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

Re: [Sartre] hei

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 of 6 , May 24, 2007
      • 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 3 of 6 , May 24, 2007
        • 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 4 of 6 , May 25, 2007
          • 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 5 of 6 , May 25, 2007
            • 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.