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

Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre connection

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

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

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

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

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

      "If it were to be pointed out clearly in E/O where the discrepancy
      lies, the book would have needed to have a religious instead of an
      ethical orientation…it is in this moment of decision that the
      individual needs divine assistance, although it is quite correct that
      one must first have understood the existence-relation between the
      esthetic and the ethical to be at this point-that is, by being there
      in passion and inwardness, one indeed becomes aware of the
      religious-and of the leap. Furthermore, the definition of truth as
      inwardness, that it is upbuilding, must be explicitly understood
      before it is even religious, to say nothing of being Christianly
      religious." (Ibid., Hong, pp. 257-58; Lowrie, p. 230)
    • Christopher Bobo
      ... (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres: esthetic and ethic. Isn t it so that in other works, the religious sphere is totally
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Marc wrote:
        >>BTW, the only book by K. I have read --I confess-- is /Either Or/
        (Enten-eller) and in it, it was indeed only question of two spheres:
        esthetic and ethic. Isn't it so that in other works, the religious
        sphere is totally distinct, at a leap distance?<<

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • james tan
        i don t think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may not be
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          i don't think k. was saying that these three modes of being are overlapping
          and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to be suggesting. they may
          not be stages of development in erickson's sense of development, but each is
          a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another. if one is in the
          aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or relgious stage, and that
          goes the same for the rest of the combination of these three modes of being.
          roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a person is open to
          experience and seek many forms of pleasure and excitement, but they do not
          recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage is one who accept
          responsibility of making choices but use as their guide ethical principles
          established by other people - eg, the church or islamic dogmas. i vaguely
          suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as superior to the aesthetic
          stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at the ethical stage is still
          not recognising and acting on their full personal freedom (what sartre would
          term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k. thought the highest
          level of existence, according to k. who was a christian's christian, people
          recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a personal relationship
          with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that the nature of the
          relationship is not determined by convention or generally accepted moral
          laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness. people here see
          possibilities in life that often run contrary to what is generally accepted.
          while for sartre, what is good is totally determined in one's freedom with
          no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k., the good is defined in
          his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one which insisted on one's
          subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived: in love. for k., the
          aesthetic and ethical stages are indeed inferior mode of beings compared
          with the religious stages, but for sartre, such supposition is unwarranted
          since there is no ultimate guide as to suggest which is better or best, and
          one stage is just as good as the other, so long as the person recognises he
          chooses it and is responsible for it. a hedonist with the philosophy of a
          pig is not necessarily worse off than a saint with christ's love and
          passion, for sartre. of course, k. might beg to differ. what these two
          philosophers have in common was their deep appreciation of anxiety when
          making choice, the kind of fundamental choice that will affect one's entire
          life and guide on other 'lesser' choices.

          but of course i may have misunderstood these two individuals.

          james.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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









          _________________________________________________________________
          Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
        • wilbro99
          This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring to? I, like James,
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 5, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            This is what I think makes Kierkegaard so interesting. Are the spheres
            separate or not, and if they are or are not, what are they referring
            to? I, like James, see them separate. I will differ somewhat from his
            definition of the content of the spheres, but that could be a problem
            of language. Absolutely fascinating, what? I think we can separate the
            views we hold into those who see the spheres as mutually exclusive and
            those who do not. I would say that if they are mutually exclusive then
            some sort of transition is necessary to get from one to the other and
            that a reflection upon such a transition must not only reveal a
            discontinuity, but also a paradox for the one doing the reflection.
            ----Will Brown
          • Lewis Vella
            ... Yes, but does not this religious life preclude some type of human interpretation of Christ s love , followed by a commitment to whatever the person s
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 8, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
              >
              > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
              > of being are overlapping
              > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
              > be suggesting. they may
              > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
              > development, but each is
              > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
              > if one is in the
              > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
              > relgious stage, and that
              > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
              > these three modes of being.
              > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
              > person is open to
              > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
              > excitement, but they do not
              > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
              > is one who accept
              > responsibility of making choices but use as their
              > guide ethical principles
              > established by other people - eg, the church or
              > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
              > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
              > superior to the aesthetic
              > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
              > the ethical stage is still
              > not recognising and acting on their full personal
              > freedom (what sartre would
              > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
              > thought the highest
              > level of existence, according to k. who was a
              > christian's christian, people
              > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
              > personal relationship
              > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
              > the nature of the
              > relationship is not determined by convention or
              > generally accepted moral
              > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
              > people here see
              > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
              > what is generally accepted.
              > while for sartre, what is good is totally
              > determined in one's freedom with
              > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
              > the good is defined in
              > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
              > which insisted on one's
              > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
              > in love.

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

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
              http://greetings.yahoo.com
            • james tan
              lewis, oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                lewis,

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

                james.


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

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

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

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








                _________________________________________________________________
                MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
                http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
              • artsgina
                but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your death bed ? ... From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 11 February
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your
                  death bed ?

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



                  lewis,

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

                  james.


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

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

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

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








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



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

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

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


                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • wilbro99
                  James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of the ethical sphere. You stated: for a person in the ethical stage, he do good because he
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                    the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage, he
                    do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                    he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                    to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"

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

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


                    --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                    >
                    > lewis,
                    >
                    > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at
                    best
                    > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them
                    apart, i
                    > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                    person in
                    > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of
                    his
                    > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                    'it's the
                    > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
                    > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is
                    set by
                    > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                    'authority' say
                    > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                    religious
                    > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                    stage, the
                    > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so)
                    is duty
                    > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                    ideal
                    > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
                    > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith?
                    is he
                    > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                    quench his
                    > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                    convention? but
                    > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for
                    the
                    > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                    imposed or
                    > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                    because he has
                    > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is
                    not the
                    > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic,
                    by the
                    > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                    what he
                    > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly
                    having
                    > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                    that
                    > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                    never have
                    > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur
                    own
                    > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
                    > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing;
                    it was
                    > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
                    > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense,
                    in
                    > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
                    > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose
                    faith
                    > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in
                    short,
                    > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
                    > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the
                    person
                    > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much
                    so that
                    > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                    realise if u
                    > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some
                    general
                    > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                    >
                    > james.
                  • james tan
                    wilbro, i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat simplistic. my understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      james.




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

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

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

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


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










                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                    • wilbro99
                      James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks. ... simplistic. my ... pieces, ... double ... rather ... case of ... applies ... of his ... universals ...
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

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

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

                          Lewis

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

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


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

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


                            wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            james.


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

                              Lewis,

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

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

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

                              Tommy
                            • zooink
                              ... Tommy, he can t do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same thought as Willy here
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                                > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do
                                > it in Sartrean terms.
                                >
                                > Tommy

                                Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same
                                thought as Willy here concerning Sartre. His scheme of consciousness
                                can be placed rather neatly into Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere. This
                                is not to say whose scheme is right but only to say that from another
                                view Sartre's scheme is a limited one.
                              • Tommy Beavitt
                                ... You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have phrased it, with reference to Sartrean terminology . I am certainly not
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                  >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                  >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.

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

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

                                  Thanks for pointing this out.
                                  Tommy
                                • Lewis Vella
                                  ... and ... Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre s terminology I should have said being-for-itself . Anyway, the way my point referred to the becoming of
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >> Lewis Vella wrote:
                                    >> I think what we are both touching on here is that
                                    >> to conceptualize being and to place its thoughts
                                    and
                                    >> actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and
                                    >> 'C' runs counteractive to the conscious
                                    >> self-reflection of being-in-itself, . . .

                                    Tommy Beavit wrote:

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

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


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


                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                                    http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                  • artsgina
                                    and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? gina ... From: zooink
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      and isnt the point of philosophical discussion (from even a satrean
                                      perspective) to think beyond that that is already thought? >>> gina

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



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

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



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

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

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


                                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    • zooink
                                      ... I ... Tommy, he can not explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection because that statement is a posited
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                                        > At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                        > >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                        > >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.
                                        >
                                        > You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps
                                        I
                                        > should have phrased it, "with reference to Sartrean terminology". I
                                        > am certainly not in the position, as moderator of this list, of
                                        > refusing to allow any points of view to be expressed that are not
                                        > orthodox Sartrean existentialism!!!
                                        >
                                        > So, you are right. He should explain why Sartre was wrong in stating
                                        > that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection.
                                        >
                                        > Thanks for pointing this out.

                                        > Tommy

                                        Tommy, he can not "explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that
                                        being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection" because that
                                        statement is a posited premise. Sartre defines "being-in-itself" as
                                        lacking self-reflection in the same way a unicorn is defined as having
                                        one horn. If Lewis can prove me wrong in stating that unicorn's have
                                        one horn, he can fulfill your condition. The two, being-in-itself and
                                        being-for-itself, is Sartre's way of defining consciousness. Lewis
                                        could, however, point out any deficiencies in Sartre's scheme of
                                        consciousness he sees and/or he could posit a counter-definition.
                                      • miha zupan
                                        ... lewis, ti si en butast burek, ki nimas pojma o pojmu. Neki se igras z besedami, v glavi pa slama. jebi se, MIHA ...
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Feb 14, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >

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

                                          jebi se,

                                          MIHA


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


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