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

Re: [Sartre] Re:

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Beavitt
    Where do you come from, Nikhilesh? I m thinking of moving there! Where I come from it tends to be the men who display the monogamous tendency while women are
    Message 1 of 28 , Oct 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Where do you come from, Nikhilesh? I'm thinking of moving there!
      Where I come from it tends to be the men who display the monogamous
      tendency while women are polyamorous. I don't think this can be
      explained biologically at all: if it is determined then it is society
      that is the determining factor.

      regards

      Tommy

      At 7:44 am -0700 13/10/03, nikhilesh wrote:
      >As enjoyable as sex is, I was talking about the
      >biological imperative. And among men. Coz the human
      >male is biologically polygamous and not the female.
      >The female would be happy to have one mate and spend
      >the rest of her life with one bloke and being mammals,
      >take care of the children. But I guess family is but a
      >unit of society and a group of isolated families
      >cannot constitute a society. All this, of course, is a
      >trifle irrelevant to the discussion.


      --
      Join us at Communicationalism, the attempt to find a basis for ethics
      in communication rather than survival
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/communicationalism/
    • Stephen Cowley
      ... Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:13 AM Subject: [Sartre] response to Stephen, Re: Sartre s social theory/group action (10/12/03) K: Stephen- Thanks for
      Message 2 of 28 , Oct 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:13 AM
        Subject: [Sartre] response to Stephen, Re: Sartre's social theory/group
        action (10/12/03)



        K:
        "Stephen-

        Thanks for your reply. I've got a few things to say in response to what you
        brought up.

        [...] My concern is more with Sartre's adaptation of Marx's theories of
        society and man's alienation from one
        another, and how he modified Marx's approach through the existentialist
        perspective. "

        Reply:
        Certainly alienation would be an important theme common to Marx and the
        existentialists. I suspect the common source may be Hegel, whose concept of
        "recognition" (Phenomenology, Ch 4) was studied by both writers. Yet
        Hegel's idea of two self-consciousnesses necessarily at war with each other
        is at least counter-intuitive. The primary experience - e.g. of an infant
        in a family - is of dependence and care. Hostility is a secondary
        phenomenon that can only occur - e.g. in the public sphere - against the
        background of care for each other's mundane well-being.

        K:
        "One example of this adaptation would be Sartre's emphasis on the social
        phenomenon of Scarcity, the individual's conscious experience of the lack of
        resources. This concept deals with Marxist issues of "modes of production"
        and resource availability, but it approaches them from the existentialist
        starting point, by addressing how a lack of resources affects the
        individual's interaction in social situations. "

        Reply:
        This sounds interesting. However, there is a question whether
        existentialism, based on the Hegelian analysis of self-consciousness
        referred to above, has the resources to conceive the variety of personal and
        social responses that are available in the imaginable range of social
        situations where scarcity occurs.

        K:
        "This immediate realization in each individual of the reality of scarce
        resources qualitatively affects the individual's relationship to his fellow
        man/woman by pitting us against each other in competition over these scarce
        resources. He argues that there is an implicit and immediate realization in
        all of us that not everyone can have all they would desire. Such a
        situation characterized by competition, in which the Other is viewed as
        possessing needs contradictory and threatening to my own, is characterized
        by Sartre as a "series".

        Reply:
        The idea of immediacy here sounds questionable. Competition may be
        "immediate" in the sense that I come across it effortlessly by engaging with
        the world. However, there are also senses in which it is "mediated" - e.g.
        that it depends on my will. If I were a Frensiscan frior minor, who did not
        want to own property, I would not compete for it. Similarly, the degree to
        which I compete will depend on what I need to fulfill my intentions, how
        competitive others are, etc. So the situation of competition is mediated by
        the social character of our acts of will.

        K:
        "It's only though the formation of a fused
        group, a collection and coordination of various people unified by similar
        ends/common goals, that we are able to overcome the phenomenon of scarcity.
        These are examples of an existentialist approach to traditional Marxist
        problematics, which are traditionally addressed by a largely objective
        analysis of economic conditions and historic modes of production.

        Reply:
        I'm not sure what is included in the idea of a "fused group.

        K:
        "[...] Nonetheless, communism and the preceding socialist state are
        theories which remain abstact and idealistic so long as we have no
        defensible revolutionary theory of action with which to set these ideas or
        other idealistic models of social change in motion. (this was essentially,
        in my understanding, what Sartre felt too, that "Capital", Marx's principle
        work of his later years, is basically well defended and correct, which is
        why he never devoted much time refuting it). The question of what world
        would be best hinges on one's conception of our current world's flaws, and
        it's these criticisms which stand to benefit from a re-working of
        existentialist social theory to suit our current social situation. "

        Reply:
        Marxism seemed to end by conceiving "revolution" as a state in which moral
        obligations were suspended - e.g. by Marx in his reluctant after-the-fact
        justifications of the revolutionary executions in the 1870 Commune, in terms
        of the provocations of the authorities, importance of what was at stake. We
        surely need to conceive of social change as a process in which moral
        obligations are not suspended. I suspect Sartre was badly wrong in
        considering Capital Vol 1 sound - even Marx gegan to rethink the 1st chapter
        late in his life.


        K:
        "I'm still considering your second reply, as to the question of group
        action. This is very tricky, and I wrote out a long response to what you
        said, re-read it, and realized it didn't answer the question at all. How
        and what makes people come together and cooperate as a group? Can we
        imagine a community not unified against something negative, be it an
        oppressive "Other" which limits their possibilities (i.e. a racist or
        fascist social structure, or an oligarchic economy bent solely on securing
        the interest of a few at the expense of the many) or be it perhaps only the
        perceived threat of starvation, lonely isolation, or illness which they seek
        to avoid by organizing together? Can we imagine a group organized without
        an end in mind such as the overcoming of these kinds of obstacles I just
        mentioned?"

        Reply:
        I would argue that we can at least imagine such a society. To go back to
        philosophy for example, Protagoras argued that the cause of cities was
        mankind's fear of wild animals (lions presumably). Aristotle argued against
        this that the polis evolved because only in society could man achieve his
        true nature - e.g. through division of labour, the emergence of leisure, the
        pursuit of excellence in common. Hegel and Marx can be seen as continuing
        and deepening Aristotle's ideas for the modern era (with modernity defined
        by Christianity for Hegel, the Enlightenment for Marx).

        K:
        " It seems that people who are members of a community such as a family,
        church, or republic, which you noted "do not perish", still are a part of
        these kinds of organizations because of
        certain practical goals fulfilled by the organization. By drawing out what
        social phenomenon has historically brought people together, what ends keep
        them interested and motivated to contribute to a collective, it may be
        possible to arrive at a place where inferences can be made as to the
        conditions for group action in general. This may seem vague and unspecific,
        but I'm still hashing these questions out for myself and as such may not be
        fully articulating myself clearly."

        Reply:
        Sure, there may be goals, but the goals do not depend on a hostile other was
        the point I was making. It would indeed be interesting to make a survey of
        the phenomenology of different kinds of social groups in the hope of
        generalising from it. Even here though, we would need to be careful that we
        do not generalise from "some groups" (i.e. those we have studied) to "all
        groups" (that are possible) - which of course is not valid.

        K:
        "For now, that's the issue I was driving at. I'm always very suspicious of
        arguments that place an "inherent good" on certain social structures, as
        it's my experience that the inherent good is always a contingent pragmatic
        function being served, and that's not any different in nature from a group
        motivated to overcome an oppressive regime, or otherwise resisting an
        'other'; it's simply a different "other" they're overcoming, be it hunger,
        loneliness, or other unwanted things. I hope I'm not being redundant or
        hopelessly obtuse."

        Reply:
        Once again, your personal experience as theorised may be limited (like
        everyone else's) . You are also extending the concept of the "Other" wildly
        (e.g. the Other as hunger) to maintain the case that there is always a
        "hostile Other" - for what is surely meant, in relation to the personal
        character of the group, is whether a hostile Personal Other is presupposed.
        Likewise, I was not addressing the question - thorny as that would be - of
        whether there are "instrinsic goods" independent of those I/we have chosen.
        I guess I would argue that "the good" cannot depend purely on what I will to
        pursue as a good, for I must have a prior concept of it as good to will it
        under that category. I seem to recall the early Sartre disagreed with that
        analysis though!

        All the best
        Stephen

        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 2:19 AM
        Subject: [Sartre] Re: Welcome to Sartre


        K:
        > Hello,
        >
        > [...] I have done some small independant studies into his adaptation of
        Marxism in his later works, and it's the transition from his earlier
        ontology to broader social theory that primarily interests me. Specifically,
        how the role of formed matter (practico-inert) and the social structures
        created by men came to play a much more significant role in Sartre's
        conception of the individual's social experience, and how our freedom is
        limited and mediated by these inert and passive structures.
        >
        Reply:
        My feeling on the contrary is that it the early work on first principles
        that is the lasting part of Sartre's work. The "scientific" part of
        Marxism - at least in intention - was the economics (i.e. Capital Vol 1),
        and the later concept of a Marxist "scientific socialism" from the time of
        Lenin and the 2nd International in retrospect, is simply a glorification of
        Marx's journalistic works on the French politics of 1848-51 and 1870. So in
        terms of social ontology, Marx doesn't really get beyond Hegel's powerful
        concepts of universal recognition,and the idea of society as an
        inter-related whole.

        K:
        > Also of interest to me is his conception of the Fused Group, and the
        question of how a revolutionary movement could/can maintain it's sense of
        collective purpose after the "Other"/oppressor which it originally united
        against has been dissolved. This is a question of great importance to anyone
        interested in social movements on any scale, and it's my hope that the
        disappearance of certain idealisms presently persisting in radical thought
        might be fascilitated by a more critical analysis of the structures of group
        action from an existentialist perspective.

        Reply:
        I would rate the ideas of personalist critics of Marxism like John Macmurray
        of great value here. The idea you seem to be describing is of a group held
        together by a common purpose. But this is not the fundamental form of human
        community, which, rather than a political party, should be conceived as an
        end in itself, on the model of a family, church, or republic. The "ends" of
        these organisations, to adopt that term, - to live well together, or glorify
        God, for example - are such as do not perish, and do not depend on the
        existence of a hostile "Other". Does the later Sartre take on this kind of
        analysis?

        All the best
        Stephen







        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

        [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/
      • nikhilesh
        ... I dont know if I should be apologetic about this, but inspite of being a member of this egroup I havent really read Sartre. And I dont have an idea about
        Message 3 of 28 , Oct 14, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...>
          wrote:
          > Hello Nikhilesh,
          > I am very concerned to refute the following
          > survivalist
          > interpretation of Sartre's theory of society.

          I dont know if I should be apologetic about
          this, but inspite of being a member of this egroup I
          havent really read Sartre. And I dont have an idea
          about his theories any more than a layman would.
          Infact, I havent really read too much of philosophy -
          except a little bit of Plato and a little bit of
          Descartes. All that I wrote - and will write in this
          mail - was just my view of things.

          >To me
          > , there are two
          > fundamentally opposing post-existentialist critiques
          > of social
          > theory: one is the survivalist one, which you
          > describe so aptly below
          > and which has its roots in biological/psychological
          > determinism, and
          > the other, which is derived from the Habermasian
          > (itself neo-Kantian)
          > mode of thinking, which I call communicationalism.

          >
          > To say that it is always survival that brings people
          > into groups is
          > obviously fallacious. How about the mentality that
          > caused tens of
          > millions of young, mainly working class men to group
          > together and die
          > together in the trenches of the First World War? Or
          > to become a
          > member of Hamas or Al Quaeda? To explain such
          > behaviour either
          > refutes the survivalist premise or necessarily
          > concludes that humans
          > are not rational. We cannot both philosophise AND
          > conclude that
          > humans are not rational.

          I do believe that human beings are not rational.
          You only have to look around you to realise that
          humans are not rational. Advertising and branding is
          based on the principle that humans are not rational.
          People are dying in the Middle East for land they
          believe was "promised" to them. And those suicide
          squads of Islamic terrorists - complete maniacs and
          totally irrational. All soldiers who die in wars in
          the name of patriotism - fools, all of them -
          completely irrational to end your survival for your
          country. The freedom fighters in colonised countries
          who die for freedom - jerks, what use is freedom to a
          dead man? Any sort of faith without scientific proof
          - and this includes believing in God - is irrational
          behaviour. But the fact is, people do it. And these
          are intelligent, creative, NORMAL people.
          Ergo though humans would rather survive, they are
          irrational and sacrifice themselves for something they
          believe in. This belief is often because of social
          conditioning. If patriotism as a virtue is contantly
          drilled into an individual since childhood, he would
          not find it silly to lay down his life for the
          country. He would infact be proud of it, which I
          personally think is very silly.


          > To adopt Kant's vision of the monad as the version
          > of being that
          > being-for-itself predicates relative to Other and
          > society is to
          > distinguish between being and personality, with
          > personality viewed
          > only and entirely in terms of its communicative
          > function relative to
          > Other (society). When you talk about "people" [being
          > brought into
          > groups] are you referring to beings or are you
          > referring to persons?
          > There is a wealth of difference...
          >
          > Perhaps the following definition will help you to
          > make up your mind:
          > "A person is a role that is consciously being played
          > by a being". The
          > term "role" obviously pre-supposes a stage, an
          > audience as well as a
          > script. There is also the presupposition that the
          > primary function of
          > "playing a role" is to communicate meaning to
          > others.
          >
          > Considering mortality, we again need to distinguish
          > between beings and persons.
          >
          > A being unencumbered with personality always
          > consists in the tension
          > between its being (positive) and its nothingness
          > (negative). Anyone
          > who has spent long periods of time alone will be
          > familiar with the
          > ever-present impulse to suicide that such a mode of
          > existence
          > entails. The fact that one doesn't actually, save in
          > exceptional
          > circumstances, actually commit the act of stringing
          > oneself up etc.
          > doesn't refute the impulse. The fact remains that
          > the overwhelming
          > majority of suicides take place when the subject is
          > alone.

          Doesn't this fact justify the role of society
          in ensuring the survival of its members?

          >
          > A person, on the other hand, is always being defined
          > by the role and
          > the function of the audience/scriptwriter and other
          > members of the
          > "production team" in determining that role. Such a
          > constructed,
          > public personality can always "die" (eg. divorce,
          > bankruptcy, etc.)
          > and society has evolved a number of ways of
          > facilitating the "deaths"
          > of persons who have come to the end of their
          > relative usefulness.
          > Sometimes, admittedly, this coincides with the death
          > of the being,
          > eg. capital punishment or terminal illness.
          >
          > But in general, although painful, the death of
          > personality doesn't
          > need to involve biological death. The point is that
          > personality is
          > always transitory, in flux. A person changes his or
          > her act according
          > to the communicative stimuli it receives from Other
          > (society). When
          > such changes are seen to be incompatible with a role
          > that person has
          > played previously these acts change fundamentally to
          > the extent that
          > the personality "dies" and is reborn. We see
          > ex-husbands reborn as
          > vagrant alcoholics, for example, or bankrupts reborn
          > as authors of
          > get-rich-quick guidebooks.
          >
          > Sometimes people are reborn into a new faith or a
          > new relationship.
          > The new co-religionists or partners in these
          > situations certainly
          > don't treat the newly reborn person as they would
          > have treated the
          > person who has "died". There is a tacit acceptance
          > that to refer to
          > the "dead" personage is in bad taste. This explains
          > why couples tend
          > to argue when the subject of a previous partner or
          > lover comes up. It
          > also explains why individuals who cling on to old
          > relationships
          > develop behaviour patterns that tend to be branded
          > unstable or
          > "schizophrenic".
          >
          > So do you apply your survivalist premise to beings
          > or to persons?
          >
          > Tommy


          I really don't know to whom I was applying
          whatever it is that I was applying. The difference
          between a being and a person that you brought out is a
          new concept for me and, frankly, very interesting. All
          I can think of right now is that your definition of
          "person" necessitates the existence of a society (the
          other). And my previous mail was about why we live in
          a society/group. Groups were formed, society was
          created and continues to exist because of the need for
          survival. Now once you have this beast called
          society, you have interesting phenomena like 'persons'
          being different from 'beings'.

          just my guess...


          =====


          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
          http://shopping.yahoo.com
        • fredwelfare@aol.com
          Before we get to the Other, can you briefly tell me where Sartre s philosophy specifically hooks up to Heidegger? FredW [Non-text portions of this message have
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 22, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Before we get to the Other, can you briefly tell me where Sartre's
            philosophy specifically hooks up to Heidegger?

            FredW


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • scarey1917
            fredwelfare@a... wrote: can you briefly tell me where Sartre s philosophy specifically hooks up to Heidegger? I don t think that a brief answer is
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 23, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              fredwelfare@a... wrote: can you briefly tell me where Sartre's
              philosophy specifically hooks up to Heidegger?>>>>>>>>>>

              I don't think that a brief answer is possible, but generally speaking
              the analysis of the For-Itself in "Being and Nothingness" is
              reminiscent of the analytic of Dasein in Heidegger's "Being and Time."
              Plus both thinkers claim adherence to the phenomenological method
              derived from Husserl (however re-interpreted by them). The similarity
              has to do with the projective/disclosure aspect of consciousness
              (although Heidegger would never use that word). As a
              being-in-the-world, consciousness for both men projects itself outside
              of itself, toward future possibility. It is in terms of possibility
              that the world is in turn disclosed as a complex of
              meaning/intrumentality. One big difference is that for Heidegger the
              description of Dasein is merely a prelude to the more fundamental
              question of the Meaning of Being (Dasein is a "gateway" to Being),
              whereas Sartre seems oriented exclusively toward philosophical
              anthropology.

              -Steve
            • Jerry Phillips
              Heidegger s influenced Sartre in some key ways. Most fundamentally, it was Heidegger who saw the existential potential of Husserl s phenomenological method.
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 23, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Heidegger's influenced Sartre in some key ways. Most fundamentally, it was Heidegger who saw the existential potential of Husserl's phenomenological method.

                Heidegger's prime concern as a philosopher is the question of Being: How does one speak of the "is-ness" of all that is? The identity of Being reveals itself in the intentional projects of human persons. Thus ontology for Heidegger is necessarily phenomenology.

                In Heidegger's view, the philosophical tradition had gone astray because it treated Being as merely the sum of all things, and in that reductionism it conceived the human being as merely a thing among things--a certain fixed "substance." Heidegger claimed that while a rock is fully present, a human being is a mix of absence and presence: the human being is "there," but she is also "not there," in the sense that she is always projecting towards her future. In short, The being of human being is "existence" and the philosophy which is proper to this way of being is existential phenomenology--the description of how "dasein" is fundamentally a "being-in-the-world."

                Sartre took from Heidegger:

                * the emphasis on the intentional nature of all human activities, not just acts of consciousness as described by Husserl.

                * the emphasis on "being-there," that the world is a facticity we can never wholly escape.

                * the emphasis on free choice as a fundamental way of relationg to one's own being.

                * the emphasis on human being as inherently temporal

                * the emphasis on "bad faith" as an ontological mode.

                Sartre thought that Heidegger's philosophy offered some important suggestions for transcending the subject/object dualism of traditional metaphysics. He thought that "Being and Time" was not as tightly argued as it might have been. But Heidegger's central insight that human existence is essentially a self-relation through the mediation of the world was the spur for Sartre's meditations on the relationship between consciousness and things.

                In many ways Hegel was a greater influence on Sartre than was Heidegger. But one can scarcely imagine what "Being and Nothingness" would look like in the absence of Heidegger.

                Yours,
                Jerry

                PS. It's worth noting that Heidegger repudiated any kinship with Sartre as an "existentialist."

                fredwelfare@... wrote:
                Before we get to the Other, can you briefly tell me where Sartre's
                philosophy specifically hooks up to Heidegger?

                FredW


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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




                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! Groups Links

                To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sartre/

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Tommy Beavitt
                Hi Anthony, Well, you seem to have got a pretty good ground on which to base an interest in Sartre. Unfortunately, we have been rather quiet on this list
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Anthony,

                  Well, you seem to have got a pretty good ground on which to base an
                  interest in Sartre.

                  Unfortunately, we have been rather quiet on this list lately. I don't
                  know why that is.

                  I have been meaning to read the Critique for ages but haven't got
                  around to it. Its a formidable proposition!

                  I tend to agree with your German slant. Maybe Sartre isn't derivative
                  of Heidegger, Husserl or Hegel but its certainly true that he would
                  have been a lot different without these German predecessors. I think
                  he did see himself, at least to begin with, as being someone whose
                  role it was to introduce German thinking to a wider (i.e. French
                  speaking) audience.

                  I notice that Husserl is absent from your list of German
                  philosophers. I think he is often underestimated. It was after all
                  his critique of Hegel that corrected the tendency of German idealism
                  away from empirical science and put German thinking right back in the
                  driving seat with respect to philosophy's relationship with science.

                  I'll leave it to others to hopefully respond to your question about
                  the Critique. But I am afraid that a lot of people seem to be like me
                  in that they aspire to read that book but just can't seem to find the
                  time at the moment...

                  Welcome to the list!

                  Tommy Beavitt

                  Le 2 Apr 2006 à 01:19, Anthony Rodriguez-Alcala a écrit :

                  > Hello Tom,
                  > Yeah, I would like to introduce myself. I've been reading
                  > philosophy since my teens. I got hooked on the subject after
                  > reading Will Durants justly famous "The Story of Philosophy" at
                  > that time. I majored in the subject at UCSD. I've always been
                  > interested in German idealism. I'm crazy about Hegel, though I
                  > think like everyone else, he got Kant wrong. I would say I know my
                  > Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Marx pretty
                  > well. So, I approach Sartre with these German thinkers in mind. I
                  > used to be pretty dismissive of Sartre's work because I saw it as a
                  > rip off of Heidegger; though now I'm beginning to see him as a
                  > powerfully original thinker who radicalized Heidegger's insights
                  > into Dasein by his emphasis on choice. One could say that Sartre
                  > reintroduced the subject/object divide into existentialism after
                  > Heidegger arguably "destroyed" the Western ontological conception
                  > of the subject . But now I think what Sartre did in "Being and
                  > Nothingness" is fascinating. I would like to know whether you guys
                  > think Sartre deepened (maybe even superseded) Heidegger's
                  > philosophy of existence. Also, I haven't read his "Critique of
                  > Dialectical Reason." What do you guys think of that work? Is it a
                  > successful synthesis of existentialism and Marxism? What are its
                  > deficiencies? Its strenghts?
                  >
                  > At any rate, I'm honored to join the group. Best, Anthony
                  >
                  > Sartre Moderator <Sartre-owner@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hello,
                  >
                  > Welcome to the Sartre list. This list was created to provide a
                  > forum for discussion of Sartre's philosophy and novels, and
                  > relevant themes in the writings of other existential and
                  > phenomenological thinkers.
                  >
                  > Contributions are welcome at all levels, please feel free to
                  > introduce yourself and your interests to the list and suggest a
                  > topic for discussion.
                  >
                  > I look forward to debating with you.
                  >
                  > Tommy Beavitt
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/
                  > terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC
                  > for low, low rates.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Anthony Rodriguez-Alcala
                  Tom, Thanks for the invite. Sartre is often said to be the last of the Cartesians. As opposed to Merlieu-Ponty who supposedly innaugarated the
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 13, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tom,
                    Thanks for the invite. Sartre is often said to be the "last of the Cartesians." As opposed to Merlieu-Ponty who supposedly innaugarated the post-Cartesian trend in French thought by his focus on the somatic nature of perception as a source of knowledge, Sartre re-posited the distinction between the subject (the For itself) and the object (the In-itself) in order to dramatize how human beings define themselves in terms of projects--"man is condemned to be free"-- as opposed to the objective world into which they are "thrown" (Heidegger's geworfenheit), and which is characterized by Sartre as inert and vital-less. The For itself and the In itself are terms he borrowed from Hegel who has an elaborate dance between subject and object in the Phenomenology of Mind and which culminates in absolute knowing, where the theory is adequate to the object, and the object adequate to the theory. I guess that would be, the full expression, or externalization of Geist (Spirit): "the
                    in-and-for-itself" of the self-positing Subject that finds itself at home in the world through man's self-consciousness in philosophy.

                    But, hey, now I sound academic. I've only read Husserl's "Cartesian Meditations." I've tried to tackle, "Ideas," and "Logical Investigations," but to no avail. Suffice it to say, I agree with you that Husserl is a very important figure. I like what you said about how Husserl wanted to ground philosophy in science like Kant, though, we have to be careful about what "science" means in German. "Wissenshaft," as you know, has moral and humanistic connations that the English word "science," derived from the Latin, and hence Medieval, "scientia," tends to ignore, or suppress, in the interest of objectivity, or value-neutrality when formulating scientific hypotheses. Going back to Kant and Husserl: both argue for a transcendental ego and for "apodicity" in philosophical statements. While Kant formulates the idea of the apriority of the transcendental subject and the pure concepts of the understanding, Husserl tries to ground phenomenological intuitions of "essences" in a
                    bracketing of the "natural attitude" that frees consciousness from its dependence on the pre-given life-world so that philosophy can approach the rigor and apodicity of science. Is philosophy a presuppositionless science, as Kant and Husserl argue, or is it one based on an examination of a pregiven world, as Hegel and Heidegger contend. For Hegel philosophy arises as the self-realization of the history of Mind, or Geist; for Heidegger it is the claim that "knowledge is a founded mode of being,"; i.e., it is only a derivate possibility of Dasein in its more "primordial" pre-conscious engagements with the world. Hence, for both, thinking is a more a form of hermeutics, or interpretation, and less an exercise similar to natural science judgments.

                    OK. Interesting start. Thanks for the email. Best, Anthony

                    Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...> wrote:
                    Hi Anthony,

                    Well, you seem to have got a pretty good ground on which to base an
                    interest in Sartre.

                    Unfortunately, we have been rather quiet on this list lately. I don't
                    know why that is.

                    I have been meaning to read the Critique for ages but haven't got
                    around to it. Its a formidable proposition!

                    I tend to agree with your German slant. Maybe Sartre isn't derivative
                    of Heidegger, Husserl or Hegel but its certainly true that he would
                    have been a lot different without these German predecessors. I think
                    he did see himself, at least to begin with, as being someone whose
                    role it was to introduce German thinking to a wider (i.e. French
                    speaking) audience.

                    I notice that Husserl is absent from your list of German
                    philosophers. I think he is often underestimated. It was after all
                    his critique of Hegel that corrected the tendency of German idealism
                    away from empirical science and put German thinking right back in the
                    driving seat with respect to philosophy's relationship with science.

                    I'll leave it to others to hopefully respond to your question about
                    the Critique. But I am afraid that a lot of people seem to be like me
                    in that they aspire to read that book but just can't seem to find the
                    time at the moment...

                    Welcome to the list!

                    Tommy Beavitt

                    Le 2 Apr 2006 à 01:19, Anthony Rodriguez-Alcala a écrit :

                    > Hello Tom,
                    > Yeah, I would like to introduce myself. I've been reading
                    > philosophy since my teens. I got hooked on the subject after
                    > reading Will Durants justly famous "The Story of Philosophy" at
                    > that time. I majored in the subject at UCSD. I've always been
                    > interested in German idealism. I'm crazy about Hegel, though I
                    > think like everyone else, he got Kant wrong. I would say I know my
                    > Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Marx pretty
                    > well. So, I approach Sartre with these German thinkers in mind. I
                    > used to be pretty dismissive of Sartre's work because I saw it as a
                    > rip off of Heidegger; though now I'm beginning to see him as a
                    > powerfully original thinker who radicalized Heidegger's insights
                    > into Dasein by his emphasis on choice. One could say that Sartre
                    > reintroduced the subject/object divide into existentialism after
                    > Heidegger arguably "destroyed" the Western ontological conception
                    > of the subject . But now I think what Sartre did in "Being and
                    > Nothingness" is fascinating. I would like to know whether you guys
                    > think Sartre deepened (maybe even superseded) Heidegger's
                    > philosophy of existence. Also, I haven't read his "Critique of
                    > Dialectical Reason." What do you guys think of that work? Is it a
                    > successful synthesis of existentialism and Marxism? What are its
                    > deficiencies? Its strenghts?
                    >
                    > At any rate, I'm honored to join the group. Best, Anthony
                    >
                    > Sartre Moderator <Sartre-owner@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hello,
                    >
                    > Welcome to the Sartre list. This list was created to provide a
                    > forum for discussion of Sartre's philosophy and novels, and
                    > relevant themes in the writings of other existential and
                    > phenomenological thinkers.
                    >
                    > Contributions are welcome at all levels, please feel free to
                    > introduce yourself and your interests to the list and suggest a
                    > topic for discussion.
                    >
                    > I look forward to debating with you.
                    >
                    > Tommy Beavitt
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/
                    > terms/
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC
                    > for low, low rates.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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




                    ---------------------------------
                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                    Visit your group "Sartre" on the web.

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    ---------------------------------





                    ---------------------------------
                    New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.