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

Re: [existlist] Sartre's waiter

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    Whoa a minute. “by denying his freedom ...” “desperately needing a job he hates ...”. These are judgments whose truth you have no reason to know. All
    Message 1 of 171 , Jul 9 3:53 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Whoa a minute.

      “by denying his freedom ...” “desperately needing a job he hates ...”.

      These are judgments whose truth you have no reason to know. All that the observer is working on, is what Sartre states as, "his movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid". These are assumptions. We and Sartre have no basis of making such assumptions. Sartre, who likely spent most of his time in restaurants, likely has a thing against waiters. Of course, that is another assumption.

      With regard to mauvais foi, I think one should look more closely to explain the concept. I don’t think that what has been said so far adequately covers the issue. Even the example of the woman on a first date doesn’t really work.

      eduard




      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 1:01 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Sartre's waiter

      Yes, bad faith and authenticity are two different issues. I agree that the waiter's choice, if it is indeed a free choice, is significant. The question here is whether or not the waiter feels free in making his choice. If one infers from the waiter's taking his role too seriously that he identifies with being a waiter In-itself, the waiter is making an object of himself before others and that he has no existence other than this essence. Sartre is not condescending or acting in a bourgeoise manner by questioning his situation, e.g. his need to be employed as a waiter. Sartre is concerned primarily with freedom and suggests the waiter doesn't actually want to be a waiter because he is acting too much the role. Hence, he acts in bad faith by denying his freedom. We can imagine the anguish of his situation, that of desperately needing a job which he hates, is what he is fleeing by making himself a waiter in essence, in-itself.

      Sartre deals more thoroughly with flight from the anguish of freedom throughout B&N.

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
      >
      > I find that very difficult to understand. Why should we consider the waiter as being in “bad faith”?? Of course he is constantly choosing to be a waiter, he has a job to go to. If we use this criteria, then everyone in the world is acting in bad faith.
      >
      > Even the homosexual is questionable. Perhaps part of his life as a homosexual is a matter of denying to others what he is, so it comes a valid criteria upon which he is acting.
      >
      > I am wondering if this “bad faith”, at least as it is presented so far, is more a presumption of others towards the individual. By what right or business can Sartre object to the waiter playing a bit to precisely his role.
      >
      > I would consider that bad faith is really more like bad credo. One has a certain credo by which to live. The “bad credo” is the other way of living that you perform in the view of others. For example, you could be a crook at heart [the first credo] but perform as an upstanding citizen [the second credo] in order to obtain the confidence of others and thus the keys to the money vault. But that is only the case of others looking at the individual. For the individual himself it may not be bad credo, but instead a means to an end.
      >
      > eduard
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Jim
      > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:09 PM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: An apology for-yourselves
      >
      > Mary,
      >
      >
      > Thank you for that clarification.
      >
      >
      > Yes, certainly for the human being there is both a sense in which each of us is both a being-in-itself and a being-for-itself.
      >
      >
      > As you say, for Sartre, my being-in-itself is my past history. This just is, and cannot be changed. However when I consider myself now as a being making choices and oriented towards the future I am in being-for-itself mode.
      >
      >
      > According to McCulloch, Sartrean bad faith comes in when either we over-emphasize the being-in-itself aspect of ourselves or over-emphasize the being-for-itself aspect of ourselves.
      >
      >
      > The examples of the waiter and the woman who allows herself to be seduced are examples of the first kind of bad faith. The waiter and the woman identify with who they are and forget that they can, at any instant, choose to be someone or something else. The waiter forgets he is constantly choosing to be a waiter, the woman is forgetting that she is choosing to be seduced.
      >
      >
      > According to McCulloch the homosexual who denies he is a homosexual is a case of bad faith of the second time. He is not facing up to the fact that for years his sexual preferences have been those of a homosexual. So he is under-emphasizing the being-in-itself aspect of his being and over-estimating the being-for-itself aspect of his being.
      >
      >
      > Jim
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >




      ------------------------------------

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • daveylee40
      It seems to me that we are limited to the qualities and capacities of humanness as supplied by the natural state of being human. Other than that, I personally
      Message 171 of 171 , Aug 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        It seems to me that we are limited to the qualities and capacities of humanness as supplied by the natural state of being human. Other than that, I personally cannot conceive of a fixed nature or essence.

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
        >
        > No congratulations from Sartre unless I understand how I am being in-itself and being for-itself. Since I'm sufficiently satisfied with my grasp of Sartre's Bad Faith, I'm now going to spend some time with how Sartre explains what he considers the 'correct' view of in-itself for being human. What for Sartre is fixed as human essence other than existence, nothing, and freedom?
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        >
        > > Sartre could encounter the waiter whilst serving the table and ask "what are
        > > you??"
        > >
        > > "I'm a waiter"
        > >
        > > "Aha ... and obvious case of mauvais foi". "But, what are you besides a
        > > waiter??"
        > >
        > > "I'm a father of a family"
        > >
        > > "Still mauvais foi ... a sad case". "I mean, underneath, besides these
        > > particular roles??"
        > >
        > > "Of course, I am a human being".
        > >
        > > "Congratulations".
        > >
        > > eduard
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Mary
        > > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:28 AM
        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: [existlist] Fixed nature
        > >
        > > We reject labels which identify us as essentially one particular thing. I am
        > > not my job, so whichever occupation I choose or find myself in and
        > > regardless of the education and training it requires, I am still not that
        > > position/role/job in-itself. It is this idea of having a fixed nature, a
        > > something in-itself, which Sartre opposes. We are being for-itself and
        > > either struggle or recoil at the thought of having the freedom of not having
        > > an identity (an in-itself) so we find ourselves in the 'project' or
        > > condition of bad faith. Sartre thinks our nature is to desire a fixed
        > > nature. But this is further complicated by the fact that others tend to
        > > label us as having a fixed nature.
        > >
        > > If I say you, eduard, are essentially a positivist or a reductionist or
        > > whatever, you reject this because you feel you are not that. If I say you
        > > are an electrical engineer, you're more likely to say this is true, but are
        > > you really only or strictly what your job entails? Aren't you first eduard,
        > > a human being who thinks and does many things besides his job? Aren't your
        > > ideas and ways of being constantly changing? To say that you perform your
        > > job/role as an electrical engineer means you are not strictly that block of
        > > identity. Even if you were to change careers, you wouldn't strictly be that
        > > new identity either. You would be free to be more than just that. Sartre
        > > means that all jobs are equal only in the sense that we still would not be
        > > identified strictly with what we do.
        > >
        > > To say I am not *that* means I am not merely a being in-itself. But it's
        > > more complicated, because if there weren't some facticity about being human,
        > > we wouldn't be able to negate it and be a being for-itself. We would merely
        > > be this block of identity. This is really what Sartre uses bad faith to
        > > explainâ€"the relationship between being in-itself and for-itself.
        > >
        > > Mary
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Mary,
        > > >
        > > > I think that part of the difficulty may be that we are dealing with
        > > > 1930’s thought. The way I see it, Sartre is describing psychology as to
        > > > mental functioning and associated behaviour. But in the 1930’s there
        > > > was very little in the way of realising that we actually used our brains
        > > > to think, so Sartre and others had to resort to labels and phraseology
        > > > which might suffice.
        > > >
        > > > But since such phraseology is disconnected from reality, it easily leads
        > > > to convoluted statements such as, "If I am a cafe waiter, this can be only
        > > > in the mode of *not being* one." That statement makes no sense, and I
        > > > can well appreciate the need for 800 pages of reading to obtain some kind
        > > > of understanding. I don’t believe that such a statement would be made
        > > > by anyone today in the 21st century.
        > > >
        > > > I read the paragraph at least 4 times now and still cannot make any sense
        > > > of it. For example, â€Å"This is the result of the fact that while I must
        > > > *play at being* a cafe waiter in order to be one, still it would be in
        > > > vain for me to play at being a diplomat or a sailor, for I would not be
        > > > one”. I think that what Sartre is saying is that a â€Å"diplomat” is a
        > > > position that requires substantial training and something to which you are
        > > > assigned. You can’t just walk into the Ministry of State building and
        > > > start acting like a diplomat as one might act as a waiter when walking
        > > > into a restaurant. But if that is the case, then Sartre weakens his
        > > > argument for mauvais foi, since the diplomat could equally confuse himself
        > > > with his role.
        > > >
        > > > I agree with your understanding of bad faith. I asked at the office, what
        > > > was the meaning of â€Å"mauvais foi”. It comes down to misrepresenting
        > > > yourself to others, as for example to have a hidden agenda. Sartre seems
        > > > to be using the term as misrepresenting yourself to yourself. In regard
        > > > to the question of whether it is possible to misrepresent yourself to
        > > > yourself, I should think that it is entirely possible. There is nothing
        > > > in the rule book of brain thinking that one has to be entirely logical and
        > > > transparent.
        > > >
        > > > I think the example of the waiter is put in the wrong sense which
        > > > compounds the difficulty. The waiter is said to be too precise and
        > > > therefore he/she has mauvais foi. But it really should be expressed the
        > > > other way around, as waiters who have mauvais foi tend to act in too
        > > > precise a manner. Not all waiters who act precisely have mauvais foi.
        > > > Neither do all beau parleurs.
        > > >
        > > > eduard
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.