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

Sartre and Death...

Expand Messages
  • Brian Hodgman
    Ok, so for the umpteenth time I m trying to make my way through B&N - though I admit I have never finished... regrettably, my academic pursuits seem to take on
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 15, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Ok, so for the umpteenth time I'm trying to make my way through B&N -
      though I admit I have never finished... regrettably, my academic
      pursuits seem to take on a desultory, "grass is always greener"
      character - but anyway... this time around I got to thinking about
      Death (like the good little coffee house smoking, black turtleneck
      wearing Existentialist that I am) and it occurred to me that my
      Death cannot be considered something that I know a priori.

      I imagine Sartre would say that "knowledge" of our "Death" - which
      is to say, our belief in the possibility (or inevitability if you
      prefer) of our own "Death" - can only come about (conceptually)
      through our "being-for-Others" (that is, becoming aware that we
      will/might/even CAN die is something ultimately founded in the
      Look). Afterall, I don't "KNOW" this (from a purely analytic
      epistemological perspective) but I assume it, in that I identify
      (classify) myself as human, and that dying is something humans do
      (induction). But I only "learn" my human-ness (that is, become an
      object) through "being-with-Others." Does Sartre ever state or
      address this? It would seem fairly significant - that the Other is
      ultimately the "bringer of death." Any comments??
    • asghar soomro
      This is common saying of Sartre A man is free to be not free Yes, we all are objects in this World in which we are being shaped and moved by religion,
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 16, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        This is common saying of Sartre" A man is free to be
        not free" Yes, we all are objects in this World in
        which we are being shaped and moved by religion,
        culture, doctrines, etc. This is fact that we come and
        go without our Will. i will share my comments on it
        with you later. Stay in touch, Asghar
        --- Brian Hodgman <bhodgman@...> wrote:
        >
        > Ok, so for the umpteenth time I'm trying to make my
        > way through B&N -
        > though I admit I have never finished... regrettably,
        > my academic
        > pursuits seem to take on a desultory, "grass is
        > always greener"
        > character - but anyway... this time around I got to
        > thinking about
        > Death (like the good little coffee house smoking,
        > black turtleneck
        > wearing Existentialist that I am) and it occurred to
        > me that my
        > Death cannot be considered something that I know a
        > priori.
        >
        > I imagine Sartre would say that "knowledge" of our
        > "Death" - which
        > is to say, our belief in the possibility (or
        > inevitability if you
        > prefer) of our own "Death" - can only come about
        > (conceptually)
        > through our "being-for-Others" (that is, becoming
        > aware that we
        > will/might/even CAN die is something ultimately
        > founded in the
        > Look). Afterall, I don't "KNOW" this (from a purely
        > analytic
        > epistemological perspective) but I assume it, in
        > that I identify
        > (classify) myself as human, and that dying is
        > something humans do
        > (induction). But I only "learn" my human-ness (that
        > is, become an
        > object) through "being-with-Others." Does Sartre
        > ever state or
        > address this? It would seem fairly significant -
        > that the Other is
        > ultimately the "bringer of death." Any comments??
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
        http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
      • decker150
        Hi Brian. Death is an interesting topic. I imagine that how the other helps us to realize the inevitability of death is that we see it manifested in them
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 18, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Brian. Death is an interesting topic. I imagine that how the other helps us to realize the inevitability of death is that we see it
          manifested in them first. We experience the death of those we are with. Death discloses itself as a potentiality of our own being,
          since in comparing ourself to other human beings, we witness it as our similar fate. Death is a future event and my own personal
          future has not yet occur. In other words, we visualize our own death in the same way we know the future, as a potentiality of being,
          as a now-not-yet-realized.

          Death according to Heidegger occurs in one instance of time but quickly moves to the past. Once you are dead, the now-no-longer
          penetrates into the present (being). It is interesting to evaluate all existential disclosures in light of time. Death is the
          now-no-longer-living.

          Joe

          the futurebeings sim Good topic--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Hodgman" <bhodgman@u...> wrote:
          >
          > Ok, so for the umpteenth time I'm trying to make my way through B&N -
          > though I admit I have never finished... regrettably, my academic
          > pursuits seem to take on a desultory, "grass is always greener"
          > character - but anyway... this time around I got to thinking about
          > Death (like the good little coffee house smoking, black turtleneck
          > wearing Existentialist that I am) and it occurred to me that my
          > Death cannot be considered something that I know a priori.
          >
          > I imagine Sartre would say that "knowledge" of our "Death" - which
          > is to say, our belief in the possibility (or inevitability if you
          > prefer) of our own "Death" - can only come about (conceptually)
          > through our "being-for-Others" (that is, becoming aware that we
          > will/might/even CAN die is something ultimately founded in the
          > Look). Afterall, I don't "KNOW" this (from a purely analytic
          > epistemological perspective) but I assume it, in that I identify
          > (classify) myself as human, and that dying is something humans do
          > (induction). But I only "learn" my human-ness (that is, become an
          > object) through "being-with-Others." Does Sartre ever state or
          > address this? It would seem fairly significant - that the Other is
          > ultimately the "bringer of death." Any comments??
        • asghar soomro
          Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not? Epicurus ...
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 19, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If
            death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can
            only exist when I do not?
            Epicurus

            --- decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
            > Hi Brian. Death is an interesting topic. I imagine
            > that how the other helps us to realize the
            > inevitability of death is that we see it
            > manifested in them first. We experience the death
            > of those we are with. Death discloses itself as a
            > potentiality of our own being,
            > since in comparing ourself to other human beings, we
            > witness it as our similar fate. Death is a future
            > event and my own personal
            > future has not yet occur. In other words, we
            > visualize our own death in the same way we know the
            > future, as a potentiality of being,
            > as a now-not-yet-realized.
            >
            > Death according to Heidegger occurs in one instance
            > of time but quickly moves to the past. Once you are
            > dead, the now-no-longer
            > penetrates into the present (being). It is
            > interesting to evaluate all existential disclosures
            > in light of time. Death is the
            > now-no-longer-living.
            >
            > Joe
            >
            > the futurebeings sim Good topic--- In
            > Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Hodgman"
            > <bhodgman@u...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Ok, so for the umpteenth time I'm trying to make
            > my way through B&N -
            > > though I admit I have never finished...
            > regrettably, my academic
            > > pursuits seem to take on a desultory, "grass is
            > always greener"
            > > character - but anyway... this time around I got
            > to thinking about
            > > Death (like the good little coffee house smoking,
            > black turtleneck
            > > wearing Existentialist that I am) and it occurred
            > to me that my
            > > Death cannot be considered something that I know a
            > priori.
            > >
            > > I imagine Sartre would say that "knowledge" of our
            > "Death" - which
            > > is to say, our belief in the possibility (or
            > inevitability if you
            > > prefer) of our own "Death" - can only come about
            > (conceptually)
            > > through our "being-for-Others" (that is, becoming
            > aware that we
            > > will/might/even CAN die is something ultimately
            > founded in the
            > > Look). Afterall, I don't "KNOW" this (from a
            > purely analytic
            > > epistemological perspective) but I assume it, in
            > that I identify
            > > (classify) myself as human, and that dying is
            > something humans do
            > > (induction). But I only "learn" my human-ness
            > (that is, become an
            > > object) through "being-with-Others." Does Sartre
            > ever state or
            > > address this? It would seem fairly significant -
            > that the Other is
            > > ultimately the "bringer of death." Any comments??
            >
            >


            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
            http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
          • Tommy Beavitt
            Interesting topic, colleagues! I have enjoyed the points raised so far. But they do make one basic assumption, which is that what I am (which death ends) is my
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 19, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Interesting topic, colleagues! I have enjoyed the points raised so far.
              But they do make one basic assumption, which is that what I am (which
              death ends) is my body, and that my body is the entirety of what I am.

              It is interesting that Epicurus' dictum reveals him to have been one of
              the original materialists, as the word is understood by modern
              philosophy.

              Sartre was also known for his materialism, although he does appear to
              have gone further into metaphysical realms than some of his peers.

              For me, the assumption that my body is the entirety of my being and
              that this being is entirely transmuted into nothingness at the instant
              of my death is not justified.

              I am increasingly interpreting my being in terms of its ability to
              communicate with other beings. That is the only proof of my material
              existence (in this world).

              My question to you Sartreans is, how would the great existentialist
              philosopher handle the Many Worlds (MW) interpretation of quantum
              phenomena (which "objectively" exist, according to MW, in the "external
              world", irrespective of whether I observe them)?

              The basic position established by MW is that "tangible" quantum
              particles in this universe, such as photons, can be observed to have
              been interfered with by "shadow" particles which exist in other
              universes.

              These "shadow" particles cannot, of course, be directly observed, but
              their existence can be inferred from the effect they have upon other
              particles.

              The philosophical implications of MW are that it is now possible to
              state that anything which is logically possible WILL happen in some
              universe(s).

              For example, it is logically possible that I will be run over by a bus
              this afternoon; therefore in some universe(s) I will. But it is also
              logically possible that I will not be run over by a bus and it is also
              true that in some universes (hopefully most of them!) I won't.

              The point I am trying to make is that what I am, my being, is a set of
              possibilities, all of which will manifest themselves in some universes.
              It is only when I communicate with another being that my possibilities
              are forced to manifest themselves (and therefore be compatible with
              certain external criteria relating to) THIS world, ie. the world
              defined by our communication.

              Any comments?

              Tommy

              On 19 Feb 2004, at 10:55, asghar soomro wrote:

              > Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If
              > death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can
              > only exist when I do not?
              > Epicurus
              >
              > --- decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
              >> Hi Brian. Death is an interesting topic. I imagine
              >> that how the other helps us to realize the
              >> inevitability of death is that we see it
              >> manifested in them first. We experience the death
              >> of those we are with. Death discloses itself as a
              >> potentiality of our own being,
              >> since in comparing ourself to other human beings, we
              >> witness it as our similar fate. Death is a future
              >> event and my own personal
              >> future has not yet occur. In other words, we
              >> visualize our own death in the same way we know the
              >> future, as a potentiality of being,
              >> as a now-not-yet-realized.
              >>
              >> Death according to Heidegger occurs in one instance
              >> of time but quickly moves to the past. Once you are
              >> dead, the now-no-longer
              >> penetrates into the present (being). It is
              >> interesting to evaluate all existential disclosures
              >> in light of time. Death is the
              >> now-no-longer-living.
              >>
              >> Joe
              >>
              >> the futurebeings sim Good topic--- In
              >> Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Hodgman"
              >> <bhodgman@u...> wrote:
              >>>
              >>> Ok, so for the umpteenth time I'm trying to make
              >> my way through B&N -
              >>> though I admit I have never finished...
              >> regrettably, my academic
              >>> pursuits seem to take on a desultory, "grass is
              >> always greener"
              >>> character - but anyway... this time around I got
              >> to thinking about
              >>> Death (like the good little coffee house smoking,
              >> black turtleneck
              >>> wearing Existentialist that I am) and it occurred
              >> to me that my
              >>> Death cannot be considered something that I know a
              >> priori.
              >>>
              >>> I imagine Sartre would say that "knowledge" of our
              >> "Death" - which
              >>> is to say, our belief in the possibility (or
              >> inevitability if you
              >>> prefer) of our own "Death" - can only come about
              >> (conceptually)
              >>> through our "being-for-Others" (that is, becoming
              >> aware that we
              >>> will/might/even CAN die is something ultimately
              >> founded in the
              >>> Look). Afterall, I don't "KNOW" this (from a
              >> purely analytic
              >>> epistemological perspective) but I assume it, in
              >> that I identify
              >>> (classify) myself as human, and that dying is
              >> something humans do
              >>> (induction). But I only "learn" my human-ness
              >> (that is, become an
              >>> object) through "being-with-Others." Does Sartre
              >> ever state or
              >>> address this? It would seem fairly significant -
              >> that the Other is
              >>> ultimately the "bringer of death." Any comments??
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              > __________________________________
              > Do you Yahoo!?
              > Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
              > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ---------------------~-->
              > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
              > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
              > Canada.
              > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ACsqlB/TM
              > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              > ~->
              >
              > To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • asghar soomro
              discussions ensuing from Death are realy informative and interesting. Who am I and why I am here? this question intersts very much me becuase all human being
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 19, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                discussions ensuing from Death are realy informative
                and interesting. Who am I and why I am here? this
                question intersts very much me becuase all human being
                are searching answer to them. Some identified
                themselves with Prophets, some capitalists, some with
                wretched of earths, etc, which has influenced/
                determined thier purpose in the life. With regard to
                death all people seem much more concerned about this
                World than the World after the death, which is very
                obivious when look into history.




                --- Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...>
                wrote:
                > Interesting topic, colleagues! I have enjoyed the
                > points raised so far.
                > But they do make one basic assumption, which is that
                > what I am (which
                > death ends) is my body, and that my body is the
                > entirety of what I am.
                >
                > It is interesting that Epicurus' dictum reveals him
                > to have been one of
                > the original materialists, as the word is understood
                > by modern
                > philosophy.
                >
                > Sartre was also known for his materialism, although
                > he does appear to
                > have gone further into metaphysical realms than some
                > of his peers.
                >
                > For me, the assumption that my body is the entirety
                > of my being and
                > that this being is entirely transmuted into
                > nothingness at the instant
                > of my death is not justified.
                >
                > I am increasingly interpreting my being in terms of
                > its ability to
                > communicate with other beings. That is the only
                > proof of my material
                > existence (in this world).
                >
                > My question to you Sartreans is, how would the great
                > existentialist
                > philosopher handle the Many Worlds (MW)
                > interpretation of quantum
                > phenomena (which "objectively" exist, according to
                > MW, in the "external
                > world", irrespective of whether I observe them)?
                >
                > The basic position established by MW is that
                > "tangible" quantum
                > particles in this universe, such as photons, can be
                > observed to have
                > been interfered with by "shadow" particles which
                > exist in other
                > universes.
                >
                > These "shadow" particles cannot, of course, be
                > directly observed, but
                > their existence can be inferred from the effect they
                > have upon other
                > particles.
                >
                > The philosophical implications of MW are that it is
                > now possible to
                > state that anything which is logically possible WILL
                > happen in some
                > universe(s).
                >
                > For example, it is logically possible that I will be
                > run over by a bus
                > this afternoon; therefore in some universe(s) I
                > will. But it is also
                > logically possible that I will not be run over by a
                > bus and it is also
                > true that in some universes (hopefully most of
                > them!) I won't.
                >
                > The point I am trying to make is that what I am, my
                > being, is a set of
                > possibilities, all of which will manifest themselves
                > in some universes.
                > It is only when I communicate with another being
                > that my possibilities
                > are forced to manifest themselves (and therefore be
                > compatible with
                > certain external criteria relating to) THIS world,
                > ie. the world
                > defined by our communication.
                >
                > Any comments?
                >
                > Tommy
                >
                > On 19 Feb 2004, at 10:55, asghar soomro wrote:
                >
                > > Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If
                > > death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which
                > can
                > > only exist when I do not?
                > > Epicurus
                > >
                > > --- decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
                > >> Hi Brian. Death is an interesting topic. I
                > imagine
                > >> that how the other helps us to realize the
                > >> inevitability of death is that we see it
                > >> manifested in them first. We experience the
                > death
                > >> of those we are with. Death discloses itself as
                > a
                > >> potentiality of our own being,
                > >> since in comparing ourself to other human beings,
                > we
                > >> witness it as our similar fate. Death is a
                > future
                > >> event and my own personal
                > >> future has not yet occur. In other words, we
                > >> visualize our own death in the same way we know
                > the
                > >> future, as a potentiality of being,
                > >> as a now-not-yet-realized.
                > >>
                > >> Death according to Heidegger occurs in one
                > instance
                > >> of time but quickly moves to the past. Once you
                > are
                > >> dead, the now-no-longer
                > >> penetrates into the present (being). It is
                > >> interesting to evaluate all existential
                > disclosures
                > >> in light of time. Death is the
                > >> now-no-longer-living.
                > >>
                > >> Joe
                > >>
                > >> the futurebeings sim Good topic--- In
                > >> Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Hodgman"
                > >> <bhodgman@u...> wrote:
                > >>>
                > >>> Ok, so for the umpteenth time I'm trying to make
                > >> my way through B&N -
                > >>> though I admit I have never finished...
                > >> regrettably, my academic
                > >>> pursuits seem to take on a desultory, "grass is
                > >> always greener"
                > >>> character - but anyway... this time around I got
                > >> to thinking about
                > >>> Death (like the good little coffee house
                > smoking,
                > >> black turtleneck
                > >>> wearing Existentialist that I am) and it
                > occurred
                > >> to me that my
                > >>> Death cannot be considered something that I know
                > a
                > >> priori.
                > >>>
                > >>> I imagine Sartre would say that "knowledge" of
                > our
                > >> "Death" - which
                > >>> is to say, our belief in the possibility (or
                > >> inevitability if you
                > >>> prefer) of our own "Death" - can only come about
                > >> (conceptually)
                > >>> through our "being-for-Others" (that is,
                > becoming
                > >> aware that we
                > >>> will/might/even CAN die is something ultimately
                > >> founded in the
                > >>> Look). Afterall, I don't "KNOW" this (from a
                > >> purely analytic
                > >>> epistemological perspective) but I assume it, in
                > >> that I identify
                > >>> (classify) myself as human, and that dying is
                > >> something humans do
                > >>> (induction). But I only "learn" my human-ness
                > >> (that is, become an
                > >>> object) through "being-with-Others." Does Sartre
                > >> ever state or
                > >>> address this? It would seem fairly significant -
                > >> that the Other is
                > >>> ultimately the "bringer of death." Any
                > comments??
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > >
                > > __________________________________
                > > Do you Yahoo!?
                > > Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you
                > want.
                > > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
                > >
                > >
                > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                > > ---------------------~-->
                > > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP,
                > Epson, Canon or Lexmark
                > > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or
                > more to the US &
                > > Canada.
                > > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
                > >
                >
                http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ACsqlB/TM
                > >
                >
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                > > ~->
                > >
                > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                === message truncated ===


                __________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
                http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
              • Brian Hodgman
                Thank you all for your comments. I agree it is a very interesting topic. However, I was hoping for someone to address how Sartre s views (particularly in
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 20, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank you all for your comments. I agree it is a very interesting
                  topic. However, I was hoping for someone to address how Sartre's
                  views (particularly in "Being and Nothingness") relate -
                  particularly with respect to the pre-reflective cogito, reflective
                  cogito, and the Other's Look. Thanks...






                  --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, asghar soomro <g_asgharsoomro@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > discussions ensuing from Death are realy informative
                  > and interesting. Who am I and why I am here? this
                  > question intersts very much me becuase all human being
                  > are searching answer to them. Some identified
                  > themselves with Prophets, some capitalists, some with
                  > wretched of earths, etc, which has influenced/
                  > determined thier purpose in the life. With regard to
                  > death all people seem much more concerned about this
                  > World than the World after the death, which is very
                  > obivious when look into history.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- Tommy Beavitt <tommy@c...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > Interesting topic, colleagues! I have enjoyed the
                  > > points raised so far.
                  > > But they do make one basic assumption, which is that
                  > > what I am (which
                  > > death ends) is my body, and that my body is the
                  > > entirety of what I am.
                  > >
                  > > It is interesting that Epicurus' dictum reveals him
                  > > to have been one of
                  > > the original materialists, as the word is understood
                  > > by modern
                  > > philosophy.
                  > >
                  > > Sartre was also known for his materialism, although
                  > > he does appear to
                  > > have gone further into metaphysical realms than some
                  > > of his peers.
                  > >
                  > > For me, the assumption that my body is the entirety
                  > > of my being and
                  > > that this being is entirely transmuted into
                  > > nothingness at the instant
                  > > of my death is not justified.
                  > >
                  > > I am increasingly interpreting my being in terms of
                  > > its ability to
                  > > communicate with other beings. That is the only
                  > > proof of my material
                  > > existence (in this world).
                  > >
                  > > My question to you Sartreans is, how would the great
                  > > existentialist
                  > > philosopher handle the Many Worlds (MW)
                  > > interpretation of quantum
                  > > phenomena (which "objectively" exist, according to
                  > > MW, in the "external
                  > > world", irrespective of whether I observe them)?
                  > >
                  > > The basic position established by MW is that
                  > > "tangible" quantum
                  > > particles in this universe, such as photons, can be
                  > > observed to have
                  > > been interfered with by "shadow" particles which
                  > > exist in other
                  > > universes.
                  > >
                  > > These "shadow" particles cannot, of course, be
                  > > directly observed, but
                  > > their existence can be inferred from the effect they
                  > > have upon other
                  > > particles.
                  > >
                  > > The philosophical implications of MW are that it is
                  > > now possible to
                  > > state that anything which is logically possible WILL
                  > > happen in some
                  > > universe(s).
                  > >
                  > > For example, it is logically possible that I will be
                  > > run over by a bus
                  > > this afternoon; therefore in some universe(s) I
                  > > will. But it is also
                  > > logically possible that I will not be run over by a
                  > > bus and it is also
                  > > true that in some universes (hopefully most of
                  > > them!) I won't.
                  > >
                  > > The point I am trying to make is that what I am, my
                  > > being, is a set of
                  > > possibilities, all of which will manifest themselves
                  > > in some universes.
                  > > It is only when I communicate with another being
                  > > that my possibilities
                  > > are forced to manifest themselves (and therefore be
                  > > compatible with
                  > > certain external criteria relating to) THIS world,
                  > > ie. the world
                  > > defined by our communication.
                  > >
                  > > Any comments?
                  > >
                  > > Tommy
                  > >
                  > > On 19 Feb 2004, at 10:55, asghar soomro wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > Why should I fear death? If I am, death is not. If
                  > > > death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which
                  > > can
                  > > > only exist when I do not?
                  > > > Epicurus
                  > > >
                  > > > --- decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote:
                  > > >> Hi Brian. Death is an interesting topic. I
                  > > imagine
                  > > >> that how the other helps us to realize the
                  > > >> inevitability of death is that we see it
                  > > >> manifested in them first. We experience the
                  > > death
                  > > >> of those we are with. Death discloses itself as
                  > > a
                  > > >> potentiality of our own being,
                  > > >> since in comparing ourself to other human beings,
                  > > we
                  > > >> witness it as our similar fate. Death is a
                  > > future
                  > > >> event and my own personal
                  > > >> future has not yet occur. In other words, we
                  > > >> visualize our own death in the same way we know
                  > > the
                  > > >> future, as a potentiality of being,
                  > > >> as a now-not-yet-realized.
                  > > >>
                  > > >> Death according to Heidegger occurs in one
                  > > instance
                  > > >> of time but quickly moves to the past. Once you
                  > > are
                  > > >> dead, the now-no-longer
                  > > >> penetrates into the present (being). It is
                  > > >> interesting to evaluate all existential
                  > > disclosures
                  > > >> in light of time. Death is the
                  > > >> now-no-longer-living.
                  > > >>
                  > > >> Joe
                  > > >>
                  > > >> the futurebeings sim Good topic--- In
                  > > >> Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Hodgman"
                  > > >> <bhodgman@u...> wrote:
                  > > >>>
                  > > >>> Ok, so for the umpteenth time I'm trying to make
                  > > >> my way through B&N -
                  > > >>> though I admit I have never finished...
                  > > >> regrettably, my academic
                  > > >>> pursuits seem to take on a desultory, "grass is
                  > > >> always greener"
                  > > >>> character - but anyway... this time around I got
                  > > >> to thinking about
                  > > >>> Death (like the good little coffee house
                  > > smoking,
                  > > >> black turtleneck
                  > > >>> wearing Existentialist that I am) and it
                  > > occurred
                  > > >> to me that my
                  > > >>> Death cannot be considered something that I know
                  > > a
                  > > >> priori.
                  > > >>>
                  > > >>> I imagine Sartre would say that "knowledge" of
                  > > our
                  > > >> "Death" - which
                  > > >>> is to say, our belief in the possibility (or
                  > > >> inevitability if you
                  > > >>> prefer) of our own "Death" - can only come about
                  > > >> (conceptually)
                  > > >>> through our "being-for-Others" (that is,
                  > > becoming
                  > > >> aware that we
                  > > >>> will/might/even CAN die is something ultimately
                  > > >> founded in the
                  > > >>> Look). Afterall, I don't "KNOW" this (from a
                  > > >> purely analytic
                  > > >>> epistemological perspective) but I assume it, in
                  > > >> that I identify
                  > > >>> (classify) myself as human, and that dying is
                  > > >> something humans do
                  > > >>> (induction). But I only "learn" my human-ness
                  > > >> (that is, become an
                  > > >>> object) through "being-with-Others." Does Sartre
                  > > >> ever state or
                  > > >>> address this? It would seem fairly significant -
                  > > >> that the Other is
                  > > >>> ultimately the "bringer of death." Any
                  > > comments??
                  > > >>
                  > > >>
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > __________________________________
                  > > > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > > > Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you
                  > > want.
                  > > > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > > > ---------------------~-->
                  > > > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP,
                  > > Epson, Canon or Lexmark
                  > > > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or
                  > > more to the US &
                  > > > Canada.
                  > > > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ACsqlB/TM
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                  --
                  > >
                  > > > ~->
                  > > >
                  > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
                  > > Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > >
                  > === message truncated ===
                  >
                  >
                  > __________________________________
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
                  > http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
                • ian buick
                  H i Brian, Sartre, as you probably know, philosophises on the issue of My Death in Part 4, Section 2E of B&N (pp 531-553 in my edition) and provides clues to
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 22, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    H i Brian,

                    Sartre, as you probably know, philosophises on the issue of 'My Death' in
                    Part 4, Section 2E of B&N (pp 531-553 in my edition) and provides clues to
                    the answers you are looking for - although he does this as a step in his
                    analysis of freedom, which I think is more interesting than looking at the
                    issue of death from a purely epistemological standpoint) Why don't you give
                    us your take on this section as a basis for discussing Sartre's views in a
                    more structured manner. I would certainly be interested in approaching
                    questions of existence in this way.

                    Regards

                    Ian

                    Thank you all for your comments. I agree it is a very interesting
                    topic. However, I was hoping for someone to address how Sartre's
                    views (particularly in "Being and Nothingness") relate -
                    particularly with respect to the pre-reflective cogito, reflective
                    cogito, and the Other's Look. Thanks...





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