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

Re: [Sartre] Re: hei

Expand Messages
  • sava
    ... You just dont. ____________________________________________________________________________________Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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.