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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Feb 4, 2002
      >>>>> "wb" == wilbro99@... writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        "If it were to be pointed out clearly in E/O where the discrepancy
        lies, the book would have needed to have a religious instead of an
        ethical orientation…it is in this moment of decision that the
        individual needs divine assistance, although it is quite correct that
        one must first have understood the existence-relation between the
        esthetic and the ethical to be at this point-that is, by being there
        in passion and inwardness, one indeed becomes aware of the
        religious-and of the leap. Furthermore, the definition of truth as
        inwardness, that it is upbuilding, must be explicitly understood
        before it is even religious, to say nothing of being Christianly
        religious." (Ibid., Hong, pp. 257-58; Lowrie, p. 230)
      • Christopher Bobo
        ... (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres: esthetic and ethic. Isn t it so that in other works, the religious sphere is totally
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
          Marc wrote:
          >>BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
          (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
          esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
          sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?<<

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • james tan
          i don t think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may not be
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
            i don't think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping
            and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may
            not be stages of development in erickson's sense of development, but each is
            a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another. if one is in the
            aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or relgious stage, and that
            goes the same for the rest of the combination of these three modes of being.
            roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a person is open to
            experience and seek many forms of pleasure and excitement, but they do not
            recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage is one who accept
            responsibility of making choices but use as their guide ethical principles
            established by other people - eg, the church or islamic dogmas. i vaguely
            suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as superior to the aesthetic
            stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at the ethical stage is still
            not recognising and acting on their full personal freedom (what sartre would
            term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k. thought the highest
            level of existence, according to k. who was a christian's christian, people
            recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a personal relationship
            with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that the nature of the
            relationship is not determined by convention or generally accepted moral
            laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness. people here see
            possibilities in life that often run contrary to what is generally accepted.
            while for sartre, what is good is totally determined in one's freedom with
            no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k., the good is defined in
            his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one which insisted on one's
            subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived: in love. for k., the
            aesthetic and ethical stages are indeed inferior mode of beings compared
            with the religious stages, but for sartre, such supposition is unwarranted
            since there is no ultimate guide as to suggest which is better or best, and
            one stage is just as good as the other, so long as the person recognises he
            chooses it and is responsible for it. a hedonist with the philosophy of a
            pig is not necessarily worse off than a saint with christ's love and
            passion, for sartre. of course, k. might beg to differ. what these two
            philosophers have in common was their deep appreciation of anxiety when
            making choice, the kind of fundamental choice that will affect one's entire
            life and guide on other 'lesser' choices.

            but of course i may have misunderstood these two individuals.

            james.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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









            _________________________________________________________________
            Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
          • wilbro99
            This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring to? I, like James,
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
              This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres
              separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring
              to? I, like James, see them separate. I will differ somewhat from his
              definition of the content of the spheres, but that could be a problem
              of language. Absolutely fascinating, what? I think we can separate the
              views we hold into those who see the spheres as mutually exclusive and
              those who do not. I would say that if they are mutually exclusive then
              some sort of transition is necessary to get from one to the other and
              that a reflection upon such a transition must not only reveal a
              discontinuity, but also a paradox for the one doing the reflection.
              ----Will Brown
            • Lewis Vella
              ... Yes, but does not this religious life preclude some type of human interpretation of Christ s love , followed by a commitment to whatever the person s
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 8, 2002
                --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
                >
                > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
                > of being are overlapping
                > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
                > be suggesting. they may
                > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
                > development, but each is
                > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
                > if one is in the
                > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
                > relgious stage, and that
                > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
                > these three modes of being.
                > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
                > person is open to
                > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
                > excitement, but they do not
                > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
                > is one who accept
                > responsibility of making choices but use as their
                > guide ethical principles
                > established by other people - eg, the church or
                > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
                > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
                > superior to the aesthetic
                > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
                > the ethical stage is still
                > not recognising and acting on their full personal
                > freedom (what sartre would
                > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
                > thought the highest
                > level of existence, according to k. who was a
                > christian's christian, people
                > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
                > personal relationship
                > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
                > the nature of the
                > relationship is not determined by convention or
                > generally accepted moral
                > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
                > people here see
                > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
                > what is generally accepted.
                > while for sartre, what is good is totally
                > determined in one's freedom with
                > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
                > the good is defined in
                > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
                > which insisted on one's
                > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
                > in love.

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

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                http://greetings.yahoo.com
              • james tan
                lewis, oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                  lewis,

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

                  james.


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

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

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

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








                  _________________________________________________________________
                  MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                  http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
                • artsgina
                  but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your death bed ? ... From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 11 February
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                    but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your
                    death bed ?

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



                    lewis,

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

                    james.


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

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

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

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








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



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

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

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


                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • wilbro99
                    James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of the ethical sphere. You stated: for a person in the ethical stage, he do good because he
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                      James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                      the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage, he
                      do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                      he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                      to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"

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

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


                      --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                      >
                      > lewis,
                      >
                      > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at
                      best
                      > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them
                      apart, i
                      > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                      person in
                      > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of
                      his
                      > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                      'it's the
                      > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
                      > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is
                      set by
                      > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                      'authority' say
                      > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                      religious
                      > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                      stage, the
                      > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so)
                      is duty
                      > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                      ideal
                      > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
                      > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith?
                      is he
                      > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                      quench his
                      > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                      convention? but
                      > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for
                      the
                      > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                      imposed or
                      > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                      because he has
                      > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is
                      not the
                      > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic,
                      by the
                      > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                      what he
                      > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly
                      having
                      > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                      that
                      > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                      never have
                      > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur
                      own
                      > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
                      > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing;
                      it was
                      > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
                      > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense,
                      in
                      > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
                      > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose
                      faith
                      > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in
                      short,
                      > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
                      > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the
                      person
                      > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much
                      so that
                      > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                      realise if u
                      > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some
                      general
                      > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                      >
                      > james.
                    • james tan
                      wilbro, i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat simplistic. my understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                        wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        james.




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

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

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

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


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










                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                      • wilbro99
                        James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks. ... simplistic. my ... pieces, ... double ... rather ... case of ... applies ... of his ... universals ...
                        Message 11 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                          James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

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

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

                            Lewis

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

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


                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                            http://greetings.yahoo.com
                          • Christopher Bobo
                            I think James s analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is
                            Message 13 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                              I think James's analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is often side-stepped by followers of SK.

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


                              wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              james.


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Tommy Beavitt
                              ... Lewis, I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on this Sartre forum by being-in-itself . Being-in-itself is not capable of conscious
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                At 11:34 am -0800 12/2/02, Lewis Vella wrote:
                                >I think what we are both touching on here is that to
                                >conceptualize being and to place its thoughts and
                                >actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                >runs counteractive to the conscious self-reflection of
                                >being-in-itself, which in order to become more aware
                                >of a total consciousness unraveling within and without
                                >itself, must, at once, participate, while witnessing
                                >simultaneously, the existential 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                                >encapsulating our perceived world of phenomena. In a
                                >given moment, any letter may prevail, it's just a
                                >matter of perspective, which may also, in an imperfect
                                >world, become a dialectical issue, that is, a
                                >strategic course of empowerment.

                                Lewis,

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

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

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

                                Tommy
                              • zooink
                                ... Tommy, he can t do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same thought as Willy here
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                  > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                                  > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do
                                  > it in Sartrean terms.
                                  >
                                  > Tommy

                                  Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                  incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same
                                  thought as Willy here concerning Sartre. His scheme of consciousness
                                  can be placed rather neatly into Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere. This
                                  is not to say whose scheme is right but only to say that from another
                                  view Sartre's scheme is a limited one.
                                • Tommy Beavitt
                                  ... You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have phrased it, with reference to Sartrean terminology . I am certainly not
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                    At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                    >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                    >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.

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

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

                                    Thanks for pointing this out.
                                    Tommy
                                  • Lewis Vella
                                    ... and ... Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre s terminology I should have said being-for-itself . Anyway, the way my point referred to the becoming of
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                      >> Lewis Vella wrote:
                                      >> I think what we are both touching on here is that
                                      >> to conceptualize being and to place its thoughts
                                      and
                                      >> actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and
                                      >> 'C' runs counteractive to the conscious
                                      >> self-reflection of being-in-itself, . . .

                                      Tommy Beavit wrote:

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

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


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


                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                      http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                    • artsgina
                                      and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? gina ... From: zooink
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                        and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean
                                        perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? >>> gina

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



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

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



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

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

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


                                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                      • zooink
                                        ... I ... Tommy, he can not explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection because that statement is a posited
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                          --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                                          > At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                          > >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                          > >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.
                                          >
                                          > You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps
                                          I
                                          > should have phrased it, "with reference to Sartrean terminology". I
                                          > am certainly not in the position, as moderator of this list, of
                                          > refusing to allow any points of view to be expressed that are not
                                          > orthodox Sartrean existentialism!!!
                                          >
                                          > So, you are right. He should explain why Sartre was wrong in stating
                                          > that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection.
                                          >
                                          > Thanks for pointing this out.

                                          > Tommy

                                          Tommy, he can not "explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that
                                          being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection" because that
                                          statement is a posited premise. Sartre defines "being-in-itself" as
                                          lacking self-reflection in the same way a unicorn is defined as having
                                          one horn. If Lewis can prove me wrong in stating that unicorn's have
                                          one horn, he can fulfill your condition. The two, being-in-itself and
                                          being-for-itself, is Sartre's way of defining consciousness. Lewis
                                          could, however, point out any deficiencies in Sartre's scheme of
                                          consciousness he sees and/or he could posit a counter-definition.
                                        • miha zupan
                                          ... lewis, ti si en butast burek, ki nimas pojma o pojmu. Neki se igras z besedami, v glavi pa slama. jebi se, MIHA ...
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Feb 14, 2002
                                            --- Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >

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

                                            jebi se,

                                            MIHA


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


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