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

the Sartre-con

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    I personally think (with a great respect for the man s intelligence) that he repudiated his philosophy on purpose. I think he saw, as I do, that existentialism
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 29, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I personally think (with a great respect for the man's intelligence)
      that he repudiated his philosophy on purpose. I think he saw, as I do,
      that existentialism and humanism could only be framed by the
      individual, and that all personal action is personally mediating to
      one's own existence regardless of contingency, indeed an ultimate
      acceptance of personal responsibility and worth. There was no
      metaphysics, no scheme to it, no universal truth, other than what one
      did with one's own existence; truly the possession of self, however
      absurd or uninformed or blissful or tragic. He embraced a messianic
      system to avoid being taken as a messianic presence in a field
      (philosophy) that assimilates common sense like a vacuum, sucking any
      kind of actual human insight whatsoever into a metaphysical view.
      Metaphysics is a delusion and not possible for an existentialist.
      Consider the philosophic wreck that the existentialist view really is,
      and that men used to collapse and burst into tears when meeting Sartre
      in his heyday. Existentialism is not hope for the masses, it is just
      unqualified dignity for the individual, for the action of being human,
      regardless of contingency, regardless of knowledge, regardless of
      information. It was a big thing he drunkenly stumbled upon. It is
      foolish to believe he took it lightly in the climate of the twentieth
      century at the end of his life. It had to be shaken free of
      philosophy, something that can only be assimilated and forgotten into
      another kind of being right along with literature. But then, what the
      hell do I know, and it probably only matters to my existence anyway.

      tc
    • two_owl_night
      Interesting speculation and mostly accurate assessment of the non- philosophy we call existentialism. But don t forget, J-P believed he was responsible for his
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 29, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Interesting speculation and mostly accurate assessment of the non-
        philosophy we call existentialism. But don't forget, J-P believed he
        was responsible for his freedom and able to decide for others with
        his actions. It suggests an ego of immense proportion to believe one
        is capable of such a life. "But then, what the hell do I know, and it
        probably only matters to my existence anyway." Your last sentence
        seals the deal for individuals who comprehend the inability to know
        most things with any certainty. We might know enough to live our own
        lives, but I doubt we'll ever know enough to guide the masses.

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I personally think (with a great respect for the man's intelligence)
        > that he repudiated his philosophy on purpose. I think he saw, as I
        do,
        > that existentialism and humanism could only be framed by the
        > individual, and that all personal action is personally mediating to
        > one's own existence regardless of contingency, indeed an ultimate
        > acceptance of personal responsibility and worth. There was no
        > metaphysics, no scheme to it, no universal truth, other than what
        one
        > did with one's own existence; truly the possession of self, however
        > absurd or uninformed or blissful or tragic. He embraced a messianic
        > system to avoid being taken as a messianic presence in a field
        > (philosophy) that assimilates common sense like a vacuum, sucking
        any
        > kind of actual human insight whatsoever into a metaphysical view.
        > Metaphysics is a delusion and not possible for an existentialist.
        > Consider the philosophic wreck that the existentialist view really
        is,
        > and that men used to collapse and burst into tears when meeting
        Sartre
        > in his heyday. Existentialism is not hope for the masses, it is just
        > unqualified dignity for the individual, for the action of being
        human,
        > regardless of contingency, regardless of knowledge, regardless of
        > information. It was a big thing he drunkenly stumbled upon. It is
        > foolish to believe he took it lightly in the climate of the
        twentieth
        > century at the end of his life. It had to be shaken free of
        > philosophy, something that can only be assimilated and forgotten
        into
        > another kind of being right along with literature. But then, what
        the
        > hell do I know, and it probably only matters to my existence
        anyway.
        >
        > tc
        >
      • Trinidad Cruz
        ... wrote: Interesting speculation and mostly accurate assessment of the non-philosophy we call existentialism. But don t forget, J-P believed he was
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 29, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night" <two_owl_night@...>
          wrote:

          "Interesting speculation and mostly accurate assessment of the
          non-philosophy we call existentialism. "But don't forget, J-P believed
          he was responsible for his freedom and able to decide for others with
          his actions. It suggests an ego of immense proportion to believe one
          is capable of such a life. "But then, what the hell do I know, and it
          probably only matters to my existence anyway." Your last sentence
          seals the deal for individuals who comprehend the inability to know
          most things with any certainty. We might know enough to live our own
          lives, but I doubt we'll ever know enough to guide the masses."

          Mary

          Here again you over-simplify the man. That the masses are guided is on
          every individual in the mass. If existentialism even vaguely touches
          any ordinary view of such a metaphysical dynamic as mass guidance it
          is to repudiate that there can be such a metaphysical view at all; or
          moreso that it is of any importance whatsoever to the existentialist.
          It is a meaningless and random contingency that masses are guided.
          Metaphysics argues for its meaning. Existentialism acts most cleanly
          without consideration of such things; and a little less so in
          repudiation of such things; but never validates any consequences of
          any "metaphysical" paradigm of view. Such things are considered as not
          needing consideration. An existentialist would consider himself unfit
          for guidance, along with everybody else; and thus be guided or not
          guided, guide or not guide, as the illusion will fail on its own
          inevitably. There is nothing to guide the masses in, except that they
          cannot be meaningfully guided as a mass - and as individuals each one
          guides only himself. That; when considering the evolution and
          commonality of the human species, the human "meta-paradigm"; is
          precisely where self-responsibility starts and action mediates
          personal existence utterly.

          tc
        • Aija Veldre Beldavs
          ... there s a fundamental relational problem in the assumption of the concept the masses as opposed to oneself as special, individual, human. to underline,
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 30, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > We might know enough to live our own lives, but I doubt we'll ever know
            > enough to guide the masses." Mary

            there's a fundamental relational problem in the assumption of the concept
            "the masses" as opposed to oneself as special, individual, human. to
            underline, one could ironize about the "unwashed masses." arrogant
            intellectuals create social structures which atomize/ pulverize humans
            that form aggregate masses. natural humans in their normal associations
            and relationships are born into and form social units that are meaningful
            to them.

            aija
          • louise
            TC. Beginning to wonder now, if unclarity in my thinking apparently provoked or aggravated by comments you made a couple years ago, has prevented me from
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 1, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              TC. Beginning to wonder now, if unclarity in my thinking apparently
              provoked or aggravated by comments you made a couple years ago, has
              prevented me from seeing the philosophic foundation of your
              thought. Maybe you are European in your presentations, maybe
              metaphysical in tradition of German thinkers, such as Kant, Hegel,
              whose works I have scarcely opened. Others at the list will be more
              qualified to comment thereon. Your own existence manifests through
              medium of poetic writing, couched in grammatical prose, balking
              utterly at dialectical subjectivity evinced by Kierkegaardian
              student such as myself. There is so much more to say about the
              message below, I only know a limit has been reached. Ignorance the
              ocean on which may drift this personal pronoun, I do, most slow.

              Mary. If you are correct to state that J-P believed he
              could 'decide for others with his actions', that such decision were
              implicitly contained by his own freedom, we would seem to be in
              presence of that which is cultic rather than philosophical.
              Existentialism is born of the human individual, can die only with
              the death of individual will, and belongs in the bosom of philosphy.

              Louise
              ... making sober preparations

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night"
              <two_owl_night@...> wrote:
              >
              > Interesting speculation and mostly accurate assessment of the non-
              > philosophy we call existentialism. But don't forget, J-P believed
              he
              > was responsible for his freedom and able to decide for others with
              > his actions. It suggests an ego of immense proportion to believe
              one
              > is capable of such a life. "But then, what the hell do I know, and
              it
              > probably only matters to my existence anyway." Your last sentence
              > seals the deal for individuals who comprehend the inability to
              know
              > most things with any certainty. We might know enough to live our
              own
              > lives, but I doubt we'll ever know enough to guide the masses.
              >
              > Mary
              >
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > > I personally think (with a great respect for the man's
              intelligence)
              > > that he repudiated his philosophy on purpose. I think he saw, as
              I
              > do,
              > > that existentialism and humanism could only be framed by the
              > > individual, and that all personal action is personally mediating
              to
              > > one's own existence regardless of contingency, indeed an ultimate
              > > acceptance of personal responsibility and worth. There was no
              > > metaphysics, no scheme to it, no universal truth, other than
              what
              > one
              > > did with one's own existence; truly the possession of self,
              however
              > > absurd or uninformed or blissful or tragic. He embraced a
              messianic
              > > system to avoid being taken as a messianic presence in a field
              > > (philosophy) that assimilates common sense like a vacuum,
              sucking
              > any
              > > kind of actual human insight whatsoever into a metaphysical view.
              > > Metaphysics is a delusion and not possible for an existentialist.
              > > Consider the philosophic wreck that the existentialist view
              really
              > is,
              > > and that men used to collapse and burst into tears when meeting
              > Sartre
              > > in his heyday. Existentialism is not hope for the masses, it is
              just
              > > unqualified dignity for the individual, for the action of being
              > human,
              > > regardless of contingency, regardless of knowledge, regardless of
              > > information. It was a big thing he drunkenly stumbled upon. It is
              > > foolish to believe he took it lightly in the climate of the
              > twentieth
              > > century at the end of his life. It had to be shaken free of
              > > philosophy, something that can only be assimilated and forgotten
              > into
              > > another kind of being right along with literature. But then,
              what
              > the
              > > hell do I know, and it probably only matters to my existence
              > anyway.
              > >
              > > tc
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.