Re: [Sartre] Re: distinction between organism and being
- Hi Mary Jo,
I am not sure what you mean by essence and existence
when you say: "I think that existence and essence are
something, and everything else is nothing", so I am
not sure if I personally agree or
disagree....especially on "essence"?
> <<<At 3:48 PM +0100 04/28/04, Tommy Beavitt wrote:
> Sartre is quite clear on the distinction, that when
> we are talking
> about a person, we are primarily referring to that
> being-for-itself. - Tommy>>>
> Call me weird... but I think it's a significant
> point, that you can't
> have one... with out the other... (for-it self /
> in-itself, @ some
> point/s in time)... Being is the common denominator.
> & I do not believe there was any difference between
> JPS & Ms. De
> Beauvoir, at that juncture... whatsoever...
> To try to illuminate some: I think a (if not the)
> basic question in
> this regard was brought to the fore by JPS... most
> vigorously in
> Being & Nothingness... a chicken & egg kind of
> proposition... so to
> speak (the order of importance of thought for
> comprehension). Though seeming to be paradox:
> Ontologically, as
> we know, the finding was that existence precedes
> essence... (i.e.
> nothingness before being... etc.)... however, we
> should not then
> forget: No being... no nothing--->> nothing to do...
> As a poet
> (Charles Olson) has rather playfully said in a
> somewhat different
> context: "Ask a bean sandwich..."
> Perhaps an not often enough stated observation
> regarding "Being &
> Nothingness": this was/is a *reversal* of thought...
> not a denial of
> being. Again, in Sartres' view... there must be
> something for there
> to be nothing... I think this also was pretty much
> the basic
> intent of the statement I cited previously from
> "Coming of Age" by S.
> De Beauvoir.
> Might I remind ourselves here, of some of the
> context from which this
> statement by De Beauvoir was made... It was/is
> regarding the process
> of human ageing... &, among other IMPORTANT points;
> time, as it
> were, is (seemingly) compressed FOR many who are
> physically getting
> older (like, REALLY older) i.e., the CLOSER this
> person/s FEELS to
> DEATH or DYING... can give rise to some feelings &
> thoughts of
> pointlessness in pursuing projects of living.
> This can be, albeit perhaps an excessively linear a
> view... being
> examined here... a life shaping force... &, as she
> finds & I agree,
> a significant MEANING... in lifes' path... for
> many... She examines
> in this work, some likely examples, likely
> significant social set ups
> on how this did can & does happen... Working in a
> long term care
> unit for people myself, I do see various
> manifestations of this
> almost every night I am working. We are not exactly
> talking here of
> being upset 'cause of a stubbed toe... though a
> stubbed toe can fuel
> a chain of untoward reactions, etc...
> In deed, from within, the fact of the possibility of
> death for being,
> may in fact give rise for the possibility to live
> life... realizing
> as keenly as we may, the further expression of this
> finding by Sartre
> in B & N, (from memory): "We exist our bodies..."
> There then are
> choices to be made... even though we cannot REALLY
> tell the exact
> moment of or even KNOW our death, etc. ...but on an
> social scale... this ripping away of the (seeming)
> possibility of
> meaning... by violence done... one way or another...
> albeit quite subtle or quiet, seems a sclerotic
> monster on the
> loose... & a pointless inhibition & tragic damping
> of the human
> creative spirit!
> I am pretty much in agreement with Mary Jo when she
> At 1:29 PM +0000 04/07/04, Mary Jo wrote:
> >Simone de Beauvoir's quote brings all of
> existential questioning back
> >to square one,
> and again:
> >We have forgotten that it was the absurdity of
> death that led to
> >conclusion that life was absurd. Death of my, your,
> our organism -
> >has always been the goad.
> Of course, for De Beauvoir & Sartre... the "absurd"
> life (or death)
> was derived from a finding of no ultimate external
> recourse to
> meaning except to ones own actions & sense of self
> ness... (& some
> luck of the draw!!!!), which I think is some of why
> Sartre pursued
> his further understandings in his Critique of
> Dialectical Reason...
> a social phenomenology of the dynamics of "freedom"
> in action &
> interaction, in the world... We are bound, as it
> turns out, to
> society, the world... nature: Just not quite how it
> WAS (mostly)
> made out to be... More like a necessary
> engagement... encompassing
> a range of reaction / response...
> Perhaps we might want to remember some expression of
> the dilemma was
> also a line in a song by Bob Dylan (It's Alright Ma,
> I'm Only
> Bleeding"???): "He not busy being born is busy
> dying..." So my
> question to you; is Dylan referring to being
> in-itself or being
> for-itself... or the whole dang ball of wax?????
"Beauty's where you find it" Madonna
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
- At 2:37 PM +0000 04/30/04, Mary Jo wrote:
>can't see the forest for the trees. It's also the other two,Mary Jo...
>something and nothing. I think that existence and essence are
>something, and everything else is nothing.
Though I will stand with my previous agreement with you, I will not
with your restatement... of the relationships you articulate as
I would remind you that I did say my previous Apr 6 2004 statement
to Tommy B. re this discussion:
> I agree in the main with taking seriously the distinction listed (&This might be a bit of a clue to the problem I have here.
> more) in the previous discussion...
Probably would be helpful to go back to Being & Nothingness & review
the relationships described by Sartre... I try to do this from time
to time myself... usually come out with a little more light... No
doubt, this a continuing & then possibly valuable discussion.
- Yes, Henry. I admitted I strayed from Sartre's dialectic. Mary Jo
--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@j...>
> At 2:37 PM +0000 04/30/04, Mary Jo wrote:(&
> >can't see the forest for the trees. It's also the other two,
> >something and nothing. I think that existence and essence are
> >something, and everything else is nothing.
> Mary Jo...
> Though I will stand with my previous agreement with you, I will not
> with your restatement... of the relationships you articulate as
> quoted above...
> I would remind you that I did say my previous Apr 6 2004 statement
> to Tommy B. re this discussion:
> > I agree in the main with taking seriously the distinction listed
> > more) in the previous discussion...review
> This might be a bit of a clue to the problem I have here.
> Probably would be helpful to go back to Being & Nothingness &
> the relationships described by Sartre... I try to do this fromtime
> to time myself... usually come out with a little more light... No
> doubt, this a continuing & then possibly valuable discussion.