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

Re: hei

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.