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

Re: The nihilation of the in-itself into the for-itself

Expand Messages
  • james tan
    ... if i don t understand sartre wrongly. being-in-itself is the pure existence of all non-conscious being which themselves are object of consciousness. it is
    Message 1 of 59 , Dec 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>I am curious as to how being-in-itself becomes the foundation of
      >>>being-for-itself.<<<

      if i don't understand sartre wrongly. being-in-itself is the pure existence
      of all non-conscious being which themselves are object of consciousness. it
      is not a thing in the sense of kant's noumenon where the being hides behind
      things. it is the being of phenomena; that is, the "that it is" of things.
      it is sartre's way of interpreting heidegger assertion that "Being is the
      transcendens pure and simple". in "nausea", the character felt nauseous when
      confronted by the tree. it is the awareness of an consciousness of the
      fullness of being of an being-in-itself with a fullness and plenitude
      characterized by impermeabiity and infinite density (when compared with
      being-for-itself). and being-for-itself is said to be nothingness for the
      reason that all being in on the side of its object. for-itself is the
      negating of a particular being, and being negation, it must have something
      to negate; that something is the world. you go back home to realise your
      girlfriend is not there; this ability to perceive the *absence* is the
      essence of for-itself; it is the ability to 'not' something. in this sense,
      for-itself has only a borrowed existence, for sartre said in b&n: for
      consciousness there is no being except for this precise obligation to be a
      revealing intuition. unquote. without the in-itself to be revealed,
      consciousness (for-itself) cannot be self-conscious and thereby ceases to
      exist as "pure existence'. it follows hence that the in-itself is
      ontologically *prior* to for-itself and establishes the ground for it.
      for-itself (consciousness) without the in-itself (objects, world) is a kind
      of abstraction; it could not exist any more than a color could exist without
      form. but they are not interdependent. the in-itself has no need for
      for-itself to exist; without in-itself, there is no way for-itself could
      exist (or be known, revealed).

      >>>Sartre also says that the for-itself no longer has the same contingency
      >>>of the in-itself and becomes the foundation of its own being, but it is
      >>>still contingent on originally being the in-itself?<<<

      for the reason that in-itself is absolutely not subject to temporality,
      undifferentiated, uncreated, it is neither possible nor necessary, but
      rather contingent. for-itself, on the other hand, is necessary if the world
      is to be constituted or manifested. the world come into being because
      consciousness is the negation of being. here, one must differeniate between
      the concepts of 'world' and 'the undifferentiated totality of being'.
      without the for-itself, there would exist no world but merely
      "undifferentiated totality of being". and yet, for-itself depends on
      in-itself to be manifested.

      >>>I am not sure if he is saying that the in-itself qua in-itself is able to
      >>>nihilate itself into the for-itself or if there some outside nihilating
      >>>force that causes or permits the decompression of the in-self. How could
      >>>the in-itself, as total identity, be capable of self-nihilation?<<<

      it is impossible that in-itself is capable of that. that ability only belong
      to for-itsef; in fact, not as if for-itself is an entity that *possess* the
      ability to negate. rather, for-itself is wholly characterised by its ability
      to negate. for-itself is negation.

      >>>It is easy to see how the cogito can be providing its own epistemic
      >>>foundation, but doesn't it retain an ontological dependency on something
      >>>other that itself?<<<

      the way cogito is used can be ambiguous. sartre differentiate between 'i'
      and 'me', prereflective and reflective consciousness. kant refers to it as a
      set of logical condition. descartes meant it as 'i think' - did he want to
      emphasise the 'i' or 'think'? is it suppose to mean a mental substance, a
      'unifying principle' as in husserl, or consciousness. but that descartes
      used cogito as a epist foundation for the existence of the world, to
      heidegger and sartre, is mistaken. the world already exist, it can't be
      bracketed, it can't be doubted, there is no need for any foundation. 'things
      as they are' is that the world exist for consciousness to intuit it exist so
      that it can be said it is not that the world do not exist.

      james.










      From: "d w" <deividdo@...>
      Reply-To: Sartre@yahoogroups.com
      To: <Sartre@...
      Subject: [Sartre] The nihilation of the in-itself into the for-itself
      Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 00:40:00 -0500


      I am making my way through Being and Nothingness and I am curious as to how
      being-in-itself becomes the foundation of being-for-itself.
      Being-for-itself is a decompression of the in-itself, but how does this
      occur? Sartre also says that the for-itself no longer has the same
      contingency of the in-itself and becomes the foundation of its own being,
      but it is still contingent on originally being the in-itself? I am not sure
      if he is saying that the in-itself qua in-itself is able to nihilate itself
      into the for-itself or if there some outside nihilating force that causes or
      permits the decompression of the in-self. How could the in-itself, as total
      identity, be capable of self-nihilation? Being-in-itself does not have a
      self, per say, so how could it be capable of manifesting this fissure in its
      own being?
      Also, he says that the for-itself "is the foundation of its ... existence,
      but on no account of its presence". Is he speaking of an epistemological or
      ontological foundation? It is easy to see how the cogito can be providing
      its own epistemic foundation, but doesn't it retain an ontological
      dependency on something other that itself?
      I know that I have asked several questions, but I would kindly appreciate
      any assistance with these problems.

      David

      "It was subtle of god to learn Greek when he wished to become an author-
      and not to learn it better." -Nietzsche



      _________________________________________________________________
      Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
    • Ryan Dewald
      Eduard, The example that you insist on and the one that I have given a go at (a lion killing something to eat) is more akin to a human killing something to eat
      Message 59 of 59 , Dec 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Eduard,

        The example that you insist on and the one that I have given a go at (a lion
        killing something to eat) is more akin to a human killing something to eat
        than it is akin to a human killing another human (except for eating
        purposes). Despite that fact I listed a number of lessons a person can gain
        from the event of a lion hunting. I'm not clear why that didn't answer your
        question. Then you went on to interpret the lessons I listed in the most
        myopic and absurd ways. Thus I acquiesce, your reasoning and argumentation
        skill are far beyond mine. I cannot bring across my point without it being
        shown as the balderdash that it is. Woe unto me.

        Ryan

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Eduard Alf [mailto:yeoman@...]
        Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:55 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [existlist] I like little children, especially fried


        Ryan,

        Interesting. You raised the point that you could see the development of a
        human moral code in the behaviour of animals. I simply gave an example and
        still refuse to respond to it. Perhaps it is too difficult to deal with.
        Of course, one could select some benign mating function as an example. What
        you persist in ignoring is that in the animal kingdom the maxim is usually
        "kill or be killed". And when you wish to go out to find some dinner, you
        attack what is easiest to pull down. I made the point that this kind of
        activity is exactly what our human moral code seeks to obviate, given our
        perspective that the weak and defenseless are to offered an element of
        protection. You chose to ignore that point as well.

        eduard
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ryan Dewald [mailto:rdewald@...]
        Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:50 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [existlist] I like little children, especially fried


        Dearest Eduard,

        The lessons I described were about killing because you chose a situation
        related to killing. You could have chosen to observe army ants bivouaking
        for the night or a bird in its mating ritual.



        <<My question pertained to the lion's tactic of going after the weak and
        the
        defenseless.>>


        I am now convinced that you are deliberately misinterpreting my statements
        and baiting and switching your terms from one post to the next.


        case in point:

        <<working together allows success where one alone would fail>> Are you
        saying that we should depend upon the herd instinct in place of individual
        initiative?>>


        Permit me to answer your question with a question. Do you think that is
        what I am saying or are you just trying to interpret my statement in the
        most preposterous way possible?


        All the rest of your questions are equally as preposterous and I won't
        waste
        my time arguing with a person who deliberately misinterprets me. There
        are
        too many people who I can argue with that can beat me without distorting
        the
        terms of discussion.

        Love always,

        Ryan



        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.