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

Un/aware

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Think I m getting a better handle on eduard s objection. It involves how one can be aware and self-deceiving at the same time. What I understand so far from
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Think I'm getting a better handle on eduard's objection. It involves how one can be aware and self-deceiving at the same time. What I understand so far from "Being and Nothingness" is that the choice to become what we are not yet is the choice which eludes our bad faith or incorrect belief toward our possibility. So it might be that the waiter who plays at being the waiter is aware that he is role playing knowing full well he is more than a waiter but not aware that he can be what this other is.

      This is the other Wikipedia entry eduard offered...

      ~Sartre cites a café waiter, whose movements and conversation are a little too "waiter-esque". His voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries food rigidly and ostentatiously; "his movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid". His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object
      in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter, but is rather consciously deceiving himself.

      Another of Sartre's examples involves a young woman on a first date. She ignores the obvious sexual implications of her date's compliments to her physical appearance, but accepts them instead as words directed at her as a human consciousness. As he takes her hand, she lets it rest indifferently in his, "neither consenting nor resisting - a thing" -
      refusing either to return the gesture or to rebuke it. Thus she delays the moment when she must choose either to acknowledge and reject his advances, or submit to them. She conveniently considers her hand only a thing in the world, and his compliments as unrelated to her body, playing on her dual human reality as a physical being, and as a
      consciousness separate and free from this physicality.

      Sartre tells us that by acting in bad faith, the waiter and the woman are denying their own freedom, but actively using this freedom itself. They manifestly know they are free but do not acknowledge it. Bad faith is paradoxical in this regard: when acting in bad faith, a person is both aware and, in a sense, unaware that they are free.~

      Mary
    • eduardathome
      Mary still does not get it. It isn t about being aware and self-deceiving at the same time. It s about defining bad faith on the basis of groundless
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Mary still does not get it.

        It isn't about being aware and self-deceiving at the same time. It's about
        defining bad faith on the basis of groundless assumptions. In some cases
        Sartre seems to bypass the assumptions entirely and prescribes "bad faith"
        simply on the basis that one is doing good job, as the good speaker who is
        "consumed by bad faith" just because he is a speaker. This does not help
        the reader to understanding. Am I to label the janitor at the office as
        being consumed by bad faith just because he did a good cleaning job??

        Mary's statement here ... "His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is
        play acting as a waiter, as an object
        in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is
        obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter,
        but is rather consciously deceiving himself".... shows part of the problem.

        This is all assumption. There is no basis to say that he is obviously
        acting. That is Sartre's assumption because Sartre is 1950s class
        conscious. The waiter is a member of the working class who is stuck and
        cannot climb out of the hole he is in. Of course, Sartre is above all this
        and as member of the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. Sartre is also above
        the mundane morality to which the waiter is held. Sartre's big deal was to
        have sex with as many young women as possible and had an open relationship
        with Simone. Namely that they formed a couple but could bed anyone else who
        had pulse. They would then write to each other disparaging whomever new
        conquest they made.

        No wonder Sartre thinks the waiter has bad faith. He spies on the waiter
        and ascribes all sorts of attitudes that are related to what Sartre sees as
        the waiter's inability to move on and up in class. The waiter is paralyzed
        by a realisation that he has to keep his job and the possibility that he
        could be something else.

        I suspect that something similar is going with respect to the woman with the
        limp hand. Perhaps Sartre is recalling a previous seduction. And having
        completed his conquest is ready to say of the woman what he really thinks of
        her ... perhaps in a letter to Simone. The seduced woman is obviously full
        of bad faith.

        The point is that none of these examples gives the reader an understanding
        of bad faith, but rather an insight into Sartre's own thinking.

        eduard


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mary
        Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 5:51 PM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] Un/aware

        Think I'm getting a better handle on eduard's objection. It involves how one
        can be aware and self-deceiving at the same time. What I understand so far
        from "Being and Nothingness" is that the choice to become what we are not
        yet is the choice which eludes our bad faith or incorrect belief toward our
        possibility. So it might be that the waiter who plays at being the waiter is
        aware that he is role playing knowing full well he is more than a waiter but
        not aware that he can be what this other is.

        This is the other Wikipedia entry eduard offered...

        ~Sartre cites a café waiter, whose movements and conversation are a little
        too "waiter-esque". His voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries
        food rigidly and ostentatiously; "his movement is quick and forward, a
        little too precise, a little too rapid". His exaggerated behaviour
        illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object
        in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is
        obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter,
        but is rather consciously deceiving himself.

        Another of Sartre's examples involves a young woman on a first date. She
        ignores the obvious sexual implications of her date's compliments to her
        physical appearance, but accepts them instead as words directed at her as a
        human consciousness. As he takes her hand, she lets it rest indifferently in
        his, "neither consenting nor resisting - a thing" -
        refusing either to return the gesture or to rebuke it. Thus she delays the
        moment when she must choose either to acknowledge and reject his advances,
        or submit to them. She conveniently considers her hand only a thing in the
        world, and his compliments as unrelated to her body, playing on her dual
        human reality as a physical being, and as a
        consciousness separate and free from this physicality.

        Sartre tells us that by acting in bad faith, the waiter and the woman are
        denying their own freedom, but actively using this freedom itself. They
        manifestly know they are free but do not acknowledge it. Bad faith is
        paradoxical in this regard: when acting in bad faith, a person is both aware
        and, in a sense, unaware that they are free.~

        Mary



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

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

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      • Mary
        If eduard s objection is based on what he assumes are Sartre s groundless assumptions, then eduard s assumption about Sartre is groundless. Sartre is trying to
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 16, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          If eduard's objection is based on what he assumes are Sartre's groundless assumptions, then eduard's assumption about Sartre is groundless. Sartre is trying to develop a connection between in-itself and for-itself and he used these examples to illustrate this. It seems ridiculous to infer that Sartre developed an entire concept from observing a waiter. That is, unless there is evidence from interviews or correspondence which support this assumption.

          Please note that I did not write, "His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter, but is rather consciously deceiving himself" This is a direct quote from Wikipedia which eduard himself presented in post #60055 and acknowledged doing so in post #60068.

          I wish to argue whether there actually is bad faith and what are better examples given Sartre's theory of freedom in the face of nothingness and modes of being.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
          >
          > Mary still does not get it.
          >
          > It isn't about being aware and self-deceiving at the same time. It's about
          > defining bad faith on the basis of groundless assumptions. In some cases
          > Sartre seems to bypass the assumptions entirely and prescribes "bad faith"
          > simply on the basis that one is doing good job, as the good speaker who is
          > "consumed by bad faith" just because he is a speaker. This does not help
          > the reader to understanding. Am I to label the janitor at the office as
          > being consumed by bad faith just because he did a good cleaning job??
          >
          > Mary's statement here ... "His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is
          > play acting as a waiter, as an object
          > in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is
          > obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter,
          > but is rather consciously deceiving himself".... shows part of the problem.
          >
          > This is all assumption. There is no basis to say that he is obviously
          > acting. That is Sartre's assumption because Sartre is 1950s class
          > conscious. The waiter is a member of the working class who is stuck and
          > cannot climb out of the hole he is in. Of course, Sartre is above all this
          > and as member of the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. Sartre is also above
          > the mundane morality to which the waiter is held. Sartre's big deal was to
          > have sex with as many young women as possible and had an open relationship
          > with Simone. Namely that they formed a couple but could bed anyone else who
          > had pulse. They would then write to each other disparaging whomever new
          > conquest they made.
          >
          > No wonder Sartre thinks the waiter has bad faith. He spies on the waiter
          > and ascribes all sorts of attitudes that are related to what Sartre sees as
          > the waiter's inability to move on and up in class. The waiter is paralyzed
          > by a realisation that he has to keep his job and the possibility that he
          > could be something else.
          >
          > I suspect that something similar is going with respect to the woman with the
          > limp hand. Perhaps Sartre is recalling a previous seduction. And having
          > completed his conquest is ready to say of the woman what he really thinks of
          > her ... perhaps in a letter to Simone. The seduced woman is obviously full
          > of bad faith.
          >
          > The point is that none of these examples gives the reader an understanding
          > of bad faith, but rather an insight into Sartre's own thinking.
          >
          > eduard
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mary
          > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 5:51 PM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Un/aware
          >
          > Think I'm getting a better handle on eduard's objection. It involves how one
          > can be aware and self-deceiving at the same time. What I understand so far
          > from "Being and Nothingness" is that the choice to become what we are not
          > yet is the choice which eludes our bad faith or incorrect belief toward our
          > possibility. So it might be that the waiter who plays at being the waiter is
          > aware that he is role playing knowing full well he is more than a waiter but
          > not aware that he can be what this other is.
          >
          > This is the other Wikipedia entry eduard offered...
          >
          > ~Sartre cites a café waiter, whose movements and conversation are a little
          > too "waiter-esque". His voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries
          > food rigidly and ostentatiously; "his movement is quick and forward, a
          > little too precise, a little too rapid". His exaggerated behaviour
          > illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object
          > in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is
          > obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter,
          > but is rather consciously deceiving himself.
          >
          > Another of Sartre's examples involves a young woman on a first date. She
          > ignores the obvious sexual implications of her date's compliments to her
          > physical appearance, but accepts them instead as words directed at her as a
          > human consciousness. As he takes her hand, she lets it rest indifferently in
          > his, "neither consenting nor resisting - a thing" -
          > refusing either to return the gesture or to rebuke it. Thus she delays the
          > moment when she must choose either to acknowledge and reject his advances,
          > or submit to them. She conveniently considers her hand only a thing in the
          > world, and his compliments as unrelated to her body, playing on her dual
          > human reality as a physical being, and as a
          > consciousness separate and free from this physicality.
          >
          > Sartre tells us that by acting in bad faith, the waiter and the woman are
          > denying their own freedom, but actively using this freedom itself. They
          > manifestly know they are free but do not acknowledge it. Bad faith is
          > paradoxical in this regard: when acting in bad faith, a person is both aware
          > and, in a sense, unaware that they are free.~
          >
          > Mary
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
          >
          > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
          >
        • eduardathome
          That my assumptions about Sartre may be groundless, as Mary suggests, is besides the point. My philosophy is not being debated here. It is Sartre’s
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            That my assumptions about Sartre may be groundless, as Mary suggests, is besides the point. My philosophy is not being debated here. It is Sartre’s assumptions that are of concern.

            Obviously, Sartre did not develop an entire concept by observing a waiter; he had many more examples. The question here is whether the examples or any one of them adequately explains bad faith.

            One could also ask who is not on the list. What about the farmer, the baker, the Indian chief, etc.?? The method used in the examples such as the waiter is to make assumptions about what the waiter thinks in relation to the assumption that he is acting a bit to “waiter-esque”. And yes, the latter is also an assumption. At what point does placing butter on the table transcend from simple placement to an act of placement which is too waiter-esque??

            But then, I don’t think there is a particular waiter. I think that Sartre wanted an example to illustrate bad faith and thus constructed this waiter from scratch around the idea. He assigns certain thoughts to this hypothetical waiter and goes from there. Sartre declares that this waiter has bad faith. How does he know?? Well, it is apparent from the overly precise behaviour. One assumption validates the other.

            The problem is that the examples [the waiter, the first date woman, the good speaker] do not adequately explain the label that has been applied. Using the same process Sartre could just as easily have included the farmer, the baker and the Indian chief.

            eduard

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Mary
            Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:33 PM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [existlist] Re: Un/aware

            If eduard's objection is based on what he assumes are Sartre's groundless assumptions, then eduard's assumption about Sartre is groundless. Sartre is trying to develop a connection between in-itself and for-itself and he used these examples to illustrate this. It seems ridiculous to infer that Sartre developed an entire concept from observing a waiter. That is, unless there is evidence from interviews or correspondence which support this assumption.

            Please note that I did not write, "His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter, but is rather consciously deceiving himself" This is a direct quote from Wikipedia which eduard himself presented in post #60055 and acknowledged doing so in post #60068.

            I wish to argue whether there actually is bad faith and what are better examples given Sartre's theory of freedom in the face of nothingness and modes of being.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
            >
            > Mary still does not get it.
            >
            > It isn't about being aware and self-deceiving at the same time. It's about
            > defining bad faith on the basis of groundless assumptions. In some cases
            > Sartre seems to bypass the assumptions entirely and prescribes "bad faith"
            > simply on the basis that one is doing good job, as the good speaker who is
            > "consumed by bad faith" just because he is a speaker. This does not help
            > the reader to understanding. Am I to label the janitor at the office as
            > being consumed by bad faith just because he did a good cleaning job??
            >
            > Mary's statement here ... "His exaggerated behaviour illustrates that he is
            > play acting as a waiter, as an object
            > in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is
            > obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter,
            > but is rather consciously deceiving himself".... shows part of the problem.
            >
            > This is all assumption. There is no basis to say that he is obviously
            > acting. That is Sartre's assumption because Sartre is 1950s class
            > conscious. The waiter is a member of the working class who is stuck and
            > cannot climb out of the hole he is in. Of course, Sartre is above all this
            > and as member of the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. Sartre is also above
            > the mundane morality to which the waiter is held. Sartre's big deal was to
            > have sex with as many young women as possible and had an open relationship
            > with Simone. Namely that they formed a couple but could bed anyone else who
            > had pulse. They would then write to each other disparaging whomever new
            > conquest they made.
            >
            > No wonder Sartre thinks the waiter has bad faith. He spies on the waiter
            > and ascribes all sorts of attitudes that are related to what Sartre sees as
            > the waiter's inability to move on and up in class. The waiter is paralyzed
            > by a realisation that he has to keep his job and the possibility that he
            > could be something else.
            >
            > I suspect that something similar is going with respect to the woman with the
            > limp hand. Perhaps Sartre is recalling a previous seduction. And having
            > completed his conquest is ready to say of the woman what he really thinks of
            > her ... perhaps in a letter to Simone. The seduced woman is obviously full
            > of bad faith.
            >
            > The point is that none of these examples gives the reader an understanding
            > of bad faith, but rather an insight into Sartre's own thinking.
            >
            > eduard
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Mary
            > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 5:51 PM
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [existlist] Un/aware
            >
            > Think I'm getting a better handle on eduard's objection. It involves how one
            > can be aware and self-deceiving at the same time. What I understand so far
            > from "Being and Nothingness" is that the choice to become what we are not
            > yet is the choice which eludes our bad faith or incorrect belief toward our
            > possibility. So it might be that the waiter who plays at being the waiter is
            > aware that he is role playing knowing full well he is more than a waiter but
            > not aware that he can be what this other is.
            >
            > This is the other Wikipedia entry eduard offered...
            >
            > ~Sartre cites a café waiter, whose movements and conversation are a little
            > too "waiter-esque". His voice oozes with an eagerness to please; he carries
            > food rigidly and ostentatiously; "his movement is quick and forward, a
            > little too precise, a little too rapid". His exaggerated behaviour
            > illustrates that he is play acting as a waiter, as an object
            > in the world: an automaton whose essence is to be a waiter. But that he is
            > obviously acting belies that he is aware that he is not (merely) a waiter,
            > but is rather consciously deceiving himself.
            >
            > Another of Sartre's examples involves a young woman on a first date. She
            > ignores the obvious sexual implications of her date's compliments to her
            > physical appearance, but accepts them instead as words directed at her as a
            > human consciousness. As he takes her hand, she lets it rest indifferently in
            > his, "neither consenting nor resisting - a thing" -
            > refusing either to return the gesture or to rebuke it. Thus she delays the
            > moment when she must choose either to acknowledge and reject his advances,
            > or submit to them. She conveniently considers her hand only a thing in the
            > world, and his compliments as unrelated to her body, playing on her dual
            > human reality as a physical being, and as a
            > consciousness separate and free from this physicality.
            >
            > Sartre tells us that by acting in bad faith, the waiter and the woman are
            > denying their own freedom, but actively using this freedom itself. They
            > manifestly know they are free but do not acknowledge it. Bad faith is
            > paradoxical in this regard: when acting in bad faith, a person is both aware
            > and, in a sense, unaware that they are free.~
            >
            > Mary
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
            >
            > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
            >




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

            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]
          • Mary
            Yes, but if someone relies on an earnest novice such as myself to prove whether the examples are adequate or inadequate, rather than reading the text itself
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 17, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, but if someone relies on an earnest novice such as myself to prove whether the examples are adequate or inadequate, rather than reading the text itself and relying on commentaries, is arguably not authentically concerned with debating the issue. Wikipedia and Spark Notes type synopses of a clearly difficult book won't be helpful in explaining what it took Sartre approximately 800 pages to explain. Nor will they explain how his several concepts are interrelated. As I said before, taking them piecemeal will prove frustrating and pointless. The charge that Sartre is condescending is one that has been taken seriously. The difference, however, is that some writers have taken the time to study the text and offer arguments based on the text.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:

              The question here is whether the examples or any one of them adequately explains bad faith.
            • eduardathome
              I would suggest that if one cannot get the idea from sources like SparkNotes and Wikipedia or from others, then Sartre has not adequately explained his
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 17, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I would suggest that if one cannot get the idea from sources like SparkNotes
                and Wikipedia or from others, then Sartre has not adequately explained his
                concept. It should not take reading 800 pages of text to get the point. If
                bad faith or mauvais foi takes 800 pages, then it is too complex to be
                worthy of consideration.

                eduard

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mary
                Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:39 PM
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [existlist] The point

                Yes, but if someone relies on an earnest novice such as myself to prove
                whether the examples are adequate or inadequate, rather than reading the
                text itself and relying on commentaries, is arguably not authentically
                concerned with debating the issue. Wikipedia and Spark Notes type synopses
                of a clearly difficult book won't be helpful in explaining what it took
                Sartre approximately 800 pages to explain. Nor will they explain how his
                several concepts are interrelated. As I said before, taking them piecemeal
                will prove frustrating and pointless. The charge that Sartre is
                condescending is one that has been taken seriously. The difference, however,
                is that some writers have taken the time to study the text and offer
                arguments based on the text.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:

                The question here is whether the examples or any one of them adequately
                explains bad faith.




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

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

                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              • Mary
                I agree that important ideas should be presented clearly but also understand the difficulty of unraveling centuries, if not millennia, of confusion and
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 18, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree that important ideas should be presented clearly but also understand the difficulty of unraveling centuries, if not millennia, of confusion and complexity. It's no easy task to unlearn, yet once accomplished concepts seem simple to understand.

                  For example, Sartre meant to contrast Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" with his own understanding which is: I doubt, therefore I am. He needed to show that belief in what we think about ourselves is not actually belief but rather doubt or troubled belief—bad faith.

                  If the translators rendered mauvaise as 'faulty' or 'poor', or Sartre had used words which translate 'conflicted,' 'confused,' or even 'divided' for an understanding of ourselves, these might have helped. By explaining the ontological structure of consciousness, he might show where the difficulties lie.

                  If we eliminate our association of evil or monstrous with 'bad' and stay true to the spirit of Sartre's text, we'll pay closer attention to his use of 'faith.' When he says we are nothing if we don't play at being, he indicates we play *because* we doubt. We're uncertain that we are what we do. We're conflicted; we reject and accept. We deny and embrace. Sartre is trying to contrast essence with existence. Remember, freedom is his highest value.

                  Mary

                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I would suggest that if one cannot get the idea from sources like SparkNotes
                  > and Wikipedia or from others, then Sartre has not adequately explained his
                  > concept. It should not take reading 800 pages of text to get the point. If
                  > bad faith or mauvais foi takes 800 pages, then it is too complex to be
                  > worthy of consideration.
                  >
                  > eduard
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Mary
                  > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:39 PM
                  > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: [existlist] The point
                  >
                  > Yes, but if someone relies on an earnest novice such as myself to prove
                  > whether the examples are adequate or inadequate, rather than reading the
                  > text itself and relying on commentaries, is arguably not authentically
                  > concerned with debating the issue. Wikipedia and Spark Notes type synopses
                  > of a clearly difficult book won't be helpful in explaining what it took
                  > Sartre approximately 800 pages to explain. Nor will they explain how his
                  > several concepts are interrelated. As I said before, taking them piecemeal
                  > will prove frustrating and pointless. The charge that Sartre is
                  > condescending is one that has been taken seriously. The difference, however,
                  > is that some writers have taken the time to study the text and offer
                  > arguments based on the text.
                  >
                  > Mary
                  >
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                  >
                  > The question here is whether the examples or any one of them adequately
                  > explains bad faith.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                  >
                  > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                • eduardathome
                  I think that “bad” just means wrong and that having bad faith leads to some adverse impact on the self. The problem isn’t in the translation of
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 19, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think that “bad” just means wrong and that having bad faith leads to some adverse impact on the self.

                    The problem isn’t in the translation of “mauvais”, but of “foi”. I don’t think that “faith” adequately encompasses the meaning in French. I think that the translation might more adequately be “credo”. But then that is only my opinion.

                    I don’t think that Sartre’s “I doubt, therefore I am” adds much more that Descarte’s "Cogito ergo sum".

                    I think that in today’s world, the response to Descarte’s dictum is ... “so what”. Descarte should be applying his intellect to find a cure for cancer, rather then pondering whether or not he exists. Granted he’s dead, but the point remains.

                    eduard

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Mary
                    Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:35 AM
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [existlist] The point of bad faith

                    I agree that important ideas should be presented clearly but also understand the difficulty of unraveling centuries, if not millennia, of confusion and complexity. It's no easy task to unlearn, yet once accomplished concepts seem simple to understand.

                    For example, Sartre meant to contrast Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" with his own understanding which is: I doubt, therefore I am. He needed to show that belief in what we think about ourselves is not actually belief but rather doubt or troubled belief—bad faith.

                    If the translators rendered mauvaise as 'faulty' or 'poor', or Sartre had used words which translate 'conflicted,' 'confused,' or even 'divided' for an understanding of ourselves, these might have helped. By explaining the ontological structure of consciousness, he might show where the difficulties lie.

                    If we eliminate our association of evil or monstrous with 'bad' and stay true to the spirit of Sartre's text, we'll pay closer attention to his use of 'faith.' When he says we are nothing if we don't play at being, he indicates we play *because* we doubt. We're uncertain that we are what we do. We're conflicted; we reject and accept. We deny and embrace. Sartre is trying to contrast essence with existence. Remember, freedom is his highest value.

                    Mary

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I would suggest that if one cannot get the idea from sources like SparkNotes
                    > and Wikipedia or from others, then Sartre has not adequately explained his
                    > concept. It should not take reading 800 pages of text to get the point. If
                    > bad faith or mauvais foi takes 800 pages, then it is too complex to be
                    > worthy of consideration.
                    >
                    > eduard
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Mary
                    > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:39 PM
                    > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: [existlist] The point
                    >
                    > Yes, but if someone relies on an earnest novice such as myself to prove
                    > whether the examples are adequate or inadequate, rather than reading the
                    > text itself and relying on commentaries, is arguably not authentically
                    > concerned with debating the issue. Wikipedia and Spark Notes type synopses
                    > of a clearly difficult book won't be helpful in explaining what it took
                    > Sartre approximately 800 pages to explain. Nor will they explain how his
                    > several concepts are interrelated. As I said before, taking them piecemeal
                    > will prove frustrating and pointless. The charge that Sartre is
                    > condescending is one that has been taken seriously. The difference, however,
                    > is that some writers have taken the time to study the text and offer
                    > arguments based on the text.
                    >
                    > Mary
                    >
                    > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                    >
                    > The question here is whether the examples or any one of them adequately
                    > explains bad faith.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                    >
                    > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                    >




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

                    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]
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.