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

hei

Expand Messages
  • kezia_105
    thanks for let me join in this group. I m new in the existentialism, I don t know yet about Sartre but I interest with anything about him and existentialism.
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      thanks for let me join in this group. I'm new in the existentialism, I
      don't know yet about Sartre but I interest with anything about him and
      existentialism. please teach me about it? thanks
    • h.ali sipahi
      kezia_105 wrote: thanks for let me join in this group. I m new in the existentialism, I don t know yet about Sartre but I
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        kezia_105 <kezia_105@...> wrote: thanks for let me join in this group. I'm new in the existentialism, I
        don't know yet about Sartre but I interest with anything about him and
        existentialism. please teach me about it? thanks




        ok... we can speak about existantialism... ý am waiting you to msn messenger...mr_heraklitos@...

        my e mail. and for chat...bye


        ---------------------------------
        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]
      • jj.hogset
        This is a very interesting challenge: How do you explain existentialism to someone who doesn t know anything about it? What is the essence (ironically!) of
        Message 3 of 6 , May 24 1:45 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          This is a very interesting challenge: How do you explain
          existentialism to someone who doesn't know anything about it? What is
          the essence (ironically!) of Sartrian existentialism? What a great
          way to begin a collaboration!

          This is one suggestion:

          Objects, like pens, have essence. Their essence is the quality of
          being a tool, used to write or draw. In the case of a pen, the
          intention to make a writing-tool is in effect prior to somebody's
          actually making a particular pen. Thus its essence "exists" prior to
          each particular pen being made. If there is a god who rules heaven
          and earth according to his divine plan, the same would apply to human
          beings; the essence of human beings precedes each individual human –
          it consists of fulfilling their role in the divine plan. If, however,
          there is no god, the "function" of each human being would be nothing
          other than the individual's very own actions, which means that there
          is no common purpose to human beings, as opposed to the sense that
          all pens exists for the purpose of writing, and there would therefore
          be no essence to speak of. Existentialism is the belief that there is
          no god. Thus, we do not know how we are supposed to act. The "script"
          is not written (no divine purpose). Tools have essences; their
          functions (or uses to human beings) are their reasons for being made.
          If there is no god, there is no plan relative to which man is
          defined, thus the function (or the uses) of man can not be
          preconceived. But, the individual's life, in retrospect, can be
          viewed as an attempt to define the truth about what being human
          entails.

          This is the main point Sartre makes in "Existentialism is humanism".

          The main points being made in Being and Nothingness are a little more
          difficult to convey. This, by the way, would make a great opportunity
          for cooperation.

          To begin with, Sartre says that the phenomena are nothing besides the
          totality of their representations. Thus he contradicts the classic
          concept of "substance" which distinguishes between an object's
          necessary and coincidental properties. Sartre says that each
          phenomenon's nature is nothing else than the totality of its
          manifestations. Thus, there is no essence of electricity besides the
          totality of the effects electricity has on objects. Translated to the
          realm of individual human beings, this means that the essence of one
          individual is nothing besides than the sum of this individual's
          actions.

          Sartre calls objects "being-in-itself" since they are nothing besides
          them selves. A pen is identical to it self, it is just a pen, and it
          is not a pen to it self, because it has no sense of self. Human
          beings, on the other hand, have a relationship to themselves. They
          are aware of their own existence, therefore they have a relationship
          to themselves – they think about themselves. Human beings are
          therefore "being-for-itself".

          Sartre claims that the basic strive for human beings is to "be"
          something, that is, finding their necessary as opposed to their
          coincidental qualities – their essence. If there is no divine plan,
          there can be no "essence" (recall that a phenomenon is nothing
          besides its totality of manifestations). Sartre calls the desire for
          essence "bad faith". Does this mean that religion is bad faith? I
          honestly don't know. What he does say, however, is that at each and
          every point in time, everyone experience the sense of being free to
          do what they will. They then have a choice, to take responsibility
          and saying that "I chose this though it can not be justified in gods
          plan or in my human nature" or they can try to see themselves as
          objects with essences or pawns in the divine plan. Since being-for-
          itself experience it self, in every situation, as having a choice, to
          base its decisions in its "nature" is a self-deceit, as attributing
          the choice (free will) to something other than its freedom, is a lie.
          If my choices follow with necessity from my nature, then I do not
          have the free will that I have the experience of having. Thus
          believing in "my nature" or "my essence" is a denial of my own
          experience, which makes it "bad faith".

          The notion of "bad faith" is very important in "Being and
          Nothingness". Especially as interpersonal relations is concerned.
          Being free is not only a burden because it makes you responsible for
          everything you chose. If freedom is the "nature" of human existence,
          what can we say human existence is? There's not really anything to
          say, as it all depends on a choice which in advance is not possible
          to predict. Thus it is hard to get to know one self, as there really
          isn't anything to know except the ever present possibility. And what
          is a possibility? It's nothing, just a potential. But the individual
          wants to understand it self, and is therefore driven by a desire to
          make it self into a "nature" – an object. But to attribute ones
          choices to one's "nature" is to flee from freedom, and the non-being
          it implicates.

          There are two ways of achieving object-like being: To dominate
          someone, and thus experience oneself as objectified freedom through
          the objectification of the other's freedom (the sadist), or in being
          dominated, and experiencing one self as object for the other's
          subjectivity (the masochist). Both ways are ultimately futile, the
          only way to live authentic is to accept the lack one's self's being,
          the utter groundlessness of ones choices.
        • sava
          ... You just dont. ____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and
          Message 4 of 6 , May 24 7:07 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- "jj.hogset" <jj.hogset@...> wrote:

            > This is a very interesting challenge: How do you
            > explain
            > existentialism to someone who doesn't know anything
            > about it?

            You just dont.



            ____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
            http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
          • jj.hogset
            This is a very interesting challenge: How do you ... ouch! sounds a bit like nietzscian resentiment ... Thought it might evolve in to a open, and OPENING
            Message 5 of 6 , May 25 1:20 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              "> > This is a very interesting challenge: How do you
              > > explain
              > > existentialism to someone who doesn't know anything
              > > about it?
              >
              > You just dont."

              ouch! sounds a bit like nietzscian "resentiment"... Thought it might
              evolve in to a open, and OPENING (unveiling), discussion on the
              reading of B & N.

              jh

              --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, sava <cepav0@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > --- "jj.hogset" <jj.hogset@...> wrote:
              >

              >
              >
              >
              >
              ____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk
              for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
              today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
              > http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
              >
            • tsedayw2002
              I like your explanation. Here is my contribution. And yet I shall begin with an argument. I get quite uncomfortable with your stement Existentialism is the
              Message 6 of 6 , May 25 6:55 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                I like your explanation. Here is my contribution. And yet I shall
                begin with an argument. I get quite uncomfortable with your stement
                "Existentialism is the belief that there is
                no god." Existentialism is not this. You seem to forgot how Sartre
                himself defended for it in Existentialism and Humanism. He claims
                there are theist ones. He, Hiedggar, Husserl and Nietzsche are the
                ones who lay the basis for the secular one. The very common ground
                for both kinds, however, is the idea of the precedence of existence
                than essence. For this Sartre stats that the world though preceeds
                in existence from human consciousness was meaningless and empty. It
                is after the being-for-itself appeared that it has got its meaning
                and order. Essence is the meaning of being (BN). This is why
                principally existance should preced essence.

                As to the main concern of being and nothingness we can begin saying
                man is both being and nothingness. As a being s/he has a
                consciousness that aspirs to become a thing that is posifivity and
                complete in its nature (being-in-itself) as you rightly stated.
                However s/he needs it without ceasing to be for-itself. There is
                where the contradiction occures. In addtion, this aspiration is
                itself is lack. Lack of somthing. This lack is hole.

                I will continue if you are interested with this I could not continue
                because of time restriction.


                --- In Sartre@yahoogroups.com, "jj.hogset" <jj.hogset@...> wrote:
                >
                > This is a very interesting challenge: How do you explain
                > existentialism to someone who doesn't know anything about it? What
                is
                > the essence (ironically!) of Sartrian existentialism? What a great
                > way to begin a collaboration!
                >
                > This is one suggestion:
                >
                > Objects, like pens, have essence. Their essence is the quality of
                > being a tool, used to write or draw. In the case of a pen, the
                > intention to make a writing-tool is in effect prior to somebody's
                > actually making a particular pen. Thus its essence "exists" prior
                to
                > each particular pen being made. If there is a god who rules heaven
                > and earth according to his divine plan, the same would apply to
                human
                > beings; the essence of human beings precedes each individual
                human –
                > it consists of fulfilling their role in the divine plan. If,
                however,
                > there is no god, the "function" of each human being would be
                nothing
                > other than the individual's very own actions, which means that
                there
                > is no common purpose to human beings, as opposed to the sense that
                > all pens exists for the purpose of writing, and there would
                therefore
                > be no essence to speak of. Existentialism is the belief that there
                is
                > no god. Thus, we do not know how we are supposed to act.
                The "script"
                > is not written (no divine purpose). Tools have essences; their
                > functions (or uses to human beings) are their reasons for being
                made.
                > If there is no god, there is no plan relative to which man is
                > defined, thus the function (or the uses) of man can not be
                > preconceived. But, the individual's life, in retrospect, can be
                > viewed as an attempt to define the truth about what being human
                > entails.
                >
                > This is the main point Sartre makes in "Existentialism is
                humanism".
                >
                > The main points being made in Being and Nothingness are a little
                more
                > difficult to convey. This, by the way, would make a great
                opportunity
                > for cooperation.
                >
                > To begin with, Sartre says that the phenomena are nothing besides
                the
                > totality of their representations. Thus he contradicts the classic
                > concept of "substance" which distinguishes between an object's
                > necessary and coincidental properties. Sartre says that each
                > phenomenon's nature is nothing else than the totality of its
                > manifestations. Thus, there is no essence of electricity besides
                the
                > totality of the effects electricity has on objects. Translated to
                the
                > realm of individual human beings, this means that the essence of
                one
                > individual is nothing besides than the sum of this individual's
                > actions.
                >
                > Sartre calls objects "being-in-itself" since they are nothing
                besides
                > them selves. A pen is identical to it self, it is just a pen, and
                it
                > is not a pen to it self, because it has no sense of self. Human
                > beings, on the other hand, have a relationship to themselves. They
                > are aware of their own existence, therefore they have a
                relationship
                > to themselves – they think about themselves. Human beings are
                > therefore "being-for-itself".
                >
                > Sartre claims that the basic strive for human beings is to "be"
                > something, that is, finding their necessary as opposed to their
                > coincidental qualities – their essence. If there is no divine
                plan,
                > there can be no "essence" (recall that a phenomenon is nothing
                > besides its totality of manifestations). Sartre calls the desire
                for
                > essence "bad faith". Does this mean that religion is bad faith? I
                > honestly don't know. What he does say, however, is that at each
                and
                > every point in time, everyone experience the sense of being free
                to
                > do what they will. They then have a choice, to take responsibility
                > and saying that "I chose this though it can not be justified in
                gods
                > plan or in my human nature" or they can try to see themselves as
                > objects with essences or pawns in the divine plan. Since being-for-
                > itself experience it self, in every situation, as having a choice,
                to
                > base its decisions in its "nature" is a self-deceit, as
                attributing
                > the choice (free will) to something other than its freedom, is a
                lie.
                > If my choices follow with necessity from my nature, then I do not
                > have the free will that I have the experience of having. Thus
                > believing in "my nature" or "my essence" is a denial of my own
                > experience, which makes it "bad faith".
                >
                > The notion of "bad faith" is very important in "Being and
                > Nothingness". Especially as interpersonal relations is concerned.
                > Being free is not only a burden because it makes you responsible
                for
                > everything you chose. If freedom is the "nature" of human
                existence,
                > what can we say human existence is? There's not really anything to
                > say, as it all depends on a choice which in advance is not
                possible
                > to predict. Thus it is hard to get to know one self, as there
                really
                > isn't anything to know except the ever present possibility. And
                what
                > is a possibility? It's nothing, just a potential. But the
                individual
                > wants to understand it self, and is therefore driven by a desire
                to
                > make it self into a "nature" – an object. But to attribute ones
                > choices to one's "nature" is to flee from freedom, and the non-
                being
                > it implicates.
                >
                > There are two ways of achieving object-like being: To dominate
                > someone, and thus experience oneself as objectified freedom
                through
                > the objectification of the other's freedom (the sadist), or in
                being
                > dominated, and experiencing one self as object for the other's
                > subjectivity (the masochist). Both ways are ultimately futile, the
                > only way to live authentic is to accept the lack one's self's
                being,
                > the utter groundlessness of ones choices.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.