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

Re: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Feb 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>>> "zi" == zooink@... writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

        "For the act of resignation faith is not required, for what I gain by
        resignation is my eternal consciousness, and this I am able to make if
        it is required, and which I train myself to make, for whenever
        finiteness would get mastery over me, I starve myself until I can make
        the movement…In resignation, I make renunciation of everything, this
        movement I make by myself, and what I gain is myself in my eternal
        consciousness." (F&T, Lowrie, p. 59)
      • Marc Girod
        ... wb I see SK s spheres as separate spheres, neither concentrically wb placed nor continuous, with a necessary transition, or wb discontinuity, between
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          >>>>> "wb" == wilbro99@... writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • james tan
              i don t think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may not be
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                i don't think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping
                and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may
                not be stages of development in erickson's sense of development, but each is
                a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another. if one is in the
                aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or relgious stage, and that
                goes the same for the rest of the combination of these three modes of being.
                roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a person is open to
                experience and seek many forms of pleasure and excitement, but they do not
                recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage is one who accept
                responsibility of making choices but use as their guide ethical principles
                established by other people - eg, the church or islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as superior to the aesthetic
                stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at the ethical stage is still
                not recognising and acting on their full personal freedom (what sartre would
                term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k. thought the highest
                level of existence, according to k. who was a christian's christian, people
                recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a personal relationship
                with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that the nature of the
                relationship is not determined by convention or generally accepted moral
                laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness. people here see
                possibilities in life that often run contrary to what is generally accepted.
                while for sartre, what is good is totally determined in one's freedom with
                no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k., the good is defined in
                his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one which insisted on one's
                subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived: in love. for k., the
                aesthetic and ethical stages are indeed inferior mode of beings compared
                with the religious stages, but for sartre, such supposition is unwarranted
                since there is no ultimate guide as to suggest which is better or best, and
                one stage is just as good as the other, so long as the person recognises he
                chooses it and is responsible for it. a hedonist with the philosophy of a
                pig is not necessarily worse off than a saint with christ's love and
                passion, for sartre. of course, k. might beg to differ. what these two
                philosophers have in common was their deep appreciation of anxiety when
                making choice, the kind of fundamental choice that will affect one's entire
                life and guide on other 'lesser' choices.

                but of course i may have misunderstood these two individuals.

                james.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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









                _________________________________________________________________
                Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
              • wilbro99
                This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring to? I, like James,
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres
                  separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring
                  to? I, like James, see them separate. I will differ somewhat from his
                  definition of the content of the spheres, but that could be a problem
                  of language. Absolutely fascinating, what? I think we can separate the
                  views we hold into those who see the spheres as mutually exclusive and
                  those who do not. I would say that if they are mutually exclusive then
                  some sort of transition is necessary to get from one to the other and
                  that a reflection upon such a transition must not only reveal a
                  discontinuity, but also a paradox for the one doing the reflection.
                  ----Will Brown
                • Lewis Vella
                  ... Yes, but does not this religious life preclude some type of human interpretation of Christ s love , followed by a commitment to whatever the person s
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 8, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
                    > of being are overlapping
                    > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
                    > be suggesting. they may
                    > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
                    > development, but each is
                    > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
                    > if one is in the
                    > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
                    > relgious stage, and that
                    > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
                    > these three modes of being.
                    > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
                    > person is open to
                    > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
                    > excitement, but they do not
                    > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
                    > is one who accept
                    > responsibility of making choices but use as their
                    > guide ethical principles
                    > established by other people - eg, the church or
                    > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                    > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
                    > superior to the aesthetic
                    > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
                    > the ethical stage is still
                    > not recognising and acting on their full personal
                    > freedom (what sartre would
                    > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
                    > thought the highest
                    > level of existence, according to k. who was a
                    > christian's christian, people
                    > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
                    > personal relationship
                    > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
                    > the nature of the
                    > relationship is not determined by convention or
                    > generally accepted moral
                    > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
                    > people here see
                    > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
                    > what is generally accepted.
                    > while for sartre, what is good is totally
                    > determined in one's freedom with
                    > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
                    > the good is defined in
                    > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
                    > which insisted on one's
                    > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
                    > in love.

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

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                    http://greetings.yahoo.com
                  • james tan
                    lewis, oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      lewis,

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

                      james.


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

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

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

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








                      _________________________________________________________________
                      MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                      http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
                    • artsgina
                      but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your death bed ? ... From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 11 February
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your
                        death bed ?

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



                        lewis,

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

                        james.


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

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

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

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








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



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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            james.




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

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

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

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


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










                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                          • wilbro99
                            James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks. ... simplistic. my ... pieces, ... double ... rather ... case of ... applies ... of his ... universals ...
                            Message 13 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

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

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

                                Lewis

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

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


                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                http://greetings.yahoo.com
                              • Christopher Bobo
                                I think James s analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I think James's analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is often side-stepped by followers of SK.

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


                                  wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                  james.


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Tommy Beavitt
                                  ... Lewis, I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on this Sartre forum by being-in-itself . Being-in-itself is not capable of conscious
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 11:34 am -0800 12/2/02, Lewis Vella wrote:
                                    >I think what we are both touching on here is that to
                                    >conceptualize being and to place its thoughts and
                                    >actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                    >runs counteractive to the conscious self-reflection of
                                    >being-in-itself, which in order to become more aware
                                    >of a total consciousness unraveling within and without
                                    >itself, must, at once, participate, while witnessing
                                    >simultaneously, the existential 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                    >encapsulating our perceived world of phenomena. In a
                                    >given moment, any letter may prevail, it's just a
                                    >matter of perspective, which may also, in an imperfect
                                    >world, become a dialectical issue, that is, a
                                    >strategic course of empowerment.

                                    Lewis,

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

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

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

                                    Tommy
                                  • zooink
                                    ... Tommy, he can t do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same thought as Willy here
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                                      > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do
                                      > it in Sartrean terms.
                                      >
                                      > Tommy

                                      Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                      incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same
                                      thought as Willy here concerning Sartre. His scheme of consciousness
                                      can be placed rather neatly into Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere. This
                                      is not to say whose scheme is right but only to say that from another
                                      view Sartre's scheme is a limited one.
                                    • Tommy Beavitt
                                      ... You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have phrased it, with reference to Sartrean terminology . I am certainly not
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                        >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                        >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.

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

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

                                        Thanks for pointing this out.
                                        Tommy
                                      • Lewis Vella
                                        ... and ... Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre s terminology I should have said being-for-itself . Anyway, the way my point referred to the becoming of
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          >> Lewis Vella wrote:
                                          >> I think what we are both touching on here is that
                                          >> to conceptualize being and to place its thoughts
                                          and
                                          >> actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and
                                          >> 'C' runs counteractive to the conscious
                                          >> self-reflection of being-in-itself, . . .

                                          Tommy Beavit wrote:

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

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


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


                                          __________________________________________________
                                          Do You Yahoo!?
                                          Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                          http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                        • artsgina
                                          and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? gina ... From: zooink
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean
                                            perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? >>> gina

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



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

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



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

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

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


                                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                          • zooink
                                            ... I ... Tommy, he can not explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection because that statement is a posited
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                                              > At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                              > >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                              > >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.
                                              >
                                              > You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps
                                              I
                                              > should have phrased it, "with reference to Sartrean terminology". I
                                              > am certainly not in the position, as moderator of this list, of
                                              > refusing to allow any points of view to be expressed that are not
                                              > orthodox Sartrean existentialism!!!
                                              >
                                              > So, you are right. He should explain why Sartre was wrong in stating
                                              > that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection.
                                              >
                                              > Thanks for pointing this out.

                                              > Tommy

                                              Tommy, he can not "explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that
                                              being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection" because that
                                              statement is a posited premise. Sartre defines "being-in-itself" as
                                              lacking self-reflection in the same way a unicorn is defined as having
                                              one horn. If Lewis can prove me wrong in stating that unicorn's have
                                              one horn, he can fulfill your condition. The two, being-in-itself and
                                              being-for-itself, is Sartre's way of defining consciousness. Lewis
                                              could, however, point out any deficiencies in Sartre's scheme of
                                              consciousness he sees and/or he could posit a counter-definition.
                                            • miha zupan
                                              ... lewis, ti si en butast burek, ki nimas pojma o pojmu. Neki se igras z besedami, v glavi pa slama. jebi se, MIHA ...
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Feb 14, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                >

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

                                                jebi se,

                                                MIHA


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


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