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

Sartre & Beauvoir

Expand Messages
  • two_owl_night
    Even the explicators were inauthentic. It s very difficult to be completely honest with others when we are constantly changing, or is it constantly remaining
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Even the explicators were inauthentic. It's very difficult to be
      completely honest with others when we are constantly changing, or is it
      constantly remaining the same?

      http://grapepress.blogspot.com/2003/11/abstract.html

      I agree with Wil that choice may be based upon pre-determined factors,
      is relative, and contingent. But then why does that make one's choice
      inauthentic or open to judgment? I agree with Dennett's compromise
      (Freedom Evolves) that we are subject to both determinism and free
      will, to the extent that we acknowledge it exists. Some humans are
      adaptive. The third or thousandth time, we might get it right.

      Mary
    • Trinidad Cruz
      ... wrote: Even the explicators were inauthentic. It s very difficult to be completely honest with others when we are constantly changing, or is it constantly
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night" <two_owl_night@...>
        wrote:

        "Even the explicators were inauthentic. It's very difficult to be
        completely honest with others when we are constantly changing, or is
        it constantly remaining the same?

        http://grapepress.blogspot.com/2003/11/abstract.html

        I agree with Wil that choice may be based upon pre-determined factors,
        is relative, and contingent. But then why does that make one's choice
        inauthentic or open to judgment? I agree with Dennett's compromise
        (Freedom Evolves) that we are subject to both determinism and free
        will, to the extent that we acknowledge it exists. Some humans are
        adaptive. The third or thousandth time, we might get it right."

        Mary

        Actually this piece is not bad though rambling into mere opinion.

        This is from the introduction and goes to the core of the
        existentialist view - i/e one must have an opinion on this or remain
        consciously inactive and ineffective:

        "In the majority of the passages in their letters, Sartre and de
        Beauvoir remain unclear with regard to whether authenticity is an
        attribute of pre-reflective consciousness or whether, on the other
        hand, authenticity is a project of reflective consciousness."

        If you can sort through this you will arrive at a point of divergence
        in existentialism. You are pretty sharp.

        My opinion is it must spring from pre-reflective consciousness because
        it may not ever be arrived at dialectically; in fact dialectically one
        may only ever end up with abstract rationalism not
        existentialism.(SK's seminal accusation) Sartre fought to grasp this
        in everything he wrote. It is the ultimate question for the
        exsitentialist. And again in certain contexts Dennett is dealing with
        the same question.For Rorty it is a question of pragmatic action and
        conversations between asylums.

        Again I commend your reading skills.

        Trinidad
      • two_owl_night
        Well, Trinidad, from my asylum to yours, thank you. Have a fun & safe holy day. Independence Day is one of the few I observe with any solemnity, hope and
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, Trinidad, from my asylum to yours, thank you. Have a fun & safe
          holy day. Independence Day is one of the few I observe with any
          solemnity, hope and celebration. Of course, the next day I feel
          sorely ambilavent about the whole fuss.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "two_owl_night" <two_owl_night@>
          > wrote:
          >
          > "Even the explicators were inauthentic. It's very difficult to be
          > completely honest with others when we are constantly changing, or is
          > it constantly remaining the same?
          >
          > http://grapepress.blogspot.com/2003/11/abstract.html
          >
          > I agree with Wil that choice may be based upon pre-determined
          factors,
          > is relative, and contingent. But then why does that make one's
          choice
          > inauthentic or open to judgment? I agree with Dennett's compromise
          > (Freedom Evolves) that we are subject to both determinism and free
          > will, to the extent that we acknowledge it exists. Some humans are
          > adaptive. The third or thousandth time, we might get it right."
          >
          > Mary
          >
          > Actually this piece is not bad though rambling into mere opinion.
          >
          > This is from the introduction and goes to the core of the
          > existentialist view - i/e one must have an opinion on this or remain
          > consciously inactive and ineffective:
          >
          > "In the majority of the passages in their letters, Sartre and de
          > Beauvoir remain unclear with regard to whether authenticity is an
          > attribute of pre-reflective consciousness or whether, on the other
          > hand, authenticity is a project of reflective consciousness."
          >
          > If you can sort through this you will arrive at a point of
          divergence
          > in existentialism. You are pretty sharp.
          >
          > My opinion is it must spring from pre-reflective consciousness
          because
          > it may not ever be arrived at dialectically; in fact dialectically
          one
          > may only ever end up with abstract rationalism not
          > existentialism.(SK's seminal accusation) Sartre fought to grasp this
          > in everything he wrote. It is the ultimate question for the
          > exsitentialist. And again in certain contexts Dennett is dealing
          with
          > the same question.For Rorty it is a question of pragmatic action and
          > conversations between asylums.
          >
          > Again I commend your reading skills.
          >
          > Trinidad
          >
        • eupraxis@aol.com
          Everything that we do is already highly scripted. Even my words here are in an historically evolved language, itself the synergistic combination of many
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Everything that we do is already highly scripted. Even my words here are in
            an historically evolved language, itself the synergistic combination of many
            histories. The concepts (free will, authenticity) are vestigial remnants of
            European scholasticism and 17th Century materialism, etc., that are ethically and
            politically charged (nature vs nurture, for example) without us even being
            aware of it at any time. Etc.

            This doesn't mean that we cannot make choices. It only shows that our choices
            are always contextual and are therefore 'free or unfree' in a very qualified
            sense.

            In a message dated 7/3/06 9:03:35 AM, two_owl_night@... writes:


            > I agree with Wil that choice may be based upon pre-determined factors,
            > is relative, and contingent. But then why does that make one's choice
            > inauthentic or open to judgment? I agree with Dennett's compromise
            > (Freedom Evolves) that we are subject to both determinism and free
            > will, to the extent that we acknowledge it exists. Some humans are
            > adaptive. The third or thousandth time, we might get it right.
            >
            > Mary
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • two_owl_night
            This is the reason I view existentialism as a foundation or foundational philosophy. I see its tenets as suggestions and possibilities upon which we construct
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              This is the reason I view existentialism as a foundation or
              foundational philosophy. I see its tenets as suggestions and
              possibilities upon which we construct our lives. After reading this I
              won't choose between the pre-reflective and reflective explanation,
              which only appears to be a paradox. Does there have to be a
              divergence? We are conscious of our consciousness being conscious,
              and we observe that we are observing and are being observed by
              others. Sartre makes the former a nothingness and the latter a
              hellish mobius. Sartre & Beauvoir demonstrated with their very lives
              the difficulties of concepts such as bad faith and authenticity. If
              their search for these was a search for consistency in action, was
              that valid? Did it fail? Though they desired a certainty (an
              absolute?) obtainable through dialogue, was it a reasonable goal?
              Afterall, within a sincere dialogue, one never knows where it's
              going.

              I find his passage interesting (from the linked material):

              "As a complex concept with many possibilities, Sartre and de Beauvoir
              worked through the idea of authenticity thoroughly throughout their
              dialogue. Authenticity seems, in many interpretations, to be a trait
              only possible in the pre-reflective consciousness. But unreflected,
              spontaneous thought, cannot project itself uniformly through all
              situations, because it fails to achieve the self-consciousness which
              is necessary for projection of consciousness into the future. It is a
              difficult distinction for Sartre and de Beauvoir, and just when the
              latter option seems so clear, their letters betray such an easy
              solution. For example, in January of 1940 Sartre writes to de
              Beauvoir of his personal relationship with his philosophy as
              immediate, on a pre-reflective level, rather than reflective, as we
              have come to understand philosophy under his terms:

              "I was just writing in my notebook today that the philosophy I'm
              writing must be rather moving for others because it's personal. It
              plays a role in my life, protecting me against the melancholy, gloom,
              and sadness of the war, though by now I'm trying neither to protect
              my life after the fact with my philosophy, which would be sleazy, nor
              make my life conform to my philosophy, which would be pedantic,
              instead now philosophy and life have really become one."

              "Now, when Sartre writes this one cannot help but question how this
              could be possible, considering the reflective qualifications for the
              development of philosophy. Life exists as pure spontaneity, as
              unreflected experience. Philosophy, on the other hand, requires
              reflection upon such experience."

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trinidad Cruz" <cruzprdb@...>
              wrote:

              > http://grapepress.blogspot.com/2003/11/abstract.html

              This is from the introduction and goes to the core of the
              existentialist view - i/e one must have an opinion on this or remain
              consciously inactive and ineffective:

              "In the majority of the passages in their letters, Sartre and de
              Beauvoir remain unclear with regard to whether authenticity is an
              attribute of pre-reflective consciousness or whether, on the other
              hand, authenticity is a project of reflective consciousness."

              If you can sort through this you will arrive at a point of divergence
              in existentialism ... My opinion is it must spring from pre-
              reflective consciousness because it may not ever be arrived at
              dialectically; in fact dialectically one may only ever end up with
              abstract rationalism not existentialism ... It is the ultimate
              question for the exsitentialist ...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.