Re: [Sartre] Sartre and love
- On Aug 1, 2007, at 11:22 AM, sava wrote:
> The motivation this time is to be found in the linkIf love is merely one half of some universally recognized dyad, with
> 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...)
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-
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
- 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.