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

freedom

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Phillips
    Hello all: For what it s worth, I thought I would throw may hat into the ring on the question of Sartre and freedom... Phil argues that freedom is mediated,
    Message 1 of 18 , Dec 21, 2005
      Hello all:

      For what it's worth, I thought I would throw may hat into the ring on the question of Sartre and freedom...

      Phil argues that freedom is mediated, that absolute freedom is a chimera. Tommy argues for Sartre's position: that the for-itself is not a relation to freedom, it IS freedom--it is freedom all the way through, precisely insofar as it is its own nothingness.

      I would tend to favor Phil's position over Tommy's. Consider, the case of the one who smokes.

      It is true that I am a "smoker" to the extent that I have always smoked. I am a smoker in my pure facticity. But to the extent that I am present to myself as a nihilating for-itself, I WAS a smoker but I AM NOT ONE NOW.( In other words, the upsurge of the for-itself puts the essence of my being behind me, out of play). Now the question of freely quitting smoking turns on whether or not the for itself can be acted upon by my habitual being as a smoker or whether in simply positing that being I can transcend it. Sartre repeatedly says that nothing can act upon the for itself, because every object is FOR not IN consciousness. But I wonder if he overstates his case...

      In order to transcend my being as a smoker, I must first choose willpower as my project of forgoing the lure of cigarettes. Sartre may well be right that in principle nothing prevents me making this choice. But in practice am I invariably my own nothingness?

      Do we agree that in drunkeness one is not always capable of being presence to oneself, that in some instances alcohol does override the power of nihilation, so that it can be said that "I am what I am"--a drunken obnoxious oaf? If I am at one with myself in drunkeness (in other words I cannot take a stand on myself), then it must be the case the for-itself receives drunkeness as an irresistable facticity. In short, drunkeness, as a mode of being, absorbs consciousness into itself. I shall not recover my freedom, until I am once again sober!

      Do we agree that drunkeness can make consciousness heavy in a particular way, that is, it can make consciousness SOMETHING, even if only for a moment? Sartre is obliged, by the absolutism of his postion, to deny that this is possible. I think that there is too much evidence to the contrary to make Sartre's position wholly tenable.

      If we concede that in some situations, the for-itself can become weighted in the world, then it would seem that some species of pyschological determinism are philosophically credible. What these are is obviously a matter for debate.

      Perhaps many "smokers" are capable of transcending their own "essence" by freely positing the power of will. But, it is not beyond the bounds of credibility that there might be some people whose consciousness has become weighted down by an addiction to nicotine. It is true that the nicotine does not compel you to smoke the twenty a day you are used to smoking, but might it compel you to smoke one or two, even against your will? A strict Sartrean would probably say to you that "you aren't trying hard enough!" But such advice is surely begging the question of whether I am wholly free to try as hard as I need to in order to conquer my addiction...

      In my view, Sartre's "cartesian freedom" is too rationalist in the traditionalist sense. Sartre thinks that either one is free or one is not--either A is A or A is not. Had he given more credence to Hegelian dialectics he might have avoided this problem. Hegelian logic allows us to say that A is A but A is also B. Thus, Sartre could have argued that freedom is its own foundation ("A is A"), but freedom is also situated in ways that mediate it towards categories of unfreedom ("A is B"). Of course, when he turned to existential Marxism, Sartre did take up this particular argument...


      Yours,
      Jerry




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Tommy Beavitt
      Hi Jerry, Thanks for your very pertinent intervention. ... Could you provide some more information about how Hegelian logic allows us to say that A is A but A
      Message 2 of 18 , Dec 21, 2005
        Hi Jerry,

        Thanks for your very pertinent intervention.

        On 21 Dec 2005, at 15:36, Jerry Phillips wrote:

        > In my view, Sartre's "cartesian freedom" is too rationalist in
        > the traditionalist sense. Sartre thinks that either one is free or
        > one is not--either A is A or A is not. Had he given more credence
        > to Hegelian dialectics he might have avoided this problem. Hegelian
        > logic allows us to say that A is A but A is also B. Thus, Sartre
        > could have argued that freedom is its own foundation ("A is A"),
        > but freedom is also situated in ways that mediate it towards
        > categories of unfreedom ("A is B"). Of course, when he turned to
        > existential Marxism, Sartre did take up this particular argument...

        Could you provide some more information about how Hegelian logic
        "allows us to say that A is A but A is also B"? I have become much
        more interested in Hegel recently. But I haven't found that in my
        reading of him so far.

        I would be interested in following a debate between yourself and Phil
        on this subject as you both seem to have an interest in formal logic.

        Best regards

        Tommy

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jerry Phillips
        Hello All: I m no expert on Hegel, but I offer below a Hegelian phenomenology of drunkeness. The difference between Hegelian dialectics and Sartrean dualism
        Message 3 of 18 , Dec 21, 2005
          Hello All:

          I'm no expert on Hegel, but I offer below a Hegelian phenomenology of
          drunkeness. The difference between Hegelian dialectics and Sartrean dualism
          should emerge from the telling...

          Many of us have experienced that strange moment when in the midst of
          stumbling around in a drunken stupor, we suddenly say to ourselves, "boy
          am I shitfaced." Now for Sartre this moment of reflection is crucial: in his
          phenomenology, to know myself as drunk is not to be drunk, it is to be present
          to myself as one who exists drunkeness as a contingent facticity (just as when
          Descartes speaks of doubting the world, he is not Descartes the doubter but Descartes the one who speaks of Descartes doubting). For Sartre, in knowing
          myself as shitfaced, I open up a gap between my "drunken state" and the consciousness of my drunkeness. That gap, says Sartre, is precisely nothing, the nothing that "is" my freedom. Sartre therefore holds that I cannot BE drunk, as long
          as I know myself to be existing drunkeness as a possibility. In other words, I am not
          "A" as long as I am the consciousness of A, which is "B."

          In reflecting upon my inebriation I negate it as a condition of my being, says Sartre. But, why, then, do I keep stumbling around in a mental haze? Hegel might say that
          I both am and am not "a drunk." I am a drunk because my freedom has been caught
          up in alcohol, but some part of me escapes full imprisonment in the bottle because I
          see my predicament as an objective reality. I am a drunk and I am the sober awareness of my own drunkeness AT THE SAME TIME, because drunkeness is not a state or a condition, it is a movement of being. The key to Hegelian logic, as I understand it, is the
          movement of reality through contradiction. Thus, when I speak my drunkeness I am both drunk and not drunk, and this contradiction can only be resolved by one or the other possibility absorbing into itself its anthithesis. In other words, either I shall pass
          out in a sleep that transcends both "fuzziness" and "clarity" of mind or I shall find myself in the morning washed up on the shores of sobriety. For Hegel, what I am is a process of becoming, always in relation to what I am not, but what I am not is latent within me as a dialectical possibility.

          Sartre differs from Hegel in that he denies dialectical potentiality. According to him, we
          cannot say that the for-itself is a mediated tendency: it is what it is, and it is what it is not only in terms of voluntary, contingent upsurges. I may always have been a drunkard, but I will never drink again starting tomorrow. In Sartre's way of thinking, this
          is a proper way to speak of my freedom. Sartre tries to mute his pure voluntarism with
          the notion of "the fundamental project." But it is important to see that the fundamental
          project does not "make" me continue my act, rather I freely choose and sustain in
          being what I am, and what I have always been. There is no "potential" as such within
          me, for I am a nothingness always implicitly aware that I have to make myself BE.

          Sartre's dualism is perhaps what leads him into difficulties. He says that the in-itself is pure positivity. What potential it has is what I give it. In itself it is just what it is. Hegel
          might say that the in-itself carries within itself a power of negation. When I taste
          a lemon I do bring it out its taste as one of MY possibilities (Sartre's position); But, says Hegel, it is also true that the sourness of the lemon negates my power of tasting
          sweet (this is a potentiality contained within the lemon). Taste does not come from
          solely the object or the subject, it a dialectical composite of both. Which is another way of saying that the for itself is not absolute freedom; it is freedom mediated by
          Necessity, by what it is not.

          Sartre says that the for itself only ever discovers its own possibilities in the in-itself.
          Surely this is close to an Absolute idealism?


          Yours,
          Jerry

          Tommy Beavitt <tommy@...> wrote:
          Hi Jerry,

          Thanks for your very pertinent intervention.

          On 21 Dec 2005, at 15:36, Jerry Phillips wrote:

          > In my view, Sartre's "cartesian freedom" is too rationalist in
          > the traditionalist sense. Sartre thinks that either one is free or
          > one is not--either A is A or A is not. Had he given more credence
          > to Hegelian dialectics he might have avoided this problem. Hegelian
          > logic allows us to say that A is A but A is also B. Thus, Sartre
          > could have argued that freedom is its own foundation ("A is A"),
          > but freedom is also situated in ways that mediate it towards
          > categories of unfreedom ("A is B"). Of course, when he turned to
          > existential Marxism, Sartre did take up this particular argument...

          Could you provide some more information about how Hegelian logic
          "allows us to say that A is A but A is also B"? I have become much
          more interested in Hegel recently. But I haven't found that in my
          reading of him so far.

          I would be interested in following a debate between yourself and Phil
          on this subject as you both seem to have an interest in formal logic.

          Best regards

          Tommy

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com




          ---------------------------------
          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


          Visit your group "Sartre" on the web.

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          ---------------------------------






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • eram8t8
          sartre is probably laughing at us all...freedom begins in the mind....why don t we use our own and stop acting like sheep......sartre was a springboard...it is
          Message 4 of 18 , Jul 23, 2006
            sartre is probably laughing at us all...freedom begins in the
            mind....why don't we use our own and stop acting like sheep......sartre
            was a springboard...it is up to each individual to decide his/her
            existentialism........
          • pgfreeman
            ... If anything that might correctly be called Sartre is in existence at this moment then he/it is probably still too surprised to be laughing at anyone! ...
            Message 5 of 18 , Jul 24, 2006
              --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "eram8t8" <eram8t8@...> wrote:

              If anything that might correctly be called 'Sartre' is in existence at
              this moment then he/it is probably still too surprised to be laughing
              at anyone!



              > sartre is probably laughing at us all...freedom begins in the
              > mind....why don't we use our own and stop acting like
              sheep......sartre
              > was a springboard...it is up to each individual to decide his/her
              > existentialism........
              >
            • Shadab Murtaza
              My dear, In order to understand we sometimes initiate debates and flow our ideas to others to ascertain whether we have the best idea. It is not bad if people
              Message 6 of 18 , Jul 24, 2006
                My dear,

                In order to understand we sometimes initiate debates and flow our ideas to
                others to ascertain whether we have the best idea. It is not bad if people
                discuss what they have in their mind. Ideas do originate in our mind but
                they dont spring from a vaccum. They are the reflection of what is presented
                to our senses. Just consider your own idea that we should stop discussing
                ideas and decided which of the ideas is best through our own idea. Isn't it
                the same logic as is that of washing the clothes with the same clothes,
                shooting the pistol with the same pistol. Isnt it circular reasoning just as
                defining the man with the definition that Man is Man? The definien and the
                definiendum are not both what is being defined and that which is being used
                to define what is being defined? What do u think?

                Shadab


                >From: "eram8t8" <eram8t8@...>
                >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: [Sartre] freedom
                >Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:05:24 -0000
                >
                >sartre is probably laughing at us all...freedom begins in the
                >mind....why don't we use our own and stop acting like sheep......sartre
                >was a springboard...it is up to each individual to decide his/her
                >existentialism........
                >
                >
                >
                >

                _________________________________________________________________
                Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
                http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
              • eram8t8@aol.com
                In a message dated 7/24/2006 6:12:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shadabmurtaza@hotmail.com writes: Just consider your own idea that we should stop discussing
                Message 7 of 18 , Jul 24, 2006
                  In a message dated 7/24/2006 6:12:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                  shadabmurtaza@... writes:

                  Just consider your own idea that we should stop discussing
                  ideas and decided which of the ideas is best through our own idea


                  sorry if i was misunderstood....i never stated that we stop discussing
                  ideas...in fact now more than ever we NEED to discuss ideas.....especially on
                  existentialism.....why is there so much discord in this world?...can it be that
                  as sartre stated human beings are a waste?....or that hell is other
                  people?....or is it that there is so much animosity that we do not bother to actually
                  "see" each other?....what our world needs right now is praxis......to
                  understand each individual for whom he or she is, to have some compassion no matter
                  what that person has done....we do not know each others history....what
                  makes this person do what he does?.....was the childhood that bad?....but then
                  again, as is in the humanistic approach, he can rise above what was "done" to
                  him and do what he believes is right......again, sorry if i was
                  misunderstood.....


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • sumita varma
                  yes, so many times we don t know, what the person is facing or going through, that is why it is no use of passing our judgement...we understand, but we CAN NOT
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jul 24, 2006
                    yes, so many times we don't know, what the person is facing or going through, that is why it is no use of passing our judgement...we understand, but we CAN NOT CHAGE Personal tragedies or the past of a person and that is the reason UNDERSTANDING is the last thing we can do...and try to make things better for our surroundings... 


                    On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 eram8t8@... wrote :
                    >
                    >In a message dated 7/24/2006 6:12:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                    >shadabmurtaza@... writes:
                    >
                    >Just consider your own idea that we should stop discussing
                    >ideas and decided which of the ideas is best through our own idea
                    >
                    >
                    >sorry if i was misunderstood....i never stated that we stop discussing
                    >ideas...in fact now more than ever we NEED to discuss ideas.....especially on
                    >existentialism.....why is there so much discord in this world?...can it be that
                    >as sartre stated human beings are a waste?....or that hell is other
                    >people?....or is it that there is so much animosity that we do not bother to actually
                    >"see" each other?....what our world needs right now is praxis......to
                    >understand each individual for whom he or she is, to have some compassion no matter
                    >what that person has done....we do not know each others history....what
                    >makes this person do what he does?.....was the childhood that bad?....but then
                    >again, as is in the humanistic approach, he can rise above what was "done" to
                    >him and do what he believes is right......again, sorry if i was
                    >misunderstood.....
                    >
                    >
                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Shadab Murtaza
                    Interesting to note UNDERSTANDING is the last thing and try to make things better for our surroundings... at the same time. I think you are most haunted by
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jul 25, 2006
                      Interesting to note "UNDERSTANDING is the last thing" and "try to make
                      things better for our surroundings..." at the same time. I think you are
                      most haunted by the past. It is important to know what we did and how. But
                      it is better if we do that in order to build a future which does not carry
                      faultes that were present in the past. And I must venture to completey
                      disagree with Sartre if he said 'human beings are waste". I m doubtful of
                      that. He was an active member of French Communist Party, and opposed in
                      principle the party's decision to support the war. And if i m wrong about my
                      doubt, than he is no more right. Right?
                      Good to hear your views. Perhaps i really misunderstood.


                      >From: "sumita varma" <sumitatvarma@...>
                      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      >Subject: Re: Re: [Sartre] freedom
                      >Date: 25 Jul 2006 05:45:41 -0000
                      >
                      >yes, so many times we don't know, what the person is facing or going
                      >through, that is why it is no use of passing our judgement...we understand,
                      >but we CAN NOT CHAGE Personal tragedies or the past of a person and that is
                      >the reason UNDERSTANDING is the last thing we can do...and try to make
                      >things better for our surroundings...�
                      >
                      >
                      >On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 eram8t8@... wrote :
                      > >
                      > >In a message dated 7/24/2006 6:12:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                      > >shadabmurtaza@... writes:
                      > >
                      > >Just consider your own idea that we should stop discussing
                      > >ideas and decided which of the ideas is best through our own idea
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >sorry if i was misunderstood....i never stated that we stop discussing
                      > >ideas...in fact now more than ever we NEED to discuss
                      >ideas.....especially on
                      > >existentialism.....why is there so much discord in this world?...can it
                      >be that
                      > >as sartre stated human beings are a waste?....or that hell is other
                      > >people?....or is it that there is so much animosity that we do not
                      >bother to actually
                      > >"see" each other?....what our world needs right now is praxis......to
                      > >understand each individual for whom he or she is, to have some
                      >compassion no matter
                      > >what that person has done....we do not know each others history....what
                      > >makes this person do what he does?.....was the childhood that
                      >bad?....but then
                      > >again, as is in the humanistic approach, he can rise above what was
                      >"done" to
                      > >him and do what he believes is right......again, sorry if i was
                      > >misunderstood.....
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > >
                      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >

                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
                      http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
                    • eram8t8@aol.com
                      In a message dated 7/25/2006 8:40:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shadabmurtaza@hotmail.com writes: I think you are most haunted by the past. It is important
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jul 25, 2006
                        In a message dated 7/25/2006 8:40:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                        shadabmurtaza@... writes:

                        I think you are
                        most haunted by the past. It is important to know what we did and how


                        so you do understand me....i AM haunted by the past, as i do believe we need
                        to know what we did and how....thereby possibly not make the mistakes of our
                        ancestors....or should i say to improve our collective existence for the
                        betterment of all.....and you are right, i cannot find where sartre said "human
                        beings are a waste"....i am confused....wait, maybe not.....i think....i think
                        i am......therefore i am....i think......arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!....i wish i
                        understood me.........


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Shadab Murtaza
                        Dont be angry at me dear. My theory is simple enough. We should know and understand in order to change: a transfomration of existing class-ridden society into
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jul 26, 2006
                          Dont be angry at me dear. My theory is simple enough. We should know and
                          understand in order to change: a transfomration of existing class-ridden
                          society into a society without classes. Discussing individual psychological
                          problems is important but this psychology is based on subjectivity. I am not
                          because I think. I think, I m and therefore I think. I have never known a
                          person who still continued to think even prior to his birth or after death.

                          >From: eram8t8@...
                          >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                          >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                          >Subject: Re: [Sartre] freedom
                          >Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:16:16 EDT
                          >
                          >
                          >In a message dated 7/25/2006 8:40:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                          >shadabmurtaza@... writes:
                          >
                          >I think you are
                          >most haunted by the past. It is important to know what we did and how
                          >
                          >
                          >so you do understand me....i AM haunted by the past, as i do believe we
                          >need
                          >to know what we did and how....thereby possibly not make the mistakes of
                          >our
                          >ancestors....or should i say to improve our collective existence for the
                          >betterment of all.....and you are right, i cannot find where sartre said
                          >"human
                          >beings are a waste"....i am confused....wait, maybe not.....i think....i
                          >think
                          >i am......therefore i am....i think......arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!....i wish
                          >i
                          > understood me.........
                          >
                          >
                          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >

                          _________________________________________________________________
                          Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
                          http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
                        • eram8t8@aol.com
                          In a message dated 7/26/2006 6:02:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shadabmurtaza@hotmail.com writes: Dont be angry at me dear. My theory is simple enough. We
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jul 26, 2006
                            In a message dated 7/26/2006 6:02:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                            shadabmurtaza@... writes:

                            Dont be angry at me dear. My theory is simple enough. We should know and
                            understand in order to change: a transfomration of existing class-ridden
                            society into a society without classes


                            i am by no means angry at you....but frustrated with the world
                            situation....i agree that we should know and understand in order to
                            change......transformation of an existing class-ridden society into a society without classes would
                            be for me .....utopia!


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Travis Smith
                            Sarte disagreed with Freud about the division of psyche. He didn t care whether you labeled our thoughts conscious or unconscious, ego or id. Regardless of the
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jul 28, 2006
                              Sarte disagreed with Freud about the division of psyche. He didn't care whether you labeled our thoughts conscious or unconscious, ego or id. Regardless of the label applied, these are parts of one being. And that being is responsible for creating an essence. The implication is that we are without excuse. That's scarier than any christian religion preaching hell and sin.

                              eram8t8@... wrote:
                              In a message dated 7/25/2006 8:40:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                              shadabmurtaza@... writes:

                              I think you are
                              most haunted by the past. It is important to know what we did and how

                              so you do understand me....i AM haunted by the past, as i do believe we need
                              to know what we did and how....thereby possibly not make the mistakes of our
                              ancestors....or should i say to improve our collective existence for the
                              betterment of all.....and you are right, i cannot find where sartre said "human
                              beings are a waste"....i am confused....wait, maybe not.....i think....i think
                              i am......therefore i am....i think......arrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!....i wish i
                              understood me.........

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                              ---------------------------------
                              See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out.

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • prasun chatterjee
                                In our country a case of suicide becomes a hot topic for endless gosipping.Nobody delves into it.In fact nobody wants to give adeep thought.In fact we do
                              Message 14 of 18 , Aug 30, 2006
                                 


                                In our country a case of suicide becomes a hot topic for endless gosipping.Nobody delves into it.In fact nobody wants to give adeep thought.In fact we do not consider it as amatter of agony or of measure of unbearable pain a person suffers.To me a case of suicide is a matter of surfacing all the boreness which has been hitherto precipitated. It is stirred up.

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • rtherriault@live.com
                                A large amount of the writings of the existentialists are concerned with freedom. Freedom, however, seems to be reduced to choice. Sartre said You can choose
                                Message 15 of 18 , Sep 24 3:37 AM
                                  A large amount of the writings of the existentialists are concerned with freedom. Freedom, however, seems to be reduced to choice. Sartre said "You can choose to choose and you can choose not to choose, but you cannot choose not to choose." How does this play out in something like "No Exit?"

                                  Your Friendly Philosopher

                                  Bob

                                  http://www.stairwaytoparadise.blogspot.com
                                  http://www.jazzmoods.blogspot.com
                                  http://www.holism4us.blogspot.com
                                  http://www.ethicswithoutwalls.blogspot.com

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • bla bla
                                  This group doesn t seem to be real active currently, and I m not as up on No Exit as I d like, but my impression from my feeble memory of Garcin in
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Sep 25 5:41 AM
                                    This group doesn't seem to be real active currently, and I'm not as up on "No Exit" as I'd like, but my impression from my feeble memory of Garcin in particular was that he wasn't really free at all, he seemed to have been driven by the judgements about him by "other people" (hell I suppose) ... being for others and all that.  (Incidently it just occurred to me the lyrics from the song by Rush, "Freewill" ... "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice", seems to be the saying same thing, Neal Peart perhaps was up on his Sartre as well as his Ayn Rand?)
                                     
                                    In Dostoyevsky's "Notes from Underground", the narrator comments about freewill really being an illusion, as all our decisions and actions, he postulates, can be expressed using logic and reason with sophisticated enough techniques, much like a table of logarithms, or a simple expression of 2x2=4 ... Odd though, I thought, that the narrator then went on to say that he abhorred such a statement as 2x2=4, perhaps it was his own struggle for authenticity and rebellion against the system which he was inherently a participant, willing or not?

                                    --- On Wed, 9/24/08, rtherriault@... <rtherriault@...> wrote:

                                    From: rtherriault@... <rtherriault@...>
                                    Subject: [Sartre] freedom
                                    To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                    Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 6:37 AM






                                    A large amount of the writings of the existentialists are concerned with freedom. Freedom, however, seems to be reduced to choice. Sartre said "You can choose to choose and you can choose not to choose, but you cannot choose not to choose." How does this play out in something like "No Exit?"

                                    Your Friendly Philosopher

                                    Bob

                                    http://www.stairway toparadise. blogspot. com
                                    http://www.jazzmood s.blogspot. com
                                    http://www.holism4u s.blogspot. com
                                    http://www.ethicswi thoutwalls. blogspot. com

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


















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