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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Feb 8, 2002
      --- james tan <tyjfk@...> wrote:
      >
      > i don't think k. was saying that these three modes
      > of being are overlapping
      > and can coexist at the same time, as chris seemed to
      > be suggesting. they may
      > not be stages of development in erickson's sense of
      > development, but each is
      > a mode that is mutually exclusive from one another.
      > if one is in the
      > aesthetic stage, then he is not at the ethical or
      > relgious stage, and that
      > goes the same for the rest of the combination of
      > these three modes of being.
      > roughly i understand the aesthetic stage as when a
      > person is open to
      > experience and seek many forms of pleasure and
      > excitement, but they do not
      > recognise their ability to choose. the ethical stage
      > is one who accept
      > responsibility of making choices but use as their
      > guide ethical principles
      > established by other people - eg, the church or
      > islamic dogmas. i vaguely
      > suspect k. did consider the ethical stage as
      > superior to the aesthetic
      > stage; i.e. there is a development. but people at
      > the ethical stage is still
      > not recognising and acting on their full personal
      > freedom (what sartre would
      > term as bad faith). in the religious stage where k.
      > thought the highest
      > level of existence, according to k. who was a
      > christian's christian, people
      > recognise and accept their freedom and enter into a
      > personal relationship
      > with god. it differs from the ethical stage in that
      > the nature of the
      > relationship is not determined by convention or
      > generally accepted moral
      > laws, but by the nature of god and self awareness.
      > people here see
      > possibilities in life that often run contrary to
      > what is generally accepted.
      > while for sartre, what is good is totally
      > determined in one's freedom with
      > no guide whatsoever except his own freedom, for k.,
      > the good is defined in
      > his highest stage, namely the religious stage, one
      > which insisted on one's
      > subjectivity and a life lived as christ's was lived:
      > in love.

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

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
      http://greetings.yahoo.com
    • james tan
      lewis, oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at best superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them apart, i
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
        lewis,

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

        james.


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

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

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

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








        _________________________________________________________________
        MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
        http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
      • artsgina
        but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your death bed ? ... From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, 11 February
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
          but isnt the point to try to get there before it is too late and its your
          death bed ?

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



          lewis,

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

          james.


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

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

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

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








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



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

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

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


          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • wilbro99
          James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of the ethical sphere. You stated: for a person in the ethical stage, he do good because he
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 11, 2002
            James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
            the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage, he
            do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
            he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
            to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"

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

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


            --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
            >
            > lewis,
            >
            > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and at
            best
            > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set them
            apart, i
            > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
            person in
            > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules of
            his
            > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
            'it's the
            > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is not
            > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted is
            set by
            > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
            'authority' say
            > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
            religious
            > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
            stage, the
            > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much so)
            is duty
            > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
            ideal
            > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is his
            > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad faith?
            is he
            > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
            quench his
            > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
            convention? but
            > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche). for
            the
            > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
            imposed or
            > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
            because he has
            > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that is
            not the
            > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by logic,
            by the
            > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
            what he
            > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is constantly
            having
            > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
            that
            > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
            never have
            > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill ur
            own
            > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham was
            > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right' thing;
            it was
            > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject for
            > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common sense,
            in
            > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was totally
            > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he chose
            faith
            > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to. in
            short,
            > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering the
            > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of the
            person
            > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so much
            so that
            > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
            realise if u
            > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of some
            general
            > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
            >
            > james.
          • james tan
            wilbro, i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat simplistic. my understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
              wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              james.




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

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

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

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


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










              _________________________________________________________________
              Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
            • wilbro99
              James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks. ... simplistic. my ... pieces, ... double ... rather ... case of ... applies ... of his ... universals ...
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                James, I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

                --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                >
                > wilbro,
                >
                > i think my characterisation of the ethical stage was somewhat
                simplistic. my
                > understanding my also be incorrect (i read kierkeggard only bit and
                pieces,
                > those part which seems interesting). is overlap what u mean by
                double
                > movement? but it seems to me ur quotation depict the ethical stage
                rather
                > perfectly, though i put it in much simpler language. i see it as a
                case of
                > the particular vs the universal. if i may paraphrase the quotation:
                >
                > "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it
                applies
                > to everyone, ..." unquote.
                >
                > so it is one which the individual think in terms of what is good for
                > everybody, not just himself. he is someone who will not only think
                of his
                > self interest, but those of others as well. he thinks in terms of
                universals
                > rather than what please or displeases himself (the aesthetic man).
                >
                > "the particular individual is the individual who has his
                > telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                > constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become
                the
                > universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                > particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                > recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal."
                > unquote.
                >
                > as we can see, the ethical man is pretty obsessed with being right,
                socially
                > and universally considered. he reminds me of kant's categorical
                imperative:
                > act always in ways that one could wish the (ethical) principle of
                one's
                > action could become a universal law. and a corollary to it: always
                treat
                > others as an end in itself, never a means. all which highligh one
                principle:
                > one would not only think of oneself when deciding how to act. say,
                if i see
                > something i like very much in a shop, it is way too expensive for me
                to buy
                > it, and i know the security system of the shop well enough for me to
                steal
                > it without being caught. the ethical man will not do it because it
                is
                > 'universally wrong' to steal, and it does not matter if he is clever
                enough
                > to beat the security. the aesthetic man's perspective will be
                different: he
                > will steal it if he can do it without being caught. the ethical man
                will not
                > flirt & sleep around when he is married, knowing that this is not in
                the
                > best interest of the marriage. the aesthetic man (at least the lower
                end of
                > the aesthetic man) will not care except his own interest (or
                pleasure), but
                > then he is the type who will normally not get married in the first
                place,
                > preferring a life where he could seduce a girl after another for his
                own
                > sexual gratification. the ethical man will stick on to his wife even
                after
                > she has gone yellowish pale with old age, not necessarily because he
                still
                > love her (though it could be), but his sense of ethical principle
                'requires'
                > that he should be so - that is the way a good, honourable, socially
                > respectable man should be - he will think to himself. u see, as ur
                quotation
                > suggest, the ethical man is a man of the universals. unlike the man
                in the
                > aesthetic or religious stage, he does not allow his particularity to
                come
                > in, lest he 'sins'. he is the mr nice man, always thinking for his
                family or
                > the community, or what is best for all, when he decides to act in
                any way.
                >
                > is there a double movement? i am not sure. but i tend to agree that
                it can
                > be difficult to distinguish a ethical from a religious man in the
                context of
                > normal, everyday living where no special crisis present themselves.
                a lot of
                > their life's contents will overlaps, i am sure. sometimes it takes a
                very
                > stressful situation and how they respond to it that u could tell.
                but these
                > overlaps are what i'll call by 'choices of the moment', vs k's
                stages, which
                > is 'fundamental choices that affect the entire way of life for the
                whole
                > life'. i still dont quite get ur double movement.... i admit that
                one can
                > move from one sphere to another (say from the aesthetic to the
                ethical), and
                > it is also possible to move from a lower to a higher form within the
                same
                > sphere (say from one sexual conquest after another, to perfecting
                one's
                > skill as a swimmer). let consider abraham again. when god gave
                abraham a son
                > (at a extremely old age), god expects him to love issac, and we can
                take it
                > that abraham's parental love is as much a religious as a ethical
                > requirement. double movement? and abraham's love of god involves the
                moral
                > expectation that god will keep his promise that through issac
                abraham will
                > become father of a entire race. in that sense we see a double
                involvement of
                > the religious and the moral.
                >
                > but what ultimately set the religious stage different from the
                ethical stage
                > is the religious man's putting god above everything else, including
                one own
                > son, one's common sense, one's ethical principles, one's parents
                (like
                > 14:26), one's earthly love affair (k gave up regine for god, or so
                he
                > believed), one's ............ god is number 1 in all things. why
                then should
                > man put god above all things? because of existential need that
                refuse to be
                > quenched unless one's relationship is set right with one's maker.
                from the
                > perspective of the religious stage, anyone who has not have a
                relationship
                > with god is, in a sense, still in despair, because he has not
                recognised the
                > eternal part of himself. but of course, k was a christian thinker.
                for
                > sartre, man's situation is totally absurd: one sphere would just be
                as good
                > or absurd as another sphere, since there is no ULTIMATE guide. one
                just
                > simply....choose. choose, period. and shut up.
                >
                > james.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > From: "wilbro99" <wilbro99@y...>
                > Reply-To: Sartre@y...
                > To: Sartre@y...
                > Subject: [Sartre] Re: The Kierkegaard to Heidegger to Sartre
                connection
                > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 20:29:49 -0000
                >
                > James, a question comes to mind when I read your characterization of
                > the ethical sphere. You stated: "for a person in the ethical stage,
                he
                > do good because he is taught so, the rules of his granny or nursery,
                > he don't qn them, he just follow because that 'it's the right things
                > to do', all his life…he does good because he has to"
                >
                > Since you have mentioned Fear & Trembling in the account of Abraham
                > and Isaac, how do you square your characterization of the ethical
                with
                > the ethical delineated in the following quote? It sure seems to me
                > like there is a movement involved. When Kierkegaard speaks to a
                > double-movement, as he does in this book, isn't the move to the
                > ethical the first half of that double-movement?
                >
                > "The ethical as such is the universal and as the universal it
                applies
                > to everyone, which may be expressed from another point of view by
                > saying that it applies every instant. It reposes immanently in
                itself,
                > it has nothing without itself which is its telos, but is itself
                telos
                > for everything outside it, and when this is incorporated by the
                > ethical, it can go no further. Conceived immediately as physical and
                > psychical, the particular individual is the individual who has his
                > telos in the universal, and his ethical task is to express himself
                > constantly in it, to abolish his particularity in order to become
                the
                > universal. As soon as the individual would assert himself in his
                > particularity over against the universal he sins, and only by
                > recognizing this can he again reconcile himself with the universal.
                > Whenever the individual after he has entered the universal feels an
                > impulse to assert himself as the particular, he is in temptation,
                and
                > he can labor himself out if this only by penitently abandoning
                himself
                > as the particular in the universal. if this be the highest thing
                that
                > can be said of man and of his existence, then the ethical has the
                same
                > character as man's eternal blessedness, which to all eternity and at
                > every instant is his /telos/, since it would be a contradiction to
                say
                > that this might be abandoned (i.e., teleologically suspended),
                > inasmuch as this is no sooner suspended than it is forfeited,
                whereas
                > in other cases what is suspended is not forfeited but is preserved
                in
                > that higher thing which is its /telos/." (F&T, Lowrie, pp. 64-5)
                >
                >
                > --- In Sartre@y..., "james tan" <tyjfk@h...> wrote:
                > >
                > > lewis,
                > >
                > > oh yes, there are overlaps; but such overlaps are not the pt, and
                at
                > best
                > > superficial. the main pt is: attitude. it is attitude that set
                them
                > apart, i
                > > mean the ethical and religious stage of kierkegaard. u see, for a
                > person in
                > > the ethical stage, he do good because he is taught so, the rules
                of
                > his
                > > granny or nursery, he don't qn them, he just follow because that
                > 'it's the
                > > right things to do', all his life. of course, what is 'good' is
                not
                > > metaphysically given (nietzsche), what is conventionally accepted
                is
                > set by
                > > the Other, and it is this attitude of taking in whatever the
                > 'authority' say
                > > is good as one's own that set him apart from a person at the
                > religious
                > > stage, in spite of the little impressive overlaps. in the ethical
                > stage, the
                > > person, who are normally rational and logically minded (too much
                so)
                > is duty
                > > bound; he does good because he has to. while he may appeal as the
                > ideal
                > > person, as in doing good, what kierkegaard find questionable is
                his
                > > motivation: is that person in the psychological state of bad
                faith?
                > is he
                > > exscaping his freedom in conventions? does he has a self? does he
                > quench his
                > > existential anxiety though taking refuge in the comfort of
                > convention? but
                > > life is much more than that!! (in this he resembles nietzsche).
                for
                > the
                > > existential man in the religious stage, the things he does is not
                > imposed or
                > > given; it is self chosen. he does it because he wants to, not
                > because he has
                > > to. of course there will be overlaps, but really my friend, that
                is
                > not the
                > > pt. for a religious stage, he is not necessarily bounded by
                logic,
                > by the
                > > rational, by the moral rules of the day; he is only answerable to
                > what he
                > > has chosen made in anguish. he is a man who realise he is
                constantly
                > having
                > > to choose, every moment. consider abraham (the same illustration
                > that
                > > kierkegaard used): if he was a man in the ethical stage, he would
                > never have
                > > wanted to murder his son issac at all; it is not logical to kill
                ur
                > own
                > > innocent son, not ethical, not legal, not sensible. but abraham
                was
                > > accounted righteous not because he has done all the 'right'
                thing;
                > it was
                > > for his faith. god commanded, and it was open to him to reject
                for
                > > 'conventional morality'. he chose to obey, IN SPITE OF common
                sense,
                > in
                > > spite of logic, in spite of the common ethical rules. it was
                totally
                > > irrational, and in doing so, he defined himself as abraham. he
                chose
                > faith
                > > over logic and common ethics. he didnt have to, but he wanted to.
                in
                > short,
                > > he really chose with all its accompanying anxiety (considering
                the
                > > consequences). there is a fundamental difference in attitude of
                the
                > person
                > > in both the stages. such differences can be subtle, in fact so
                much
                > so that
                > > u may not recognise until u are in ur deathbed: then, u would
                > realise if u
                > > have been living ur own life concretely, or only abstractly of
                some
                > general
                > > principles. it may be a bit too late by then.
                > >
                > > james.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > _________________________________________________________________
                > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
                http://messenger.msn.com
              • Lewis Vella
                Much has been said here about the aesthete, the ethical and the religious. I have already stated my views on this and I repeat them once more, below, for those
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                  Much has been said here about the aesthete, the
                  ethical and the religious. I have already stated my
                  views on this and I repeat them once more, below, for
                  those who may have missed the post. What I say there
                  may be in agreement with Melinda's (dnewdeath@aol...)
                  post today at sartre@yahoogr...

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

                  Lewis

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

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


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
                  http://greetings.yahoo.com
                • Christopher Bobo
                  I think James s analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 12, 2002
                    I think James's analysis is, as usual, dead on and very clinical. He has also suggested the content of the religious orientation or consciousness, which is often side-stepped by followers of SK.

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


                    wilbro,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    james.


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Tommy Beavitt
                    ... Lewis, I think you are misinterpreting what is meant on this Sartre forum by being-in-itself . Being-in-itself is not capable of conscious
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                      At 11:34 am -0800 12/2/02, Lewis Vella wrote:
                      >I think what we are both touching on here is that to
                      >conceptualize being and to place its thoughts and
                      >actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                      >runs counteractive to the conscious self-reflection of
                      >being-in-itself, which in order to become more aware
                      >of a total consciousness unraveling within and without
                      >itself, must, at once, participate, while witnessing
                      >simultaneously, the existential 'A', 'B', and 'C'
                      >encapsulating our perceived world of phenomena. In a
                      >given moment, any letter may prevail, it's just a
                      >matter of perspective, which may also, in an imperfect
                      >world, become a dialectical issue, that is, a
                      >strategic course of empowerment.

                      Lewis,

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

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

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

                      Tommy
                    • zooink
                      ... Tommy, he can t do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same thought as Willy here
                      Message 10 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                        > By all means justify your claim that being-in-itself has the
                        > capability of self-reflective consciousness. But please try and do
                        > it in Sartrean terms.
                        >
                        > Tommy

                        Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                        incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms. I am of the same
                        thought as Willy here concerning Sartre. His scheme of consciousness
                        can be placed rather neatly into Kierkegaard's aesthetic sphere. This
                        is not to say whose scheme is right but only to say that from another
                        view Sartre's scheme is a limited one.
                      • Tommy Beavitt
                        ... You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I should have phrased it, with reference to Sartrean terminology . I am certainly not
                        Message 11 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                          At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                          >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                          >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.

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

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

                          Thanks for pointing this out.
                          Tommy
                        • Lewis Vella
                          ... and ... Yes, my mistake. In sticking with Sartre s terminology I should have said being-for-itself . Anyway, the way my point referred to the becoming of
                          Message 12 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                            >> Lewis Vella wrote:
                            >> I think what we are both touching on here is that
                            >> to conceptualize being and to place its thoughts
                            and
                            >> actions into categories, such as K's 'A', 'B', and
                            >> 'C' runs counteractive to the conscious
                            >> self-reflection of being-in-itself, . . .

                            Tommy Beavit wrote:

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

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


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


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

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



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

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



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

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

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


                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            • zooink
                              ... I ... Tommy, he can not explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection because that statement is a posited
                              Message 14 of 26 , Feb 13, 2002
                                --- In Sartre@y..., Tommy Beavitt <tommy@s...> wrote:
                                > At 4:47 pm +0000 13/2/02, zooink wrote:
                                > >Tommy, he can't do it in Sartrean terms because being-in-itself is
                                > >incapable of self-reflection in Sartrean terms.
                                >
                                > You are right, and this was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps
                                I
                                > should have phrased it, "with reference to Sartrean terminology". I
                                > am certainly not in the position, as moderator of this list, of
                                > refusing to allow any points of view to be expressed that are not
                                > orthodox Sartrean existentialism!!!
                                >
                                > So, you are right. He should explain why Sartre was wrong in stating
                                > that being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection.
                                >
                                > Thanks for pointing this out.

                                > Tommy

                                Tommy, he can not "explain why Sartre was wrong in stating that
                                being-in-itself is incapable of self-reflection" because that
                                statement is a posited premise. Sartre defines "being-in-itself" as
                                lacking self-reflection in the same way a unicorn is defined as having
                                one horn. If Lewis can prove me wrong in stating that unicorn's have
                                one horn, he can fulfill your condition. The two, being-in-itself and
                                being-for-itself, is Sartre's way of defining consciousness. Lewis
                                could, however, point out any deficiencies in Sartre's scheme of
                                consciousness he sees and/or he could posit a counter-definition.
                              • miha zupan
                                ... lewis, ti si en butast burek, ki nimas pojma o pojmu. Neki se igras z besedami, v glavi pa slama. jebi se, MIHA ...
                                Message 15 of 26 , Feb 14, 2002
                                  --- Lewis Vella <lewisvella@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >

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

                                  jebi se,

                                  MIHA


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


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