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

Re: [Sartre] Sartre and love

Expand Messages
  • Felix
    ... If love is merely one half of some universally recognized dyad, with the other half supposedly being hate, anger, fear... whatever. Ideally, one might
    Message 1 of 45 , Aug 1, 2007
      On Aug 1, 2007, at 11:22 AM, sava wrote:

      > 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...)


      If love is merely one half of some universally recognized dyad, with
      the other half supposedly being hate, anger, fear... whatever.
      Ideally, one might suppose that in each other's presence, each
      lover's for-itself would be nihilated in order to matriculate into
      being-for-the-other for each other. Would this transition, despite
      the idiosyncrasies of each for-itself in their unlooked-upon
      subjective states, transcend to the other's transcendence? Is the
      polarity of this romantic dyad dissolved by that sacrifice?

      Is Sartre not stating that being-for-itself can't directly know it's
      own possibilities, because the necessary elements of what's possible
      for the escaped for-itself is suspended arbitrarily in the plenitude
      of the being-in-itself? The plenitude of being in-itself according to
      Sartre just is. Therewith, not compartmentalized into distinct
      possibilities existent FOR the escaped consciousness by any other nay-
      me.

      What sort of subjective behavior dictates which elements of the
      primordial soup of the in-itself will congeal into a possibility FOR
      the escaped consciousness, where the escaped consciousness doesn't
      possess awareness of it's former lodgings, in order to create it's
      own possibilities from the proverbial "breakfast of champions."

      That which announces itself as a possibility in the realm of
      consciousness via the other, is no such animal in the plenitude or
      primordial soup of the in-itself. There is nothing about nothingness
      upon which to situate a doorknob that opens up a stargate.

      In consideration of lust in relation to love, would it not be the
      same challenge to consider as deciding which of love or lust would be
      considered non-thetic?

      _
      felix

      http://fe1ix.livejournal.com/
    • 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.