| Page: 1 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
Jean-Paul Sartre ( In A Nutshell )
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mindset replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 3:31pm |
 Coolness: 52750 | I. Sartre's Take on Absolute Individuality and Absolute Freedom.
The Existentialist conceptions of freedom and value arise from their view of the individual. Since we are all ultimately alone, isolated islands of subjectivity in an objective world, wehave absolute freedom over our internal nature, and the source of our value can only be internal. II. Sartre's View of Human Nature. Sartre's existentialism is defined by the slogan Existence precedes Essence (created by Sartre). This means: 1. We have no predetermined nature or essence that controls what we are, what we do, or what is valuable for us. 2. We are radically free to act independently of determination by outside influences. 3. We create our own human nature through these free choices. 4. We also create our values through these choices. III. Sartre's Essential Philosophical Questions A. What is Freedom? 1. The problem: How can we be free if our bodies, our abilities, and our environment are determined? 2. The solution: (a) Even though all these factors may be determined, we are more than simply these things. Our real self lies beyond the reach of external determination in virtue of its absolute individuality. (b) Our freedom is a freedom of synthesis: even though the many factors that go into making us and our experience are determined, we can arrange them as we like. We are free to make of them, and ourselves, whatever we will. B. What is Happiness? 1. The problem: How can man be happy in a world devoid of external significance and meaning? 2. The solution: The loss of external value allows us to get value from within ourselves, a value that is greater because it cannot be taken away by external forces. C. How ought we to act? 1. The problem: If our only moral rule is to act authentically, to choose our own values instead of taking them from external sources, can't we really do anything we want, no matter how evil or selfish? 2. The solution: a. In choosing our own nature we must choose human nature for all humanity. In order to act freely, we must not let our action be determined by any of our particular desires or interests. We must act as any free agent would act, hence we must act as we would like other people to act. b. In order to be free ourselves, we must desire the freedom of other people. To treat another person merely as an object for my use is to make an object of myself. To be free I must respect the freedom of others. c. Even though my actions are free, they are not completely arbitrary. Just as the artist, while free to create, follows the constraints imposed by her medium, so our actions, while not governed by rules, are constrained by the choices we and others have made. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 8:05pm |
| Coolness: 149020 | is there any particular reason you're posting this and all that symmetry stuff... or is it just because it's cool |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Unknown User replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 10:13pm |
| Coolness: 3800 | mindset needs a big bag of me. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 10:17pm |
| Coolness: 149020 | agreed |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Unknown User replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 10:32pm |
| Coolness: 3800 | everyone knows that sartre's epistemological framework of metaphysics is childishly circular and only serves as a sad testament to the intellectual détente of post-WWII france.
stupid. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 10:34pm |
| Coolness: 149020 | of course!!!
why didnt I see that??? ........ wait for it..... bag of shut up: because you didnt have a bag of me |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Unknown User replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 10:39pm |
| Coolness: 3800 | a bag of wack-whiteboy ?
where would i get one ? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» mdc replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 10:44pm |
| Coolness: 149020 | no... you misunderstand.... thats what YOU were supposed to say!!
you were supposed to say taht i did think of it because i didnt have a big bag of you... geez.. do i have to explain everything?? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Unknown User replied on Sat Nov 30, 2002 @ 11:37pm |
| Coolness: 3800 | i am just a bag.
nothing more. |
Jean-Paul Sartre ( In A Nutshell )
| Page: 1 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
