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

Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life

Expand Messages
  • Nagaraj Bhadrashetty
    No sir, no. patient seeking doctor,s advice is not the same as one asking others advice for personal problems . the comparison is not apt. Shadab Murtaza
    Message 1 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      No sir, no. patient seeking doctor,s advice is not the same as one asking others advice for personal problems . the comparison is not apt.

      Shadab Murtaza <shadabmurtaza@...> wrote: It is interesting to note that the bottom line of your argument is that
      giving advise is to steal the freedom and liberty of the one who is seeking
      advise. I am amazed to know that. It means no one should visit the doctor
      for treatment and no doctor should treat the patient, beacuse all patients
      go to doctor to seek medical advise as to how to improve or recover their
      health and all doctor advise their patinets for the same purpose. No teacher
      should teach and no one should study because every has to know and
      understand every thing without utilizing the benefit of others experience.
      All sportsmen should be their own coaches.



      >From: Nagaraj Bhadrashetty
      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
      >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
      >MIME-Version: 1.0
      >X-Originating-IP: 209.191.124.154
      >X-Sender: nagarajbhadrashetty@...
      >Received: from n20a.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.64.133]) by
      >bay0-mc2-f16.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon,
      >11 Jun 2007 21:33:58 -0700
      >Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n20.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12
      >Jun 2007 04:33:56 -0000
      >Received: from [66.218.69.1] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun
      >2007 04:33:56 -0000
      >Received: from [66.218.67.108] by t1.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12
      >Jun 2007 04:33:56 -0000
      >Received: (qmail 23841 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2007 04:33:54 -0000
      >Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP;
      >12 Jun 2007 04:33:54 -0000
      >Received: from unknown (HELO web38211.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (209.191.124.154)
      > by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2007 04:33:54 -0000
      >Received: (qmail 94119 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jun 2007 04:32:46 -0000
      >Received: from [59.92.185.10] by web38211.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon,
      >11 Jun 2007 21:32:46 PDT
      >X-Message-Info:
      >LsUYwwHHNt3nqwBgl2bc+EQew+GKk9RUyaMMRnZAVgWFbbO5XS+qbVVkQ8zwQXj2
      >Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
      >DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima;
      >d=yahoogroups.com;b=G+PTy6yFzHfc0+yiL0BaPd/g7ATztgRuq/Gfx/EKuZ2zBTJZNsLOZK2NKkTdTpEmNZQNXkCafVjVLV5r7yFKUxfuTOs7TfvnxwjKaOTnPXx9V9f1fmTOnE9eMAa+m8VF;
      >X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 222825-m1653
      >X-Apparently-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >X-YMail-OSG:
      >1o2z_gQVM1nSse3s6KfzK8AwIF0Aae0dP9UwnObWJBJzz.DQZrhudD1aSVPitecxOx84cU5JwbilfKvk6K1eeQEGRQ--
      >X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
      >X-Yahoo-Profile: nagarajbhadrashetty
      >Mailing-List: list Sartre@yahoogroups.com; contact
      >Sartre-owner@yahoogroups.com
      >Delivered-To: mailing list Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      >List-Id:
      >Precedence: bulk
      >List-Unsubscribe:
      >X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-ff
      >Return-Path:
      >sentto-222825-1653-1181622836-shadabmurtaza=hotmail.com@...
      >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2007 04:33:58.0568 (UTC)
      >FILETIME=[E4C1EA80:01C7ACAA]
      >
      >Where is the flaw? Yes one is free to choose what one thinks right for him
      >at that poit of Time and in that situation as one has been . how can some
      >one else take decision for some one at a personal level? Sartre says "you
      >are free to choose " How can any one else know some one elses value
      >systems, priorities,faiths, beliefs,fears,etc . These traits unique and
      >individualistic, changing from time to time as one is in the continuous
      >process of Becomingness that is transiently appears to be Beingness.If
      >Sartre advises the boy to choose this or that, he would have committed
      >himself responsible for the consequences of the boys action.that would have
      >meant that Sartre stole boys Freedom to choose and that would in the end
      >meant that he stole boys life itself.
      >
      >ibuick wrote: When thinking about the 3
      >Sartres, the question about the
      >relationship
      >between philosophy and life kept running through my head - in
      >particular:
      >1. To what extent should philosophy act as an aid to help you live
      >your life?
      >
      >2. To what extent is there a relationship between a philosophers
      >ideas and how he lives his life (or vice versa)
      >
      >I certainly look to philosophy (and literature) to give me ideas for
      >life and in this respect I am bothered by Sartre's example in
      >Existentialism and Humanism of the young student who comes to him
      >looking for advice as to whether he should join the free french
      >forces or to stay and help his mother. "what could help him choose?"
      >asks Sartre and goes on to advise him: "You are free, therefore
      >choose, that is to say, invent." For me this illustrates a fatal flaw
      >in sartre's early philosophy - on any practical level it seems to
      >offer no answers to life's questions.
      >
      >It is difficult to think of Socrates (for example) abandoning the
      >youth in this way. For all his loopy ideas (e.g obedience to rulers
      >and gods, censorship of the poets, the theory of forms,
      >the transmigration of souls ) he would never dismiss a plea for
      >advice. And although in the early dialogues where he is interacting
      >with youths,
      >he doesn't actually tell them what courage, love, virtue is, he does
      >try to lead them to a higher understanding of the problem
      >
      >Socrates is also an exemplary case for the relationship between a
      >philosopher's ideas and his life. He has been accused of advocating a
      >fascist type state but there is When given the choice between life
      >and death, he chose death rather than be seen to compromise the ideas
      >by which he had lived.
      >
      >Or take Heidegger – a philosopher I can't read or look at without
      >wanting to vomit. His Nazi involvement was at a high level and he
      >never repudiated his support. One approach is to separate his
      >biography from his ideas. Rohrty has called him a nasty guy who had
      >interesting ideas. What if he was a nasty guy with nasty ideas which
      >some of us find interesting. Could he really support a world view
      >that was so inhuman without this filtering into his philosophy? could
      >he really separate his life from his thoughts?
      >
      >To return to Sartre; the increasing social/political engagement of
      >his later philosophy was mirrored in the increasing social/political
      >engagement in his life. One of the continuities that I see running
      >through his life's work is the attempt to establish a viable
      >philosophy of freedom that would contribute to ending the
      >inequalities in the world - such as one child in the poorer countries
      >dying of starvation and disease every three seconds (the list
      >Oberphilosoph grimaces and mutters - situation, onanism,
      >situation.....!!!).
      >
      >But as a major thinker wrote. 'The philosophers have only interpreted
      >the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.' It
      >is this attempt to conceptualise and explain historical change that I
      >see as Sartre's greatest contribution to philosophy.
      >But that is another post...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >---------------------------------
      >Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
      >Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo!
      >Games.
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >

      _________________________________________________________________
      Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
      http://search.msn.com/



      To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Yahoo! Groups Links






      ---------------------------------
      Building a website is a piece of cake.
      Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Eric S
      Ian, Shadab, Your points are well taken. Certainly, there is a role for teachers and advisers. Knowledge is a specialized commodity and today especially we
      Message 2 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Ian, Shadab,

        Your points are well taken. Certainly, there is a role for teachers and advisers. Knowledge is a specialized commodity and today especially we lack the time to pursue everything. So, we tend to have a huge panoply of experts in our society who are always busy (often these days in 'reality' tv shows) telling us what movies to see, what not to wear, the way to cook, how to design, and, politically, what to think and who to vote for. It has become a very mediated culture, a very processed world.

        Against this, maybe we would do better to heed instead those more cynical non-experts such as the punks and anarchists who advise us to DIY - that is - Do It Yourself.

        At heart it is a question of emancipation - what the early Sartre would call, perhaps, authenticity.

        Here are two quotes from two great philosophical "experts" that clarify what I mean.

        Jacques Ranciere in "The Ignorant Schoolmaster" writes:

        "Socrates leads Meno's slave to recognize the mathematical truths that lie within himself. This may be a path to learning, but it is in no way a path to emancipation. On the contrary, Socrates must take the slave by his hand so the latter can find what is inside himself. The demonstration of his knowledge is just as much a demonstration of his powerlessness: he will never walk by himself, unless it is to illustrate the master's lesson. In this case, Socrates interrogates a slave who is destined to remain one."

        Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is Enlightenment?" writes:

        "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding."

        Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre argues that we must choose to choose.

        There is an implicit political moral to this story. Once emancipated and enlightened, we can no longer remain passive consumers of the society of the spectacle. It is out of our lazy-boys (you armchair philosophers!) and into the streets.

        It is also not just a question of DIY in an isolated sense, but DIY in the sense of the multitude. To create what Kant called voluntary associations and what Sartre called the group. To develop as an emancipated, liquid, nomadic, global horde that can wrestle control of the means to production (increasingly, computers, cell phones, internet, communication grids) out of the grubby hands of Empire; those neo-liberal Masters who are always telling us what to do and backing it up with a service or product they are always ready to sell us.

        Philosophy must now become something more than product placement or it is nothing!

        eric



        Shadab Murtaza <shadabmurtaza@...> wrote:
        It is interesting to note that the bottom line of your argument is that
        giving advise is to steal the freedom and liberty of the one who is seeking
        advise. I am amazed to know that. It means no one should visit the doctor
        for treatment and no doctor should treat the patient, beacuse all patients
        go to doctor to seek medical advise as to how to improve or recover their
        health and all doctor advise their patinets for the same purpose. No teacher
        should teach and no one should study because every has to know and
        understand every thing without utilizing the benefit of others experience.
        All sportsmen should be their own coaches.



        >From: Nagaraj Bhadrashetty
        >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
        >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
        >MIME-Version: 1.0
        >X-Originating-IP: 209.191.124.154
        >X-Sender: nagarajbhadrashetty@...
        >Received: from n20a.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.64.133]) by
        >bay0-mc2-f16.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon,
        >11 Jun 2007 21:33:58 -0700
        >Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n20.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12
        >Jun 2007 04:33:56 -0000
        >Received: from [66.218.69.1] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun
        >2007 04:33:56 -0000
        >Received: from [66.218.67.108] by t1.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12
        >Jun 2007 04:33:56 -0000
        >Received: (qmail 23841 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2007 04:33:54 -0000
        >Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP;
        >12 Jun 2007 04:33:54 -0000
        >Received: from unknown (HELO web38211.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (209.191.124.154)
        > by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2007 04:33:54 -0000
        >Received: (qmail 94119 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Jun 2007 04:32:46 -0000
        >Received: from [59.92.185.10] by web38211.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon,
        >11 Jun 2007 21:32:46 PDT
        >X-Message-Info:
        >LsUYwwHHNt3nqwBgl2bc+EQew+GKk9RUyaMMRnZAVgWFbbO5XS+qbVVkQ8zwQXj2
        >Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
        >DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima;
        >d=yahoogroups.com;b=G+PTy6yFzHfc0+yiL0BaPd/g7ATztgRuq/Gfx/EKuZ2zBTJZNsLOZK2NKkTdTpEmNZQNXkCafVjVLV5r7yFKUxfuTOs7TfvnxwjKaOTnPXx9V9f1fmTOnE9eMAa+m8VF;
        >X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 222825-m1653
        >X-Apparently-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >X-YMail-OSG:
        >1o2z_gQVM1nSse3s6KfzK8AwIF0Aae0dP9UwnObWJBJzz.DQZrhudD1aSVPitecxOx84cU5JwbilfKvk6K1eeQEGRQ--
        >X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
        >X-Yahoo-Profile: nagarajbhadrashetty
        >Mailing-List: list Sartre@yahoogroups.com; contact
        >Sartre-owner@yahoogroups.com
        >Delivered-To: mailing list Sartre@yahoogroups.com
        >List-Id:
        >Precedence: bulk
        >List-Unsubscribe:
        >X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-ff
        >Return-Path:
        >sentto-222825-1653-1181622836-shadabmurtaza=hotmail.com@...
        >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2007 04:33:58.0568 (UTC)
        >FILETIME=[E4C1EA80:01C7ACAA]
        >
        >Where is the flaw? Yes one is free to choose what one thinks right for him
        >at that poit of Time and in that situation as one has been . how can some
        >one else take decision for some one at a personal level? Sartre says "you
        >are free to choose " How can any one else know some one elses value
        >systems, priorities,faiths, beliefs,fears,etc . These traits unique and
        >individualistic, changing from time to time as one is in the continuous
        >process of Becomingness that is transiently appears to be Beingness.If
        >Sartre advises the boy to choose this or that, he would have committed
        >himself responsible for the consequences of the boys action.that would have
        >meant that Sartre stole boys Freedom to choose and that would in the end
        >meant that he stole boys life itself.
        >
        >ibuick wrote: When thinking about the 3
        >Sartres, the question about the
        >relationship
        >between philosophy and life kept running through my head - in
        >particular:
        >1. To what extent should philosophy act as an aid to help you live
        >your life?
        >
        >2. To what extent is there a relationship between a philosophers
        >ideas and how he lives his life (or vice versa)
        >
        >I certainly look to philosophy (and literature) to give me ideas for
        >life and in this respect I am bothered by Sartre's example in
        >Existentialism and Humanism of the young student who comes to him
        >looking for advice as to whether he should join the free french
        >forces or to stay and help his mother. "what could help him choose?"
        >asks Sartre and goes on to advise him: "You are free, therefore
        >choose, that is to say, invent." For me this illustrates a fatal flaw
        >in sartre's early philosophy - on any practical level it seems to
        >offer no answers to life's questions.
        >
        >It is difficult to think of Socrates (for example) abandoning the
        >youth in this way. For all his loopy ideas (e.g obedience to rulers
        >and gods, censorship of the poets, the theory of forms,
        >the transmigration of souls ) he would never dismiss a plea for
        >advice. And although in the early dialogues where he is interacting
        >with youths,
        >he doesn't actually tell them what courage, love, virtue is, he does
        >try to lead them to a higher understanding of the problem
        >
        >Socrates is also an exemplary case for the relationship between a
        >philosopher's ideas and his life. He has been accused of advocating a
        >fascist type state but there is When given the choice between life
        >and death, he chose death rather than be seen to compromise the ideas
        >by which he had lived.
        >
        >Or take Heidegger – a philosopher I can't read or look at without
        >wanting to vomit. His Nazi involvement was at a high level and he
        >never repudiated his support. One approach is to separate his
        >biography from his ideas. Rohrty has called him a nasty guy who had
        >interesting ideas. What if he was a nasty guy with nasty ideas which
        >some of us find interesting. Could he really support a world view
        >that was so inhuman without this filtering into his philosophy? could
        >he really separate his life from his thoughts?
        >
        >To return to Sartre; the increasing social/political engagement of
        >his later philosophy was mirrored in the increasing social/political
        >engagement in his life. One of the continuities that I see running
        >through his life's work is the attempt to establish a viable
        >philosophy of freedom that would contribute to ending the
        >inequalities in the world - such as one child in the poorer countries
        >dying of starvation and disease every three seconds (the list
        >Oberphilosoph grimaces and mutters - situation, onanism,
        >situation.....!!!).
        >
        >But as a major thinker wrote. 'The philosophers have only interpreted
        >the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.' It
        >is this attempt to conceptualise and explain historical change that I
        >see as Sartre's greatest contribution to philosophy.
        >But that is another post...
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >---------------------------------
        >Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
        >Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo!
        >Games.
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >

        _________________________________________________________________
        Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
        http://search.msn.com/



        To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Yahoo! Groups Links






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Felix
        ... Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of the above. _ felix http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
        Message 3 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:

          >
          > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
          > Enlightenment?" writes:
          >
          > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
          > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
          > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
          > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
          > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
          > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
          > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding."
          >
          > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
          > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
          > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
          > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
          > argues that we must choose to choose.


          Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
          the above.

          _
          felix

          http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
        • Eric S
          felix, Yes, but choosing not to choose is still a form of choosing. Isn t that what being condemned to freedom really means? None of the above is not really
          Message 4 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            felix,

            Yes, but choosing not to choose is still a form of choosing. Isn't that what being condemned to freedom really means? 'None of the above' is not really an escape clause.

            However, you raise a interesting point. In the analysis of bad faith in B&N, Sartre seems to implicitly argue that being authentic is better than just deluding yourself. I agree with this assesment, but I could also see where someone might make the argument that he or she personally prefers to just remain in bad faith. Their argument might run - If being self-deluded gives you the illusion of being a happier person, what's really wrong with that?

            Or as the old sixties cartoon had it - Reality is for those who can't handle drugs.

            Is that the argument you are making?

            eric


            Felix <fe1ix@...> wrote:

            On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:

            >
            > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
            > Enlightenment?" writes:
            >
            > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
            > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
            > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
            > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
            > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
            > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
            > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding."
            >
            > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
            > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
            > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
            > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
            > argues that we must choose to choose.

            Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
            the above.

            _
            felix

            http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • sava
            Felix, you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting Sartre s philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is incorrect and reducive.
            Message 5 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Felix,

              you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.


              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Felix <fe1ix@...>
              To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
              Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life


              On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:

              >
              > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
              > Enlightenment? " writes:
              >
              > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
              > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
              > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
              > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
              > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
              > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
              > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
              >
              > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
              > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
              > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
              > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
              > argues that we must choose to choose.

              Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
              the above.

              _
              felix

              http://fe1ix. livejournal. com/






              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
              (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
              http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Felix
              ... I might concur with the grassroots wisdom in that argument, but it s not my point. -) Freedom for me is similar to Sartre s notion of being condemned to
              Message 6 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Eric S wrote:

                > felix,
                >
                > Yes, but choosing not to choose is still a form of choosing. Isn't
                > that what being condemned to freedom really means? 'None of the
                > above' is not really an escape clause.
                >
                > However, you raise a interesting point. In the analysis of bad
                > faith in B&N, Sartre seems to implicitly argue that being authentic
                > is better than just deluding yourself. I agree with this assesment,
                > but I could also see where someone might make the argument that he
                > or she personally prefers to just remain in bad faith. Their
                > argument might run - If being self-deluded gives you the illusion
                > of being a happier person, what's really wrong with that?
                >
                > Or as the old sixties cartoon had it - Reality is for those who
                > can't handle drugs.
                >
                > Is that the argument you are making?
                >
                > eric



                I might concur with the grassroots wisdom in that argument, but it's
                not my point. '-)

                Freedom for me is similar to Sartre's notion of being condemned to
                it, but realizing constantly that everybody else is also condemned to
                it. Freedom appears free of thought or ideation. I have to interpret
                what you write as if I wrote it myself, and as if you wrote what you
                wrote for my reasons instead of your own. I don't know what your
                reasons are for writing what you wrote, I only know what mine might
                be if I wrote what I trust to be the same words you did. Where is the
                choice in that? Freedom for me is a like a Rosetta Stone, it allows
                me to figure out in a mundane sense that your me is not my me.

                It seems possible to take the me to a more universal aspect, and
                wonder if there is only one real me, and each of us in our own turn,
                think we're it.

                _
                felix

                http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
              • Felix
                ... Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre s philosophy of freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written material for what I want it
                Message 7 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:

                  > Felix,
                  >
                  > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting
                  > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is
                  > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this
                  > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's
                  > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.


                  Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                  freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                  material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                  naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                  reach a definitive conclusion.

                  Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his
                  position on freedom in a general sense?


                  >
                  > ----- Original Message ----
                  > From: Felix <fe1ix@...>
                  > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
                  > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                  >
                  > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
                  > > Enlightenment? " writes:
                  > >
                  > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
                  > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
                  > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
                  > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
                  > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
                  > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
                  > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
                  > >
                  > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
                  > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
                  > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
                  > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
                  > > argues that we must choose to choose.
                  >
                  > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
                  > the above.

                  _
                  felix

                  http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
                • sava
                  Hi, There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre s philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say that Sartre himself puts his
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jun 12, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,

                    There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre's philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say that Sartre himself puts his thought in the same line as that of Descartes, and so, "basically" freedom for Sartre is our ability to question. Then of course, to question is also to question one's own freedom, or to question even the priority of freedom to, say, an ethical, or aesthetical view of life. And so if freedom is our ability to question, then Sartre's "basic" concept of freedom is one that ends up questioning itself, that is, its own basis, that is, there is no basis.

                    Whereas to Kant, the quote in question, that is "Sapere aude" - dare to know, of course only very partially represents Kant's position on freedom or on the limits of human knowledge. For a more comprehensive and "basic" position of Kant on both the question of freedom and of human knowledge read the very beginning of Critique of pure reason, its "Introduction". You will learn there that freedom, along with God and Immortality are the three transcendental noumena that will haunt forever, and will foreever remain beyond the grasp of human knowledge.

                    But from this basic above statement, we should not rush to drawing any close affinities between Sartre and Kant, but rather instead, try and deepen our understanding of their thinking.



                    On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:

                    > Felix,
                    >
                    > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting
                    > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is
                    > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this
                    > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's
                    > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.

                    Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                    freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                    material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                    naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                    reach a definitive conclusion.

                    Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his
                    position on freedom in a general sense?

                    >
                    > ----- Original Message ----
                    > From: Felix <fe1ix@earthlink. net>
                    > To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                    > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
                    > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                    >
                    > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
                    > > Enlightenment? " writes:
                    > >
                    > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
                    > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
                    > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
                    > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
                    > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
                    > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
                    > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
                    > >
                    > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
                    > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
                    > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
                    > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
                    > > argues that we must choose to choose.
                    >
                    > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
                    > the above.

                    _
                    felix

                    http://fe1ix. livejournal. com/






                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                    Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.
                    http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Ian Buick
                    Hi, Felix s question illustrates the problem that I was trying to highlight in the thought of the early and later Sartre. ... The answer has to be what Sartre
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jun 13, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi,

                      Felix's question illustrates the problem that I was trying to highlight in
                      the thought of the early and later Sartre.

                      >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                      >freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                      >material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                      >naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                      >reach a definitive conclusion


                      The answer has to be 'what Sartre do you mean?'

                      In Beauvoir�s �Adieux�, she publishes a series of interviews she did with
                      Sartre in summer 1974 (when Sartre was 69?) where Sartre says he set
                      himself to the task of defining what he meant by liberty in Being and
                      Nothingness AND the Critique.

                      He stopped believing one could be free in any situation �quite early� -
                      around 1943 when his thoughts made a �passage� from individual to social
                      freedom and for the rest of his life he attempted to materialize freedom.
                      Unfortunately, he is not explicit about the reasons for this change but
                      there is no doubt that his views on freedom radically changed while
                      remaining central to his project

                      I would be very iterested in trying to understand the original position and
                      the change. Perhaps individuals could post their interpretations in the
                      spirit of what sava calls (I paraphrase) trying to deepen our understanding
                      of his thinking.

                      Ian Buick

                      Germany






                      >From: Felix <fe1ix@...>
                      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                      >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:21:46 -0400
                      >
                      >
                      >On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:
                      >
                      > > Felix,
                      > >
                      > > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting
                      > > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is
                      > > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this
                      > > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's
                      > > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.
                      >
                      >
                      >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                      >freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                      >material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                      >naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                      >reach a definitive conclusion.
                      >
                      >Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his
                      >position on freedom in a general sense?
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > ----- Original Message ----
                      > > From: Felix <fe1ix@...>
                      > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
                      > > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                      > >
                      > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
                      > > > Enlightenment? " writes:
                      > > >
                      > > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
                      > > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
                      > > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
                      > > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
                      > > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
                      > > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
                      > > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
                      > > >
                      > > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
                      > > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
                      > > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
                      > > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
                      > > > argues that we must choose to choose.
                      > >
                      > > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
                      > > the above.
                      >
                      >_
                      >felix
                      >
                      >http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Play your part in making history - Email Britain!
                      http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/
                    • Felix
                      ... There is a freedom that is required to question the mundane reasoning behind the world. World as the translator defined in the back part of B&H: World. The
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jun 13, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Jun 12, 2007, at 11:17 PM, sava wrote:

                        >
                        > There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre's
                        > philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say
                        > that Sartre himself puts his thought in the same line as that of
                        > Descartes, and so, "basically" freedom for Sartre is our ability to
                        > question. Then of course, to question is also to question one's own
                        > freedom, or to question even the priority of freedom to, say, an
                        > ethical, or aesthetical view of life. And so if freedom is our
                        > ability to question, then Sartre's "basic" concept of freedom is
                        > one that ends up questioning itself, that is, its own basis, that
                        > is, there is no basis.
                        >
                        > Whereas to Kant, the quote in question, that is "Sapere aude" -
                        > dare to know, of course only very partially represents Kant's
                        > position on freedom or on the limits of human knowledge. For a more
                        > comprehensive and "basic" position of Kant on both the question of
                        > freedom and of human knowledge read the very beginning of Critique
                        > of pure reason, its "Introduction". You will learn there that
                        > freedom, along with God and Immortality are the three
                        > transcendental noumena that will haunt forever, and will foreever
                        > remain beyond the grasp of human knowledge.
                        >
                        > But from this basic above statement, we should not rush to drawing
                        > any close affinities between Sartre and Kant, but rather instead,
                        > try and deepen our understanding of their thinking.


                        There is a freedom that is required to question the mundane reasoning
                        behind the world. World as the translator defined in the back part of
                        B&H:

                        World. The whole of non-conscious Being as it appears to the For-
                        itself in "instrumental complexes." Because of it's facticity by the
                        For-itself is inescapably engaged in the world. Yet strictly
                        speaking, without the For-itself, that would not be a world but only
                        an undifferentiated plenitude of Being. p.807

                        I wrote this first verse of a poem in the early '70s before I ever
                        heard of Sartre.

                        I dig myself.
                        I am a beautiful thing.
                        An addition to the whole
                        that is me.
                        For without myself
                        there would be nothing else,
                        without me,
                        the world wouldn't be.

                        From my perspective there is some similarity to our intent.
                        Composing poetry preceded my interest in philosophy, and it started
                        as a child. It didn't help when I read that in the Druidic tradition
                        the poet was ranked just below the philosopher. If one is a poet,
                        however, philosophy is an unavoidable next step. To me this is an
                        oratory process, and "Sapere aude" is the motivation for instituting
                        the process in real time.
                        _
                        felix

                        http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
                      • Felix
                        ... My reading has made me wonder if Sartre intended to say that freedom is a standalone, and what we think it might be is just the train we take to get to
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jun 13, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:00 AM, Ian Buick wrote:

                          > Hi,
                          >
                          > Felix's question illustrates the problem that I was trying to
                          > highlight in
                          > the thought of the early and later Sartre.
                          >
                          >> Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                          >> freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                          >> material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                          >> naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                          >> reach a definitive conclusion
                          >
                          >
                          > The answer has to be 'what Sartre do you mean?'
                          >
                          > In Beauvoir’s ‘Adieux’, she publishes a series of interviews she
                          > did with
                          > Sartre in summer 1974 (when Sartre was 69?) where Sartre says he set
                          > himself to the task of defining what he meant by liberty in Being and
                          > Nothingness AND the Critique.
                          >
                          > He stopped believing one could be free in any situation ‘quite
                          > early’ -
                          > around 1943 when his thoughts made a ‘passage’ from individual to
                          > social
                          > freedom and for the rest of his life he attempted to materialize
                          > freedom.
                          > Unfortunately, he is not explicit about the reasons for this change
                          > but
                          > there is no doubt that his views on freedom radically changed while
                          > remaining central to his project
                          >
                          > I would be very iterested in trying to understand the original
                          > position and
                          > the change. Perhaps individuals could post their interpretations in
                          > the
                          > spirit of what sava calls (I paraphrase) trying to deepen our
                          > understanding
                          > of his thinking.

                          My reading has made me wonder if Sartre intended to say that
                          "freedom" is a standalone, and what we think it might be is just the
                          train we take to get to Paris.

                          Presently, I think of two statues in regard to freedom or not. One
                          made of salt (as represented by Lot's wife), and the other the stone
                          cold Pygmalion, who was obviously a "made" woman. Maybe three statues
                          if I consider the Statue of Liberty in NYC. Why does freedom always
                          seem to be written-in-stone?

                          _
                          felix

                          http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
                        • Eric S
                          Felix, I enjoyed the analogy about the statue and the living. I would add the Medusa whose very look turns men into stone and the Commendatore in Mozart s
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jun 14, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Felix,

                            I enjoyed the analogy about the statue and the living. I would add the Medusa whose very look turns men into stone and the Commendatore in Mozart's opera Don Giovanni whose statue springs to life in order to condemn our poor Don Juan to hell. (and, of course, this in turn reminds me of the great interlude in George Bernard Shaw's play Man and Superman, which re-enacts this scene in a kind of misty otherworld.)

                            Sartre didn't seem to be interested in choice in the particular as much as he was in a kind of existential metamorphosis, of the kind you imply.

                            I think of the passage in the Critique where he talks about Southern slave owners:

                            "This is the contradiction of racism, colonialism and all forms of tyranny: in order to treat a man like a dog one must first recognize him as a man."

                            eric

                            Felix <fe1ix@...> wrote:

                            On Jun 13, 2007, at 5:00 AM, Ian Buick wrote:

                            > Hi,
                            >
                            > Felix's question illustrates the problem that I was trying to
                            > highlight in
                            > the thought of the early and later Sartre.
                            >
                            >> Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                            >> freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                            >> material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                            >> naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                            >> reach a definitive conclusion
                            >
                            >
                            > The answer has to be 'what Sartre do you mean?'
                            >
                            > In Beauvoir’s ‘Adieux’, she publishes a series of interviews she
                            > did with
                            > Sartre in summer 1974 (when Sartre was 69?) where Sartre says he set
                            > himself to the task of defining what he meant by liberty in Being and
                            > Nothingness AND the Critique.
                            >
                            > He stopped believing one could be free in any situation ‘quite
                            > early’ -
                            > around 1943 when his thoughts made a ‘passage’ from individual to
                            > social
                            > freedom and for the rest of his life he attempted to materialize
                            > freedom.
                            > Unfortunately, he is not explicit about the reasons for this change
                            > but
                            > there is no doubt that his views on freedom radically changed while
                            > remaining central to his project
                            >
                            > I would be very iterested in trying to understand the original
                            > position and
                            > the change. Perhaps individuals could post their interpretations in
                            > the
                            > spirit of what sava calls (I paraphrase) trying to deepen our
                            > understanding
                            > of his thinking.

                            My reading has made me wonder if Sartre intended to say that
                            "freedom" is a standalone, and what we think it might be is just the
                            train we take to get to Paris.

                            Presently, I think of two statues in regard to freedom or not. One
                            made of salt (as represented by Lot's wife), and the other the stone
                            cold Pygmalion, who was obviously a "made" woman. Maybe three statues
                            if I consider the Statue of Liberty in NYC. Why does freedom always
                            seem to be written-in-stone?

                            _
                            felix

                            http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/






                            To unsubscribe, e-mail: Sartre-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            Yahoo! Groups Links






                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Felix
                            ... Hi eric, I ve never studied philosophy academically. I ve done some reading, but have never studied any one philosopher s system of thought from beginning
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jun 14, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Jun 14, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Eric S wrote:

                              > Felix,
                              >
                              > I enjoyed the analogy about the statue and the living. I would add
                              > the Medusa whose very look turns men into stone and the
                              > Commendatore in Mozart's opera Don Giovanni whose statue springs to
                              > life in order to condemn our poor Don Juan to hell. (and, of
                              > course, this in turn reminds me of the great interlude in George
                              > Bernard Shaw's play Man and Superman, which re-enacts this scene in
                              > a kind of misty otherworld.)
                              >
                              > Sartre didn't seem to be interested in choice in the particular as
                              > much as he was in a kind of existential metamorphosis, of the kind
                              > you imply.
                              >
                              > I think of the passage in the Critique where he talks about
                              > Southern slave owners:
                              >
                              > "This is the contradiction of racism, colonialism and all forms of
                              > tyranny: in order to treat a man like a dog one must first
                              > recognize him as a man."
                              >
                              > eric

                              Hi eric,

                              I've never studied philosophy academically. I've done some reading,
                              but have never studied any one philosopher's system of thought from
                              beginning to end, but despite that, I ain't dead yet..

                              Presently, in my reading of B&N, I'm unclear about what Sartre
                              intends when he uses the term "qua": as in 'consciousness qua
                              consciousness' or 'nothingness qua nothingness'. Could you or anybody
                              else explain what "qua" means when he writes this? Doing a web search
                              hasn't quelled my curiosity.

                              Thanks for mentioning Medusa's appearance in Don Giovanni.

                              After I hit the Send button I realized all these artistically
                              generated entities were of the female gender. Is that intentionally
                              done to make what they represent (in this case "freedom") less than
                              more masculine notions? I was thinking maybe "freedom" in this sense
                              represented the anima for the human male. Would that be a safe
                              assumption?

                              _
                              felix

                              http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
                            • Eric S
                              Felix, Sorry, I wasn t being clear enough. I meant two separate things. The Medusa doesn t appear in Don Giovanni. The Commendatore is a man who is the father
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jun 14, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Felix,

                                Sorry, I wasn't being clear enough. I meant two separate things. The Medusa doesn't appear in Don Giovanni. The Commendatore is a man who is the father of one of the woman Don Juan seduced.

                                It's interesting to think about the Medusa in relation to Sartre's look and Foucault's gaze, however. Maybe her revenge is to reside in these institutions of the Panopticon that bring about what Deleuze called the society of control.

                                Are you still free when Big Sister is always watching you?

                                Remember, for her, every day is a bad hair day, so don't piss her off.

                                eric

                                Felix <fe1ix@...> wrote:

                                On Jun 14, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Eric S wrote:

                                > Felix,
                                >
                                > I enjoyed the analogy about the statue and the living. I would add
                                > the Medusa whose very look turns men into stone and the
                                > Commendatore in Mozart's opera Don Giovanni whose statue springs to
                                > life in order to condemn our poor Don Juan to hell. (and, of
                                > course, this in turn reminds me of the great interlude in George
                                > Bernard Shaw's play Man and Superman, which re-enacts this scene in
                                > a kind of misty otherworld.)
                                >
                                > Sartre didn't seem to be interested in choice in the particular as
                                > much as he was in a kind of existential metamorphosis, of the kind
                                > you imply.
                                >
                                > I think of the passage in the Critique where he talks about
                                > Southern slave owners:
                                >
                                > "This is the contradiction of racism, colonialism and all forms of
                                > tyranny: in order to treat a man like a dog one must first
                                > recognize him as a man."
                                >
                                > eric

                                Hi eric,

                                I've never studied philosophy academically. I've done some reading,
                                but have never studied any one philosopher's system of thought from
                                beginning to end, but despite that, I ain't dead yet..

                                Presently, in my reading of B&N, I'm unclear about what Sartre
                                intends when he uses the term "qua": as in 'consciousness qua
                                consciousness' or 'nothingness qua nothingness'. Could you or anybody
                                else explain what "qua" means when he writes this? Doing a web search
                                hasn't quelled my curiosity.

                                Thanks for mentioning Medusa's appearance in Don Giovanni.

                                After I hit the Send button I realized all these artistically
                                generated entities were of the female gender. Is that intentionally
                                done to make what they represent (in this case "freedom") less than
                                more masculine notions? I was thinking maybe "freedom" in this sense
                                represented the anima for the human male. Would that be a safe
                                assumption?

                                _
                                felix

                                http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/






                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Ian Buick
                                Hi I m still trying to understand and elucidate Sartre concept of freedom in Being and Nothingness (so apologies for not replying to some excellent posts:
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jun 17, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi
                                  I'm still trying to understand and elucidate Sartre' concept of freedom in
                                  Being and Nothingness (so apologies for not replying to some excellent
                                  posts: Tommy and Eric - I'll get round to it later)

                                  Felix asked recently >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's
                                  philosophy of
                                  >freedom basically is?

                                  To which sava replied:
                                  'cant say what Sartre's philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed,
                                  I would say that Sartre himself puts his thought in the same line as that of
                                  Descartes, and so, "basically" freedom for Sartre is our ability to
                                  question.

                                  As I see it at the moment, this is a curate's egg of an answer - part of it
                                  is good; but Sartrean freedom according to my reading a whole lot more.
                                  What Sava mentions is INTERROGATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS whic is only one of the
                                  three primary nihilations that Sartre attributes to the world-nihiating
                                  faculty of consciousnss

                                  A real problem as sartre notes is that he is trying to describe an existence
                                  not an essence and his method therefore involves extended discussion and
                                  dexcription. In trying to summarise his thought I am aware that it looks as
                                  if an essence iss being described - but a reading of the relevant chapters
                                  of Being and Nothingness is the truth - not my attempt at a summary

                                  My Summary:

                                  Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom. This freedom hs three basic expressions:
                                  It is world-constituting, word surpassing and world nihilating.

                                  As world constituting it brings about the world and confers meanings and
                                  values values on our world

                                  As world-surpassing human reality can transcend the basic conditions that
                                  contitute ts siuation: move beyond being toward non-being

                                  Regarding world-nihilating, Sartre says ' nhilation is precisely the
                                  meaning of freedom'
                                  He describes three 'primordial nihilations' which he views as lying at the
                                  base of all expressions of negativity in human experience:

                                  1. Interrogative consciousness: this is Sava's 'ability to question' which
                                  of course implies freedom and always contains the possibility of a negative
                                  answer.

                                  2. the pre-reflective cogito. This is our primary experience of the world
                                  (as opposed to the reflective cogito, which is a secondary level of
                                  consciousness). This point is technically complicated, involving as it does
                                  an understanding of the theory of intentionality; but suffice to say that
                                  nihilition enters the pre-reflective cogito through the world by way of
                                  intentionality interpreted as a forjm of negation. Nihilation is also
                                  apparent in the relation of consciousness to the self. Sartre uses one of
                                  his famous mindbenders in this relation: 'I am myself in the manner of
                                  not-being it'

                                  3. Temporality. Nihilation is present in each of the three temporal
                                  dimensions: the past is no longer, the future as not yet and the present is
                                  presence to self and the world.

                                  As I said, the above is an attempt at a summary of the elements which go to
                                  make up Sartre's concept of freedom. They a all developed in great detail in
                                  Being and Nothingness.
                                  My aim in doing this is to try to follow the development of Sartre's concept
                                  of freedom - breaks and continuities from his early to his later work . It
                                  would be helpful if those of you with greater familiarity with B&N could
                                  comment on the accuracy of the elements in the summary.


                                  Ian Buick




                                  >From: sava <cepav0@...>
                                  >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                  >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                  >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                  >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
                                  >
                                  >Hi,
                                  >
                                  >There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre's philosophy of
                                  >freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say that Sartre himself puts
                                  >his thought in the same line as that of Descartes, and so, "basically"
                                  >freedom for Sartre is our ability to question. Then of course, to question
                                  >is also to question one's own freedom, or to question even the priority of
                                  >freedom to, say, an ethical, or aesthetical view of life. And so if freedom
                                  >is our ability to question, then Sartre's "basic" concept of freedom is one
                                  >that ends up questioning itself, that is, its own basis, that is, there is
                                  >no basis.
                                  >
                                  >Whereas to Kant, the quote in question, that is "Sapere aude" - dare to
                                  >know, of course only very partially represents Kant's position on freedom
                                  >or on the limits of human knowledge. For a more comprehensive and "basic"
                                  >position of Kant on both the question of freedom and of human knowledge
                                  >read the very beginning of Critique of pure reason, its "Introduction". You
                                  >will learn there that freedom, along with God and Immortality are the three
                                  >transcendental noumena that will haunt forever, and will foreever remain
                                  >beyond the grasp of human knowledge.
                                  >
                                  >But from this basic above statement, we should not rush to drawing any
                                  >close affinities between Sartre and Kant, but rather instead, try and
                                  >deepen our understanding of their thinking.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Felix,
                                  > >
                                  > > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting
                                  > > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is
                                  > > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this
                                  > > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's
                                  > > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.
                                  >
                                  >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                                  >freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                                  >material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                                  >naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                                  >reach a definitive conclusion.
                                  >
                                  >Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his
                                  >position on freedom in a general sense?
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > > ----- Original Message ----
                                  > > From: Felix <fe1ix@earthlink. net>
                                  > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                  > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
                                  > > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                  > >
                                  > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
                                  > > > Enlightenment? " writes:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
                                  > > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
                                  > > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
                                  > > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
                                  > > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
                                  > > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
                                  > > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
                                  > > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
                                  > > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
                                  > > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
                                  > > > argues that we must choose to choose.
                                  > >
                                  > > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
                                  > > the above.
                                  >
                                  >_
                                  >felix
                                  >
                                  >http://fe1ix. livejournal. com/
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >____________________________________________________________________________________
                                  >Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of
                                  >spyware protection.
                                  >http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
                                  >
                                  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >

                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
                                • sava
                                  Hi, one very good statement in the flux of recent posts. Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom . To be more consistent with Sartre s conception of freedom, I
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jun 17, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi,

                                    one very good statement in the flux of recent posts. "Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom". To be more consistent with Sartre's conception of freedom, I would just slightly modify it into: "Human reality is (NOT) freedom."


                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                    From: Ian Buick <buickian@...>
                                    To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 5:17:33 AM
                                    Subject: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom

                                    Hi
                                    I'm still trying to understand and elucidate Sartre' concept of freedom in
                                    Being and Nothingness (so apologies for not replying to some excellent
                                    posts: Tommy and Eric - I'll get round to it later)

                                    Felix asked recently >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's
                                    philosophy of
                                    >freedom basically is?

                                    To which sava replied:
                                    'cant say what Sartre's philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed,
                                    I would say that Sartre himself puts his thought in the same line as that of
                                    Descartes, and so, "basically" freedom for Sartre is our ability to
                                    question.

                                    As I see it at the moment, this is a curate's egg of an answer - part of it
                                    is good; but Sartrean freedom according to my reading a whole lot more.
                                    What Sava mentions is INTERROGATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS whic is only one of the
                                    three primary nihilations that Sartre attributes to the world-nihiating
                                    faculty of consciousnss

                                    A real problem as sartre notes is that he is trying to describe an existence
                                    not an essence and his method therefore involves extended discussion and
                                    dexcription. In trying to summarise his thought I am aware that it looks as
                                    if an essence iss being described - but a reading of the relevant chapters
                                    of Being and Nothingness is the truth - not my attempt at a summary

                                    My Summary:

                                    Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom. This freedom hs three basic expressions:
                                    It is world-constituting, word surpassing and world nihilating.

                                    As world constituting it brings about the world and confers meanings and
                                    values values on our world

                                    As world-surpassing human reality can transcend the basic conditions that
                                    contitute ts siuation: move beyond being toward non-being

                                    Regarding world-nihilating, Sartre says ' nhilation is precisely the
                                    meaning of freedom'
                                    He describes three 'primordial nihilations' which he views as lying at the
                                    base of all expressions of negativity in human experience:

                                    1. Interrogative consciousness: this is Sava's 'ability to question' which
                                    of course implies freedom and always contains the possibility of a negative
                                    answer.

                                    2. the pre-reflective cogito. This is our primary experience of the world
                                    (as opposed to the reflective cogito, which is a secondary level of
                                    consciousness) . This point is technically complicated, involving as it does
                                    an understanding of the theory of intentionality; but suffice to say that
                                    nihilition enters the pre-reflective cogito through the world by way of
                                    intentionality interpreted as a forjm of negation. Nihilation is also
                                    apparent in the relation of consciousness to the self. Sartre uses one of
                                    his famous mindbenders in this relation: 'I am myself in the manner of
                                    not-being it'

                                    3. Temporality. Nihilation is present in each of the three temporal
                                    dimensions: the past is no longer, the future as not yet and the present is
                                    presence to self and the world.

                                    As I said, the above is an attempt at a summary of the elements which go to
                                    make up Sartre's concept of freedom. They a all developed in great detail in
                                    Being and Nothingness.
                                    My aim in doing this is to try to follow the development of Sartre's concept
                                    of freedom - breaks and continuities from his early to his later work . It
                                    would be helpful if those of you with greater familiarity with B&N could
                                    comment on the accuracy of the elements in the summary.

                                    Ian Buick

                                    >From: sava <cepav0@yahoo. com>
                                    >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                    >To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                    >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                    >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
                                    >
                                    >Hi,
                                    >
                                    >There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre's philosophy of
                                    >freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say that Sartre himself puts
                                    >his thought in the same line as that of Descartes, and so, "basically"
                                    >freedom for Sartre is our ability to question. Then of course, to question
                                    >is also to question one's own freedom, or to question even the priority of
                                    >freedom to, say, an ethical, or aesthetical view of life. And so if freedom
                                    >is our ability to question, then Sartre's "basic" concept of freedom is one
                                    >that ends up questioning itself, that is, its own basis, that is, there is
                                    >no basis.
                                    >
                                    >Whereas to Kant, the quote in question, that is "Sapere aude" - dare to
                                    >know, of course only very partially represents Kant's position on freedom
                                    >or on the limits of human knowledge. For a more comprehensive and "basic"
                                    >position of Kant on both the question of freedom and of human knowledge
                                    >read the very beginning of Critique of pure reason, its "Introduction" . You
                                    >will learn there that freedom, along with God and Immortality are the three
                                    >transcendental noumena that will haunt forever, and will foreever remain
                                    >beyond the grasp of human knowledge.
                                    >
                                    >But from this basic above statement, we should not rush to drawing any
                                    >close affinities between Sartre and Kant, but rather instead, try and
                                    >deepen our understanding of their thinking.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Felix,
                                    > >
                                    > > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting
                                    > > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is
                                    > > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this
                                    > > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's
                                    > > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.
                                    >
                                    >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                                    >freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                                    >material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                                    >naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                                    >reach a definitive conclusion.
                                    >
                                    >Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his
                                    >position on freedom in a general sense?
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    > > ----- Original Message ----
                                    > > From: Felix <fe1ix@earthlink. net>
                                    > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                    > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
                                    > > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                    > >
                                    > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
                                    > > > Enlightenment? " writes:
                                    > > >
                                    > > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
                                    > > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
                                    > > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
                                    > > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
                                    > > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
                                    > > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
                                    > > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
                                    > > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
                                    > > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
                                    > > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
                                    > > > argues that we must choose to choose.
                                    > >
                                    > > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
                                    > > the above.
                                    >
                                    >_
                                    >felix
                                    >
                                    >http://fe1ix. livejournal. com/
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >___________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                                    >Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of
                                    >spyware protection.
                                    >http://new.toolbar. yahoo.com/ toolbar/features /norton/index. php
                                    >
                                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >

                                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                    Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth. uk.msn.com






                                    ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                    Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
                                    http://farechase.yahoo.com/

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Ian Buick
                                    Sava said Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom . To be more consistent with Sartre s conception of freedom, I would just slightly modify it into: Human reality
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jun 18, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Sava said
                                      "Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom". To be more consistent with Sartre's
                                      conception of freedom, I would just slightly modify it into: "Human reality
                                      is (NOT) freedom."

                                      Could you explain here Sava. Is the problem with the notion of Human
                                      Reality? For example, could I say Consciousness is freedom, or
                                      being-for-itself is freedom

                                      Ian Buick




                                      >From: sava <cepav0@...>
                                      >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                      >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                      >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom
                                      >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
                                      >
                                      >Hi,
                                      >
                                      >one very good statement in the flux of recent posts. "Human reality is (NOT
                                      >HAS) freedom". To be more consistent with Sartre's conception of freedom, I
                                      >would just slightly modify it into: "Human reality is (NOT) freedom."
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >----- Original Message ----
                                      >From: Ian Buick <buickian@...>
                                      >To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                      >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 5:17:33 AM
                                      >Subject: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom
                                      >
                                      >Hi
                                      >I'm still trying to understand and elucidate Sartre' concept of freedom in
                                      >Being and Nothingness (so apologies for not replying to some excellent
                                      >posts: Tommy and Eric - I'll get round to it later)
                                      >
                                      >Felix asked recently >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's
                                      >philosophy of
                                      > >freedom basically is?
                                      >
                                      >To which sava replied:
                                      >'cant say what Sartre's philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed,
                                      >I would say that Sartre himself puts his thought in the same line as that
                                      >of
                                      >Descartes, and so, "basically" freedom for Sartre is our ability to
                                      >question.
                                      >
                                      >As I see it at the moment, this is a curate's egg of an answer - part of it
                                      >is good; but Sartrean freedom according to my reading a whole lot more.
                                      >What Sava mentions is INTERROGATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS whic is only one of the
                                      >three primary nihilations that Sartre attributes to the world-nihiating
                                      >faculty of consciousnss
                                      >
                                      >A real problem as sartre notes is that he is trying to describe an
                                      >existence
                                      >not an essence and his method therefore involves extended discussion and
                                      >dexcription. In trying to summarise his thought I am aware that it looks as
                                      >if an essence iss being described - but a reading of the relevant chapters
                                      >of Being and Nothingness is the truth - not my attempt at a summary
                                      >
                                      >My Summary:
                                      >
                                      >Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom. This freedom hs three basic
                                      >expressions:
                                      >It is world-constituting, word surpassing and world nihilating.
                                      >
                                      >As world constituting it brings about the world and confers meanings and
                                      >values values on our world
                                      >
                                      >As world-surpassing human reality can transcend the basic conditions that
                                      >contitute ts siuation: move beyond being toward non-being
                                      >
                                      >Regarding world-nihilating, Sartre says ' nhilation is precisely the
                                      >meaning of freedom'
                                      >He describes three 'primordial nihilations' which he views as lying at the
                                      >base of all expressions of negativity in human experience:
                                      >
                                      >1. Interrogative consciousness: this is Sava's 'ability to question' which
                                      >of course implies freedom and always contains the possibility of a negative
                                      >answer.
                                      >
                                      >2. the pre-reflective cogito. This is our primary experience of the world
                                      >(as opposed to the reflective cogito, which is a secondary level of
                                      >consciousness) . This point is technically complicated, involving as it
                                      >does
                                      >an understanding of the theory of intentionality; but suffice to say that
                                      >nihilition enters the pre-reflective cogito through the world by way of
                                      >intentionality interpreted as a forjm of negation. Nihilation is also
                                      >apparent in the relation of consciousness to the self. Sartre uses one of
                                      >his famous mindbenders in this relation: 'I am myself in the manner of
                                      >not-being it'
                                      >
                                      >3. Temporality. Nihilation is present in each of the three temporal
                                      >dimensions: the past is no longer, the future as not yet and the present is
                                      >presence to self and the world.
                                      >
                                      >As I said, the above is an attempt at a summary of the elements which go to
                                      >make up Sartre's concept of freedom. They a all developed in great detail
                                      >in
                                      >Being and Nothingness.
                                      >My aim in doing this is to try to follow the development of Sartre's
                                      >concept
                                      >of freedom - breaks and continuities from his early to his later work . It
                                      >would be helpful if those of you with greater familiarity with B&N could
                                      >comment on the accuracy of the elements in the summary.
                                      >
                                      >Ian Buick
                                      >
                                      > >From: sava <cepav0@yahoo. com>
                                      > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                      > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                      > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                      > >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
                                      > >
                                      > >Hi,
                                      > >
                                      > >There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre's philosophy of
                                      > >freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say that Sartre himself
                                      >puts
                                      > >his thought in the same line as that of Descartes, and so, "basically"
                                      > >freedom for Sartre is our ability to question. Then of course, to
                                      >question
                                      > >is also to question one's own freedom, or to question even the priority
                                      >of
                                      > >freedom to, say, an ethical, or aesthetical view of life. And so if
                                      >freedom
                                      > >is our ability to question, then Sartre's "basic" concept of freedom is
                                      >one
                                      > >that ends up questioning itself, that is, its own basis, that is, there
                                      >is
                                      > >no basis.
                                      > >
                                      > >Whereas to Kant, the quote in question, that is "Sapere aude" - dare to
                                      > >know, of course only very partially represents Kant's position on freedom
                                      > >or on the limits of human knowledge. For a more comprehensive and "basic"
                                      > >position of Kant on both the question of freedom and of human knowledge
                                      > >read the very beginning of Critique of pure reason, its "Introduction" .
                                      >You
                                      > >will learn there that freedom, along with God and Immortality are the
                                      >three
                                      > >transcendental noumena that will haunt forever, and will foreever remain
                                      > >beyond the grasp of human knowledge.
                                      > >
                                      > >But from this basic above statement, we should not rush to drawing any
                                      > >close affinities between Sartre and Kant, but rather instead, try and
                                      > >deepen our understanding of their thinking.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > > Felix,
                                      > > >
                                      > > > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting
                                      > > > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is
                                      > > > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this
                                      > > > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's
                                      > > > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.
                                      > >
                                      > >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                                      > >freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                                      > >material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                                      > >naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                                      > >reach a definitive conclusion.
                                      > >
                                      > >Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his
                                      > >position on freedom in a general sense?
                                      > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > ----- Original Message ----
                                      > > > From: Felix <fe1ix@earthlink. net>
                                      > > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                      > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
                                      > > > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                      > > >
                                      > > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
                                      > > > > Enlightenment? " writes:
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
                                      > > > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
                                      > > > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
                                      > > > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
                                      > > > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
                                      > > > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
                                      > > > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
                                      > > > >
                                      > > > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
                                      > > > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
                                      > > > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
                                      > > > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
                                      > > > > argues that we must choose to choose.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
                                      > > > the above.
                                      > >
                                      > >_
                                      > >felix
                                      > >
                                      > >http://fe1ix. livejournal. com/
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >___________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                                      > >Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of
                                      > >spyware protection.
                                      > >http://new.toolbar. yahoo.com/ toolbar/features /norton/index. php
                                      > >
                                      > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                      >Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.
                                      >uk.msn.com
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >____________________________________________________________________________________
                                      >Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
                                      >FareChase.
                                      >http://farechase.yahoo.com/
                                      >
                                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >

                                      _________________________________________________________________
                                      Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
                                    • sava
                                      Hi, I personally find the term being-for-itself a fastidious Hegelian technicality, a bit ridiculous, too. I dont have a problem with consciousness, for as
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jun 18, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi,

                                        I personally find the term "being-for-itself" a fastidious Hegelian technicality, a bit ridiculous, too. I dont have a problem with consciousness, for as long as consciousness is not taken to be the equivalent of "human". I like the term "human reality" for it is neither only "human", nor uniquely "reality", and for as long as it is not to be taken as the translation in French (la realite humaine) of the Heideggerian "Dasein".

                                        When I say "Human reality is (NOT) freedom", the "is" is not to be neglected, but neither is the "NOT" in paranthesis, so that sentence doesnt read neither as: "Human reality is freedom", nor as "Human reality is not freedom." The sentence goes rather in the direction of Sartre's understanding of human reality as always being what it is not, and not being what it is. It goes in the direction of a self-questioning freedom, a freedom which, as Sartre puts it in the very last pages of B&N, is somehow like the simulacra of the Sophist. Simulacra is here to be understood in its metaphysical contrast with the Idea, and in the reversal of this contrast by Sartre's thinking.


                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: Ian Buick <buickian@...>
                                        To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:40:17 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom


                                        Sava said
                                        "Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom". To be more consistent with Sartre's
                                        conception of freedom, I would just slightly modify it into: "Human reality
                                        is (NOT) freedom."

                                        Could you explain here Sava. Is the problem with the notion of Human
                                        Reality? For example, could I say Consciousness is freedom, or
                                        being-for-itself is freedom

                                        Ian Buick

                                        >From: sava <cepav0@yahoo. com>
                                        >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                        >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom
                                        >Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
                                        >
                                        >Hi,
                                        >
                                        >one very good statement in the flux of recent posts. "Human reality is (NOT
                                        >HAS) freedom". To be more consistent with Sartre's conception of freedom, I
                                        >would just slightly modify it into: "Human reality is (NOT) freedom."
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >----- Original Message ----
                                        >From: Ian Buick <buickian@hotmail. com>
                                        >To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                        >Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 5:17:33 AM
                                        >Subject: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom
                                        >
                                        >Hi
                                        >I'm still trying to understand and elucidate Sartre' concept of freedom in
                                        >Being and Nothingness (so apologies for not replying to some excellent
                                        >posts: Tommy and Eric - I'll get round to it later)
                                        >
                                        >Felix asked recently >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's
                                        >philosophy of
                                        > >freedom basically is?
                                        >
                                        >To which sava replied:
                                        >'cant say what Sartre's philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed,
                                        >I would say that Sartre himself puts his thought in the same line as that
                                        >of
                                        >Descartes, and so, "basically" freedom for Sartre is our ability to
                                        >question.
                                        >
                                        >As I see it at the moment, this is a curate's egg of an answer - part of it
                                        >is good; but Sartrean freedom according to my reading a whole lot more.
                                        >What Sava mentions is INTERROGATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS whic is only one of the
                                        >three primary nihilations that Sartre attributes to the world-nihiating
                                        >faculty of consciousnss
                                        >
                                        >A real problem as sartre notes is that he is trying to describe an
                                        >existence
                                        >not an essence and his method therefore involves extended discussion and
                                        >dexcription. In trying to summarise his thought I am aware that it looks as
                                        >if an essence iss being described - but a reading of the relevant chapters
                                        >of Being and Nothingness is the truth - not my attempt at a summary
                                        >
                                        >My Summary:
                                        >
                                        >Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom. This freedom hs three basic
                                        >expressions:
                                        >It is world-constituting, word surpassing and world nihilating.
                                        >
                                        >As world constituting it brings about the world and confers meanings and
                                        >values values on our world
                                        >
                                        >As world-surpassing human reality can transcend the basic conditions that
                                        >contitute ts siuation: move beyond being toward non-being
                                        >
                                        >Regarding world-nihilating, Sartre says ' nhilation is precisely the
                                        >meaning of freedom'
                                        >He describes three 'primordial nihilations' which he views as lying at the
                                        >base of all expressions of negativity in human experience:
                                        >
                                        >1. Interrogative consciousness: this is Sava's 'ability to question' which
                                        >of course implies freedom and always contains the possibility of a negative
                                        >answer.
                                        >
                                        >2. the pre-reflective cogito. This is our primary experience of the world
                                        >(as opposed to the reflective cogito, which is a secondary level of
                                        >consciousness) . This point is technically complicated, involving as it
                                        >does
                                        >an understanding of the theory of intentionality; but suffice to say that
                                        >nihilition enters the pre-reflective cogito through the world by way of
                                        >intentionality interpreted as a forjm of negation. Nihilation is also
                                        >apparent in the relation of consciousness to the self. Sartre uses one of
                                        >his famous mindbenders in this relation: 'I am myself in the manner of
                                        >not-being it'
                                        >
                                        >3. Temporality. Nihilation is present in each of the three temporal
                                        >dimensions: the past is no longer, the future as not yet and the present is
                                        >presence to self and the world.
                                        >
                                        >As I said, the above is an attempt at a summary of the elements which go to
                                        >make up Sartre's concept of freedom. They a all developed in great detail
                                        >in
                                        >Being and Nothingness.
                                        >My aim in doing this is to try to follow the development of Sartre's
                                        >concept
                                        >of freedom - breaks and continuities from his early to his later work . It
                                        >would be helpful if those of you with greater familiarity with B&N could
                                        >comment on the accuracy of the elements in the summary.
                                        >
                                        >Ian Buick
                                        >
                                        > >From: sava <cepav0@yahoo. com>
                                        > >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                        > >To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                        > >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                        > >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
                                        > >
                                        > >Hi,
                                        > >
                                        > >There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre's philosophy of
                                        > >freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say that Sartre himself
                                        >puts
                                        > >his thought in the same line as that of Descartes, and so, "basically"
                                        > >freedom for Sartre is our ability to question. Then of course, to
                                        >question
                                        > >is also to question one's own freedom, or to question even the priority
                                        >of
                                        > >freedom to, say, an ethical, or aesthetical view of life. And so if
                                        >freedom
                                        > >is our ability to question, then Sartre's "basic" concept of freedom is
                                        >one
                                        > >that ends up questioning itself, that is, its own basis, that is, there
                                        >is
                                        > >no basis.
                                        > >
                                        > >Whereas to Kant, the quote in question, that is "Sapere aude" - dare to
                                        > >know, of course only very partially represents Kant's position on freedom
                                        > >or on the limits of human knowledge. For a more comprehensive and "basic"
                                        > >position of Kant on both the question of freedom and of human knowledge
                                        > >read the very beginning of Critique of pure reason, its "Introduction" .
                                        >You
                                        > >will learn there that freedom, along with God and Immortality are the
                                        >three
                                        > >transcendental noumena that will haunt forever, and will foreever remain
                                        > >beyond the grasp of human knowledge.
                                        > >
                                        > >But from this basic above statement, we should not rush to drawing any
                                        > >close affinities between Sartre and Kant, but rather instead, try and
                                        > >deepen our understanding of their thinking.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > > Felix,
                                        > > >
                                        > > > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting
                                        > > > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is
                                        > > > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this
                                        > > > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's
                                        > > > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.
                                        > >
                                        > >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of
                                        > >freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written
                                        > >material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments
                                        > >naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to
                                        > >reach a definitive conclusion.
                                        > >
                                        > >Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his
                                        > >position on freedom in a general sense?
                                        > >
                                        > > >
                                        > > > ----- Original Message ----
                                        > > > From: Felix <fe1ix@earthlink. net>
                                        > > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com
                                        > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM
                                        > > > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life
                                        > > >
                                        > > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:
                                        > > >
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is
                                        > > > > Enlightenment? " writes:
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred
                                        > > > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own
                                        > > > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is
                                        > > > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack
                                        > > > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of
                                        > > > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare
                                        > > > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "
                                        > > > >
                                        > > > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can
                                        > > > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this
                                        > > > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much
                                        > > > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre
                                        > > > > argues that we must choose to choose.
                                        > > >
                                        > > > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of
                                        > > > the above.
                                        > >
                                        > >_
                                        > >felix
                                        > >
                                        > >http://fe1ix. livejournal. com/
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >___________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                                        > >Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of
                                        > >spyware protection.
                                        > >http://new.toolbar. yahoo.com/ toolbar/features /norton/index. php
                                        > >
                                        > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >___________ _ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                        >Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.
                                        >uk.msn.com
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >___________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
                                        >Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo!
                                        >FareChase.
                                        >http://farechase. yahoo.com/
                                        >
                                        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >

                                        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                        Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth. uk.msn.com






                                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                        Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
                                        http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Ian Buick
                                        Hi everyone, I m still trying to find a satisfactory answer to felix s question about what (early) Sartrean freedom really is - and it s proving more
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jun 28, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi everyone,
                                          I'm still trying to find a satisfactory answer to felix's question about what (early) Sartrean freedom really is - and it's proving more technically and conceptually challenging than I had ever imagined.
                                          I've followed it back to chapter one The Origin of Negation. In the summary at the end of the chapter Sartre states that what he has found is EMPIRICAL FREEDOM which needs to be founded.
                                          Does anyone know what Sartre means by empirical here? From the context, it would appear to mean that freedom has simply arisen in the course of his investigation of the relationship between consciousness and negation and he now needs to go on and give it a foundation (which presumably means elucidate it fully?!)

                                          In case anyone is interested, my provisional working hypothesis is
                                          1. Most of the secondary literature I have read seem to give an oversimplified account of freedom in Being and Nothingness. they describe it as if it were an attribute of consciousness, ie an essence not an existence. So it would seem there is no alternative but to bite the bullet and spend months digging out the meanings from the original and carefully following the description as given by the man himself.
                                          If anyone knows of an accurate secondary source, I would be pleased to hear it.



                                          To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: cepav0@...: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:08:42 -0700Subject: Re: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom




                                          Hi,I personally find the term "being-for-itself" a fastidious Hegelian technicality, a bit ridiculous, too. I dont have a problem with consciousness, for as long as consciousness is not taken to be the equivalent of "human". I like the term "human reality" for it is neither only "human", nor uniquely "reality", and for as long as it is not to be taken as the translation in French (la realite humaine) of the Heideggerian "Dasein".When I say "Human reality is (NOT) freedom", the "is" is not to be neglected, but neither is the "NOT" in paranthesis, so that sentence doesnt read neither as: "Human reality is freedom", nor as "Human reality is not freedom." The sentence goes rather in the direction of Sartre's understanding of human reality as always being what it is not, and not being what it is. It goes in the direction of a self-questioning freedom, a freedom which, as Sartre puts it in the very last pages of B&N, is somehow like the simulacra of the Sophist. Simulacra is here to be understood in its metaphysical contrast with the Idea, and in the reversal of this contrast by Sartre's thinking.----- Original Message ----From: Ian Buick <buickian@...>To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comSent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:40:17 AMSubject: Re: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedomSava said"Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom". To be more consistent with Sartre's conception of freedom, I would just slightly modify it into: "Human reality is (NOT) freedom."Could you explain here Sava. Is the problem with the notion of Human Reality? For example, could I say Consciousness is freedom, or being-for-itself is freedomIan Buick>From: sava <cepav0@yahoo. com>>Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com>To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com>Subject: Re: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom>Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:16:08 -0700 (PDT)>>Hi,>>one very good statement in the flux of recent posts. "Human reality is (NOT >HAS) freedom". To be more consistent with Sartre's conception of freedom, I >would just slightly modify it into: "Human reality is (NOT) freedom.">>>----- Original Message ---->From: Ian Buick <buickian@hotmail. com>>To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com>Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 5:17:33 AM>Subject: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom>>Hi>I'm still trying to understand and elucidate Sartre' concept of freedom in>Being and Nothingness (so apologies for not replying to some excellent>posts: Tommy and Eric - I'll get round to it later)>>Felix asked recently >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's>philosophy of> >freedom basically is?>>To which sava replied:>'cant say what Sartre's philosophy of freedom basically is. But if pressed,>I would say that Sartre himself puts his thought in the same line as that >of>Descartes, and so, "basically" freedom for Sartre is our ability to>question.>>As I see it at the moment, this is a curate's egg of an answer - part of it>is good; but Sartrean freedom according to my reading a whole lot more.>What Sava mentions is INTERROGATIVE CONSCIOUSNESS whic is only one of the>three primary nihilations that Sartre attributes to the world-nihiating>faculty of consciousnss>>A real problem as sartre notes is that he is trying to describe an >existence>not an essence and his method therefore involves extended discussion and>dexcription. In trying to summarise his thought I am aware that it looks as>if an essence iss being described - but a reading of the relevant chapters>of Being and Nothingness is the truth - not my attempt at a summary>>My Summary:>>Human reality is (NOT HAS) freedom. This freedom hs three basic >expressions:>It is world-constituting, word surpassing and world nihilating.>>As world constituting it brings about the world and confers meanings and>values values on our world>>As world-surpassing human reality can transcend the basic conditions that>contitute ts siuation: move beyond being toward non-being>>Regarding world-nihilating, Sartre says ' nhilation is precisely the>meaning of freedom'>He describes three 'primordial nihilations' which he views as lying at the>base of all expressions of negativity in human experience:>>1. Interrogative consciousness: this is Sava's 'ability to question' which>of course implies freedom and always contains the possibility of a negative>answer.>>2. the pre-reflective cogito. This is our primary experience of the world>(as opposed to the reflective cogito, which is a secondary level of>consciousness) . This point is technically complicated, involving as it >does>an understanding of the theory of intentionality; but suffice to say that>nihilition enters the pre-reflective cogito through the world by way of>intentionality interpreted as a forjm of negation. Nihilation is also>apparent in the relation of consciousness to the self. Sartre uses one of>his famous mindbenders in this relation: 'I am myself in the manner of>not-being it'>>3. Temporality. Nihilation is present in each of the three temporal>dimensions: the past is no longer, the future as not yet and the present is>presence to self and the world.>>As I said, the above is an attempt at a summary of the elements which go to>make up Sartre's concept of freedom. They a all developed in great detail >in>Being and Nothingness.>My aim in doing this is to try to follow the development of Sartre's >concept>of freedom - breaks and continuities from his early to his later work . It>would be helpful if those of you with greater familiarity with B&N could>comment on the accuracy of the elements in the summary.>>Ian Buick>> >From: sava <cepav0@yahoo. com>> >Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com> >To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com> >Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life> >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:17:59 -0700 (PDT)> >> >Hi,> >> >There is no basics in this matter, cant say what Sartre's philosophy of> >freedom basically is. But if pressed, I would say that Sartre himself >puts> >his thought in the same line as that of Descartes, and so, "basically"> >freedom for Sartre is our ability to question. Then of course, to >question> >is also to question one's own freedom, or to question even the priority >of> >freedom to, say, an ethical, or aesthetical view of life. And so if >freedom> >is our ability to question, then Sartre's "basic" concept of freedom is >one> >that ends up questioning itself, that is, its own basis, that is, there >is> >no basis.> >> >Whereas to Kant, the quote in question, that is "Sapere aude" - dare to> >know, of course only very partially represents Kant's position on freedom> >or on the limits of human knowledge. For a more comprehensive and "basic"> >position of Kant on both the question of freedom and of human knowledge> >read the very beginning of Critique of pure reason, its "Introduction" . >You> >will learn there that freedom, along with God and Immortality are the >three> >transcendental noumena that will haunt forever, and will foreever remain> >beyond the grasp of human knowledge.> >> >But from this basic above statement, we should not rush to drawing any> >close affinities between Sartre and Kant, but rather instead, try and> >deepen our understanding of their thinking.> >> >> >> >On Jun 12, 2007, at 2:45 PM, sava wrote:> >> > > Felix,> > >> > > you are right. And I would also add that first: interpreting> > > Sartre's philosophy of freedom as an imperative of choice is> > > incorrect and reducive. Second: drawing a parallel between this> > > reducive interpretation of Sartre's freedom and Kant's> > > understanding of freedom is even more incorrect.> >> >Sava, what is your interpretation of what Sartre's philosophy of> >freedom basically is? I have a tendency to filter most written> >material for what I want it to be, to support my own arguments> >naturally, and I haven't been able to get outside myself as of yet to> >reach a definitive conclusion.> >> >Would it be fair to say the Kant quote about enlightenment states his> >position on freedom in a general sense?> >> > >> > > ----- Original Message ----> > > From: Felix <fe1ix@earthlink. net>> > > To: Sartre@yahoogroups. com> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:51:17 AM> > > Subject: Re: [Sartre] Philosophy and Life> > >> > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:18 AM, Eric S wrote:> > >> > > >> > > > Kant, in his essay, "An answer to the question: What is> > > > Enlightenment? " writes:> > > >> > > > "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred> > > > immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own> > > > understanding without the guidance of another. The immaturity is> > > > self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack> > > > of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of> > > > another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude (dare> > > > to be wise): Have courage to use your own understanding. "> > > >> > > > Although Sartre is not usually seen in these terms, I think it can> > > > be argued that Sartre is a philosopher of the Enlightenment in this> > > > very radical sense of the word. Just as Kant argues that we much> > > > learn to exercise and develop our faculty of judgment, so Sartre> > > > argues that we must choose to choose.> > >> > > Freedom of choice also implies freedom from choice. I.E., (E) None of> > > the above.> >> >_> >felix> >> >http://fe1ix. livejournal. com/> >> >> >> >> >> >> >___________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __> >Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of> >spyware protection.> >http://new.toolbar. yahoo.com/ toolbar/features /norton/index. php> >> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]> >>>___________ _ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _>Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth. >uk.msn.com>>>>>>>___________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __>Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! >FareChase.>http://farechase. yahoo.com/>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]>____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth. uk.msn.com__________________________________________________________Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                          _________________________________________________________________
                                          Try Live.com - your fast, personalised homepage with all the things you care about in one place.
                                          http://www.live.com/?mkt=en-gb

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Felix
                                          ... My simplistic impression is that Sartre is referring to the freedom gained due to the fact that homo sapiens project their own tainted concepts upon their
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jun 28, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Jun 28, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Ian Buick wrote:

                                            > Does anyone know what Sartre means by empirical here? From the
                                            > context, it would appear to mean that freedom has simply arisen in
                                            > the course of his investigation of the relationship between
                                            > consciousness and negation and he now needs to go on and give it a
                                            > foundation (which presumably means elucidate it fully?!)


                                            My simplistic impression is that Sartre is referring to the freedom
                                            gained due to the fact that homo sapiens project their own tainted
                                            concepts upon their own tainted world without option, as if the real
                                            world becomes what they decide it needs to be for the success of
                                            their self-aggrandized projects (and maybe "the world" actually does
                                            that, either out of sheer gratitude or impish deviltry.) How else
                                            could masturbation actually succeed?

                                            "We pump you up!" ~SNL

                                            Our projections might could become grounded in the for-itself's
                                            negation of the in-itself in order to sing a siren's song to what the
                                            for-itself feels is mysteriously lacking beyond the pale of it's
                                            negation. Our projections, in their haughty exteriority, each amount
                                            to an independent in-itself grounded by the for-itself's negation and
                                            the delusional foundation of temporality. This transcendent in-itself
                                            has a tendency to display itself as persistently astounded in a
                                            manner similar to The Scream. Hardly a cry for intimacy.

                                            If it's true that a genius is merely a person who has a genie at
                                            their disposal, then this particular upsurge from nothingness has to
                                            be the This of all thises'. It's redundantly generated on the spot in
                                            response to feigned authenticity, and made-to-be anything but this or
                                            that. It moves. Sorta like the little Lamb of God Mary had. If she
                                            left it alone, it would finally come home, wagging it's tail behind
                                            it. Just don't lose the cork... idyll banshees can drive you nuts.

                                            _
                                            felix

                                            http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
                                          • christian ndife
                                            i am really glad to hear from you about the twenbtith century philospher jean-paul sartre, i have just finish a long dissertation abouit his phulophy. most
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              i am really glad to hear from you about the twenbtith century philospher jean-paul sartre, i have just finish a long dissertation abouit his phulophy. most especially in his choice, freedom and responsibility. hope tp hear frpm you again. christian

                                              Felix <fe1ix@...> wrote:
                                              On Jun 28, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Ian Buick wrote:

                                              > Does anyone know what Sartre means by empirical here? From the
                                              > context, it would appear to mean that freedom has simply arisen in
                                              > the course of his investigation of the relationship between
                                              > consciousness and negation and he now needs to go on and give it a
                                              > foundation (which presumably means elucidate it fully?!)

                                              My simplistic impression is that Sartre is referring to the freedom
                                              gained due to the fact that homo sapiens project their own tainted
                                              concepts upon their own tainted world without option, as if the real
                                              world becomes what they decide it needs to be for the success of
                                              their self-aggrandized projects (and maybe "the world" actually does
                                              that, either out of sheer gratitude or impish deviltry.) How else
                                              could masturbation actually succeed?

                                              "We pump you up!" ~SNL

                                              Our projections might could become grounded in the for-itself's
                                              negation of the in-itself in order to sing a siren's song to what the
                                              for-itself feels is mysteriously lacking beyond the pale of it's
                                              negation. Our projections, in their haughty exteriority, each amount
                                              to an independent in-itself grounded by the for-itself's negation and
                                              the delusional foundation of temporality. This transcendent in-itself
                                              has a tendency to display itself as persistently astounded in a
                                              manner similar to The Scream. Hardly a cry for intimacy.

                                              If it's true that a genius is merely a person who has a genie at
                                              their disposal, then this particular upsurge from nothingness has to
                                              be the This of all thises'. It's redundantly generated on the spot in
                                              response to feigned authenticity, and made-to-be anything but this or
                                              that. It moves. Sorta like the little Lamb of God Mary had. If she
                                              left it alone, it would finally come home, wagging it's tail behind
                                              it. Just don't lose the cork... idyll banshees can drive you nuts.

                                              _
                                              felix

                                              http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/






                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Ian Buick
                                              Hi Christian, Good to hear from you. It would be useful if you could give your views on Sartre s idea of freedom. Was your dissertation on the early sartre or
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hi Christian,
                                                Good to hear from you. It would be useful if you could give your views on Sartre's idea of freedom.
                                                Was your dissertation on the early sartre or did you deal with his ideas in The Critique and Flaubert?

                                                RegardsIan


                                                To: Sartre@yahoogroups.comFrom: bishopndife@...: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 14:48:44 +0100Subject: Re: [Sartre] Early Sartre: his concept of freedom




                                                i am really glad to hear from you about the twenbtith century philospher jean-paul sartre, i have just finish a long dissertation abouit his phulophy. most especially in his choice, freedom and responsibility. hope tp hear frpm you again. christianFelix <fe1ix@...> wrote: On Jun 28, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Ian Buick wrote:> Does anyone know what Sartre means by empirical here? From the > context, it would appear to mean that freedom has simply arisen in > the course of his investigation of the relationship between > consciousness and negation and he now needs to go on and give it a > foundation (which presumably means elucidate it fully?!)My simplistic impression is that Sartre is referring to the freedom gained due to the fact that homo sapiens project their own tainted concepts upon their own tainted world without option, as if the real world becomes what they decide it needs to be for the success of their self-aggrandized projects (and maybe "the world" actually does that, either out of sheer gratitude or impish deviltry.) How else could masturbation actually succeed?"We pump you up!" ~SNLOur projections might could become grounded in the for-itself's negation of the in-itself in order to sing a siren's song to what the for-itself feels is mysteriously lacking beyond the pale of it's negation. Our projections, in their haughty exteriority, each amount to an independent in-itself grounded by the for-itself's negation and the delusional foundation of temporality. This transcendent in-itself has a tendency to display itself as persistently astounded in a manner similar to The Scream. Hardly a cry for intimacy.If it's true that a genius is merely a person who has a genie at their disposal, then this particular upsurge from nothingness has to be the This of all thises'. It's redundantly generated on the spot in response to feigned authenticity, and made-to-be anything but this or that. It moves. Sorta like the little Lamb of God Mary had. If she left it alone, it would finally come home, wagging it's tail behind it. Just don't lose the cork... idyll banshees can drive you nuts._felixhttp://fe1ix.livejournal.com/---------------------------------Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                                _________________________________________________________________
                                                The next generation of MSN Hotmail has arrived - Windows Live Hotmail
                                                http://www.newhotmail.co.uk

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Felix
                                                ... Hi Christian, Sartre didn t seem like the type of person I d wanna get into a public argument with. This is a point of contention with me. I seem tainted
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Jul 1, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  On Jul 1, 2007, at 9:48 AM, christian ndife wrote:

                                                  > i am really glad to hear from you about the twenbtith century
                                                  > philospher jean-paul sartre, i have just finish a long dissertation
                                                  > abouit his phulophy. most especially in his choice, freedom and
                                                  > responsibility. hope tp hear frpm you again. christian


                                                  Hi Christian,

                                                  Sartre didn't seem like the type of person I'd wanna get into a
                                                  public argument with. This is a point of contention with me. I seem
                                                  tainted enough with this attribute already. How smart do I have to be
                                                  to be too smart for my own good?

                                                  Whether I am is what I am is not doesn't seem engaging to many people
                                                  who unconsciously ache with the passions of daily living. It just
                                                  stinks as a pickup line.

                                                  _
                                                  felix

                                                  http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.