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

Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Feb 3, 2002
      Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized as an
      occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere. I have
      finally read through Part II and though I agree with you, I see it a
      little differently. I think what Sartre has done is create a
      structure
      out of what Kierkegaard calls despair and made that structure as
      representing what is. Maybe I am saying the same thing you are saying
      because we come out in the same place. I think Sartre has made
      freedom
      equal to despair which means there is really no exit. If we follow
      Kierkegaard's spheres, the ethical sphere is the leap that negates
      Sartre's whole structure because suffering, and the desire to be,
      comes to an end. It really turns out that the desire to be is what
      creates the sense of not-being in the first place.

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


      --- In Sartre@y..., "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...> wrote:
      > For what it is worth, I think I have found the answer to my
      > own question in the appended site. The Buddhist/existentialism
      > connection is also explored in this site. It contains the most
      > thorough explication of Sartre's thought I have found anywhere, web
      or
      > otherwise, and if it faithful to what JPS meant, tells me that SK
      and
      > JPS do not connect. If SK is taken to be the father of
      existentialism,
      > JPS is not his kid. The basic difference, as I see it, lies in the
      > their view of what despair is and how it is cured.
      >
      > JPS says that the cause of despair is the connection between
      in-itself
      > and for-itself, where for-itself is a self-consciousness that finds
      > its in-itself as nothingness. The only answer is to make that
      > for-itself something. It does not speak to curing the connection
      for
      > that is the nature of it. SK says that the bad connection is in
      > self-consciousness itself and that the cure is bring the bad
      > connection to an end. In fact, SK defines despair, or the bad
      > connection, as engendering what JPS sees as the cure.
      >
      > http://www.mcu.ac.th/e-book/English/manual/sartre/contens.html
      >
    • Marc Girod
      ... zi Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized as zi an occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere. But if Sartre could
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 3, 2002
        >>>>> "zi" == zooink@... writes:

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

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

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

        --
        Marc Girod P.O. Box 370 Voice: +358-71 80 25581
        Nokia NBI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
        Karaportti 2 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 66204
      • wilbro99
        ... as ... I see SK s spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or discontinuity, between the
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
          --- In Sartre@y..., Marc Girod <girod@s...> wrote:
          > >>>>> "zi" == zooink@y... writes:
          >
          > zi> Willy, what I see you saying is that Sartre can be categorized
          as
          > zi> an occupant of what Kierkegaard called the esthetic sphere.
          >
          > But if Sartre could be put into the esthetic sphere, in what sphere
          > would you put Kierkegaard himself?
          >
          > Kierkegaard's spheres do not make up a Venn diagram supporting sets
          > containing themselves...
          >
          > --
          > Marc Girod P.O. Box 370 Voice: +358-71 80 25581
          > Nokia NBI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
          > Karaportti 2 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 66204

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            --
            Marc Girod P.O. Box 370 Voice: +358-71 80 25581
            Nokia NBI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
            Karaportti 2 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 66204
          • wilbro99
            ... the ... Hi, Marc; The external point of view is already given if the spheres are seen as a way of describing what SK sees as a process of the self from a
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
              --- In Sartre@y..., Marc Girod <girod@s...> wrote:
              > >>>>> "wb" == wilbro99@y... writes:
              >
              > wb> I see SK's spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically
              > wb> placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or
              > wb> discontinuity, between the esthetic sphere and the
              > wb> ethico-religious sphere.
              >
              > I agree, but I see this as a weakness: it assumes yet an external
              > point of view, which --again I agree-- cannot be resumed to any of
              the
              > spheres. In this way, it is unfair to place Sartre in any sphere and
              > Kierkegaard outside.
              >
              > BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
              > (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
              > esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
              > sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?
              >
              > wb> I place JPS in the esthetic sphere because I see nothing in his
              > wb> writings to tell me he knows of the transition.
              >
              > That's freedom, and responsibility.
              > Sartre names cowards people who accept to be in some box, and deny
              > their responsibility.
              >
              > --
              > Marc Girod P.O. Box 370 Voice: +358-71 80 25581
              > Nokia NBI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
              > Karaportti 2 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 66204

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

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

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

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

              "If it were to be pointed out clearly in E/O where the discrepancy
              lies, the book would have needed to have a religious instead of an
              ethical orientation…it is in this moment of decision that the
              individual needs divine assistance, although it is quite correct that
              one must first have understood the existence-relation between the
              esthetic and the ethical to be at this point-that is, by being there
              in passion and inwardness, one indeed becomes aware of the
              religious-and of the leap. Furthermore, the definition of truth as
              inwardness, that it is upbuilding, must be explicitly understood
              before it is even religious, to say nothing of being Christianly
              religious." (Ibid., Hong, pp. 257-58; Lowrie, p. 230)
            • Christopher Bobo
              ... (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres: esthetic and ethic. Isn t it so that in other works, the religious sphere is totally
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                Marc wrote:
                >>BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
                (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
                esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
                sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?<<

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                --
                Marc Girod P.O. Box 370 Voice: +358-71 80 25581
                Nokia NBI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
                Karaportti 2 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 66204


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • james tan
                i don t think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may not be
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                  i don't think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping
                  and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may
                  not be stages of development in erickson's sense of development, but each is
                  a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another. if one is in the
                  aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or relgious stage, and that
                  goes the same for the rest of the combination of these three modes of being.
                  roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a person is open to
                  experience and seek many forms of pleasure and excitement, but they do not
                  recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage is one who accept
                  responsibility of making choices but use as their guide ethical principles
                  established by other people - eg, the church or islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                  suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as superior to the aesthetic
                  stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at the ethical stage is still
                  not recognising and acting on their full personal freedom (what sartre would
                  term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k. thought the highest
                  level of existence, according to k. who was a christian's christian, people
                  recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a personal relationship
                  with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that the nature of the
                  relationship is not determined by convention or generally accepted moral
                  laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness. people here see
                  possibilities in life that often run contrary to what is generally accepted.
                  while for sartre, what is good is totally determined in one's freedom with
                  no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k., the good is defined in
                  his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one which insisted on one's
                  subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived: in love. for k., the
                  aesthetic and ethical stages are indeed inferior mode of beings compared
                  with the religious stages, but for sartre, such supposition is unwarranted
                  since there is no ultimate guide as to suggest which is better or best, and
                  one stage is just as good as the other, so long as the person recognises he
                  chooses it and is responsible for it. a hedonist with the philosophy of a
                  pig is not necessarily worse off than a saint with christ's love and
                  passion, for sartre. of course, k. might beg to differ. what these two
                  philosophers have in common was their deep appreciation of anxiety when
                  making choice, the kind of fundamental choice that will affect one's entire
                  life and guide on other 'lesser' choices.

                  but of course i may have misunderstood these two individuals.

                  james.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  --
                  Marc Girod P.O. Box 370 Voice: +358-71 80 25581
                  Nokia NBI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415
                  Karaportti 2 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 66204


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









                  _________________________________________________________________
                  Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
                • wilbro99
                  This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring to? I, like James,
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                    This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres
                    separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring
                    to? I, like James, see them separate. I will differ somewhat from his
                    definition of the content of the spheres, but that could be a problem
                    of language. Absolutely fascinating, what? I think we can separate the
                    views we hold into those who see the spheres as mutually exclusive and
                    those who do not. I would say that if they are mutually exclusive then
                    some sort of transition is necessary to get from one to the other and
                    that a reflection upon such a transition must not only reveal a
                    discontinuity, but also a paradox for the one doing the reflection.
                    ----Will Brown
                  • Lewis Vella
                    ... Yes, but does not this religious life preclude some type of human interpretation of Christ s love , followed by a commitment to whatever the person s
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 8, 2002
                      --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
                      > of being are overlapping
                      > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
                      > be suggesting. they may
                      > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
                      > development, but each is
                      > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
                      > if one is in the
                      > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
                      > relgious stage, and that
                      > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
                      > these three modes of being.
                      > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
                      > person is open to
                      > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
                      > excitement, but they do not
                      > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
                      > is one who accept
                      > responsibility of making choices but use as their
                      > guide ethical principles
                      > established by other people - eg, the church or
                      > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                      > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
                      > superior to the aesthetic
                      > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
                      > the ethical stage is still
                      > not recognising and acting on their full personal
                      > freedom (what sartre would
                      > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
                      > thought the highest
                      > level of existence, according to k. who was a
                      > christian's christian, people
                      > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
                      > personal relationship
                      > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
                      > the nature of the
                      > relationship is not determined by convention or
                      > generally accepted moral
                      > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
                      > people here see
                      > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
                      > what is generally accepted.
                      > while for sartre, what is good is totally
                      > determined in one's freedom with
                      > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
                      > the good is defined in
                      > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
                      > which insisted on one's
                      > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
                      > in love.

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

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                      http://greetings.yahoo.com
                    • james tan
                      lewis, oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                        lewis,

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

                        james.


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

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

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

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








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

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



                          lewis,

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

                          james.


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

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

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

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








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



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

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

                          <A
                          HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+S
                          artre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul
                          Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>


                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • wilbro99
                          James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of the ethical sphere. You stated: for a person in the ethical stage, he do good because he
                          Message 12 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                            James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                            the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage, he
                            do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                            he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                            to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"

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

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


                            --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                            >
                            > lewis,
                            >
                            > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at
                            best
                            > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them
                            apart, i
                            > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                            person in
                            > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of
                            his
                            > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                            'it's the
                            > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
                            > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is
                            set by
                            > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                            'authority' say
                            > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                            religious
                            > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                            stage, the
                            > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so)
                            is duty
                            > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                            ideal
                            > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
                            > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith?
                            is he
                            > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                            quench his
                            > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                            convention? but
                            > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for
                            the
                            > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                            imposed or
                            > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                            because he has
                            > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is
                            not the
                            > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic,
                            by the
                            > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                            what he
                            > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly
                            having
                            > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                            that
                            > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                            never have
                            > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur
                            own
                            > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
                            > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing;
                            it was
                            > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
                            > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense,
                            in
                            > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
                            > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose
                            faith
                            > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in
                            short,
                            > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
                            > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the
                            person
                            > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much
                            so that
                            > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                            realise if u
                            > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some
                            general
                            > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                            >
                            > james.
                          • james tan
                            wilbro, i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat simplistic. my understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
                            Message 13 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                              wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              james.




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

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

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

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


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










                              _________________________________________________________________
                              Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                            • wilbro99
                              James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks. ... simplistic. my ... pieces, ... double ... rather ... case of ... applies ... of his ... universals ...
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

                                --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                                >
                                > wilbro,
                                >
                                > i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat
                                simplistic. my
                                > understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
                                pieces,
                                > those part which seems interesting). is overlap what u mean by
                                double
                                > movement? but it seems to me ur quotation depict the ethical stage
                                rather
                                > perfectly, though i put it in much simpler language. i see it as a
                                case of
                                > the particular vs the universal. if i may paraphrase the quotation:
                                >
                                > "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it
                                applies
                                > to everyone, ..." unquote.
                                >
                                > so it is one which the individual think in terms of what is good for
                                > everybody, not just himself. he is someone who will not only think
                                of his
                                > self interest, but those of others as well. he thinks in terms of
                                universals
                                > rather than what please or displeases himself (the aesthetic man).
                                >
                                > "the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                > telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                > constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become
                                the
                                > universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                > particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                > recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal."
                                > unquote.
                                >
                                > as we can see, the ethical man is pretty obsessed with being right,
                                socially
                                > and universally considered. he reminds me of kant's categorical
                                imperative:
                                > act always in ways that one could wish the (ethical) principle of
                                one's
                                > action could become a universal law. and a corollary to it: always
                                treat
                                > others as an end in itself, never a means. all which highligh one
                                principle:
                                > one would not only think of oneself when deciding how to act. say,
                                if i see
                                > something i like very much in a shop, it is way too expensive for me
                                to buy
                                > it, and i know the security system of the shop well enough for me to
                                steal
                                > it without being caught. the ethical man will not do it because it
                                is
                                > 'universally wrong' to steal, and it does not matter if he is clever
                                enough
                                > to beat the security. the aesthetic man's perspective will be
                                different: he
                                > will steal it if he can do it without being caught. the ethical man
                                will not
                                > flirt & sleep around when he is married, knowing that this is not in
                                the
                                > best interest of the marriage. the aesthetic man (at least the lower
                                end of
                                > the aesthetic man) will not care except his own interest (or
                                pleasure), but
                                > then he is the type who will normally not get married in the first
                                place,
                                > preferring a life where he could seduce a girl after another for his
                                own
                                > sexual gratification. the ethical man will stick on to his wife even
                                after
                                > she has gone yellowish pale with old age, not necessarily because he
                                still
                                > love her (though it could be), but his sense of ethical principle
                                'requires'
                                > that he should be so - that is the way a good, honourable, socially
                                > respectable man should be - he will think to himself. u see, as ur
                                quotation
                                > suggest, the ethical man is a man of the universals. unlike the man
                                in the
                                > aesthetic or religious stage, he does not allow his particularity to
                                come
                                > in, lest he 'sins'. he is the mr nice man, always thinking for his
                                family or
                                > the community, or what is best for all, when he decides to act in
                                any way.
                                >
                                > is there a double movement? i am not sure. but i tend to agree that
                                it can
                                > be difficult to distinguish a ethical from a religious man in the
                                context of
                                > normal, everyday living where no special crisis present themselves.
                                a lot of
                                > their life's contents will overlaps, i am sure. sometimes it takes a
                                very
                                > stressful situation and how they respond to it that u could tell.
                                but these
                                > overlaps are what i'll call by 'choices of the moment', vs k's
                                stages, which
                                > is 'fundamental choices that affect the entire way of life for the
                                whole
                                > life'. i still dont quite get ur double movement.... i admit that
                                one can
                                > move from one sphere to another (say from the aesthetic to the
                                ethical), and
                                > it is also possible to move from a lower to a higher form within the
                                same
                                > sphere (say from one sexual conquest after another, to perfecting
                                one's
                                > skill as a swimmer). let consider abraham again. when god gave
                                abraham a son
                                > (at a extremely old age), god expects him to love issac, and we can
                                take it
                                > that abraham's parental love is as much a religious as a ethical
                                > requirement. double movement? and abraham's love of god involves the
                                moral
                                > expectation that god will keep his promise that through issac
                                abraham will
                                > become father of a entire race. in that sense we see a double
                                involvement of
                                > the religious and the moral.
                                >
                                > but what ultimately set the religious stage different from the
                                ethical stage
                                > is the religious man's putting god above everything else, including
                                one own
                                > son, one's common sense, one's ethical principles, one's parents
                                (like
                                > 14:26), one's earthly love affair (k gave up regine for god, or so
                                he
                                > believed), one's ............ god is number 1 in all things. why
                                then should
                                > man put god above all things? because of existential need that
                                refuse to be
                                > quenched unless one's relationship is set right with one's maker.
                                from the
                                > perspective of the religious stage, anyone who has not have a
                                relationship
                                > with god is, in a sense, still in despair, because he has not
                                recognised the
                                > eternal part of himself. but of course, k was a christian thinker.
                                for
                                > sartre, man's situation is totally absurd: one sphere would just be
                                as good
                                > or absurd as another sphere, since there is no ULTIMATE guide. one
                                just
                                > simply....choose. choose, period. and shut up.
                                >
                                > james.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > From: "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...>
                                > Reply-To: Sartre@y...
                                > To: Sartre@y...
                                > Subject: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre
                                connection
                                > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:29:49 -0000
                                >
                                > James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                                > the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage,
                                he
                                > do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                                > he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                                > to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"
                                >
                                > Since you have mentioned Fear & Trembling in the account of Abraham
                                > and Isaac, how do you square your characterization of the ethical
                                with
                                > the ethical delineated in the following quote? It sure seems to me
                                > like there is a movement involved. When Kierkegaard speaks to a
                                > double-movement, as he does in this book, isn't the move to the
                                > ethical the first half of that double-movement?
                                >
                                > "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it
                                applies
                                > to everyone, which may be expressed from another point of view by
                                > saying that it applies every instant. It reposes immanently in
                                itself,
                                > it has nothing without itself which is its telos, but is itself
                                telos
                                > for everything outside it, and when this is incorporated by the
                                > ethical, it can go no further. Conceived immediately as physical and
                                > psychical, the particular individual is the individual who has his
                                > telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                                > constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become
                                the
                                > universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                                > particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                                > recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal.
                                > Whenever the individual after he has entered the universal feels an
                                > impulse to assert himself as the particular, he is in temptation,
                                and
                                > he can labor himself out if this only by penitently abandoning
                                himself
                                > as the particular in the universal. if this be the highest thing
                                that
                                > can be said of man and of his existence, then the ethical has the
                                same
                                > character as man's eternal blessedness, which to all eternity and at
                                > every instant is his /telos/, since it would be a contradiction to
                                say
                                > that this might be abandoned (i.e., teleologically suspended),
                                > inasmuch as this is no sooner suspended than it is forfeited,
                                whereas
                                > in other cases what is suspended is not forfeited but is preserved
                                in
                                > that higher thing which is its /telos/." (F&T, Lowrie, pp. 64-5)
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > lewis,
                                > >
                                > > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and
                                at
                                > best
                                > > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set
                                them
                                > apart, i
                                > > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                                > person in
                                > > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules
                                of
                                > his
                                > > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                                > 'it's the
                                > > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is
                                not
                                > > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted
                                is
                                > set by
                                > > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                                > 'authority' say
                                > > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                                > religious
                                > > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                                > stage, the
                                > > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much
                                so)
                                > is duty
                                > > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                                > ideal
                                > > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is
                                his
                                > > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad
                                faith?
                                > is he
                                > > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                                > quench his
                                > > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                                > convention? but
                                > > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche).
                                for
                                > the
                                > > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                                > imposed or
                                > > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                                > because he has
                                > > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that
                                is
                                > not the
                                > > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by
                                logic,
                                > by the
                                > > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                                > what he
                                > > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is
                                constantly
                                > having
                                > > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                                > that
                                > > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                                > never have
                                > > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill
                                ur
                                > own
                                > > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham
                                was
                                > > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right'
                                thing;
                                > it was
                                > > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject
                                for
                                > > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common
                                sense,
                                > in
                                > > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was
                                totally
                                > > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he
                                chose
                                > faith
                                > > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to.
                                in
                                > short,
                                > > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering
                                the
                                > > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of
                                the
                                > person
                                > > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so
                                much
                                > so that
                                > > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                                > realise if u
                                > > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of
                                some
                                > general
                                > > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                                > >
                                > > james.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > _________________________________________________________________
                                > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
                                http://messenger.msn.com
                              • Lewis Vella
                                Much has been said here about the aesthete, the ethical and the religious. I have already stated my views on this and I repeat them once more, below, for those
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                  Much has been said here about the aesthete, the
                                  ethical and the religious. I have already stated my
                                  views on this and I repeat them once more, below, for
                                  those who may have missed the post. What I say there
                                  may be in agreement with Melinda's (dnewdeath@aol...)
                                  post today at sartre@yahoogr...

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

                                  Lewis

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

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


                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                  http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                • Christopher Bobo
                                  I think James s analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                    I think James's analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is often side-stepped by followers of SK.

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


                                    wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                    james.


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Tommy Beavitt
                                    ... Lewis, I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on this Sartre forum by being-in-itself . Being-in-itself is not capable of conscious
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                      At 11:34 am -0800 12/2/02, Lewis Vella wrote:
                                      >I think what we are both touching on here is that to
                                      >conceptualize being and to place its thoughts and
                                      >actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                      >runs counteractive to the conscious self-reflection of
                                      >being-in-itself, which in order to become more aware
                                      >of a total consciousness unraveling within and without
                                      >itself, must, at once, participate, while witnessing
                                      >simultaneously, the existential 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                      >encapsulating our perceived world of phenomena. In a
                                      >given moment, any letter may prevail, it's just a
                                      >matter of perspective, which may also, in an imperfect
                                      >world, become a dialectical issue, that is, a
                                      >strategic course of empowerment.

                                      Lewis,

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

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

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

                                      Tommy
                                    • zooink
                                      ... Tommy, he can t do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same thought as Willy here
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                        > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                                        > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do
                                        > it in Sartrean terms.
                                        >
                                        > Tommy

                                        Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                        incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same
                                        thought as Willy here concerning Sartre. His scheme of consciousness
                                        can be placed rather neatly into Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere. This
                                        is not to say whose scheme is right but only to say that from another
                                        view Sartre's scheme is a limited one.
                                      • Tommy Beavitt
                                        ... You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have phrased it, with reference to Sartrean terminology . I am certainly not
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                          At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                          >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                          >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.

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

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

                                          Thanks for pointing this out.
                                          Tommy
                                        • Lewis Vella
                                          ... and ... Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre s terminology I should have said being-for-itself . Anyway, the way my point referred to the becoming of
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                            >> Lewis Vella wrote:
                                            >> I think what we are both touching on here is that
                                            >> to conceptualize being and to place its thoughts
                                            and
                                            >> actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and
                                            >> 'C' runs counteractive to the conscious
                                            >> self-reflection of being-in-itself, . . .

                                            Tommy Beavit wrote:

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

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


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


                                            __________________________________________________
                                            Do You Yahoo!?
                                            Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                            http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                          • artsgina
                                            and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? gina ... From: zooink
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                              and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean
                                              perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? >>> gina

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



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

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



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

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

                                              <A
                                              HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external-search/?keyword=Jean-Paul+S
                                              artre&tag=donaldrobertson">Click here to purchase books by Jean-Paul
                                              Sartre -in association with Amazon (US).</A>


                                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            • zooink
                                              ... I ... Tommy, he can not explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection because that statement is a posited
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                                --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                                                > At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                                > >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                                > >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.
                                                >
                                                > You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps
                                                I
                                                > should have phrased it, "with reference to Sartrean terminology". I
                                                > am certainly not in the position, as moderator of this list, of
                                                > refusing to allow any points of view to be expressed that are not
                                                > orthodox Sartrean existentialism!!!
                                                >
                                                > So, you are right. He should explain why Sartre was wrong in stating
                                                > that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection.
                                                >
                                                > Thanks for pointing this out.

                                                > Tommy

                                                Tommy, he can not "explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that
                                                being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection" because that
                                                statement is a posited premise. Sartre defines "being-in-itself" as
                                                lacking self-reflection in the same way a unicorn is defined as having
                                                one horn. If Lewis can prove me wrong in stating that unicorn's have
                                                one horn, he can fulfill your condition. The two, being-in-itself and
                                                being-for-itself, is Sartre's way of defining consciousness. Lewis
                                                could, however, point out any deficiencies in Sartre's scheme of
                                                consciousness he sees and/or he could posit a counter-definition.
                                              • miha zupan
                                                ... lewis, ti si en butast burek, ki nimas pojma o pojmu. Neki se igras z besedami, v glavi pa slama. jebi se, MIHA ...
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Feb 14, 2002
                                                  --- Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  >

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

                                                  jebi se,

                                                  MIHA


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


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