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

18108Re: [existlist] Cheater!

Expand Messages
  • yeoman
    Apr 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      <<< Eduard, Eduard, Eduard!
      You skipped to the end of the book? That's crazy! My
      comments below:>>>

      ---> Ya, I know. That was bad of me. But I thought it
      might help in some fashion.

      LL******Yes, I know when I read the end of a big
      philosophical text before I read the beginning, it doesn't
      make much sense to me either! Sartre is a worthwhile read,
      and maybe I'm at an advantage having read the book before,
      but here's my take on the 2 quotes you give above:

      1. For-Itself and In-Itself:

      I am for-itself and the objects in the world are the
      in-itself. The in-itself is what it is. We can define it
      with an unchanging definition and it has no possibility to
      be anything other than what it is. Once a brick wall, ALWAYS
      a brick wall.

      The for-itself is that hole in being (consciousness) that is
      not what it is (you can try to define me - like the brick
      wall - but you cannot because my consciousness makes it such
      that I am always confronted with the possiblity to be OTHER
      than what I I am) I am also that which I am not because my
      choice directed toward the future (which does not yet exist)
      defines the meaning of all my actions now. I want to knit a
      sweater; the act of knitting only has meaning when we
      visualize the end - a completed sweater that does not yet

      2. For-Itself-In-Itself:

      The synthetic conclusion Sartre talks about. This is what we
      all strive to be but cannot because its a logical
      impossibility. We cannot be both for-itself (that which we
      are not) and in-itself (that which is what it is). For
      Sartre, this is god (which we are always trying to be), and
      god does not exist.*******

      ---> Now that is what really gets me about all this. To
      use the term "for-itself-in-itself" may well be a shorthand
      form to aid philosophers, but what it amounts to is that i
      have to think about a term in order to think about the thing
      that I want to think about. Are you aware that at least in
      the US there is guidance manual for writers which is
      intended to ensure "reader friendly" documents?? People
      were just getting fed up with all that legalize and

      Why not just say, "We cannot be both that which we are not,
      and that which is what it is". That is simpler but still
      does not make too much sense.

      LL*******I'm not fond of reading encyclopedias as
      philoshical text. I think we should stick to the

      ---> I am Ok with using the text, but I gotta tell you that
      I don't feel that I am getting anywhere with it. I have not
      understood a word of it yet. There has to be a simpler
      method, at least to open this up a bit.

    • Show all 11 messages in this topic