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

59297Re: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Feb 6, 2013
      I do get it.

      I agree that Bad faith is knowing something about yourself and then acting
      against that knowledge.

      I'm just pointing out that Moussa in Mali would not be acting in bad faith,
      since he IS evil. Therefore, he acts authentically.

      Your comment ... "To state that evil people are authentic is meaningless in
      an existential context" ... seems to imply that only good people can be
      authentic in an existential context. Why?? If authenticity is acting
      according to your knowledge of yourself, then surely this formula would
      apply as well to evil people.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:39 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: The boy in the hole

      I already explained how zealots aren't capable of bad faith. Now you've
      turned to sadists as examples of authentic evil. A sadist is probably a good
      example of someone choosing authentically, because he may justify according
      to his freedom to choose what he wants. You don't get it. Bad faith is
      acting against your own sense of freedom to make a different choice, a
      choice not based on ideology. The zealot isn't free to deliberate with
      himself; he follows an ideology rather than questioning himself. Bad faith
      is knowing something about yourself and then acting against that knowledge.
      It's choosing to ignore and wanting to ignore something essential about
      yourself but then acting contrary to it. I vaguely recall that Beauvoir
      wrote about Sade using this argument. I don't understand how a sadist's
      existential authenticity is the same as a zealot's except perhaps their
      outcomes, but just because an outcome looks the same, doesn't mean their
      motives were.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
      > Interesting.
      > Why is it "bad faith"?? If a sadist harms others, how can it be bad faith
      > since (1) he wants to harm you, and (2) he does harm you. It would be
      > different if he doesn't want to harm you, but does so because he thinks it
      > is required of him and decides some self justification.
      > eduard
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic