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

Sartre's half of the story

Expand Messages
  • David Leon
    Sartre may be blamed with offering that existence precedes essence, in his own ways. But he may never have taken care of the direct issue of the decisions we
    Message 1 of 1 , May 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Sartre may be blamed with offering that existence precedes essence, in his
      own ways. But he may never have taken care of the direct issue of the
      decisions we make. He may have studied like a background to the decisions we
      make, but he wasn't as much speaking about the decisions themselves. This
      thought, or realization, goes along with something I want to quote from a
      message I wrote elsewhere, about my "It's not your fault" theme. It may
      sound flimsy as a phrase, but stick with me.

      This is just coming straight in, quoting from the midst of something I
      wrote, so just pretend it fades in to the middle of the TV program. Note
      that I wasn't trying to talk about Sartre in this other writing.

      As an approach to philosophy, it opens philosophy itself up to recognize
      that it is like the stage of thoughts on which other disciplines and on
      which applications can even take place, because the "way" that we think
      relates to EVERYthing - everything that we DO, and everything that we act
      out without consciously "doing", and everything that describes our health
      and setup that actually made up how we act things out with our personalities
      and then how we "do" things consciously on top of that. It's a three-tiered
      structure. ..WE are a three-tiered structure. It RECOGNIZES that, I guess.
      It just seems to flow so easily out of it, now that I'm looking at it all
      this way. (Possibly this relates, in order, to "mind" then "spirit" then
      "body", even if it rather opens up perhaps our prior perceptions of these
      three. But I wont make a point of this, here.)

      And then, once again, as an approach to philosophy, it is open to all the
      newer studies of human body and "biology", physical and experienced - the
      psychologies in general, of US, of our "soul", or just our very fact of
      being whatever we are. And it is open to religion, and even to relating
      religion to simpler psychologies, but in realistic ways. And it does all
      this BECAUSE it can look at man as if he starts before he is, and not as if
      he is before he starts, so to speak. In other words, a person does not make
      decisions, does not feel guilt, does not have a reason to be guilty, or a
      reason to be free from that guilt, without having started - a starting which
      is PRIOR to his decisions - prior to his "faults" and his "fault". "Faults"
      would be 1) apparent faults, in comparing one to another, and 2) comparing
      difficulty/"malfunction" to ease/"function" (the reality behind the classic
      theme of the confused versus the ideal). And "fault" would be like guilt,
      blame, and putting the focus on a man's perceived "decisions", versus
      realizing that existence comes first, BEFORE his fault, before his blame,
      before his "decisions". If "decisions" are left out in the blue, alone, then
      it is as if a man has chosen any one thing out of any imaginable
      possibilities, when in reality that is not the case for him in his actual
      existence. But if "existence" is RECOGNIZED first...

      "It's not your fault" is just a way to speak to all this - an approach to a
      philosophy that can begin to embrace our physical studies: medicine,
      "biology", psychology, things that philosophy and religion haven't gotten
      round to understanding. But it's actually in this fundamental principle and
      technique of therapy that this phrase that speaks about concepts of "blame"
      and "guilt", also, can be found, which can naturally be applied to themes of
      guilt in religion, but at the same time, and necessarily so, applied to
      "biology", or psychology, and physician-studies. We are literally
      "conceived" as we still use that word, before we have any issues, per se,
      any problems, or any particular levels of consciousness, of complicated
      spirit/attitudes and then mind built on top of just being physically here.

      Maybe I'm just sharing this to my doom, for it to not be understood by "the
      world", or by an "academic community" - just one more thing to be called a
      little off my rocker and to have misinterpreted. But that's ok. It's true
      anyway. Nobody has to know it for it to be some decent material.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.