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

Re: [Sartre] Re: distinction between organism and being

Expand Messages
  • Amy Wing
    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
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 30 7:56 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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"?

      All best,

      Amy

      >
      > <<<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
      > person's
      > 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
      > relevant
      > 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
      > unquestioned
      > social scale... this ripping away of the (seeming)
      > possibility of
      > meaning... by violence done... one way or another...
      > sometimes
      > 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
      > said:
      >
      > 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
      > their
      > >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?????
      >
      > Regardz,
      > Henry>>
      >
      >

      =====
      "Beauty's where you find it" Madonna

      ______________________________________________________________________
      Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
    • Henry W. Peters
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 6 , May 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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...

        This might be a bit of a clue to the problem I have here.

        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.

        Regardz,
        Henry
      • Mary Jo
        Yes, Henry. I admitted I strayed from Sartre s dialectic. Mary Jo ... (& ... review ... time
        Message 3 of 6 , May 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, Henry. I admitted I strayed from Sartre's dialectic. Mary Jo

          --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Henry W. Peters" <hwpeters@j...>
          wrote:
          > 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...
          >
          > This might be a bit of a clue to the problem I have here.
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > Regardz,
          > Henry
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.