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

60101Re: [existlist] Re: fixed nature of a human being?

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Jul 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Will do.

      eduard

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:22 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: fixed nature of a human being?

      You be sure to frequent that cafe in order to save the waiter from having to
      read Sartre.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Interesting. Before, it was said that the waiter should simply recognize
      > that ultimately he was a human being rather than the role that he played.
      > Now it isn't enough to recognize that one is a human being, but also one
      > must have an understanding of why in terms of Sartre's being in-itself and
      > being for-itself. It would seem that Sartre is not only demanding that
      > the
      > waiter get out of mauvais foi, but he must also read Sartre's book.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:10 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] fixed nature of a human being?
      >
      > No congratulations from Sartre unless I understand how I am being
      > in-itself
      > and being for-itself. Since I'm sufficiently satisfied with my grasp of
      > Sartre's Bad Faith, I'm now going to spend some time with how Sartre
      > explains what he considers the 'correct' view of in-itself for being
      > human.
      > What for Sartre is fixed as human essence other than existence, nothing,
      > and
      > freedom?
      >
      > Mary
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      >
      > > Sartre could encounter the waiter whilst serving the table and ask "what
      > > are
      > > you??"
      > >
      > > "I'm a waiter"
      > >
      > > "Aha ... and obvious case of mauvais foi". "But, what are you besides
      > > a
      > > waiter??"
      > >
      > > "I'm a father of a family"
      > >
      > > "Still mauvais foi ... a sad case". "I mean, underneath, besides these
      > > particular roles??"
      > >
      > > "Of course, I am a human being".
      > >
      > > "Congratulations".
      > >
      > > eduard
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Mary
      > > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:28 AM
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [existlist] Fixed nature
      > >
      > > We reject labels which identify us as essentially one particular thing.
      > > I
      > > am
      > > not my job, so whichever occupation I choose or find myself in and
      > > regardless of the education and training it requires, I am still not
      > > that
      > > position/role/job in-itself. It is this idea of having a fixed nature, a
      > > something in-itself, which Sartre opposes. We are being for-itself and
      > > either struggle or recoil at the thought of having the freedom of not
      > > having
      > > an identity (an in-itself) so we find ourselves in the 'project' or
      > > condition of bad faith. Sartre thinks our nature is to desire a fixed
      > > nature. But this is further complicated by the fact that others tend to
      > > label us as having a fixed nature.
      > >
      > > If I say you, eduard, are essentially a positivist or a reductionist or
      > > whatever, you reject this because you feel you are not that. If I say
      > > you
      > > are an electrical engineer, you're more likely to say this is true, but
      > > are
      > > you really only or strictly what your job entails? Aren't you first
      > > eduard,
      > > a human being who thinks and does many things besides his job? Aren't
      > > your
      > > ideas and ways of being constantly changing? To say that you perform
      > > your
      > > job/role as an electrical engineer means you are not strictly that block
      > > of
      > > identity. Even if you were to change careers, you wouldn't strictly be
      > > that
      > > new identity either. You would be free to be more than just that. Sartre
      > > means that all jobs are equal only in the sense that we still would not
      > > be
      > > identified strictly with what we do.
      > >
      > > To say I am not *that* means I am not merely a being in-itself. But it's
      > > more complicated, because if there weren't some facticity about being
      > > human,
      > > we wouldn't be able to negate it and be a being for-itself. We would
      > > merely
      > > be this block of identity. This is really what Sartre uses bad faith to
      > > explainâ€"the relationship between being in-itself and for-itself.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Mary,
      > > >
      > > > I think that part of the difficulty may be that we are dealing with
      > > > 1930’s thought. The way I see it, Sartre is
      > > > describing
      > > > psychology as to
      > > > mental functioning and associated behaviour. But in the
      > > > 1930’s
      > > > there
      > > > was very little in the way of realising that we actually used our
      > > > brains
      > > > to think, so Sartre and others had to resort to labels and phraseology
      > > > which might suffice.
      > > >
      > > > But since such phraseology is disconnected from reality, it easily
      > > > leads
      > > > to convoluted statements such as, "If I am a cafe waiter, this can be
      > > > only
      > > > in the mode of *not being* one." That statement makes no sense, and
      > > > I
      > > > can well appreciate the need for 800 pages of reading to obtain some
      > > > kind
      > > > of understanding. I don’t believe that such a
      > > > statement would be
      > > > made
      > > > by anyone today in the 21st century.
      > > >
      > > > I read the paragraph at least 4 times now and still cannot make any
      > > > sense
      > > > of it. For example, â€Å"This is the result of the fact that
      > > > while I
      > > > must
      > > > *play at being* a cafe waiter in order to be one, still it would be in
      > > > vain for me to play at being a diplomat or a sailor, for I would not
      > > > be
      > > > one”. I think that what Sartre is saying is that a
      > > > â€Å"diplomat” is a
      > > > position that requires substantial training and something to which you
      > > > are
      > > > assigned. You can’t just walk into the Ministry of
      > > > State
      > > > building and
      > > > start acting like a diplomat as one might act as a waiter when walking
      > > > into a restaurant. But if that is the case, then Sartre weakens his
      > > > argument for mauvais foi, since the diplomat could equally confuse
      > > > himself
      > > > with his role.
      > > >
      > > > I agree with your understanding of bad faith. I asked at the office,
      > > > what
      > > > was the meaning of â€Å"mauvais foi”. It comes
      > > > down to
      > > > misrepresenting
      > > > yourself to others, as for example to have a hidden agenda. Sartre
      > > > seems
      > > > to be using the term as misrepresenting yourself to yourself. In
      > > > regard
      > > > to the question of whether it is possible to misrepresent yourself to
      > > > yourself, I should think that it is entirely possible. There is
      > > > nothing
      > > > in the rule book of brain thinking that one has to be entirely logical
      > > > and
      > > > transparent.
      > > >
      > > > I think the example of the waiter is put in the wrong sense which
      > > > compounds the difficulty. The waiter is said to be too precise and
      > > > therefore he/she has mauvais foi. But it really should be expressed
      > > > the
      > > > other way around, as waiters who have mauvais foi tend to act in too
      > > > precise a manner. Not all waiters who act precisely have mauvais foi.
      > > > Neither do all beau parleurs.
      > > >
      > > > eduard
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 171 messages in this topic