So I’ve given arguments before against certain elements free will, but Sartre keeps insisting we have total free will. I believe partly some is free, some is not, but I don’t take an extremist stance on either of those options.
I wonder about emotions. Sartre says they are choices, you cry because you chose to take a situation a certain way. I’m sorry but if a parent dies in a split second, I’ll cry, and to me that’s not a choice. I didn’t choose to interpret that quick situation, it just happened naturally. And if he wants to go on to say that it was previous choice to care about these people than I will have an argument that choices aren’t free because if you make a previous choice, you now have no way of escaping a new one, because you previously chose that situation.
I love the idea of existentialism, I just don’t see it as actual. But that’s all, I just told Sartre to leave and I have Freud coming over for tea at 3, yay.
I understand where are coming from Club, and in no means does there exist the wish to place my commentary as authoritarian in regards to Sartre, but it is believable you misunderstand him.
If you define death, by choice, as other than a mournful instance, then you are making a “choice” to not associate the emotion that lends to sobbing.
Your choices are in your definitions. From a Taoist perspective, physical death is a liberating transition of captive energies. Thus, a Taoist will rejoice at the freedom that another has attained, by choice of definition.
Someone else may come along with a different description for you, so feel free to ignore this post if such happens.
I think Mast hit it right on the head. Sartre said that one has free will of placing of emotions into things. One could detach themselves from all around them. You are right Club in saying that death was not a choice but rather the emotional investment was.
I was pertaining to the crying part, not exactly death. But I do see both your points. And I do realize that what some consider bad, others consider good. And Sartre believed the choice you make, no matter what, was good for you, because you made that choice right? I’m just arguing if it’s actually a choice.
It’s as if Sartre says I should never love and care for my family, because if I do I will someday be upset at this investment and I will have no choice but to feel horrible because I made the choice to care. It’s conflicting, because I want to care, and sometimes you are sucked into caring, I don’t always find that a choice. You’ve been raised to care for people as he believes, but was that your choice to give you that personality? That immediately unconsciously you care? And that’s a choice? You see someone shot and you care for them?
I feel I must be misunderstanding. Because what about babies and their crying? They made a choice to be a certain way, a certain way that will lead them to crying? Just as a certain man allows himself to interpret someone as a bad person long enough he can’t control striking them in the face, but he made the choice to interpret?
Ok so crying is natural for a baby, but unnatural for someone who has a fully developed brain. But basically then, are we saying emotions are choices? You choice the situation that brought you to these emotions? As I said it’s as if Sartre’s asking that if people don’t want to cry they shouldn’t ever get attached to anything? Seems reasonable, but i doubt anyone wants to do that.
Awesome question. The difficulty with emotion being a matter of choice is that it's not up to us which emotions fit which situation- now, Sartre might be correct to say that it is in our power to laugh when our parents die, or do divorce all emotion from it whatsoever. However, we would be [i]incorrect[/i] in doing so- parents dying is under normal circumstances a sad event, and feeling an emotion other than sadness is a mistake, under normal circumstances.
So, you don't choose to be sad in a certain situation for the same reason that you don't choose to agree that 2+2=4. To preserve existentialism in the face of this, you would need to say that your own emotions are an input that you react to, or perhaps caught up in the 'motive' section of his plenum, and definitely [i]not[/i] an end.
I am not positive as I am only moderately educated on Sartre but I believe that the choice to care is what he would say. Don’t quote me on that though.
Yes, I agree with that. The emotion comes pre-choice (or early in the plenum), but we still have direct control over the end that results from that choice- we can choose to ignore, suppress, or overreact to an emotion.
I don’t have anything against this thread but I would like to know: How does it apply to the Religion Forum? Should it not have been made in the Philosophy Forum? Should it not be moved?
All I’ve done is read like 5 pages, taken a 2 hour seminar, and written a brief paper (which can be found in the Philosophy section), so take everything I said with a grain of salt. I honestly have no idea how Sarte saw emotions- I’m taking how I see them (partly affective, partly informative) and interpreting from there how that few fits into existentialism in general.
And I agree with Sagesound about this not really having anything to do with religion, unless I missing the connection.
I adamantly disagree with this position. Firstly, we accept emotional definitions, especially as concerns situational emotions, from others. This is part of the extrinsic value system.
From my standpoint, grieving the transition of others is a selfish act. Their passing affected them far more than it affects you, and in our self-serving nature, we desire pity for “our” loss. This is due to accepting definitions from others about the nature of “death”. This is not divorcing emotion, this is rectifying the definition.
I won’t belabor the point, there are situations of suddenness whereby we are taken by storm by emotion. There, perhaps less ability to reformulate as the immediacy of the experience inhibits perspective.
Emotions are greatly a part of sociality, and as such, are measured by definitions we don’t seek to control. I believe, however incorrectly, that Sartre’s point, is that we do not have to be slaves to defintions that demean or diminish, if we so choose.
Thanks a lot for the comment, though I think we disagree more on the incidentals, and not on the important point. I can see where your coming from about sadness at death not being appropriate- I tried to use an example that people would recognize as 'obvious', and didn't give it a lot of thought. What I'm really trying to point out- and it looks like you would agree with me on this- is that there is such a thing as (in)appropriate emotional reactions- we are not free to have one as well as another, without being incorrect. When you said that grief was not an appropriate reaction to death, you didn't say "I'm not sad, cause sadness is gay", you justfied your point through a real examination of the nature of death and loss.
And that's my real point- emotions are either appropriate or not, we do not have free liscence to choose them. An appropriate emotion is a good starting point for a right act.
As I said, you’re a lucid person, so there is no point to coming at your arguments other than through reasonable exchange.
Definitely, we are not “taught” proper emotional response in far too many instances. We are taught to react, and then the emotion will just come. I believe if we approach life from discernment, we can then view our definitions of social instance more stoically, and lend greater deference to all parties, thereby allowing us to relearn emotional usage, which would seem more beneficial, individually and socially.
I’m having to have memories of my memories here, but I think that the thrust of Sartes position on emotions was that 'healthy" emotions come unbidden, they just happen. The emphasis is in how one defines a situation requiring an emotional response. Repression or disguising emotion is a sign of lack of understanding or dishonesty, which is a further sign of non-existentialist thinking.
In the crying at death scenario, either crying or rejoicing is appropriate as long as one understands their own perspective. It isn’t in choosing the emotive response, it is in choosing the perspective.
I wouldn’t go to the extreme of Sartre’s view on this topic, or A.J. Ayer’s view at the other end of the spectrum. There’s too many unanswerable questions when it comes to working out whether emotions are based on nature or nurture, instinct or choice, but surely, your not trying to undermine Sartre’s theory because of his opinions on this topic alone?
Hmm. I tend to think that our most natural, obvious emotional reactions tend to be the right ones, and that wrong-headed emotions are mostly an abberation, and not something that has to be overcome except in unusual circumstances. But I can see what you’re saying here too-since I think emotions tend to inform morals and reason alike, there must be some level of discipline required to have the right ones. Doesn’t either view restrict our freedom though? Whichever one of us is right, we are not justified in having any given emotion for any given situation, right?
tentative
I wouldn’t have a problem with that, except that I think the unhealthy ones tend to spring up the same general way.