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

Re: Subversion

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , May 5, 2008
      --- 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 2 of 11 , May 6, 2008
        "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 3 of 11 , May 6, 2008
          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 4 of 11 , May 7, 2008
            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 5 of 11 , May 7, 2008
              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.