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

The point

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Jul 17 10:39 AM
    • 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 2 of 8 , Jul 17 4:28 PM
      • 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 3 of 8 , Jul 18 8:35 AM
        • 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 4 of 8 , Jul 19 4:23 PM
          • 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.