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

Re: Subversion

Expand Messages
  • mary.jo11
    Louise, In Sartre s epistemology, Truth exists, is unveiled, revealed, pointed out, and verified by one For-itself to another For-itself. Truth is a shared
    Message 1 of 11 , May 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Louise,

      In Sartre's epistemology, Truth exists, is unveiled, revealed, pointed
      out, and verified by one For-itself to another For-itself. Truth is a
      shared experience, undertaken in freedom with responsibility toward
      other. Truth is action/experience toward something together.

      Dishonesty is misrepresentation with personal/moral and social/legal
      implications, but it exists, is real/true when it is shared. It is
      verifiable by another witness. Truth/Reality doesn't exist in a
      vacuum. That is merely contemplation/innocence/ignorance or the
      refusal of freedom/responsiblilty to know. Dishonesty is verifiable,
      or at least a conclusion may be reached by the observer/knower.

      Mary

      "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

      > Mary,
      >
      > The quoted extract is very interesting, but appears to leave open the
      > question which from an existential perspective demands to be asked,
      > namely, FOR WHOM does this Truth manifest, for oneself, or the
      > other? What is knowledge, if it is only knowledge of one's own
      > perceptions, whether that perception claim to be knowledge of one's
      > own or someone else's truth? My own primary concern is with honesty,
      > since without honesty truth is a useless concept. The brute fact
      > about life on this planet is that political and scientific forces are
      > able to restrict access to information needful for thinking in a
      > realistically honest way. At least, such is a socially responsible
      > way of reflecting on the matter. I suppose that from a social point
      > of view I am severely handicapped, in being incredulous at how social
      > the 'ordinary person' conceives truth to be. Social truth seems to
      > me more like conspiracy. Then 'they' can just get together and call
      > me autistic, or whatever.
      >
      > Louise
      >
    • louise
      ... pointed ... a ... May I ask, then, what, if any, are the qualifications required by the observer/knower, in order that the conclusions reached may be
      Message 2 of 11 , May 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.jo11" <ophiuchus@...> wrote:
        >
        > Louise,
        >
        > In Sartre's epistemology, Truth exists, is unveiled, revealed,
        pointed
        > out, and verified by one For-itself to another For-itself. Truth is
        a
        > shared experience, undertaken in freedom with responsibility toward
        > other. Truth is action/experience toward something together.
        >
        > Dishonesty is misrepresentation with personal/moral and social/legal
        > implications, but it exists, is real/true when it is shared. It is
        > verifiable by another witness. Truth/Reality doesn't exist in a
        > vacuum. That is merely contemplation/innocence/ignorance or the
        > refusal of freedom/responsiblilty to know. Dishonesty is verifiable,
        > or at least a conclusion may be reached by the observer/knower.
        >
        > Mary

        May I ask, then, what, if any, are the qualifications required by the
        observer/knower, in order that the conclusions reached may be
        adjudged more honest/reliable than the alleged misrepresentations
        perpetrated by the putative accused? Return once more to questions
        of Enlightenment values, I suppose. This is all Socratic territory,
        isn't it? What is knowing? How do you know? Enquired the vanishing
        cartoon cat. I really am unsure how to discuss these matters,
        especially with yourself, Mary, because it seems that we have got
        to 'know' each other a little too well. Louise

        >
        > "louise" <hecubatoher@> wrote:
        >
        > > Mary,
        > >
        > > The quoted extract is very interesting, but appears to leave open
        the
        > > question which from an existential perspective demands to be
        asked,
        > > namely, FOR WHOM does this Truth manifest, for oneself, or the
        > > other? What is knowledge, if it is only knowledge of one's own
        > > perceptions, whether that perception claim to be knowledge of
        one's
        > > own or someone else's truth? My own primary concern is with
        honesty,
        > > since without honesty truth is a useless concept. The brute fact
        > > about life on this planet is that political and scientific forces
        are
        > > able to restrict access to information needful for thinking in a
        > > realistically honest way. At least, such is a socially
        responsible
        > > way of reflecting on the matter. I suppose that from a social
        point
        > > of view I am severely handicapped, in being incredulous at how
        social
        > > the 'ordinary person' conceives truth to be. Social truth seems
        to
        > > me more like conspiracy. Then 'they' can just get together and
        call
        > > me autistic, or whatever.
        > >
        > > Louise
        > >
        >
      • mary.jo11
        louise wrote: What is knowing? How do you know? From Ronald Aronson s introduction to Sartre s TRUTH AND EXISTENCE: ...it would seem that
        Message 3 of 11 , May 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:

          What is knowing? How do you know?

          From Ronald Aronson's introduction to Sartre's TRUTH AND EXISTENCE:

          "...it would seem that Sartre has in mind not bare sense-perception
          but the more complex and sophisticated process of perception aided by
          instruments and guided by a theory. Indeed, Galileo's insight went
          contrary to the evidence of unaided perception. To see, then, may be
          to see an aspect of material reality, but it is to be guided by the
          vision of an individual who is able to "unveil" it for us using
          whatever perceptual and theoretical aids are available. No matter what
          the qualification may be, Sartre has in mind a direct—therefore
          individual, therefore absolute, but nonetheless true—vision of the
          unveiled being. Based on Galileo's experience, I can have my own
          personal experience, but this is not at all "a non-revelatory and
          purely subjective epiphenomenon." Rather it is at one and the same
          time "my" truth, "truth become for the other," and universal truth. It
          always begins with an individual subject who has this direct
          experience of Being—even if the experience includes my history,
          environment, character, "a certain horizon of values, ends, and
          signification."

          "...How can I know that what I see in this way is so? Only by
          intuition, that is, in the direct and personal experience of the
          subjectivity that wills to see reality. How can I verify that this is
          so? Only by offering it to others, as a gift. And as soon as they
          experience it themselves, they go beyond my truth. "Proof," if we may
          use that word, is based on good faith towards Being, the choice to see
          it; therefore it turns on the will to see Being, to refuse ignorance,
          and to take responsibility for what we have seen. Beyond this, no
          proof is necessary, because truth depends on each individual's direct
          intuition: there is."

          "As we already know, one of the central themes of Sartrean bad faith
          is wanting to hide from or avoid the truth, or refusing to take
          responsibility for it. What matters in the Sartrean ethics of truth is
          not really intelligence, or rigorous proof, or reasoning, because in
          fact it is really not difficult to see what is. Granted, truth is
          never merely given to us, it takes work. But Sartrean truth still
          demands no explanation; without blinding ourselves through ignorance—a
          deliberate choice expressing a specific denial of reality for specific
          reason—we all would see reality."

          Mary
        • jimstuart51
          Mary, I really like these paragraphs summarizing Sartre s view of things. I agree with Sartre s account of how we can perceive things as they really are. Iris
          Message 4 of 11 , May 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Mary,

            I really like these paragraphs summarizing Sartre's view of things.

            I agree with Sartre's account of how we can perceive things as they
            really are. Iris Murdoch was influenced by Sartre, and she argues
            that when our acting and observing are infused with the virtues of
            love and justice then we will see things objectively as they really
            are.

            So, we cannot prove to others that this is how things are – we just
            have to encourage others to be in the right frame of mind to observe
            the situation. And, of course, we have to be self-critical, asking
            ourselves if we are in the right frame of mind to see things as they
            truly are.

            I particularly like what Aronson writes in the last paragraph you
            quote:

            "What matters in the Sartrean ethics of truth is not really
            intelligence, or rigorous proof, or reasoning, because in fact it is
            really not difficult to see what is. Granted, truth is never merely
            given to us, it takes work. But Sartrean truth still demands no
            explanation; without blinding ourselves through ignorance—a
            deliberate choice expressing a specific denial of reality for
            specific reason—we all would see reality."

            Sartre's account of truth and our relation to reality is one of the
            greatest achievements of the existentialist tradition, in my opinion,
            certainly superior to anything the analytical tradition could muster
            at the time.

            Jim
          • mary.jo11
            Thanks, Jim. Or course it s not quite that simple since Sartre crams a complex logic into a mere 80 pages. I highly recommend this book, written between Being
            Message 5 of 11 , May 7, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Jim. Or course it's not quite that simple since Sartre crams a
              complex logic into a mere 80 pages. I highly recommend this book,
              written between Being And Nothingness and Critique Of Dialectical
              Reasoning. I haven't read either of them, so his terminology is a
              little circuitous and daunting. The most pleasant surprise is his
              foundation of scientific phenomenology. Objects exists, and objective
              truth exists. A human being is a free consciousness toward the
              unveiling of truth; but it's a subjective experience, shared and
              progressively verified. Truth And Existence seems quite thorough. It's
              my summer project :)

              "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
              >
              > Mary,
              >
              > I really like these paragraphs summarizing Sartre's view of things.
              >
              > I agree with Sartre's account of how we can perceive things as they
              > really are. Iris Murdoch was influenced by Sartre, and she argues
              > that when our acting and observing are infused with the virtues of
              > love and justice then we will see things objectively as they really
              > are.
              >
              > So, we cannot prove to others that this is how things are – we just
              > have to encourage others to be in the right frame of mind to observe
              > the situation. And, of course, we have to be self-critical, asking
              > ourselves if we are in the right frame of mind to see things as they
              > truly are.
              >
              > I particularly like what Aronson writes in the last paragraph you
              > quote:
              >
              > "What matters in the Sartrean ethics of truth is not really
              > intelligence, or rigorous proof, or reasoning, because in fact it is
              > really not difficult to see what is. Granted, truth is never merely
              > given to us, it takes work. But Sartrean truth still demands no
              > explanation; without blinding ourselves through ignorance—a
              > deliberate choice expressing a specific denial of reality for
              > specific reason—we all would see reality."
              >
              > Sartre's account of truth and our relation to reality is one of the
              > greatest achievements of the existentialist tradition, in my opinion,
              > certainly superior to anything the analytical tradition could muster
              > at the time.
              >
              > Jim
              >
            • jimstuart51
              Thanks for the extra information, Mary. I ll look out for the book - 80 pages sounds more manageable than the 500-odd pages of Being and Nothingness. Jim ...
              Message 6 of 11 , May 7, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks for the extra information, Mary.

                I'll look out for the book - 80 pages sounds more manageable than the
                500-odd pages of Being and Nothingness.

                Jim


                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.jo11" <ophiuchus@...> wrote:
                >
                > Thanks, Jim. Or course it's not quite that simple since Sartre
                crams a
                > complex logic into a mere 80 pages. I highly recommend this book,
                > written between Being And Nothingness and Critique Of Dialectical
                > Reasoning. I haven't read either of them, so his terminology is a
                > little circuitous and daunting. The most pleasant surprise is his
                > foundation of scientific phenomenology. Objects exists, and
                objective
                > truth exists. A human being is a free consciousness toward the
                > unveiling of truth; but it's a subjective experience, shared and
                > progressively verified. Truth And Existence seems quite thorough.
                It's
                > my summer project :)
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.