|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Jean-Paul Sartre
#1179226 - 12/30/02 07:09 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
excerpt from "The Critique of Dialectical Reason":
"But it should be noted that this regulatory totalisation realises my immanence in the group in the quasi-transcendence of the totalising third party; for the latter, as the creator of objectives or organiser of means, stands in a tense and contradictory relation of transcendence-immanence, so that my integration, though real in the here and now which define me, remains somewhere incomplete, in the here and now which characterise the regulatory third party. We see here the re-emergence of an element of alterity proper to the statute of the group, but which here is still formal: the third party is certainly the same, the praxis is certainly common everywhere; but a shifting dislocation makes it totalising when I am the totalised means of the group, and conversely. "
I concur.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!
Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,184
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 7 hours, 37 seconds
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Swami]
#1179249 - 12/30/02 07:15 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Could you dumb it down for me?
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Swami]
#1179328 - 12/30/02 07:43 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Could you dumb it down for me?
Ya, seriously. I took a course in Existentialism and I still don't know what Sarte's talking about here.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Remy
Bitches Brew
Registered: 06/04/02
Posts: 1,343
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Swami]
#1179392 - 12/30/02 08:04 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
In other words man follows an order of nature regardless of the self, because man himself belongs to a greater order (humanity), which is governed by its own self, as a whole, and one mans action is governed by the actions of all other men? That would explain the 100th monkey phenomena...
Edited by Remy (12/30/02 11:37 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Remy]
#1179400 - 12/30/02 08:08 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Au contraire, mon ami. I strive for clarity, not obsfucation.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Swami]
#1179652 - 12/30/02 09:44 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ah but Kiekegaard says:
"Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit itself is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.
In the relation between two, the relation is the third term as a negative unity, and the two relate themselves to the relation, and in the relation to the relation; such a relation is that between soul and body, when man is regarded as soul. If on the contrary the relation relates itself to its own self, the relation is then the positive third term, and this is the self.
Such a relation which relates itself to its own self (that is to say, a self) must either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another.
If this relation which relates itself to its own self is constituted by another, the relation doubtless is the third term, but this relation (the third term) is in turn a relation relating itself to that which constituted the whole relation."
If this is clear, we can proceed.
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: ]
#1179678 - 12/30/02 09:56 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Alllll riiiiighty then.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: ]
#1180116 - 12/30/02 01:40 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Ah, Dueling Existentialists:
And Sartre states: buh duh bing bong bing bang ding dang dong!
but Kierkegaard says: dee dah dee dah do duh dee da dum!
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Swami]
#1180429 - 12/30/02 05:36 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Honestly... I think both Sartre and Kierkegaard are a bit off, but I have to read more Sartre (and Heidegger) first.
On a related note... Academic philosophers piss me off... give me simplicity, please. If you have to make up that many new terms to communicate your point, then you might as well not even bother. Re-defining is crap.... uncommon word usage is crap... blah blah BORING... Where's the art? Where's the excitement? Why should I feel compelled to even finish sorting through your imprecise and far from concise heap of thoughts?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
World Spirit
PNW
Registered: 07/27/01
Posts: 9,817
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Sclorch]
#1180434 - 12/30/02 05:37 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Deleted by admin
|
Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 9 years, 29 days
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Sclorch]
#1180452 - 12/30/02 05:45 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
LOL Sclorch!
-------------------- { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Sclorch]
#1180737 - 12/30/02 08:22 PM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
When you can give a reasonable interpretation for the above quote from Kierkegaard I'll be more enthused.
Academic philosophers piss me off... give me simplicity, please.
There are things that are complex and difficult to describe. Would you make the same demand on scientists? If not, I think that is prejudical.
If you have to make up that many new terms to communicate your point, then you might as well not even bother. Re-defining is crap
See above.
.... uncommon word usage is crap... blah blah BORING...
I fail to see the reason behind these statements or your vituperation.
Where's the art?
At the Art Museum. Are you saying you cannot recognize the beauty of Kierkegaard's prose?
Where's the excitement?
The excitement and the art are available for those who can discern them. Try hang gliding if you need a little more gusto in your prose. I hear it works pretty well.
Why should I feel compelled to even finish sorting through your imprecise and far from concise heap of thoughts?
Kierkegaard's piece is a model of precision and conciseness for the subject he was trying to explain.
In a word, galimatias.
You and Bob Pirsig have a lot in common.
|
Remy
Bitches Brew
Registered: 06/04/02
Posts: 1,343
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: ]
#1181440 - 12/31/02 07:19 AM (21 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I will agree with you that Kierkegaard's piece is definetely a very artful work of prose, and It makes quite a lot of sense, but I believe man can achieve a state of true self.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: ]
#1183710 - 01/01/03 08:24 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
At least you didn't have to strain to decipher my nonsense...
I have a hard time finding beauty in something I don't agree with... maybe I should work on that... maybe. The fact that I can (often) accurately summarize 5 pages of SK in about 300 words should give me a little support... but yeah, sure... there are probably complex issues out there that take a little more than three paragraphs to explain (ex. string theory). There is no prejudice here, I've read alot of SK... I just think he was afraid to abandon the one thing that still tied him to his peers, namely, his dependence on a supreme being. I often wonder if SK's social status steered him away from atheism/agnosticism. Of course... you can always just write off all these thoughts as irrelevant rhetoric. I guess it all depends on your beliefs and whatnot.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
CrowHeart
No one
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 90
Loc: Cast?lo da Maia, Maia, Po...
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Swami]
#1183838 - 01/02/03 12:16 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
A little bit off the topic (or maybe not), read Albert Camus, i believe you will like it.
-------------------- What the hell am I supposed to write here???
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: CrowHeart]
#1184259 - 01/02/03 05:33 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
No!!! You should avoid Camus like the plague!
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Swami]
#1184332 - 01/02/03 06:08 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sartre verbosely and clumsily is describing biological herd behavior not some higher human function.I have found so many European "philosophers"waste much effort describing philosophicly biological determinism. WR
-------------------- To old for this place
|
Remy
Bitches Brew
Registered: 06/04/02
Posts: 1,343
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Sclorch]
#1184417 - 01/02/03 06:51 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, on second thought, i take back my statement that SK's work was an art of prose. Prose is free form writing. I would call that poetry, which is carefull thought out and organized. I seriously doubt that was original thought (in other words, it probably took him quite some time to piece that together). Sartre refers to group action, aka probability. SK refers to the nature of the self. Both of them are leaving out the idea of oneness, or as the sufis call it non-existence (lack of self, or true self).
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Remy]
#1184941 - 01/02/03 09:55 AM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Oneness is a thought experiment taken literally.
Read Nietzsche... then read Joseph Campbell (The Power of Myth)... then check out Zen... then go back to Nietzsche... take three steps to your right... two back... jump up and down forty times... blink your eyes twice... stick out your tongue... then repeat.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
CrowHeart
No one
Registered: 01/01/03
Posts: 90
Loc: Cast?lo da Maia, Maia, Po...
Last seen: 20 years, 3 months
|
Re: Jean-Paul Sartre [Re: Sclorch]
#1186181 - 01/02/03 11:54 PM (21 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Why?
-------------------- What the hell am I supposed to write here???
|
|