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

Sartre and love

Expand Messages
  • sava
    At the risk of sounding obsessed with the theme of love - in a sense it is an obsession for me, there is love in philosophy - I am coming back to the problem
    Message 1 of 45 , Aug 1, 2007
      At the risk of sounding obsessed with the theme of
      love - in a sense it is an obsession for me, there is
      love in "philosophy" - I am coming back to the problem
      of love in the age of technology.

      The motivation this time is to be found in the link
      below. But I want to start first by recalling some of
      what Sartre had to say about love, and technology. A
      striking line of Sartre about love comes again from
      "What is literature" - one of his best books, in my
      opinion. Loosly quoting, the line goes: "What
      interests me most in a relationship with a woman is
      the enterprise of seduction, not the sex." (A French,
      always a French...)

      And some of the most interesting things about
      technology are to be found in the Critique. technology
      is what Sartre calls the "serialisation of the group"
      - i.e., the group is not a group, and the individual
      is not an individual. The serialized group doesnt have
      solidarity binding, but this looseness of the group
      doesnt go to profit the individual, for this latter
      doesnt have individual uniqueness. Among the many
      examples cited in the Critique, the one that comes to
      mind is that of Sartre himself, looking down the
      window of his Paris apartment, on a group of people
      waiting in line at a taxi station, each-one waiting
      for a taxi to be available. It is a group of people,
      but a group that, although formed for one same
      purpose, is not bound by a common interest; each
      individual is an individual, and yet each-one is
      interchangeable with the other. In more than one
      aspect the critique (NOT criticism) of technology is
      here of Heideggerian inspiration, and as such, just as
      Heidegger's, is not to be misunderstood as a position
      against technique.

      And this brings me to what motivated me for this post.
      The link below:

      Lust tops love when it comes to sex

      After I read that article, I could only come to two
      possible conclusions: 1- Either the researchers are
      wrong, and this is reason for worry, for us to have
      such a statistical, compilational, survey-like,
      basically uniformizing view of love, or; 2 - the
      researchers are right, and our technological advances
      have achieved already such uniformization of love,
      that both men and women have sex for the same reasons,
      supposing that it is also reason that governs love.

      There where our old Grandpa Freud confessed his
      cluelessness as to the profound life and tekne of a
      woman, as to her "psychical mechanisms", our modern
      researchers, of a democratic and certainly feministic
      age, have all figured out both about women and men.
      And what they have figured out is that both sexes are
      pretty much the same. Egalité, Fraternité, I dont know
      about Liberté.

      ____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
      Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
    • cepav0
      The quote below is pretty clear as to the profound relation between Sartre s philosophy and violence. The cogito, the generalized cogito, is a crime (did I
      Message 45 of 45 , Aug 21, 2007
        The quote below is pretty clear as to the profound relation between
        Sartre's philosophy and violence. The cogito, the generalized cogito,
        is a crime (did I hear Nietzsche somewhere?...):

        La situation veut que la vraie morale humaine prenne naissance dans
        cet acte isolé, purement individuel, de violence purement négative.
        Tentons de le comprendre dans son ambigüité et de légitimer cette
        violence. … en réalisant la liberté terroriste et négative de la pure
        conscience du monde par consomption du monde en face de la
        conscience, l'esclave réalise dans l'instant qui précède la mort
        cette conscience de soi que le stoïcisme, le scepticisme et le doute
        cartésien n'atteignent que dans la fuite et dans l'abstrait. … La
        destruction et le crime sont les conduites concrètes corrélatives du
        doute méthodique. [dans le crime] la conscience s'affirme dans sa
        solitude terroriste. Tout crime est toujours un peu un cogito.
        (Sartre, Cahier 418)

        What the heck, I'm giving it a try at translation:

        "The situation requires that the true human ethics is born out of
        this isolated act [the terrorist one], purely individual, of a purely
        negative violence. Let us try to understand it in its ambiguity and
        to legitimize this violence. ... by accomplishing the terrorist and
        negative freedom of the pure consciousness of the world, the slave
        attains in the instant right before his death to that self-
        consciousness that stoicism, scepticism and cartesian doubt attain to
        only in flight and in the abstract. ... Destruction and crime are the
        concrete behaviour correlative to methodical doubt. [in the crime]
        consciousness affirms itself in its terrorist solitude. All crime is
        always a bit of a cogito."

        Do I agree with this? Oh, not only that, I think these are some of
        the best lines ever writen in philosophy.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.