any sphere and
                  Kierkegaard outside.

                  BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
                  (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
                  esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
                  sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?

                  wb> I place JPS in the esthetic sphere because I see nothing in his
                  wb> writings to tell me he knows of the transition.

                  That's freedom, and responsibility.
                  Sartre names cowards people who accept to be in some box, and deny
                  their responsibility.

                  --
                  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
                • wilbro99
                  ... the ... Hi, Marc; The external point of view is already given if the spheres are seen as a way of describing what SK sees as a process of the self from a
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
                    --- In Sartre@y..., Marc Girod <girod@s...> wrote:
                    > >>>>> "wb" == wilbro99@y... writes:
                    >
                    > wb> I see SK's spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically
                    > wb> placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or
                    > wb> discontinuity, between the esthetic sphere and the
                    > wb> ethico-religious sphere.
                    >
                    > I agree, but I see this as a weakness: it assumes yet an external
                    > point of view, which --again I agree-- cannot be resumed to any of
                    the
                    > spheres. In this way, it is unfair to place Sartre in any sphere and
                    > Kierkegaard outside.
                    >
                    > BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
                    > (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
                    > esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
                    > sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?
                    >
                    > wb> I place JPS in the esthetic sphere because I see nothing in his
                    > wb> writings to tell me he knows of the transition.
                    >
                    > That's freedom, and responsibility.
                    > Sartre names cowards people who accept to be in some box, and deny
                    > their responsibility.
                    >
                    > --
                    > 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

                    Hi, Marc; The external point of view is already given if the spheres
                    are seen as a way of describing what SK sees as a process of the self
                    from a temporal grounding to a presential grounding. I placed both JPS
                    and SK in the spheres with SK in the process and JPS not. I am only
                    characterizing JPS here in terms of SK. My original inquiry was this:
                    "My intent here is to come to the horse's mouth, as it were, and ask
                    some questions re Sartre I have been puzzling over for some time. I
                    have read that Sartre was influenced by Heidegger, who was influenced
                    by Kierkegaard. I can easily follow Kierkegaard's influence into
                    Heidegger, but I can not find Kierkegaard's influence in Sartre; it
                    seems to me he has missed K's boat completely."

                    The denial of responsibility, as I see JPS positing it, points back to
                    the same source problem I see SK pointing at. The difference between
                    the two, as I have now come to see it, is their grasp of the
                    difference that creates the problem. Sartre says it is between
                    in-itself and for-itself while Kierkegaard says it is a for-itself
                    problem. That difference is all I am speaking to.

                    You are correct in that E/O speaks only to two spheres, the esthetic
                    and the ethical. Here are a quote from /Postscript/ that ties the
                    religious sphere in.

                    "/Either/Or/, the title of which is indicative, has the
                    existence-relation between the esthetic and the ethical materialize
                    into existence in the existing individuality. This to me is the book's
                    indirect polemic against speculative thought, which is indifferent to
                    existence." (CUP, Hong, p.252; Lowrie, p. 226)

                    "If it were to be pointed out clearly in E/O where the discrepancy
                    lies, the book would have needed to have a religious instead of an
                    ethical orientation…it is in this moment of decision that the
                    individual needs divine assistance, although it is quite correct that
                    one must first have understood the existence-relation between the
                    esthetic and the ethical to be at this point-that is, by being there
                    in passion and inwardness, one indeed becomes aware of the
                    religious-and of the leap. Furthermore, the definition of truth as
                    inwardness, that it is upbuilding, must be explicitly understood
                    before it is even religious, to say nothing of being Christianly
                    religious." (Ibid., Hong, pp. 257-58; Lowrie, p. 230)
                  • Christopher Bobo
                    ... (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres: esthetic and ethic. Isn t it so that in other works, the religious sphere is totally
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                      Marc wrote:
                      >>BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
                      (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
                      esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
                      sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?<<

                      Although I've read a bit more Kierkegaard than Marc, I do not by a long shot consider myself a Kierkegaard scholar. As for the spheres, imho, it seems quite clear to me that these are not distinct stages in the course of life or even stages of intellectual development. I see them as overlapping and coextensive. All of our actions have a manifold meaning--aesthetic, ethical and religious. What "sphere" we are "in"--that is interpreting the world according to--is an intellectual function of how we assign meaning to things and events.


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Marc Girod
                      Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:00 PM
                      To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection

                      >>>>> "wb" == wilbro99@... writes:

                      wb> I see SK's spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically
                      wb> placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or
                      wb> discontinuity, between the esthetic sphere and the
                      wb> ethico-religious sphere.

                      I agree, but I see this as a weakness: it assumes yet an external
                      point of view, which --again I agree-- cannot be resumed to any of the
                      spheres. In this way, it is unfair to place Sartre in any sphere and
                      Kierkegaard outside.

                      BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
                      (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
                      esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
                      sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?

                      wb> I place JPS in the esthetic sphere because I see nothing in his
                      wb> writings to tell me he knows of the transition.

                      That's freedom, and responsibility.
                      Sartre names cowards people who accept to be in some box, and deny
                      their responsibility.

                      --
                      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


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • james tan
                      i don t think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may not be
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                        i don't think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping
                        and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may
                        not be stages of development in erickson's sense of development, but each is
                        a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another. if one is in the
                        aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or relgious stage, and that
                        goes the same for the rest of the combination of these three modes of being.
                        roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a person is open to
                        experience and seek many forms of pleasure and excitement, but they do not
                        recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage is one who accept
                        responsibility of making choices but use as their guide ethical principles
                        established by other people - eg, the church or islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                        suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as superior to the aesthetic
                        stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at the ethical stage is still
                        not recognising and acting on their full personal freedom (what sartre would
                        term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k. thought the highest
                        level of existence, according to k. who was a christian's christian, people
                        recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a personal relationship
                        with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that the nature of the
                        relationship is not determined by convention or generally accepted moral
                        laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness. people here see
                        possibilities in life that often run contrary to what is generally accepted.
                        while for sartre, what is good is totally determined in one's freedom with
                        no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k., the good is defined in
                        his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one which insisted on one's
                        subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived: in love. for k., the
                        aesthetic and ethical stages are indeed inferior mode of beings compared
                        with the religious stages, but for sartre, such supposition is unwarranted
                        since there is no ultimate guide as to suggest which is better or best, and
                        one stage is just as good as the other, so long as the person recognises he
                        chooses it and is responsible for it. a hedonist with the philosophy of a
                        pig is not necessarily worse off than a saint with christ's love and
                        passion, for sartre. of course, k. might beg to differ. what these two
                        philosophers have in common was their deep appreciation of anxiety when
                        making choice, the kind of fundamental choice that will affect one's entire
                        life and guide on other 'lesser' choices.

                        but of course i may have misunderstood these two individuals.

                        james.


                        From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@...>
                        Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                        To: "Sartre_yahoogr" <Sartre@yahoogroups.com>
                        Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection
                        Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 07:56:37 -0800

                        Marc wrote:
                        >>BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
                        (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
                        esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
                        sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?<<

                        Although I've read a bit more Kierkegaard than Marc, I do not by a long shot
                        consider myself a Kierkegaard scholar. As for the spheres, imho, it seems
                        quite clear to me that these are not distinct stages in the course of life
                        or even stages of intellectual development. I see them as overlapping and
                        coextensive. All of our actions have a manifold meaning--aesthetic, ethical
                        and religious. What "sphere" we are "in"--that is interpreting the world
                        according to--is an intellectual function of how we assign meaning to things
                        and events.


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Marc Girod
                        Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:00 PM
                        To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection

                        >>>>> "wb" == wilbro99@... writes:

                        wb> I see SK's spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically
                        wb> placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or
                        wb> discontinuity, between the esthetic sphere and the
                        wb> ethico-religious sphere.

                        I agree, but I see this as a weakness: it assumes yet an external
                        point of view, which --again I agree-- cannot be resumed to any of the
                        spheres. In this way, it is unfair to place Sartre in any sphere and
                        Kierkegaard outside.

                        BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
                        (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
                        esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
                        sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?

                        wb> I place JPS in the esthetic sphere because I see nothing in his
                        wb> writings to tell me he knows of the transition.

                        That's freedom, and responsibility.
                        Sartre names cowards people who accept to be in some box, and deny
                        their responsibility.

                        --
                        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


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
                      • wilbro99
                        This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring to? I, like James,
                        Message 11 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                          This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres
                          separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring
                          to? I, like James, see them separate. I will differ somewhat from his
                          definition of the content of the spheres, but that could be a problem
                          of language. Absolutely fascinating, what? I think we can separate the
                          views we hold into those who see the spheres as mutually exclusive and
                          those who do not. I would say that if they are mutually exclusive then
                          some sort of transition is necessary to get from one to the other and
                          that a reflection upon such a transition must not only reveal a
                          discontinuity, but also a paradox for the one doing the reflection.
                          ----Will Brown
                        • Lewis Vella
                          ... Yes, but does not this religious life preclude some type of human interpretation of Christ s love , followed by a commitment to whatever the person s
                          Message 12 of 26 , Feb 8, 2002
                            --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
                            > of being are overlapping
                            > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
                            > be suggesting. they may
                            > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
                            > development, but each is
                            > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
                            > if one is in the
                            > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
                            > relgious stage, and that
                            > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
                            > these three modes of being.
                            > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
                            > person is open to
                            > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
                            > excitement, but they do not
                            > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
                            > is one who accept
                            > responsibility of making choices but use as their
                            > guide ethical principles
                            > established by other people - eg, the church or
                            > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                            > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
                            > superior to the aesthetic
                            > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
                            > the ethical stage is still
                            > not recognising and acting on their full personal
                            > freedom (what sartre would
                            > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
                            > thought the highest
                            > level of existence, according to k. who was a
                            > christian's christian, people
                            > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
                            > personal relationship
                            > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
                            > the nature of the
                            > relationship is not determined by convention or
                            > generally accepted moral
                            > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
                            > people here see
                            > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
                            > what is generally accepted.
                            > while for sartre, what is good is totally
                            > determined in one's freedom with
                            > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
                            > the good is defined in
                            > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
                            > which insisted on one's
                            > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
                            > in love.

                            Yes, but does not this 'religious' life preclude some
                            type of human interpretation of Christ's 'love',
                            followed by a commitment to whatever the person's
                            subjective interpretation is of that love. And
                            wouldn't this commitment also include some type of
                            self-imposed moral obligation to sustain it, thus
                            creating another realm of ethics he must adhere to,
                            that is, some type of ethics perhaps not entirely
                            related to any institutional ethics, but ethics just
                            the same. Would not, then, these two modes of being be
                            overlapping? Also, in considering what such a person
                            must now do to sustain his vision and commitment to
                            Christ's love, would he not be better off to have a
                            good workable understanding of aesthetics, that is in
                            order to most effectively and peacefully spread this
                            understanding of love within and without every aspect
                            of his being. Moreover, does not this universal love
                            he understands for himself now also oblige him to
                            share it with all others, regardless of whatever the
                            personal loss is to his body -- meaning, does not this
                            free man, unlike Sartre's free man, now have a moral
                            duty towards his fellow man -- a duty best served
                            while still alive in all the spheres?
                            Lewis

                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                            http://greetings.yahoo.com
                          • james tan
                            lewis, oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
                            Message 13 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                              lewis,

                              oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best
                              superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
                              mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a person in
                              the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of his
                              granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the
                              right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
                              metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is set by
                              the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the 'authority' say
                              is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the religious
                              stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical stage, the
                              person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so) is duty
                              bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the ideal
                              person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
                              motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith? is he
                              exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he quench his
                              existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of convention? but
                              life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for the
                              existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not imposed or
                              given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not because he has
                              to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is not the
                              pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic, by the
                              rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to what he
                              has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly having
                              to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration that
                              kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would never have
                              wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur own
                              innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
                              accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing; it was
                              for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
                              'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense, in
                              spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
                              irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose faith
                              over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in short,
                              he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
                              consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the person
                              in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much so that
                              u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would realise if u
                              have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some general
                              principles. it may be a bit too late by then.

                              james.


                              From: Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...>
                              Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                              CC: sorenkierkegaard@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [Sartre] Re: [james tan] The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre
                              connection
                              Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:00:02 -0800 (PST)

                              --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
                              > of being are overlapping
                              > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
                              > be suggesting. they may
                              > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
                              > development, but each is
                              > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
                              > if one is in the
                              > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
                              > relgious stage, and that
                              > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
                              > these three modes of being.
                              > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
                              > person is open to
                              > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
                              > excitement, but they do not
                              > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
                              > is one who accept
                              > responsibility of making choices but use as their
                              > guide ethical principles
                              > established by other people - eg, the church or
                              > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                              > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
                              > superior to the aesthetic
                              > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
                              > the ethical stage is still
                              > not recognising and acting on their full personal
                              > freedom (what sartre would
                              > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
                              > thought the highest
                              > level of existence, according to k. who was a
                              > christian's christian, people
                              > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
                              > personal relationship
                              > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
                              > the nature of the
                              > relationship is not determined by convention or
                              > generally accepted moral
                              > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
                              > people here see
                              > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
                              > what is generally accepted.
                              > while for sartre, what is good is totally
                              > determined in one's freedom with
                              > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
                              > the good is defined in
                              > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
                              > which insisted on one's
                              > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
                              > in love.

                              Yes, but does not this 'religious' life preclude some
                              type of human interpretation of Christ's 'love',
                              followed by a commitment to whatever the person's
                              subjective interpretation is of that love. And
                              wouldn't this commitment also include some type of
                              self-imposed moral obligation to sustain it, thus
                              creating another realm of ethics he must adhere to,
                              that is, some type of ethics perhaps not entirely
                              related to any institutional ethics, but ethics just
                              the same. Would not, then, these two modes of being be
                              overlapping? Also, in considering what such a person
                              must now do to sustain his vision and commitment to
                              Christ's love, would he not be better off to have a
                              good workable understanding of aesthetics, that is in
                              order to most effectively and peacefully spread this
                              understanding of love within and without every aspect
                              of his being. Moreover, does not this universal love
                              he understands for himself now also oblige him to
                              share it with all others, regardless of whatever the
                              personal loss is to his body -- meaning, does not this
                              free man, unlike Sartre's free man, now have a moral
                              duty towards his fellow man -- a duty best served
                              while still alive in all the spheres?
                              Lewis

                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                              http://greetings.yahoo.com








                              _________________________________________________________________
                              MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                              http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
                            • artsgina
                              but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your death bed ? ... From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 11 February
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                                but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your
                                death bed ?

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@...]
                                Sent: Monday, 11 February 2002 7:31 PM
                                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [Sartre] The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection



                                lewis,

                                oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best
                                superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
                                mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a person in
                                the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of his
                                granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the
                                right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
                                metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is set by
                                the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the 'authority' say
                                is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the religious
                                stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical stage, the
                                person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so) is duty
                                bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the ideal
                                person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
                                motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith? is he
                                exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he quench his
                                existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of convention? but
                                life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for the
                                existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not imposed or
                                given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not because he has
                                to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is not the
                                pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic, by the
                                rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to what he
                                has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly having
                                to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration that
                                kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would never have
                                wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur own
                                innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
                                accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing; it was
                                for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
                                'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense, in
                                spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
                                irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose faith
                                over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in short,
                                he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
                                consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the person
                                in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much so that
                                u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would realise if u
                                have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some general
                                principles. it may be a bit too late by then.

                                james.


                                From: Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...>
                                Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                CC: sorenkierkegaard@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [Sartre] Re: [james tan] The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre
                                connection
                                Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:00:02 -0800 (PST)

                                --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
                                > of being are overlapping
                                > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
                                > be suggesting. they may
                                > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
                                > development, but each is
                                > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
                                > if one is in the
                                > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
                                > relgious stage, and that
                                > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
                                > these three modes of being.
                                > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
                                > person is open to
                                > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
                                > excitement, but they do not
                                > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
                                > is one who accept
                                > responsibility of making choices but use as their
                                > guide ethical principles
                                > established by other people - eg, the church or
                                > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                                > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
                                > superior to the aesthetic
                                > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
                                > the ethical stage is still
                                > not recognising and acting on their full personal
                                > freedom (what sartre would
                                > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
                                > thought the highest
                                > level of existence, according to k. who was a
                                > christian's christian, people
                                > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
                                > personal relationship
                                > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
                                > the nature of the
                                > relationship is not determined by convention or
                                > generally accepted moral
                                > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
                                > people here see
                                > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
                                > what is generally accepted.
                                > while for sartre, what is good is totally
                                > determined in one's freedom with
                                > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
                                > the good is defined in
                                > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
                                > which insisted on one's
                                > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
                                > in love.

                                Yes, but does not this 'religious' life preclude some
                                type of human interpretation of Christ's 'love',
                                followed by a commitment to whatever the person's
                                subjective interpretation is of that love. And
                                wouldn't this commitment also include some type of
                                self-imposed moral obligation to sustain it, thus
                                creating another realm of ethics he must adhere to,
                                that is, some type of ethics perhaps not entirely
                                related to any institutional ethics, but ethics just
                                the same. Would not, then, these two modes of being be
                                overlapping? Also, in considering what such a person
                                must now do to sustain his vision and commitment to
                                Christ's love, would he not be better off to have a
                                good workable understanding of aesthetics, that is in
                                order to most effectively and peacefully spread this
                                understanding of love within and without every aspect
                                of his being. Moreover, does not this universal love
                                he understands for himself now also oblige him to
                                share it with all others, regardless of whatever the
                                personal loss is to his body -- meaning, does not this
                                free man, unlike Sartre's free man, now have a moral
                                duty towards his fellow man -- a duty best served
                                while still alive in all the spheres?
                                Lewis

                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                http://greetings.yahoo.com








                                _________________________________________________________________
                                MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                                http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



                                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+S
                                artre&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/
                              • wilbro99
                                James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of the ethical sphere. You stated: for a person in the ethical stage, he do good because he
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                                  James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                                  the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage, he
                                  do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                                  he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                                  to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"

                                  Since you have mentioned Fear & Trembling in the account of Abraham
                                  and Isaac, how do you square your characterization of the ethical with
                                  the ethical delineated in the following quote? It sure seems to me
                                  like there is a movement involved. When Kierkegaard speaks to a
                                  double-movement, as he does in this book, isn't the move to the
                                  ethical the first half of that double-movement?

                                  "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it applies
                                  to everyone, which may be expressed from another point of view by
                                  saying that it applies every instant. It reposes immanently in itself,
                                  it has nothing without itself which is its telos, but is itself telos
                                  for everything outside it, and when this is incorporated by the
                                  ethical, it can go no further. Conceived immediately as physical and
                                  psychical, the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                  telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                  constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become the
                                  universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                  particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                  recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal.
                                  Whenever the individual after he has entered the universal feels an
                                  impulse to assert himself as the particular, he is in temptation, and
                                  he can labor himself out if this only by penitently abandoning himself
                                  as the particular in the universal. if this be the highest thing that
                                  can be said of man and of his existence, then the ethical has the same
                                  character as man's eternal blessedness, which to all eternity and at
                                  every instant is his /telos/, since it would be a contradiction to say
                                  that this might be abandoned (i.e., teleologically suspended),
                                  inasmuch as this is no sooner suspended than it is forfeited, whereas
                                  in other cases what is suspended is not forfeited but is preserved in
                                  that higher thing which is its /telos/." (F&T, Lowrie, pp. 64-5)


                                  --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > lewis,
                                  >
                                  > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at
                                  best
                                  > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them
                                  apart, i
                                  > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                                  person in
                                  > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of
                                  his
                                  > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                                  'it's the
                                  > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
                                  > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is
                                  set by
                                  > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                                  'authority' say
                                  > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                                  religious
                                  > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                                  stage, the
                                  > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so)
                                  is duty
                                  > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                                  ideal
                                  > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
                                  > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith?
                                  is he
                                  > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                                  quench his
                                  > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                                  convention? but
                                  > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for
                                  the
                                  > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                                  imposed or
                                  > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                                  because he has
                                  > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is
                                  not the
                                  > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic,
                                  by the
                                  > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                                  what he
                                  > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly
                                  having
                                  > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                                  that
                                  > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                                  never have
                                  > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur
                                  own
                                  > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
                                  > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing;
                                  it was
                                  > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
                                  > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense,
                                  in
                                  > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
                                  > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose
                                  faith
                                  > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in
                                  short,
                                  > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
                                  > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the
                                  person
                                  > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much
                                  so that
                                  > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                                  realise if u
                                  > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some
                                  general
                                  > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                                  >
                                  > james.
                                • james tan
                                  wilbro, i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat simplistic. my understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                    wilbro,

                                    i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat simplistic. my
                                    understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and pieces,
                                    those part which seems interesting). is overlap what u mean by double
                                    movement? but it seems to me ur quotation depict the ethical stage rather
                                    perfectly, though i put it in much simpler language. i see it as a case of
                                    the particular vs the universal. if i may paraphrase the quotation:

                                    "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it applies
                                    to everyone, ..." unquote.

                                    so it is one which the individual think in terms of what is good for
                                    everybody, not just himself. he is someone who will not only think of his
                                    self interest, but those of others as well. he thinks in terms of universals
                                    rather than what please or displeases himself (the aesthetic man).

                                    "the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                    telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                    constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become the
                                    universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                    particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                    recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal."
                                    unquote.

                                    as we can see, the ethical man is pretty obsessed with being right, socially
                                    and universally considered. he reminds me of kant's categorical imperative:
                                    act always in ways that one could wish the (ethical) principle of one's
                                    action could become a universal law. and a corollary to it: always treat
                                    others as an end in itself, never a means. all which highligh one principle:
                                    one would not only think of oneself when deciding how to act. say, if i see
                                    something i like very much in a shop, it is way too expensive for me to buy
                                    it, and i know the security system of the shop well enough for me to steal
                                    it without being caught. the ethical man will not do it because it is
                                    'universally wrong' to steal, and it does not matter if he is clever enough
                                    to beat the security. the aesthetic man's perspective will be different: he
                                    will steal it if he can do it without being caught. the ethical man will not
                                    flirt & sleep around when he is married, knowing that this is not in the
                                    best interest of the marriage. the aesthetic man (at least the lower end of
                                    the aesthetic man) will not care except his own interest (or pleasure), but
                                    then he is the type who will normally not get married in the first place,
                                    preferring a life where he could seduce a girl after another for his own
                                    sexual gratification. the ethical man will stick on to his wife even after
                                    she has gone yellowish pale with old age, not necessarily because he still
                                    love her (though it could be), but his sense of ethical principle 'requires'
                                    that he should be so - that is the way a good, honourable, socially
                                    respectable man should be - he will think to himself. u see, as ur quotation
                                    suggest, the ethical man is a man of the universals. unlike the man in the
                                    aesthetic or religious stage, he does not allow his particularity to come
                                    in, lest he 'sins'. he is the mr nice man, always thinking for his family or
                                    the community, or what is best for all, when he decides to act in any way.

                                    is there a double movement? i am not sure. but i tend to agree that it can
                                    be difficult to distinguish a ethical from a religious man in the context of
                                    normal, everyday living where no special crisis present themselves. a lot of
                                    their life's contents will overlaps, i am sure. sometimes it takes a very
                                    stressful situation and how they respond to it that u could tell. but these
                                    overlaps are what i'll call by 'choices of the moment', vs k's stages, which
                                    is 'fundamental choices that affect the entire way of life for the whole
                                    life'. i still dont quite get ur double movement.... i admit that one can
                                    move from one sphere to another (say from the aesthetic to the ethical), and
                                    it is also possible to move from a lower to a higher form within the same
                                    sphere (say from one sexual conquest after another, to perfecting one's
                                    skill as a swimmer). let consider abraham again. when god gave abraham a son
                                    (at a extremely old age), god expects him to love issac, and we can take it
                                    that abraham's parental love is as much a religious as a ethical
                                    requirement. double movement? and abraham's love of god involves the moral
                                    expectation that god will keep his promise that through issac abraham will
                                    become father of a entire race. in that sense we see a double involvement of
                                    the religious and the moral.

                                    but what ultimately set the religious stage different from the ethical stage
                                    is the religious man's putting god above everything else, including one own
                                    son, one's common sense, one's ethical principles, one's parents (like
                                    14:26), one's earthly love affair (k gave up regine for god, or so he
                                    believed), one's ............ god is number 1 in all things. why then should
                                    man put god above all things? because of existential need that refuse to be
                                    quenched unless one's relationship is set right with one's maker. from the
                                    perspective of the religious stage, anyone who has not have a relationship
                                    with god is, in a sense, still in despair, because he has not recognised the
                                    eternal part of himself. but of course, k was a christian thinker. for
                                    sartre, man's situation is totally absurd: one sphere would just be as good
                                    or absurd as another sphere, since there is no ULTIMATE guide. one just
                                    simply....choose. choose, period. and shut up.

                                    james.




                                    From: "wilbro99" <wilbro99@...>
                                    Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                    To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection
                                    Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:29:49 -0000

                                    James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                                    the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage, he
                                    do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                                    he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                                    to do', all his life�he does good because he has to"

                                    Since you have mentioned Fear & Trembling in the account of Abraham
                                    and Isaac, how do you square your characterization of the ethical with
                                    the ethical delineated in the following quote? It sure seems to me
                                    like there is a movement involved. When Kierkegaard speaks to a
                                    double-movement, as he does in this book, isn't the move to the
                                    ethical the first half of that double-movement?

                                    "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it applies
                                    to everyone, which may be expressed from another point of view by
                                    saying that it applies every instant. It reposes immanently in itself,
                                    it has nothing without itself which is its telos, but is itself telos
                                    for everything outside it, and when this is incorporated by the
                                    ethical, it can go no further. Conceived immediately as physical and
                                    psychical, the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                    telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                    constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become the
                                    universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                    particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                    recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal.
                                    Whenever the individual after he has entered the universal feels an
                                    impulse to assert himself as the particular, he is in temptation, and
                                    he can labor himself out if this only by penitently abandoning himself
                                    as the particular in the universal. if this be the highest thing that
                                    can be said of man and of his existence, then the ethical has the same
                                    character as man's eternal blessedness, which to all eternity and at
                                    every instant is his /telos/, since it would be a contradiction to say
                                    that this might be abandoned (i.e., teleologically suspended),
                                    inasmuch as this is no sooner suspended than it is forfeited, whereas
                                    in other cases what is suspended is not forfeited but is preserved in
                                    that higher thing which is its /telos/." (F&T, Lowrie, pp. 64-5)


                                    --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > lewis,
                                    >
                                    > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at
                                    best
                                    > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them
                                    apart, i
                                    > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                                    person in
                                    > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of
                                    his
                                    > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                                    'it's the
                                    > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
                                    > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is
                                    set by
                                    > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                                    'authority' say
                                    > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                                    religious
                                    > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                                    stage, the
                                    > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so)
                                    is duty
                                    > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                                    ideal
                                    > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
                                    > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith?
                                    is he
                                    > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                                    quench his
                                    > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                                    convention? but
                                    > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for
                                    the
                                    > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                                    imposed or
                                    > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                                    because he has
                                    > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is
                                    not the
                                    > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic,
                                    by the
                                    > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                                    what he
                                    > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly
                                    having
                                    > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                                    that
                                    > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                                    never have
                                    > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur
                                    own
                                    > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
                                    > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing;
                                    it was
                                    > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
                                    > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense,
                                    in
                                    > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
                                    > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose
                                    faith
                                    > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in
                                    short,
                                    > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
                                    > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the
                                    person
                                    > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much
                                    so that
                                    > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                                    realise if u
                                    > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some
                                    general
                                    > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                                    >
                                    > james.










                                    _________________________________________________________________
                                    Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                                  • wilbro99
                                    James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks. ... simplistic. my ... pieces, ... double ... rather ... case of ... applies ... of his ... universals ...
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                      James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

                                      --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > wilbro,
                                      >
                                      > i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat
                                      simplistic. my
                                      > understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
                                      pieces,
                                      > those part which seems interesting). is overlap what u mean by
                                      double
                                      > movement? but it seems to me ur quotation depict the ethical stage
                                      rather
                                      > perfectly, though i put it in much simpler language. i see it as a
                                      case of
                                      > the particular vs the universal. if i may paraphrase the quotation:
                                      >
                                      > "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it
                                      applies
                                      > to everyone, ..." unquote.
                                      >
                                      > so it is one which the individual think in terms of what is good for
                                      > everybody, not just himself. he is someone who will not only think
                                      of his
                                      > self interest, but those of others as well. he thinks in terms of
                                      universals
                                      > rather than what please or displeases himself (the aesthetic man).
                                      >
                                      > "the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                      > telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                      > constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become
                                      the
                                      > universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                      > particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                      > recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal."
                                      > unquote.
                                      >
                                      > as we can see, the ethical man is pretty obsessed with being right,
                                      socially
                                      > and universally considered. he reminds me of kant's categorical
                                      imperative:
                                      > act always in ways that one could wish the (ethical) principle of
                                      one's
                                      > action could become a universal law. and a corollary to it: always
                                      treat
                                      > others as an end in itself, never a means. all which highligh one
                                      principle:
                                      > one would not only think of oneself when deciding how to act. say,
                                      if i see
                                      > something i like very much in a shop, it is way too expensive for me
                                      to buy
                                      > it, and i know the security system of the shop well enough for me to
                                      steal
                                      > it without being caught. the ethical man will not do it because it
                                      is
                                      > 'universally wrong' to steal, and it does not matter if he is clever
                                      enough
                                      > to beat the security. the aesthetic man's perspective will be
                                      different: he
                                      > will steal it if he can do it without being caught. the ethical man
                                      will not
                                      > flirt & sleep around when he is married, knowing that this is not in
                                      the
                                      > best interest of the marriage. the aesthetic man (at least the lower
                                      end of
                                      > the aesthetic man) will not care except his own interest (or
                                      pleasure), but
                                      > then he is the type who will normally not get married in the first
                                      place,
                                      > preferring a life where he could seduce a girl after another for his
                                      own
                                      > sexual gratification. the ethical man will stick on to his wife even
                                      after
                                      > she has gone yellowish pale with old age, not necessarily because he
                                      still
                                      > love her (though it could be), but his sense of ethical principle
                                      'requires'
                                      > that he should be so - that is the way a good, honourable, socially
                                      > respectable man should be - he will think to himself. u see, as ur
                                      quotation
                                      > suggest, the ethical man is a man of the universals. unlike the man
                                      in the
                                      > aesthetic or religious stage, he does not allow his particularity to
                                      come
                                      > in, lest he 'sins'. he is the mr nice man, always thinking for his
                                      family or
                                      > the community, or what is best for all, when he decides to act in
                                      any way.
                                      >
                                      > is there a double movement? i am not sure. but i tend to agree that
                                      it can
                                      > be difficult to distinguish a ethical from a religious man in the
                                      context of
                                      > normal, everyday living where no special crisis present themselves.
                                      a lot of
                                      > their life's contents will overlaps, i am sure. sometimes it takes a
                                      very
                                      > stressful situation and how they respond to it that u could tell.
                                      but these
                                      > overlaps are what i'll call by 'choices of the moment', vs k's
                                      stages, which
                                      > is 'fundamental choices that affect the entire way of life for the
                                      whole
                                      > life'. i still dont quite get ur double movement.... i admit that
                                      one can
                                      > move from one sphere to another (say from the aesthetic to the
                                      ethical), and
                                      > it is also possible to move from a lower to a higher form within the
                                      same
                                      > sphere (say from one sexual conquest after another, to perfecting
                                      one's
                                      > skill as a swimmer). let consider abraham again. when god gave
                                      abraham a son
                                      > (at a extremely old age), god expects him to love issac, and we can
                                      take it
                                      > that abraham's parental love is as much a religious as a ethical
                                      > requirement. double movement? and abraham's love of god involves the
                                      moral
                                      > expectation that god will keep his promise that through issac
                                      abraham will
                                      > become father of a entire race. in that sense we see a double
                                      involvement of
                                      > the religious and the moral.
                                      >
                                      > but what ultimately set the religious stage different from the
                                      ethical stage
                                      > is the religious man's putting god above everything else, including
                                      one own
                                      > son, one's common sense, one's ethical principles, one's parents
                                      (like
                                      > 14:26), one's earthly love affair (k gave up regine for god, or so
                                      he
                                      > believed), one's ............ god is number 1 in all things. why
                                      then should
                                      > man put god above all things? because of existential need that
                                      refuse to be
                                      > quenched unless one's relationship is set right with one's maker.
                                      from the
                                      > perspective of the religious stage, anyone who has not have a
                                      relationship
                                      > with god is, in a sense, still in despair, because he has not
                                      recognised the
                                      > eternal part of himself. but of course, k was a christian thinker.
                                      for
                                      > sartre, man's situation is totally absurd: one sphere would just be
                                      as good
                                      > or absurd as another sphere, since there is no ULTIMATE guide. one
                                      just
                                      > simply....choose. choose, period. and shut up.
                                      >
                                      > james.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > From: "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...>
                                      > Reply-To: Sartre@y...
                                      > To: Sartre@y...
                                      > Subject: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre
                                      connection
                                      > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:29:49 -0000
                                      >
                                      > James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                                      > the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage,
                                      he
                                      > do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                                      > he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                                      > to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"
                                      >
                                      > Since you have mentioned Fear & Trembling in the account of Abraham
                                      > and Isaac, how do you square your characterization of the ethical
                                      with
                                      > the ethical delineated in the following quote? It sure seems to me
                                      > like there is a movement involved. When Kierkegaard speaks to a
                                      > double-movement, as he does in this book, isn't the move to the
                                      > ethical the first half of that double-movement?
                                      >
                                      > "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it
                                      applies
                                      > to everyone, which may be expressed from another point of view by
                                      > saying that it applies every instant. It reposes immanently in
                                      itself,
                                      > it has nothing without itself which is its telos, but is itself
                                      telos
                                      > for everything outside it, and when this is incorporated by the
                                      > ethical, it can go no further. Conceived immediately as physical and
                                      > psychical, the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                      > telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                      > constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become
                                      the
                                      > universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                      > particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                      > recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal.
                                      > Whenever the individual after he has entered the universal feels an
                                      > impulse to assert himself as the particular, he is in temptation,
                                      and
                                      > he can labor himself out if this only by penitently abandoning
                                      himself
                                      > as the particular in the universal. if this be the highest thing
                                      that
                                      > can be said of man and of his existence, then the ethical has the
                                      same
                                      > character as man's eternal blessedness, which to all eternity and at
                                      > every instant is his /telos/, since it would be a contradiction to
                                      say
                                      > that this might be abandoned (i.e., teleologically suspended),
                                      > inasmuch as this is no sooner suspended than it is forfeited,
                                      whereas
                                      > in other cases what is suspended is not forfeited but is preserved
                                      in
                                      > that higher thing which is its /telos/." (F&T, Lowrie, pp. 64-5)
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > lewis,
                                      > >
                                      > > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and
                                      at
                                      > best
                                      > > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set
                                      them
                                      > apart, i
                                      > > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                                      > person in
                                      > > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules
                                      of
                                      > his
                                      > > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                                      > 'it's the
                                      > > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is
                                      not
                                      > > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted
                                      is
                                      > set by
                                      > > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                                      > 'authority' say
                                      > > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                                      > religious
                                      > > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                                      > stage, the
                                      > > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much
                                      so)
                                      > is duty
                                      > > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                                      > ideal
                                      > > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is
                                      his
                                      > > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad
                                      faith?
                                      > is he
                                      > > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                                      > quench his
                                      > > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                                      > convention? but
                                      > > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche).
                                      for
                                      > the
                                      > > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                                      > imposed or
                                      > > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                                      > because he has
                                      > > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that
                                      is
                                      > not the
                                      > > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by
                                      logic,
                                      > by the
                                      > > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                                      > what he
                                      > > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is
                                      constantly
                                      > having
                                      > > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                                      > that
                                      > > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                                      > never have
                                      > > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill
                                      ur
                                      > own
                                      > > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham
                                      was
                                      > > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right'
                                      thing;
                                      > it was
                                      > > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject
                                      for
                                      > > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common
                                      sense,
                                      > in
                                      > > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was
                                      totally
                                      > > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he
                                      chose
                                      > faith
                                      > > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to.
                                      in
                                      > short,
                                      > > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering
                                      the
                                      > > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of
                                      the
                                      > person
                                      > > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so
                                      much
                                      > so that
                                      > > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                                      > realise if u
                                      > > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of
                                      some
                                      > general
                                      > > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                                      > >
                                      > > james.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > _________________________________________________________________
                                      > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
                                      http://messenger.msn.com
                                    • Lewis Vella
                                      Much has been said here about the aesthete, the ethical and the religious. I have already stated my views on this and I repeat them once more, below, for those
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                        Much has been said here about the aesthete, the
                                        ethical and the religious. I have already stated my
                                        views on this and I repeat them once more, below, for
                                        those who may have missed the post. What I say there
                                        may be in agreement with Melinda's (dnewdeath@aol...)
                                        post today at sartre@yahoogr...

                                        I think what we are both touching on here is that to
                                        conceptualize being and to place its thoughts and
                                        actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                        runs counteractive to the conscious self-reflection of
                                        being-in-itself, which in order to become more aware
                                        of a total consciousness unraveling within and without
                                        itself, must, at once, participate, while witnessing
                                        simultaneously, the existential 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                        encapsulating our perceived world of phenomena. In a
                                        given moment, any letter may prevail, it's just a
                                        matter of perspective, which may also, in an imperfect
                                        world, become a dialectical issue, that is, a
                                        strategic course of empowerment.

                                        Lewis

                                        --- in sorenkierkegaard and sartre, on Feb 8, Lewis
                                        Vella wrote regarding [james tan] the kierkegaard to
                                        heidegger to sartre connection:

                                        > Yes, but does not this 'religious' life preclude
                                        > some
                                        > type of human interpretation of Christ's 'love',
                                        > followed by a commitment to whatever the person's
                                        > subjective interpretation is of that love. And
                                        > wouldn't this commitment also include some type of
                                        > self-imposed moral obligation to sustain it, thus
                                        > creating another realm of ethics he must adhere to,
                                        > that is, some type of ethics perhaps not entirely
                                        > related to any institutional ethics, but ethics just
                                        > the same. Would not, then, these two modes of being
                                        > be
                                        > overlapping? Also, in considering what such a person
                                        > must now do to sustain his vision and commitment to
                                        > Christ's love, would he not be better off to have a
                                        > good workable understanding of aesthetics, that is
                                        > in
                                        > order to most effectively and peacefully spread this
                                        > understanding of love within and without every
                                        > aspect
                                        > of his being. Moreover, does not this universal love
                                        > he understands for himself now also oblige him to
                                        > share it with all others, regardless of whatever the
                                        > personal loss is to his body and person -- meaning,
                                        > does not
                                        > this
                                        > free man, unlike Sartre's free man, now have a moral
                                        > duty towards his fellow man -- a duty best served
                                        > while still very much alive in all three spheres?
                                        > Lewis


                                        __________________________________________________
                                        Do You Yahoo!?
                                        Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                        http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                      • Christopher Bobo
                                        I think James s analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                          I think James's analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is often side-stepped by followers of SK.

                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: james tan
                                          Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 9:01 AM
                                          To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                          Cc: peichee8@...
                                          Subject: [Sartre] The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection


                                          wilbro,

                                          i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat simplistic. my
                                          understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and pieces,
                                          those part which seems interesting). is overlap what u mean by double
                                          movement? but it seems to me ur quotation depict the ethical stage rather
                                          perfectly, though i put it in much simpler language. i see it as a case of
                                          the particular vs the universal. if i may paraphrase the quotation:

                                          "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it applies
                                          to everyone, ..." unquote.

                                          so it is one which the individual think in terms of what is good for
                                          everybody, not just himself. he is someone who will not only think of his
                                          self interest, but those of others as well. he thinks in terms of universals
                                          rather than what please or displeases himself (the aesthetic man).

                                          "the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                          telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                          constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become the
                                          universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                          particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                          recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal."
                                          unquote.

                                          as we can see, the ethical man is pretty obsessed with being right, socially
                                          and universally considered. he reminds me of kant's categorical imperative:
                                          act always in ways that one could wish the (ethical) principle of one's
                                          action could become a universal law. and a corollary to it: always treat
                                          others as an end in itself, never a means. all which highligh one principle:
                                          one would not only think of oneself when deciding how to act. say, if i see
                                          something i like very much in a shop, it is way too expensive for me to buy
                                          it, and i know the security system of the shop well enough for me to steal
                                          it without being caught. the ethical man will not do it because it is
                                          'universally wrong' to steal, and it does not matter if he is clever enough
                                          to beat the security. the aesthetic man's perspective will be different: he
                                          will steal it if he can do it without being caught. the ethical man will not
                                          flirt & sleep around when he is married, knowing that this is not in the
                                          best interest of the marriage. the aesthetic man (at least the lower end of
                                          the aesthetic man) will not care except his own interest (or pleasure), but
                                          then he is the type who will normally not get married in the first place,
                                          preferring a life where he could seduce a girl after another for his own
                                          sexual gratification. the ethical man will stick on to his wife even after
                                          she has gone yellowish pale with old age, not necessarily because he still
                                          love her (though it could be), but his sense of ethical principle 'requires'
                                          that he should be so - that is the way a good, honourable, socially
                                          respectable man should be - he will think to himself. u see, as ur quotation
                                          suggest, the ethical man is a man of the universals. unlike the man in the
                                          aesthetic or religious stage, he does not allow his particularity to come
                                          in, lest he 'sins'. he is the mr nice man, always thinking for his family or
                                          the community, or what is best for all, when he decides to act in any way.

                                          is there a double movement? i am not sure. but i tend to agree that it can
                                          be difficult to distinguish a ethical from a religious man in the context of
                                          normal, everyday living where no special crisis present themselves. a lot of
                                          their life's contents will overlaps, i am sure. sometimes it takes a very
                                          stressful situation and how they respond to it that u could tell. but these
                                          overlaps are what i'll call by 'choices of the moment', vs k's stages, which
                                          is 'fundamental choices that affect the entire way of life for the whole
                                          life'. i still dont quite get ur double movement.... i admit that one can
                                          move from one sphere to another (say from the aesthetic to the ethical), and
                                          it is also possible to move from a lower to a higher form within the same
                                          sphere (say from one sexual conquest after another, to perfecting one's
                                          skill as a swimmer). let consider abraham again. when god gave abraham a son
                                          (at a extremely old age), god expects him to love issac, and we can take it
                                          that abraham's parental love is as much a religious as a ethical
                                          requirement. double movement? and abraham's love of god involves the moral
                                          expectation that god will keep his promise that through issac abraham will
                                          become father of a entire race. in that sense we see a double involvement of
                                          the religious and the moral.

                                          but what ultimately set the religious stage different from the ethical stage
                                          is the religious man's putting god above everything else, including one own
                                          son, one's common sense, one's ethical principles, one's parents (like
                                          14:26), one's earthly love affair (k gave up regine for god, or so he
                                          believed), one's ............ god is number 1 in all things. why then should
                                          man put god above all things? because of existential need that refuse to be
                                          quenched unless one's relationship is set right with one's maker. from the
                                          perspective of the religious stage, anyone who has not have a relationship
                                          with god is, in a sense, still in despair, because he has not recognised the
                                          eternal part of himself. but of course, k was a christian thinker. for
                                          sartre, man's situation is totally absurd: one sphere would just be as good
                                          or absurd as another sphere, since there is no ULTIMATE guide. one just
                                          simply....choose. choose, period. and shut up.

                                          james.


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Tommy Beavitt
                                          ... Lewis, I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on this Sartre forum by being-in-itself . Being-in-itself is not capable of conscious
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                            At 11:34 am -0800 12/2/02, Lewis Vella wrote:
                                            >I think what we are both touching on here is that to
                                            >conceptualize being and to place its thoughts and
                                            >actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                            >runs counteractive to the conscious self-reflection of
                                            >being-in-itself, which in order to become more aware
                                            >of a total consciousness unraveling within and without
                                            >itself, must, at once, participate, while witnessing
                                            >simultaneously, the existential 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                            >encapsulating our perceived world of phenomena. In a
                                            >given moment, any letter may prevail, it's just a
                                            >matter of perspective, which may also, in an imperfect
                                            >world, become a dialectical issue, that is, a
                                            >strategic course of empowerment.

                                            Lewis,

                                            I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on this Sartre forum by
                                            "being-in-itself". Being-in-itself is not capable of conscious
                                            self-reflection; that is a function of being-for-itself. It is
                                            precisely to the extent that being-in-itself is not capable of
                                            conscious self reflection that it is necessary to refer to the
                                            construct of being-for-itself.

                                            I don't know if this was a typing error or a conscious attempt on
                                            your part to subvert the terms within which discussion takes place.
                                            If the latter, then we have an issue.

                                            By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                                            capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do it
                                            in Sartrean terms.

                                            Tommy
                                          • zooink
                                            ... Tommy, he can t do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same thought as Willy here
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                              > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                                              > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do
                                              > it in Sartrean terms.
                                              >
                                              > Tommy

                                              Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                              incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same
                                              thought as Willy here concerning Sartre. His scheme of consciousness
                                              can be placed rather neatly into Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere. This
                                              is not to say whose scheme is right but only to say that from another
                                              view Sartre's scheme is a limited one.
                                            • Tommy Beavitt
                                              ... You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have phrased it, with reference to Sartrean terminology . I am certainly not
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                                At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                                >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                                >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.

                                                You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I
                                                should have phrased it, "with reference to Sartrean terminology". I
                                                am certainly not in the position, as moderator of this list, of
                                                refusing to allow any points of view to be expressed that are not
                                                orthodox Sartrean existentialism!!!

                                                So, you are right. He should explain why Sartre was wrong in stating
                                                that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection.

                                                Thanks for pointing this out.
                                                Tommy
                                              • Lewis Vella
                                                ... and ... Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre s terminology I should have said being-for-itself . Anyway, the way my point referred to the becoming of
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                                  >> Lewis Vella wrote:
                                                  >> I think what we are both touching on here is that
                                                  >> to conceptualize being and to place its thoughts
                                                  and
                                                  >> actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and
                                                  >> 'C' runs counteractive to the conscious
                                                  >> self-reflection of being-in-itself, . . .

                                                  Tommy Beavit wrote:

                                                  > Lewis,
                                                  >
                                                  > I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on
                                                  > this Sartre forum by
                                                  > "being-in-itself". Being-in-itself is not capable of
                                                  > conscious
                                                  > self-reflection; that is a function of
                                                  > being-for-itself.

                                                  Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre's terminology
                                                  I should have said 'being-for-itself'. Anyway, the way
                                                  my point referred to the becoming of conscious
                                                  self-realization, I think what I meant was
                                                  self-explanatory within the text. And when it comes
                                                  down to it, from an authentic exisitential point-of
                                                  view, all that we have before us is the text, the rest
                                                  is open for interpretation, and discussion. If one
                                                  gets too caught up on specifics, experience may turn
                                                  into nothing more than dogmatic procedure, which
                                                  automatically places limits on one's existance.
                                                  Granted, limits may be necessary, but true freedom
                                                  must always stay on its toes to challenge these
                                                  limits.


                                                  It is
                                                  > precisely to the extent that being-in-itself is not
                                                  > capable of
                                                  > conscious self reflection that it is necessary to
                                                  > refer to the
                                                  > construct of being-for-itself.
                                                  >
                                                  > I don't know if this was a typing error or a
                                                  > conscious attempt on
                                                  > your part to subvert the terms within which
                                                  > discussion takes place.
                                                  > If the latter, then we have an issue.
                                                  >
                                                  > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself
                                                  > has the
                                                  > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But
                                                  > please try and do it
                                                  > in Sartrean terms.
                                                  >
                                                  > Tommy
                                                  >


                                                  __________________________________________________
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                                  http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                                • artsgina
                                                  and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? gina ... From: zooink
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                                    and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean
                                                    perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? >>> gina

                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: zooink [mailto:zooink@...]
                                                    Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2002 3:48 AM
                                                    To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Subject: [Sartre] Re: self reflective consciousness (was THE EXISTENTIAL
                                                    NEWS - Volume 1, #2)



                                                    > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                                                    > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do
                                                    > it in Sartrean terms.
                                                    >
                                                    > Tommy

                                                    Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                                    incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same
                                                    thought as Willy here concerning Sartre. His scheme of consciousness
                                                    can be placed rather neatly into Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere. This
                                                    is not to say whose scheme is right but only to say that from another
                                                    view Sartre's scheme is a limited one.



                                                    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+S
                                                    artre&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/
                                                  • zooink
                                                    ... I ... Tommy, he can not explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection because that statement is a posited
                                                    Message 25 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                                      --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                                                      > At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                                      > >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                                      > >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.
                                                      >
                                                      > You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps
                                                      I
                                                      > should have phrased it, "with reference to Sartrean terminology". I
                                                      > am certainly not in the position, as moderator of this list, of
                                                      > refusing to allow any points of view to be expressed that are not
                                                      > orthodox Sartrean existentialism!!!
                                                      >
                                                      > So, you are right. He should explain why Sartre was wrong in stating
                                                      > that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection.
                                                      >
                                                      > Thanks for pointing this out.

                                                      > Tommy

                                                      Tommy, he can not "explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that
                                                      being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection" because that
                                                      statement is a posited premise. Sartre defines "being-in-itself" as
                                                      lacking self-reflection in the same way a unicorn is defined as having
                                                      one horn. If Lewis can prove me wrong in stating that unicorn's have
                                                      one horn, he can fulfill your condition. The two, being-in-itself and
                                                      being-for-itself, is Sartre's way of defining consciousness. Lewis
                                                      could, however, point out any deficiencies in Sartre's scheme of
                                                      consciousness he sees and/or he could posit a counter-definition.
                                                    • miha zupan
                                                      ... lewis, ti si en butast burek, ki nimas pojma o pojmu. Neki se igras z besedami, v glavi pa slama. jebi se, MIHA ...
                                                      Message 26 of 26 , Feb 14, 2002
                                                        --- Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        >

                                                        lewis, ti si en butast burek, ki nimas pojma o pojmu.
                                                        Neki se igras z besedami, v glavi pa slama.

                                                        jebi se,

                                                        MIHA


                                                        > >> Lewis Vella wrote:
                                                        > >> I think what we are both touching on here is that
                                                        > >> to conceptualize being and to place its thoughts
                                                        > and
                                                        > >> actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B',
                                                        > and
                                                        > >> 'C' runs counteractive to the conscious
                                                        > >> self-reflection of being-in-itself, . . .
                                                        >
                                                        > Tommy Beavit wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > > Lewis,
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on
                                                        > > this Sartre forum by
                                                        > > "being-in-itself". Being-in-itself is not capable
                                                        > of
                                                        > > conscious
                                                        > > self-reflection; that is a function of
                                                        > > being-for-itself.
                                                        >
                                                        > Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre's
                                                        > terminology
                                                        > I should have said 'being-for-itself'. Anyway, the
                                                        > way
                                                        > my point referred to the becoming of conscious
                                                        > self-realization, I think what I meant was
                                                        > self-explanatory within the text. And when it comes
                                                        > down to it, from an authentic exisitential point-of
                                                        > view, all that we have before us is the text, the
                                                        > rest
                                                        > is open for interpretation, and discussion. If one
                                                        > gets too caught up on specifics, experience may turn
                                                        > into nothing more than dogmatic procedure, which
                                                        > automatically places limits on one's existance.
                                                        > Granted, limits may be necessary, but true freedom
                                                        > must always stay on its toes to challenge these
                                                        > limits.
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > It is
                                                        > > precisely to the extent that being-in-itself is
                                                        > not
                                                        > > capable of
                                                        > > conscious self reflection that it is necessary to
                                                        > > refer to the
                                                        > > construct of being-for-itself.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > I don't know if this was a typing error or a
                                                        > > conscious attempt on
                                                        > > your part to subvert the terms within which
                                                        > > discussion takes place.
                                                        > > If the latter, then we have an issue.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > By all means justify your claim that
                                                        > being-in-itself
                                                        > > has the
                                                        > > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But
                                                        > > please try and do it
                                                        > > in Sartrean terms.
                                                        > >
                                                        > > Tommy
                                                        > >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > __________________________________________________
                                                        > Do You Yahoo!?
                                                        > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                                        > http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                                        >
                                                        >


                                                        __________________________________________________
                                                        Do You Yahoo!?
                                                        Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                                        http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.