The transcendent isn’t needed for Sartre. Intrinsic value is determined by the freedom to choose, by acting to choose. The fact that choice may be determined, does not take away from it’s freedom, in fact, you can choose the undetermined choice. Just because I am determined to do such and such, I still have that freedom until I make the choice by acting on it. My intention of choice is grounded in my freedom, is that freedom what allows me to choose. That’s what sets it apart from nihilism.
VR, firstly let me say I often find I learn something from you. I had never quite understood why existentialists call themselves that, I always thought it was just a mostly arbitrary title so that they could sound perhaps more profound. And as anyone can see this dichotomy you speak of between transcendent meaning and concrete meaning is also new to me.
I was aware of what I called the subjective/objective (or personal/universal, for one’s self/for everyone; I don’t want you to get the wrong idea just because I may make a poor choice in words) dichotomy in meaning. It’s true whenever someone spoke of objective/universal/‘for everyone’ meaning I would immediately assume they were speaking of transcendental meaning and I would explain to them that meaning is only subjective/person/'for one’s self. But, that’s a different debate:
There is the idea of transcendent meaning. I would argue there is only Sartrean meaning or subjective/personal meaning.
That argument is for people who speak of meaning where it has no foundations or people who place ‘false’ foundations on the meaning they speak of.
The only meaning that has any worthwhile/steady/real foundation is personal meaning.
In that debate meaninglessness never comes up, it’s not relevant and it is difficult enough to convince them to trade transcendent meaning for personal meaning.
The debate we’re having is a step below the above debate, it’s about personal meaning versus the possibility of one having no personal meaning.
The only solid foundation for meaning is personal meaning, the reason the foundation is so solid is not because it’s necessarily lasting meaning, as anyone knows people can change their views/opinions/beliefs/perspectives often.
The reason the foundation is so solid is it doesn’t have to be based entirely on logic; all logic can be turned incoherent or circular. Personal meaning must be expressed using words, but whether it’s explained with the attempt at logic or simply with the statement, ‘It’s what I believe,’ doesn’t matter; to use Sartrean terminology, the meaning is its own foundation.
What I hope I illustrated is that, in my discussions on nihilism and my actual attempts at nihilating even more meaning for myself, I have left the idea of transcendental meaning far behind, it is no longer an issue for me personally and while it’s relevant whenever someone mischaracterizes meaning, it’s not relevant for the discussion of nihilism itself.
In fact when Sartre speaks of bad faith he is speaking of people who believe in transcendental meaning. So when someone makes the transition from bad faith to ‘good faith’ do you think one just peels off all the labels sticking to their beliefs titled ‘transcendent’ and pastes a new label on titled ‘personal’? No one must reevaluate each belief over time. Some of their beliefs will most likely just be thrown away, such as many religious beliefs (though certainly not necessarily), but other beliefs will have to be reevaluated to see how much they are their own and how much they were based on bad faith, a nonexistent transcendence.
In that transition one is not required to keep any of their old beliefs or to make any new one’s until they are ready. If I was making a cake and realized I put salt in the cake mix instead of sugar I would have to ask if I should try to pick the salt out or throw out the cake mix and start over. It would depend on how mixed into the cake mix the salt was. For me I had already starting using the electric blenders. So when I tell you I must nihilate most of my old beliefs in order to get rid of the taint of transcendence, maybe it will make more sense to you.
I think what obe says below is important to the discussion:
Obe, I agreed completely with no hesitation to all that you said above except the last line. But, I think VR would agree completely based on the way he’s defining nihilism and I have no doubt that you are both using the term in the more widely accepted way than I am.
Sartre says the only thing we can’t choose is not to choose. As I’m sure obe agrees, a choice isn’t made until it is acted upon, that means it is a choice that is devoid of explicit reasoning (in this context even thought is an action). So if one wants to equate the word choice as Sartre uses it with terms such as ‘meaning’ or ‘belief’ then I can’t argue.
But, if one only wished to say that choices are the foundation of belief, then my argument that one can theoretically give the world no meaning stands. For example: I’m where I am today because of my choices, but I don’t have to let my prior choices define me, that is I can let them fall into being-in-itself. Still, I’m making new choices this moment, but that doesn’t mean that I’m allowing them to create that foundation of belief; I don’t have to wait any set length of time before distancing myself from my past.
Now back to the term ‘nihilism’. I’m far from an expert on the term’s history, but I would argue that it has come to be used antithetically to Sartrean thought.
Obe speaks in term of nihilism with that in mind. To believe that the world is deterministic (scientifically or not) is likely bad faith, but even if one takes that belief in ‘good faith’, it is still very much a belief and nothing more. So a nihilst based on that defintion, one who denies transcendental meaning and most other meaning, will still have the belief in determinism. That’s very much a belief and even if one wishes to make it their only one, they still can’t accurately say they have no beliefs.
I use the terms ‘nihilist’ and ‘nihilism’ based on Sartre’s ‘nihilate’ (his English translator’s equivalent to the French term coined by Sartre). When one nihilates they don’t annihilate because nothing is destroyed in such a ‘substantial’ way. To nihilate is to simply throwing something (such as a belief) back into being-in-itself.
So this theoretical true nihilist (which I’ll remind people I never claimed to be entirely) would have nihilated everything including the belief in determinism.
Well, it was a foregone conclusion from the start. All I had was a mule and upon mounting it it immediately threw me. Unfortunately, my foot had gotten tangled in the rope. So I was dragged around for hours making an ass out of myself, a complete ass that is, which is ironic being that even the mule itself could only make half that claim.
Hey Stuart: We are all suffering from post modern malaise:
Causality is the key. The idea before the picture, or representation of it. Hume broke the chain of causation, and causation has suffered a blow from which it could not recover. Kant said we should have notions of it, but the reasoning was inadequate.
The positivists, with analysis of language entailed causation to be purely synthetic, or co-incidental. Take any two events, situations, and a connection of some kind can be established.
But what a myriad confusion this synthesis is? It is in this tangle of confusing language, the pictures of representations of them, that we try to de construct: meaning towards - intent, direction, situation, perspective, context. This is why Sartre gave up, and. Came to depend on freedom of action, as a determinant, which needed a politically objective basis. This too he gave up on, so the transcendent reduction failed. What remained? Nihilism.
The still unsatisfied, ventured into post modernism.
Agreed. Let’s focus on that…
Agreed.
Agreed.
Ok, I’ll take your word for it.
Ok, I might get it. You think that since you can choose to ignore (or render meaningless) the entirety of your past, (or some of it), that therefore you do not believe in personal meaning, or you do not believe in personal m/p. Here’s where I agree: You can render the entirety of your past meaningless/purposeless/valueless, I suppose, for your present self. IOW your present self need not care about anything in the past. (That’s pretty Sartrean). But in doing so, that cannot itself be a meaningless/purposeless/valueless act. --And you cannot render personal existence meaningless/purposeless/valueless looking forward to the future. I don’t mean something like, “you shouldn’t do that” or “that’s not a good idea”----I mean, you cannot. It’s as impossible to do, for a Sartrean like yourself, as for you to think you’re not condemned to be free (aka make a choice).