--- 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
> 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
> 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