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

Re: being-in-itself-for-itself

Expand Messages
  • wilbro99
    ... if not, a ... with a ... final ... refuse to ... gina, if I had my druthers, I would druther you visit the following site and ask your questions there. The
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 25 12:55 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Sartre@y..., "artsgina" <artsgina@o...> wrote:
      > oh i like that wil ....
      > you said >>> those who have not "transformed" their for-itself and
      > discovered, through that transformation, that their emptiness and
      > desire to fill that emptiness is the result of a misrelation in the
      > for-itself itself; i. <<<
      > how is it a 'misrelation' ? can you give me a practical example ?
      if not, a
      > explanation of the explanation ? (i can get a handle on it quicker
      with a
      > practical example) <<<<
      > you also said >>> would be saying that the lack Sartre sees
      > as being built into the for-itself is really the upshot of an error
      > in self-reflection that one may discover, and correct, for oneself.
      > This discovery, or insight into oneself, is what I also found
      > Kierkegaard speaking to, where he characterized the emptiness and
      > the desire to fill that emptiness as belonging to the aesthetic
      > sphere of existence <<<<
      > what would the 'aesthetic sphere of existence' be ?
      > i have more questions ... step at a time ? THanks >>> Gina
      > ps ... planting tomatoes <<< great .... i have just got through the
      > harvest on mine .... winter is knocking on my door here <<< BUT i
      refuse to
      > let her in <<< (till later)

      gina, if I had my druthers, I would druther you visit the following
      site and ask your questions there. The format is not only friendlier
      to discourse, but the site is dedicated to Kierkegaard, while this one
      is dedicated to Sartre. Another reason would be that the answers to
      your questions are not only there, but the answers have also been
      chewed over, from both sides of the question. It really is the base
      question we are always getting at; namely, how to interpret K's
      spheres of existence and why the two incommensurate ways of
      interpretation. What makes that interesting is that K himself speaks
      to there being two incommensurate ways of understanding what he is

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.