Not Right or Wrong (was) oh yes and..
- Hi Amy, I was wondering, if there is no right or wrong, how is it
possible for George to characterize suffering as horrific? How do we
make value judgements? How am I able to consider any situation,
object or thing worthless or worthwhile?
--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "Amy" <loconito442@y...> wrote:
> Sartre would agree that slavery is wrong because people say so
> instead of it being in itself, because he claims that there is not
> right or wrong action, merely a choice, but/and also, that we are -
> all - the creators of essence.
> All best,
- Since we are comparing philosophies, does anyone understand Spinoza's
parrallellism as a philosophy -which influenced early phenomenologists?
> decker150 <decker150@...> wrote:
> <<<George Said: "Kant [and lots of other Great Minds] postulated the
> noumena. But folks like Schopenhaurer suggested that noumenal and
> phenoumenal reality must forvermore remain unbridgable.
> When Sartre spoke of the thing-in-itself not once did he ever actually
> describe What It Is. How could he?
> Joe: No, I think rather he would have simply described 'that' it is,
> that the thing-in-itself-simply-is; but by even doing that, Sartre
> made affirmitive statements without proof. It does not matter how
> limited his description was, it was nontheless...a description of
> be-ing there. I have long noticed that some thinkers intellectually
> seek to back their readers into an obligatory corner of
> seeing their views, while using the very method they find fault with
> in others, and would not permit; all without as much
> self-due-diligence and demand. You cannot pursue Phenomneology and
> Ontology without employing 'description' and interpetation. You can't
> have it both ways.>>>>
> What does this mean substantively, however? Situate your words existentially by embedding them in a particular human relationship. One that revolves around a moral or political interaction. To say "that" there "is" an ontological/objective perspective that transends any mere existential vantage point does not mean much if there is not a noumeal point of view that can be expressed by a mind privy to it. And the reason I am forced to express my own point of view as though I were expressing it ontologically is that human language is all I have to convey my thoughts. It is analogous to postmodernists deconconstructing texts...and then someone pointing out they have merely recreated another text. You are forced to be logical in deconstructing logic----because what else is there? That Is why Wittgenstein suggested words only go so far in discussions like this. You reach the point where they must stop and be silent. But you need to use language to make that point, right? So, the pr!
> blem isd
> the inherent limitations of human language in trying to express literally what can only be expressed approximately.
> <<<There can be no noumenology since all studies are tainted by human
> subjectivity; thus the introduction to Phenomenology, the study of
> things as the 'appear' to us, thereby introducing our additional
> concerns about consciousness, subjectivity, and human experience in
> general. And as you pointed out, we can not gain the necessary
> distance between ourself and the subject we are studying (ourself):
> It is like a single tooth trying to bite itself.>>>
> Yes, but I also believe you can take this point of view too far. There are those who, ironically, encompass it literally. They say everything is just a matter of a subjective perspective--- including the things natural science conveys in evincing relationships between mindless matter out in the physical world. My point about language, however, is more or less Wittgenstein's. Some things are more inherently subjective than are others. I would never say, for example, that the science used to make this computer technology is just a matter of opinion.
> <<<I am the self, reflecting in myself, about myself; of being conscious
> of my own consciousness; Phenomenology leads us into these kinds of
> reflections. As to things in themself, I leave you with the following
> "everything is what it is and not another thing." I hope that is
> true. Assuming it is, Ontology seeks to describe the structure of
> Be-ing, which is what it is and not something else.>>>
> "Everything is what is and not another thing" smacks too much of Ayn Rand's A = A to me. It is a contradiction in terms if one wishes to include human freedom, autonomy and moral responsibility in it. It is just another manifestation of Spinoza's pantheism: all is one and one is all in this best of all possible worlds. And that is because it is the only possible world, right? Then it just comes down to minds allegedly brilliant enough to grasp this objective reality. It is, in fact, human consciouness [matter mindful of itself] that is the most awesomely mysterious element in the cosmos. What does matter able to comprehend itself as matter able to comprehend itself mean? It is like no other matter around to say the least. In fact, some speculate it is not really matter at all. And we don't really have a freaking clue about it, do we? Nor did Sartre. Being and Nothingness is just one more philosophical stab in the dark when you go all the way out on the metaphysical limb and !
> the most primordial questions of all. Like, for instance, "what is existence?". Try enveloping that logically.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartreemail@example.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links