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

Fwd: Re: [Sartre] is bad faith bad

Expand Messages
  • ncandau82
    ... We have to be careful if we re associating the nihilistic position on rationality as you called it with Sartre s. Nietzsche rejected the idea of utility as
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Sartre@y..., <Josh@o...> wrote:

      We have to be careful if we're associating the nihilistic position
      on rationality as you called it with Sartre's. Nietzsche rejected
      the idea of utility as a basis for morality in essay one of The
      Geneaology of Morals. Nietzsche believed the point of life (as is
      illustrated in Zarathustra) was to continually challenge yourself to
      create values for yourself in a manner that declares it subjectivity
      as a virtue.

      Sartre was also seemingly not concerned with irrationality vs
      rationality as a means to achieving one's aims. While he abhorred
      quietism, and believed that one could only truly be judged by what
      one has accomplished in the world, everything is at base subjective
      as he states that " valuations in actuality are demands which lay
      claim to a foundation. But this foundation can in no way be being,
      for every value whihc would base ite ideal nature on its being would
      thereby cease even to be a value and would realize the heteronomy of
      my will. Value derives its being from its exigency and not its
      exigency from its being.....my freedom is the unique foundation of
      values and ....nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies me in adopting
      this or that particular value, this or that particular scale of
      values.....I am unjustifiable." (Being and Nothingness, p 76)

      I believe that Sartre believes the point of life is to live, and to
      choose. Nietzsche rejects the point of life as living around the
      same time as he rejects the happiness of the "last men" (Geneaology
      of Morals, Zarathustra)



      > As self-appointed liason with the Nihilist group,
      > I should, again, mention that Nietzsche (since
      > someone else brough him up this time) said
      > "'Should' is refuted with in order to."
      > The nihilist position on rationality seems to be
      > that it is favored because (ceteris paribus)
      > it is more effective toward irrationality in
      > acheiving (real) ends.
      > I consider it at least implicit in the existentialist
      > canon that the acheivment of real ends is "good"
      > at least as compared to the inability to acheive them,
      > or as compared to the acheivement of unreal ends.
      > Whether the ends acheived are "good" is not entirely
      > the same issue.
      > I suspect that this group and the nihilist group
      > may diverge on this last point.
      >
      > ---- Original message ----
      > >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:38:46 -0800
      > >From: "Christopher Bobo" <cbobo@m...>
      > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] is bad faith bad
      > >To: <Sartre@y...>
      > >
      > >This is an excellent point about bad faith in particular
      > and Sartrean existentialism in general because it also
      > entails the acceptance of another value, that is
      > rationality. Bad faith, or lying to oneself, is only bad if
      > we desire to be rational. If we are irrational, then bad
      > faith would not be objectionable. Indeed, in Anti-Semite
      > and Jew, Sartre suggests that what is wrong with bad faith
      > is that it is irrational. Of course, the other argument is
      > that Sartre does not mean for bad faith or rationality to
      > function as absolute values. They are just the values that
      > he has chosen. Everyone if free to choose for him or her
      > self, and they can chose to live in bad faith and be
      > irrational.
      > >
      > >Although I am no expert on post-modernism, it seems to me
      > to go too far to assert that all post-modernists hold that
      > no knowledge is possible, for not only do we seem to have a
      > lot of knowledge (physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology,
      > zoology, engineering, history, etc.), indeed more knowledge
      > than any one person could absorb in a life time, the claim
      > that we can have no knowledge is also illogical and self-
      > contradictory. If it's true, then it's a piece of knowledge
      > that we have, in which case the claim contradicts itself,
      > and it also runs afoul of the problem of induction. If it's
      > an empirical claim based on observation, then it can always
      > turn out to unfounded and falsified by the next assertion,
      > which may turn out to be true knowledge, in which case it is
      > an overbroad generalization.
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: ncandau82
      > > To: Sartre@y...
      > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:19 AM
      > > Subject: [Sartre] is bad faith bad
      > >
      > >
      > > I just wrote an interesting paper for a class discussing
      > the actual
      > > benefits and draw backs to Bad Faith. Sartre clearly
      > believed that
      > > Bad Faith was bad as he named it as such. However, in a
      > system where
      > > good and bad are expressly defined by the individual, how
      > can he
      > > make this call? What criteria is he using to judge what
      > is good and
      > > bad?
      > >
      > > Do you guys think Bad Faith is bad?
      > >
      > > Consider: Nietzsche, Foucault & Modern Postmodernists
      > have asserted
      > > that we can have no knowledge due to the limitations of
      > language and
      > > of our senses. Sartre agreed to some extent as he is
      > quoted as
      > > saying "My words steal my thoughts from me". Once
      > accepted that we
      > > can have no knowlege, all we are left with is beliefs,
      > and according
      > > to one of Sartre's interpretations of Patterns of Bad
      > Faith, all
      > > beliefs are examples of Bad Faith (Being and Nothingness,
      > pp. 105-
      > > 113)
      > >
      > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
      > --------~-->
      > >4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
      > >http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/jd3IAA/ACsqlB/TM
      > >------------------------------------------------------------
      > ---------~->
      > >
      > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@y...
      > >
      > >
      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.