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

Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Feb 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 26 , Feb 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 26 , Feb 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >>>>> "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 4 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              >>>>> "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 6 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- 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 7 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 26 , Feb 8, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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 11 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 17 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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 18 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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 19 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          > 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 20 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            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 21 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              >> 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 22 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                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 23 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- 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 24 of 26 , Feb 14, 2002
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- 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.