Re: [Sartre] existence
- well sir.. you opinion sartre believes exhistence of the self is a truth needing no proof.how do we define truth . truth is a concept that ought to be there for making an understanding and that has never been there. hence a continued search for that.even we cannot say the time at present accurately and correctly .by the time i perceive what time you have said it is already past.if you calculate time taken for its utterence and time taken for my perception and accordingly introduce correction and say the exact time that coincides with the mutually agreed time by an agreed watch or clock your statement of the time at the time you have uttered it is different and hence wrong also.. isnt it so...then may we say we can predict time correctly?that is it... then the basic question is is there a time ... according to my understanding there is no time outside my perception. yhe same applies to my exhistence also..if iam am am i am irrespective of my thinking... descartes statement
is to be taken as a subjective intelligent exclammation... not as an exhistencial reality...welcome teasers....
Ian Buick <buickian@...> wrote: In a recent post nagarajbhadrashetty says:
>. i wish i believed i do exhist.but alas ! i do not. i did not and i willI thought that Descartes put up a watertight argument for the existence of
>not at least in the present form >of awareness.how can i say a rabbit taken
>out of a magicians cap do really exhist. i am not sure >either way. i am
the self in his Meditations. In his " I think therefore I am" we may argue
about what the "I" is, what "thought" is, and what it is to "be", but the
fact that the I is doubting the existence of itself would seem to be
irrefutable proof that the doubting I does in fact exist, otherwise it could
In Being and Nothingness, I'm sure Sartre takes the existence of self as a
truth which demands no proof on his part.
I do, however, seem to remember reading somewhere that doubt has been cast
on Descartes cogito. Can anyone enlighten?
MSN Hotmail is evolving check out the new Windows Live Mail
To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartreemail@example.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- yes, the existential problem has no single answer, i think.when in dream
we feel we do really exist and experince the events there as if they are
here and now;only after we wake up we realise it was not a CONCRETE
thing but a CONCEPYUAL and hence less than virtual.So will we realise
this life as a state resmbling the dream? no one knows for sure.all our
attempts to understand the essence and absolute cause and purpose of
existence are ultimately futile with no conceptions that deliver the
truth.Intellectual masturbations may be pleasant but not creative.It is
some what like a group of born blind men seriously trying to understand
how different colors really look.Only death can reveal the truth if
there is a state of beingness after death with this
consciousness.Ultimately it is not what Sartre or Einstein or
Shankaracharya make out of the meaning , it is what one makes out by
one's own efforts and making his understanding that is it is emperical
unto each one.
--- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, Nagaraj Bhadrashetty
>happy for you for so feeling. i wish i believed i do exhist.but alas ! i
> you say ....yes we exhist.dont know as to appreciate or pity or feel
do not. i did not and i will not at least in the present form of
awareness.how can i say a rabbit taken out of a magicians cap do really
exhist. i am not sure either way. i am highly sceptical.sartre says
BEING MEANS BELONGING TO SOME THING. Can you pl. explore for me?
> Tommy Beavitt tommy@... wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2007, at 17:37, Nagaraj Bhadrashetty wrote:
> > do we really exhist?
> I suppose its an obvious question really. But perhaps the answer is
> not so obvious.
> Arguably the largest of Sartre's contributions to philosophy was his
> clear statement of the concept of nothingness. This is not the same
> thing in believing nothing, rather Sartre thought that nothingness
> lay curled in the very heart of being.
> In Existentialism and Human emotions he wrote:
> "But ontology and existential psychoanalysis (or the spontaneous and
> empirical application which men have always made of these
> disciplines) must reveal to the moral agent that he is the being by
> whom values exist. It is then that his freedom will become conscious
> of itself and will reveal itself in anguish as the unique source of
> value and the nothingness by which the world exists."
> and in his fictitious diary of the existential hero, Roquentin, La
> Nausée, Sartre uses Roquentin's inner thoughts to represent this
> concept to his readers. For example, Roquentin writes:
> "if I exist, it is because I am horrified at existing. I am the one
> who pulls myself from the nothingness to which I aspire: the hatred,
> the disgust of existing, there are as many ways to make myself exist,
> to thrust myself into existence. Thoughts are born at the back of me,
> like sudden giddiness, I feel them being born behind my head ... if I
> yield, they're going to come round in front of me, between my
> and I always yield, the thought grows and grows and there it is,
> immense, filling me completely and renewing my existence."
> Sartre distinguished between being-in-itself, the world of insentient
> objects, and being-for-itself, the world of conscious existence.
> Because of human freedom, it is the quintessence of bad faith to
> refer to oneself as an object, or to attempt to *behave* like an
> object, because what man is, is free.
> But human freedom, for Sartre, as shown above, forces us to confront
> the nothingness that lies at the centre of everything that we are.
> And although one of the ways that this nothingness reveals itself to
> us is in our mortality - and in particular, our choice as to stay
> alive, or to end our lives by acting on an impulse - it also affects
> the way that we live the choices that exemplify our freedom.
> So in the way the answer is yes, we do exist. But the matter of our
> existence is complicated and not at all a question of making an
> analogy to things that we observe that are existents in-themselves.
> What do you think? Do you know that you exist? Does Sartre's
> description of existence and nothingness tally with your own direct
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartrefirstname.lastname@example.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]