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

what is an example of a sartrean?

Expand Messages
  • moonshinez17
    What would an ethical Sartrean Look like? How would such a person act in everyday activities and situations? How would a Sartrean act compared with a
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      What would an ethical Sartrean Look like? How would such a
      person act in everyday activities and situations? How would a
      Sartrean act compared with a Utilitarian, Marxist, and or Kantian
      response?
    • Tommy Beavitt
      ... These are good questions. However we will have to be careful here and refine what we mean by a Sartrean . I suspect that where you are coming from is an
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 18, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >What would an ethical Sartrean Look like? How would such a
        >person act in everyday activities and situations? How would a
        >Sartrean act compared with a Utilitarian, Marxist, and or Kantian
        >response?

        These are good questions. However we will have to be careful here and
        refine what we mean by a "Sartrean". I suspect that where you are
        coming from is an existentialist Sartrean, ie. one who takes his or
        her lead from the position articulated by the young Sartre in Being
        and Nothingness. Sartre retreated from that position and his later
        thinking was more inspired by Marxism than anything else.

        Let's take Sartre's existentialist position though and compare it
        with the other ethical systems you mention. Being and Nothingness
        does not clearly articulate an ethical position - indeed, it quite
        explicitly states that such a thing is impossible. However, the
        well-thought-through definitions of bad faith and authenticity do
        lend themselves to an ethical analysis, if only in the negative. Once
        we have accepted that to act "as if" one's being is one's essence,
        ie. a being in-itself, is to be in bad faith, inauthentic; then we
        cannot possibly base any ethical system on an essentialist position.

        That is the easy bit. Now we have to see if we can base a system of
        ethics on authentic behaviour. This is problematic. Other ethical
        systems, Utilitarianism in particular, ground themselves in the world
        of the They, the constructed social reality within which every
        individual finds him or herself. Utilitarianism assumes a definition
        of the person as one capable of feeling pleasure and pain. The
        greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the good for
        Bentham/Mill's utilitarianism, but it can be seen that they don't
        trouble themselves too much with the essentialist/existentialist
        question. I think that early Sartre would have to reject
        utilitarianism's definition of the person as an example of the
        essentialist fallacy, of bad faith. Existentialism would also have to
        reject utilitarianism's definition of happiness. If man is condemned
        to be free, to have to bear the angst and nausea of being contingent,
        then man's happiness quotient eludes us as a good which can be
        referred to. Existentialists would have to reject any kind of
        "happiness" based on an inauthentic view of the self.

        I think it is natural that Sartre attempted to resolve this question
        through a move towards Marxism. We can accept that social personality
        is constructed - and this acceptance keeps us in good faith - but
        this doesn't mean that the basic health of the society within which
        such a constructed personality is contextualised can't be the subject
        of an ethical system. Later Sartre identified the enemy of such a
        society to be the efforts of capitalists to subjugate the working
        class to their profit-maximisation interest and the social good,
        therefore, to be that which raised consciousness of the class
        struggle and provided a means by which the working class could resist
        capital's attempt to reduce them to a thing in-itself.

        However, I would critique this position as follows: by adopting a
        dogmatic Marxist position (and all interpretations of Marx tend
        towards dogmatism) one is reducing the working class to a thing
        in-itself, a social actor in the class struggle, just as
        inauthentically as capitalists do.

        I feel that the "back to Kant" rallying cry has the answer to the
        post-existentialist ethical quandary. Kant's deontological ethical
        system is consistent with existentialism. It states that a person
        should never be merely used but should be acted towards "in such a
        way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
        the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the
        same time as an end" ( Gr BA66 f. = 429). This is consistent with
        saying that to act as if a person was a thing in-itself is to be in
        bad faith.

        I argue that deontological existentialism places the "good" in the
        quality of communication between Self and Other (communicationalism),
        each becoming increasingly aware of the being-for-itself status of
        his or her protagonist. As deontological existentialists we have to
        applaud any action that recognises the freedom of the Other and the
        consequent ability for the Other to constitute him or herself as he
        or she sees fit. This is still a good, even when it leads to
        "unhappiness". It is better, as a Sartrean, to be authentically
        miserable than inauthentically "happy".

        Tommy Beavitt
        --
        Join us at Communicationalism, the attempt to find a basis for ethics
        in communication rather than survival
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/communicationalism/
      • sputnik_sweetheart
        Leon: Hi. I m interested with your last post. What do you mean by analytic tradition ?what s wrong with it? I, too, is planning to shift my course at the
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 23, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Leon:

          Hi. I'm interested with your last post. What do you mean by "analytic tradition"?what's wrong with it?

          I, too, is planning to shift my course at the gradute school to philosophy. Well, can you guys give some advice on how to handle tha rudiments of the discipline (I'm 22 years old). I want to concentrate on phenomenology especially the writings of Heidegger, Hussrl, and Sartre.

          Thanks. Have a nice day, guys!

          mwah,

          ogiebraga





          �Though it was at my heart�s bidding that I chose the universe wherein I delight, I have at least the power of finding in it the many meanings I wish to find."-Jean Genet, The Thief�s Journal



          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Leon McQuaid
          Well... first of all, never take anything I say as a golden rule. But, I go to a school that is kinda half analytic half Continental. Basically (very
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 25, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Well... first of all, never take anything I say as a golden rule. But, I go
            to a school that is kinda half analytic half Continental. Basically (very
            basically) there are two current schools of philosophy going around today:
            The two I just mentioned. The philosophers of the continental school...
            like the ones you mentioned you would like to study, tend to deal with more
            broad matters concerning far reaching philosophies and more or less try to
            lead to a method of interpreting the world. Most these methods give a lot
            of credence to subjective interpretation and give little respect to rigorous
            logical (at least compared to analytic schools) and scientific 'truths'. It
            seems that in analytic thought, the virtues of truth preservation and the
            laws of logical inference are capable of giving a cohesive world outlook.

            The best example I could think of is the question "what is truth"
            Answer: The analytic 1: That which makes a true statement.
            "What makes a true statement?"
            Analytic1: that which can make a verifiably true or false statement.

            Analytic 2: Truth is a word witch stands in to summate a particular belief
            in the world.

            "What is truth?"
            Continental 1: Truth is a cultural fabrication.
            Continental 2: Truth is Being

            I think the biggest complaint about continental Phil. is that it can be seen
            as lofty and unrealistic. The reply ofcourse would be something like "The
            analytic tratdition is steeped in scientic ideology".

            Anyone have anything to correct or add?


            >From: sputnik_sweetheart <ogiebraga@...>
            >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
            >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: [Sartre] Leon and others
            >Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
            >
            >Leon:
            >
            >Hi. I'm interested with your last post. What do you mean by "analytic
            >tradition"?what's wrong with it?
            >
            >I, too, is planning to shift my course at the gradute school to philosophy.
            >Well, can you guys give some advice on how to handle tha rudiments of the
            >discipline (I'm 22 years old). I want to concentrate on phenomenology
            >especially the writings of Heidegger, Hussrl, and Sartre.
            >
            >Thanks. Have a nice day, guys!
            >
            >mwah,
            >
            >ogiebraga
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >�Though it was at my heart�s bidding that I chose the universe wherein I
            >delight, I have at least the power of finding in it the many meanings I
            >wish to find."-Jean Genet, The Thief�s Journal
            >
            >
            >
            >---------------------------------
            >Do you Yahoo!?
            >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >

            _________________________________________________________________
            The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.