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

Sartre conclusion.

Expand Messages
  • yeoman
    Lorna et al, Well, I skipped ahead to the Conclusion section of Being and Nothingness. Here is a sampling of the text on page 785: ..., we found ourselves
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 1 5:20 PM
      Lorna et al,

      Well, I skipped ahead to the Conclusion section of Being and
      Nothingness. Here is a sampling of the text on page 785:

      "..., we found ourselves confronting two radically distinct
      modes of Being: that of the For-itself which has to be what
      it is --- i.e. which is what it is not and which is not what
      it is -- and that of the In-itself which is what it is."

      or try this, from the bottom of the page:

      "Our research has enabled us to answer the first of these
      questions: the For-itself and the In-itself are reunited by
      a synthetic connection which is nothing other than the
      For-itself itself."

      Does anyone understand any of this?? I mean, if this is
      part of the conclusion, then can we get anywhere with going
      through the entire book?? Granted, one may say that you
      need to read the whole of the book in order to understand
      the conclusion, but is it worth the time and trouble?? I am
      wondering if there is some other avenue that we can take. I
      have an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Existentialism
      which might be a subject of discussion. Or perhaps others
      who have read more widely will be able to suggest something.
      Perhaps we could use some of the material on Chris's
      website.

      eduard
    • Abbas, Misam
      Well , I can agree with you there that Sartre, at times, is quite esoteric (I resisted the temptation to say , unnecessarily esoteric, as I don t have a firm
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 1 7:26 PM
        Well , I can agree with you there that Sartre, at times, is quite esoteric (I resisted the temptation to say , unnecessarily esoteric, as I don't have a firm grounding in existensial philosophy). Perhaps it will be a good idea to discuss Sartre's fictional works to start with. I propose a play No Exit ,a summary for those who haven't read this is available on http://members.tripod.com/~IggyBeakman/index-3.html .It is based on the idea of "Hell is other people" .Three people caught in a room, who absolutely despise each other. This might be particularly relevant for us .. !


        -----Original Message-----
        From: yeoman [mailto:yeoman@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:21 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Sartre conclusion.


        Lorna et al,

        Well, I skipped ahead to the Conclusion section of Being and
        Nothingness. Here is a sampling of the text on page 785:

        "..., we found ourselves confronting two radically distinct
        modes of Being: that of the For-itself which has to be what
        it is --- i.e. which is what it is not and which is not what
        it is -- and that of the In-itself which is what it is."

        or try this, from the bottom of the page:

        "Our research has enabled us to answer the first of these
        questions: the For-itself and the In-itself are reunited by
        a synthetic connection which is nothing other than the
        For-itself itself."

        Does anyone understand any of this?? I mean, if this is
        part of the conclusion, then can we get anywhere with going
        through the entire book?? Granted, one may say that you
        need to read the whole of the book in order to understand
        the conclusion, but is it worth the time and trouble?? I am
        wondering if there is some other avenue that we can take. I
        have an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Existentialism
        which might be a subject of discussion. Or perhaps others
        who have read more widely will be able to suggest something.
        Perhaps we could use some of the material on Chris's
        website.

        eduard



        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • manicpg
        A very irrelivently weird answer would be that we deconstruct our world with X and Z equations, and when we explain how things work, all we are doing is
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 1 9:23 PM
          A very irrelivently weird answer would be that we deconstruct our
          world with X and Z equations, and when we explain how things work,
          all we are doing is refrencing a world we have no clue how came to
          be, and therefore nauseously absurdified, and as important as it is
          to in a meta/physics sense, as sartre and every philosopher (excuse
          the term) had done, still not many atheists take the spiritual
          journey to scout for those answers. There is a dirty research to be
          done, to explain how even if the big bang happened, who allowed for
          the ruleset of such properties to exist, and only a fool can ignore
          those questions. Perhaps a smarter man resorts to finding the answers
          in equations based on what he sees, humankind interaction, but it is
          a constantly muddled equation, and even when mastered provides no
          warmth in the heart. Probably deservedly, and honestly, and
          truthfully so, but still, we need to find out the answers to how
          magic fairy dust is made, and believe me, a cubic inch of eye matter
          could show any thinker that creation software was and is in motion
          but i like to be honest and write from my head. and im high.

          Now abviously Atheism is simply the other side of the coin from
          theism. Everyone looks for spirituality on their path. (thanks
          eduard). But, Ive never felt a spark in the heart. Thats why Im an
          athiest, I am a realist.

          (I mean no disrespect with my words, only the desire to feel
          honestly. And not feel anything that is not there)
        • Lorna Landry
          Eduard, Eduard, Eduard! You skipped to the end of the book? That s crazy! My comments below: yeoman wrote: Lorna et al, Well, I skipped
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 2 8:14 AM
            Eduard, Eduard, Eduard!

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



            yeoman <yeoman@...> wrote:
            Lorna et al,

            Well, I skipped ahead to the Conclusion section of Being and
            Nothingness. Here is a sampling of the text on page 785:

            "..., we found ourselves confronting two radically distinct
            modes of Being: that of the For-itself which has to be what
            it is --- i.e. which is what it is not and which is not what
            it is -- and that of the In-itself which is what it is."

            or try this, from the bottom of the page:

            "Our research has enabled us to answer the first of these
            questions: the For-itself and the In-itself are reunited by
            a synthetic connection which is nothing other than the
            For-itself itself."

            Does anyone understand any of this?? I mean, if this is
            part of the conclusion, then can we get anywhere with going
            through the entire book?? Granted, one may say that you
            need to read the whole of the book in order to understand
            the conclusion, but is it worth the time and trouble??

            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 exist.

            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.*******



            I am
            wondering if there is some other avenue that we can take. I
            have an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Existentialism
            which might be a subject of discussion.

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

            Or perhaps others
            who have read more widely will be able to suggest something.
            Perhaps we could use some of the material on Chris's
            website.

            eduard



            Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
            (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

            TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





            ---------------------------------
            Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Lorna Landry
            This might be a good idea, although I think we would get more out of Sartre s fictional writing if we read and understand where he s coming from
            Message 5 of 11 , Apr 2 8:15 AM
              This might be a good idea, although I think we would get more out of Sartre's fictional writing if we read and understand where he's coming from philosophically first. We haven't even got to the good stuff in B & N yet, and it seems Eduard has skipped right over it!



              Lorna




              "Abbas, Misam" <misam.abbas@...> wrote:Well , I can agree with you there that Sartre, at times, is quite esoteric (I resisted the temptation to say , unnecessarily esoteric, as I don't have a firm grounding in existensial philosophy). Perhaps it will be a good idea to discuss Sartre's fictional works to start with. I propose a play No Exit ,a summary for those who haven't read this is available on http://members.tripod.com/~IggyBeakman/index-3.html .It is based on the idea of "Hell is other people" .Three people caught in a room, who absolutely despise each other. This might be particularly relevant for us .. !


              -----Original Message-----
              From: yeoman [mailto:yeoman@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:21 PM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [existlist] Sartre conclusion.


              Lorna et al,

              Well, I skipped ahead to the Conclusion section of Being and
              Nothingness. Here is a sampling of the text on page 785:

              "..., we found ourselves confronting two radically distinct
              modes of Being: that of the For-itself which has to be what
              it is --- i.e. which is what it is not and which is not what
              it is -- and that of the In-itself which is what it is."

              or try this, from the bottom of the page:

              "Our research has enabled us to answer the first of these
              questions: the For-itself and the In-itself are reunited by
              a synthetic connection which is nothing other than the
              For-itself itself."

              Does anyone understand any of this?? I mean, if this is
              part of the conclusion, then can we get anywhere with going
              through the entire book?? Granted, one may say that you
              need to read the whole of the book in order to understand
              the conclusion, but is it worth the time and trouble?? I am
              wondering if there is some other avenue that we can take. I
              have an Encyclopedia Britannica article on Existentialism
              which might be a subject of discussion. Or perhaps others
              who have read more widely will be able to suggest something.
              Perhaps we could use some of the material on Chris's
              website.

              eduard



              Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
              (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

              TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
              existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






              Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
              (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

              TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
              existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




              ---------------------------------
              Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Lorna Landry
              I too have never felt this spark in my heart before, at least not one that I can attribute to something that is beyond my experience. Maybe that s why I lean
              Message 6 of 11 , Apr 2 8:19 AM
                I too have never felt this 'spark' in my heart before, at least not one that I can attribute to something that is beyond my experience. Maybe that's why I lean toward athiesm as well, but I must say, I would like to know what this sort of experience is like.
                Lorna

                manicpg <sacchmire@...> wrote:
                Now abviously Atheism is simply the other side of the coin from
                theism. Everyone looks for spirituality on their path. (thanks
                eduard). But, Ive never felt a spark in the heart. Thats why Im an
                athiest, I am a realist.

                (I mean no disrespect with my words, only the desire to feel
                honestly. And not feel anything that is not there)


                Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                ---------------------------------
                Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • manicpg
                but I must say, I would like to know what this sort of experience is like. come interview random people with me :)
                Message 7 of 11 , Apr 2 8:34 AM
                  "but I must say, I would like to know what this sort of experience is
                  like."


                  come interview random people with me :)
                • yeoman
                  Lorna,
                  Message 8 of 11 , Apr 2 12:41 PM
                    Lorna,



                    <<< 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
                    exist.



                    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
                    gobble-gook.



                    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
                    text.********



                    ---> 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.



                    eduard
                  • timm
                    ... I haven t read B&N but a question occurs to me here: Is this definition based on the function of the thing? For example, a book is just a pile of woodpulp
                    Message 9 of 11 , Apr 2 1:24 PM
                      > 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.

                      I haven't read B&N but a question occurs to me here:

                      Is this definition based on the function of the thing? For example, a
                      book is just a pile of woodpulp (or flyswatter) to someone who is
                      illiterate. It becomes something else if that person becomes literate.
                      Thus definition is in some way subjective, correct? When Sartre refers to
                      this unchanging definition, is he referring to its definition in the mind
                      of one individual?

                      It also seems that there is a temporal dimension to definition. For
                      example, a credit card becomes a worthless piece of plastic if your credit
                      is suspended. The Alamo goes from a mission to a fort to a historic
                      landmark because of events that take place there, and as a result its
                      meaning to a person changes correspondingly. Granted, the stone walls are
                      still stone walls (albeit slowly weathering into dust)... so what exactly
                      is definition? Is it only the materiality of the object? Are these
                      cultural and temporal issues bracketed by Sartre?

                      -timm
                    • yeoman
                      timm, I would take it that the unchanging aspect of a plastic credit card is that it is plastic. It is your interpretation of this object that makes it take
                      Message 10 of 11 , Apr 2 1:34 PM
                        timm,

                        I would take it that the unchanging aspect of a plastic
                        credit card is that it is plastic. It is your
                        interpretation of this object that makes it take on an
                        essence which is dependent upon your mind and may change
                        depending upon whose mind views it.

                        Of course ... what do I know??

                        eduard

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "timm" <tmason@...>
                        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:24 PM
                        Subject: Re: [existlist] Cheater!


                        > > 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.
                        >
                        > I haven't read B&N but a question occurs to me here:
                        >
                        > Is this definition based on the function of the thing?
                        For example, a
                        > book is just a pile of woodpulp (or flyswatter) to someone
                        who is
                        > illiterate. It becomes something else if that person
                        becomes literate.
                        > Thus definition is in some way subjective, correct? When
                        Sartre refers to
                        > this unchanging definition, is he referring to its
                        definition in the mind
                        > of one individual?
                        >
                        > It also seems that there is a temporal dimension to
                        definition. For
                        > example, a credit card becomes a worthless piece of
                        plastic if your credit
                        > is suspended. The Alamo goes from a mission to a fort to
                        a historic
                        > landmark because of events that take place there, and as a
                        result its
                        > meaning to a person changes correspondingly. Granted, the
                        stone walls are
                        > still stone walls (albeit slowly weathering into dust)...
                        so what exactly
                        > is definition? Is it only the materiality of the object?
                        Are these
                        > cultural and temporal issues bracketed by Sartre?
                        >
                        > -timm
                        >
                        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                        Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                        > FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
                        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/ACsqlB/TM
                        > ----------------------------------------------------------
                        -----------~->
                        >
                        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                        >
                        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                      • timm
                        ... Right, that makes sense - the materiality is unchanging. What I don t understand is that the Being-in-Itself seems to be based around a functional
                        Message 11 of 11 , Apr 2 2:51 PM
                          > I would take it that the unchanging aspect of a plastic credit card is
                          > that it is plastic. It is your interpretation of this object that makes
                          > it take on an essence which is dependent upon your mind and may change
                          > depending upon whose mind views it.

                          Right, that makes sense - the materiality is unchanging. What I don't
                          understand is that the Being-in-Itself seems to be based around a
                          functional definition.

                          "What Sartre always wanted his audience to understand was that he believed
                          we always have the ability to choose a new role, a new state of being.
                          Today, one might be a philosopher, while tomorrow that same person might
                          wait tables." - Kaufmann, quoted on Chris' exist. site

                          These are cultural, functional definitions of a person. So on the one
                          hand, we have the materiality of the object; on the other, the
                          functionality of a person. It seems like we're comparing apples and
                          oranges. Perhaps the point of the philosopher/waiter illustration isn't
                          so much the person's societal role as it is that it's one of the things
                          that helps the person define him/herself internally. Like the character
                          in Taxi Driver says, "A man becomes what he does."

                          Can anyone help me out?

                          -timm

                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          > From: "timm" <tmason@...>
                          > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                          > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:24 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [existlist] Cheater!
                          >
                          >
                          > > > 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.
                          > >
                          > > I haven't read B&N but a question occurs to me here:
                          > >
                          > > Is this definition based on the function of the thing?
                          > For example, a
                          > > book is just a pile of woodpulp (or flyswatter) to someone
                          > who is
                          > > illiterate. It becomes something else if that person
                          > becomes literate.
                          > > Thus definition is in some way subjective, correct? When
                          > Sartre refers to
                          > > this unchanging definition, is he referring to its
                          > definition in the mind
                          > > of one individual?
                          > >
                          > > It also seems that there is a temporal dimension to
                          > definition. For
                          > > example, a credit card becomes a worthless piece of
                          > plastic if your credit
                          > > is suspended. The Alamo goes from a mission to a fort to
                          > a historic
                          > > landmark because of events that take place there, and as a
                          > result its
                          > > meaning to a person changes correspondingly. Granted, the
                          > stone walls are
                          > > still stone walls (albeit slowly weathering into dust)...
                          > so what exactly
                          > > is definition? Is it only the materiality of the object?
                          > Are these
                          > > cultural and temporal issues bracketed by Sartre?
                          > >
                          > > -timm
                          > >
                          > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                          > Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                          > > FREE Cell Phones with up to $400 Cash Back!
                          > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/_bBUKB/vYxFAA/i5gGAA/ACsqlB/TM
                          > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                          > -----------~->
                          > >
                          > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                          > >
                          > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                          > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > >
                          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
                          >
                          > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                          > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.