Re: [Sartre] Re: Atheistic existentialism_existentialist question_The Oracle, Kierkegaard, and irony
- The Oracle in the Matrix Revolutions says "I did not know, I believed." (She
was being asked how she knew what the future would hold)
George and Joe,
Do you think the poststructuralist's focus on language and meaning, rather
than trying to bridge the gap between noumena and phenouna, is a solution?
In other words, all previous philosophy is fundamentally flawed and
impossible to state as to state is to begin with a presupposition. The
presuppositions with which all arguments begin affirm without proof, and
any conclusion that is reached is only true in so far as the presupposition
is true - which is unprovable due to what Joe said. Hence, any argument
cannot be true. It may be valid, but it is not true becuase it is negated as
soon as one negates the presupposition.
Epistemology is always subject to infinite regress. Instead, think in terms
of language, synchrony, and diachrony, and that's about as good as we will
get to reach 'truth' about what human's experience. And as psychoanalysis
focuses on meaning - well, maybe that is the best way to know our
I am reading Kierkegaard's 'Concept of irony', and in his view, the
Socratic method is an ironic method - ie. to focus on the negative. By which
I mean, through his questionings, he brings all affirmative or positive
statements to negation - which Kierkegaard calls irony.
Was Socrates the first and only philosopher pre the poststructuralists who
could really be called a philosopher - or can we include Descartes method
of doubt, as long as we eliminate his belief in God. And the same applies
What do you think of this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "decker150" <decker150@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:18 AM
Subject: [Sartre] Re: Atheistic existentialism and theistic existentialist
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartreemail@example.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links