Sartre's Existentialism is Flawed...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Logic is a wonderful thing. The only time it fails to lead us to the truth is when we’ve assumed false premises. Sartre’s Existentialism is essentially an interpretation of human experience that is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption about the [imagined] powers of the Human Will. The depressing conclusions he arrived at were logically derived from his basic premises, the most important of which was that the Will has the power to create/annihilate needs. The good news is that his basic assumptions have always been wrong. Because he was wrong, life actually does have meaning and purpose, something that is only possible if we humans have externally imposed needs.

We may be “condemned to be free”, but the actual Power of the Human Will that Sartre celebrates is far more limited than most Existentialists believe. Indeed, the only evidence we can point to that supports the theory that humans have something called a “free will” is the easily observable fact that human beings have to power to choose not to get an important survival need satisfied. Hunger strikers are a good example of this. It becomes very difficult for Mechanists to explain how a genetically written Survival Program could allow individual humans to choose to not satisfy the most demanding of their basic survival needs. The good news is that Free Will actually exists, but unfortunately for many wishful thinkers, the only things we are able to freely choose in this life are to either get our needs satisfied or to not do so. (Still, this turns out to be a very significant power when it comes to the challenge of optimizing overall need-satisfaction while facing individual needs that are often in conflict {see Moral Choices}.) Human beings do not have an imagined ability to choose needs into and out of existence.

It is at this point that we must define A NEED. I define a NEED as nothing more and nothing less than that which—when satisfied—causes the host possessing the need to experience some form of pleasure (e.g., joy, satisfaction, feeling of contentment, feeling that things “make sense”, etc.) and/or which—when dissatisfied—causes the host to experience some form of pain (e.g., anguish, discomfort, boredom, ennui, feeling that something’s missing, etc.). Whether or not we are able to identify a “final cause”, or end, that the need serves is irrelevant. The only thing we need to apprehend in order to know that a need exists is the experience of pain and/or pleasure. (Does some theorized need serve the “ultimate” end of survival? What difference does it make if it does or doesn’t? The transcendent reality is that we still have painful and/or pleasurable consequences to deal with.) It is not possible for us experience a “need” that does not involve painful and/or pleasurable consequences. Minds become aware that needs exist only because they experience pain/pleasure.

The big thing that existentialists need to understand about needs is that it is only possible for a need to exist (as far as the mind is concerned) if the need is externally imposed upon the mind that experiences it. External, that is, to our Will. If human beings actually had the power to create and annihilate their needs, to choose them into and out of existence, then we would not actually have any needs at all. Imagine having an unlimited power to create and annihilate your needs. Why would you ever give yourself a need that you could not easily satisfy? Why would you even tolerate for even a second the painful consequences of experiencing need-dissatisfaction? As soon as you began to experience the pain of need-deprivation, you would quickly annihilate the need that was causing you the pain and only choose it back into existence when you perceived that you could get it quickly satisfied. In order for a need to actually be a need, there must be painful/pleasurable consequences that you can do nothing about except try your best to get the need satisfied.

I ask of those who claim that they can create/annihilate their needs: How do you go about instructing your biology to respond to the deprivation of something by inflicting pain on your mind? Is there some button you push? How do you cause yourself to feel pleasure when you’ve managed to get a need satisfied that you gave yourself? Please prove your imagined ability to create/annihilate needs by giving yourself a need for something that you don’t already need and explain to me how you were able to will it into existence? What kind of pleasure did you decide to give yourself for satisfying the need? Why did you not choose another form of pleasure?

Like it or not, we are and always have been slaves to our needs. If we fail to get them satisfied, they are going to punish us with some kind of unpleasantness. If we get them satisfied we will be rewarded. It’s as simple as that. Because we have needs that were externally imposed on us, we have Purpose. We have purpose because we do not have the kind of Freedom that Sartre assumed as his basic premise. In a sense, those externally imposed needs are our “salvation.” Also, it is only because we have needs that we have Values. (What we value is need-satisfaction, or to avoid need-deprivation) The only reason why any activity/situation has any value to any human being is because there is some kind of need-satisfaction involved.

Ultimately, all perceptions of value can be traced to externally imposed needs. This is the foundational reality that establishes ethics/morality as inherently objective. When references are made to “different people having different needs”, it is important for us to understand that people do not actually have different needs; they merely have different perceptions of what their needs are, or of which actions they think will best provide them with the optimal need-satisfaction they desire. One of the primary reasons why many have misunderstood this important point is because they mistakenly perceive means-to-ends as ends-in-themselves (need-satisfaction is the only end of all motivated behavior). It is these perceptions that are subjective, but the needs [and therefore the ultimate values] of human beings are an objective reality that all must deal with, whether they subjectively perceive it or not.

The big question is Why? Why have philosophers and other thinkers over the centuries embraced and defended the fanciful notion/myth of a Super-Powered Will? It has quite simply been their answer to the problem of emotional pain. Our fundamental need for approval is so demanding, it leaves us extremely vulnerable to the opinions/comments of others. Our instincts have always encouraged us to hide that vulnerability. Men have even built a sexual identity around the myth that they are somehow able to make themselves invulnerable to emotional pain. Because philosophers—as men—have always feared the truth about their emotional vulnerability, they have long resorted to wishful thinking in a desperate hope that they might be able to identify an ultimate solution to the problem of emotional pain. The last thing they wanted to discover about their plight is that they have an extremely demanding need for approval that makes it easy for others to hurt them deeply. The answer they came up with is the idea that human beings might have the power to “choose” not to have certain emotional needs that are responsible for their pain. And so they perpetuated the myth that “at least some” [presumably “superior] men are able to overcome their need for approval.

To summarize, Sartre’s existentialism is fundamentally flawed because the Freedom he imagines us to have does not actually exist. We are not free to determine what our needs are. Human beings do have a Free Will, but the Will’s freedom is extremely limited. Human beings do not “give” value to any action/situation/endeavor. They are simply able to 1) recognize the value that is actually inherent in an a/s/e (because it leads to need-satisfaction) or 2) misperceive value in an a/s/e that actually isn’t there. Let’s say that I see my emotional vulnerability as undesirable. I may “value” not having such a need, but there actually isn’t any authentic value in embracing that fantasy since it does not address the problem of need-deprivation. Example: if we were to find ourselves stranded in a desert, we might find ourselves “valuing” the imagined ability to make our need for water go away, but such wishful thinking will not protect us from the consequences of biological need-deprivation.

I think the time has come for some Existentialists out there to summon up a little bit of real courage and face the truth of what they are dealing with in this life.

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

2

Remember this…ability to do something doesn’t mean you have the inability to stop yourself.

Why don’t we? Ask a murderer and they will most likely tell you they needed to kill someone. What? Is this a need that was imagined, or destined?

(I think it’s destined, but I don’t believe in “needs” or “wants”… or free will)

And this is exactly why I don’t believe in needs. I recieved a GREAT DEAL of pleasure from scratching my chicken pox as a child, but now I have a few scars on my back (hardly noticable, most people have them). My point? This fit your definition, but, if you asked someone else, they would not agree with the “need” to scratch. They would say, “you do not need to scratch”. A need is a personal thing, which means you cannot really define it in a general way that suits everyone, yes? It’s an intuited gut feeling, like love, that is very …almost impossible… to define correctly.

I feel neither pain nor pleasure when doing my laundry. Seriously. I just do it. It’s habitualized. I could feel pain if I do not do my laundry, but that pain doesnt really justify doing one’s laundry once a week, yes no?

The problem with what you’re arguing is that it’s the same anthropocentric model that Sartre argued. I don’t really see a difference. Pain is a behavioral response and response prevention model. But it’s not the same for every person, and therefore is only and inductively valid definition… which means it’s a probability model… which is valid. But bothers me.

Tell that to the smelly kid in highschool. Needs are personal. Why else would it be about alleviating pain or inducing pleasure responses?

I argue that the only real need is the need for survival. Everything else IS optional, but revolves around this basic need. This is predestined.

I can’t. But for different reasons than you.

Like the need to disprove Sartre?

Like failure to prove anything?

Where does suicide fit into this? Or severe laziness? Or mental disorders that force you to live in an unhealthy lifestyle?

I cannot explain this in the fashion you asked b/c they are very good questions… and I don’t belive in the manufacturing of needs and wants. However, from a determinist stance, this all makes wonderful sense. But that’s not what you’re asking for.

Free will has lots of flaws. Determinism only has the flaw of responsibility.

What come first, the chicken? Or the egg? Existence? Or essense?

I could easily argue that the value of an activity/situation is what gives us feelings of need satisfaction. But…I cain’t git no satisfaction.

Yes.

But…I thought this is what Sartre was saying.

Finally! The proofs are coming!!! No more meaningless unsupported claims!

Awewwwww shit. Cock tease.

In summary, I’ll restate everything I said, and pretend as though I presented an argument. In fact, I did not argue anything, I stated an opinion and did not properly support this opinion with reason. Therefore, everything I just said was rhetoric.

Sorry man, someone had to say it.

3

Nice post, Gabriel.

What you are arguing is a classical behaviorism of sorts, yet you are making an attempt at ontology. These two are from different camps. Sartre was actually espousing German Gestalt psychology which was apposed to epiphenomenalism(James). And, unfortunately, Sartre’s concept of “freewill” cannot be refuted from that monistic position(mind=matter). His theory is a legitimate dualism. Hey, this is “philosophy,” anything goes.

The one camp held that “consciousness” was like a visceral disturbance in the system, Freud called it a “hydraulic” release of accumulated energy and tension, if I recall correctly, and greatly de-emphasized “consciousness.”(refer to my “portable De’trop”) The claim is that “emotion” has only an operationally behavioral description. Like you are saying, the “needs,” the “will” or whatever, are/is predisposed and that emotion isn’t “intentional” or even functional. That it is merely a reaction or affliction that pervades us in spite of ourselves. The issue with this position is that it doesn’t posit emotions and goals as meaningful and intentional activities. I got a problem with that.

Sartre was arguing that “acts” are necessarily intentional and therefore involved some amount of indeterminacy. BUT, he isn’t saying that physical events are not determined. That is the difference between the distinction of psychological “freewill” and ontological “freewill,” in Sartre’s case(which saves him from your criticism). The epiphenomenalists held that since all volition is goal oriented, obviously we know that much, and that drives are determined by the existence of those possible goals, then freewill is impossible psychologically and practically. But what they are missing is the emphasis of the fact that the goal is “intended.” That it is undisclosed and “yet to be,” that IN EXPERIENCE it involves an inseperable ensemble of an act, intention, and end, which is a “freedom” in progress. Sartre better explains:

“We should observe first that an action is on principle “intentional.” The careless smoker who has through negligence caused the explosion of a powder magazine has not “acted.” On the other hand the worker who is charged with dynamiting a quarry and who obeys the given orders has acted when he has produced the expected explosion; he knew what he was doing or, if you prefer, he intentionally realized a conscious project.
This does not mean, of course, that one must forsee all the consequences of his act. The emperor Constantine, when he established himself at Byzantium, did not forsee that he would create a center of Greek culture, language and Christianity. Yet he performed an act just in so far as he realized his project of creating a new residence for emperors in the Orient. Equating the result with the intention is here sufficient for us to be able to speak of action. But if this is the case, we establish that the action necessarily implies as its condition the recognition of a “desideratum”; that is, of an objective lack or again of a “negatite.” The intention of providing a rival for Rome can come to Constantine only through the apprehension of an objective lack; Rome lacks a counterweight; to this still profoundly pagan city ought to be opposed a Christian city which at the moment “is missing.” Creating Constantinople is understood as an “act” only if first the conception of a new city has preceded the action itself or at least if this conception serves as an organizing theme for all later steps. But this conception can not be the pure representation of the city as “possible.” It apprehends the city in its essential characteristic, which is to be a “desirable” and not yet realized possible.”- Sartre(my quotations marks)

The emperor is analogous to the careless smoker. In this sense the creation of the city was not a meaningful act unless it was done on purpose, like the quarry workers task mentioned earlier. Therefore, since an act cannot be “unintentional,” it is no mistake if the city isn’t built or the dynamite exploded. But it also needn’t(is that a word?) be the case that the emperor had the city “in mind” when he set out, or that the worker intentionally followed orders. I know, this is tricky.

The idea will resolve itself if you can accept that “goals” are not exclusively objective and determined in there orchestration, that is, in the “plan” and execution of action in the event as “becomming.” Such an event is transcendent in the sense that its objects include possibles and “not yets.” In a word the “idea” is sort of a supraobjective(my new word) freedom as it has no finished state of being. It is a concept project that is constantly in a state of indeterminacy in the sense that the motive is the intention…the intention only involves possibles: an “accidental” creation of a city is not a real “act,” because the emperor cannot intend to do something he doesn’t yet know can happen…yet one doesn’t have to purposely set out to create a city and result in its accidental creation. It is, as you say Gabrial, a flux of competing goals, responses, and reactions to environment, but as the emperor can imagine a “lack” of a city as needing to be built, the elements of the goal are nonexistent objects.

How are “needs” and “drives” purposive if they determine their validity by first existing as “possible and NEEDED to be done” if they are done intentionally and involve undetermined events? If the city doesn’t yet exist, the emperor can only conceive of it as missing. But how can he conceive of the city if it is missing and inconceivable?

In the end Sartre is simply saying that the actual experience of acts is a state of freedom as the intentions, motives, acts and ends are inextricably intertwined. Determined materialistically, consciousness isn’t material, thus experience isn’t an epiphenomenal material. There again, this is an ontological matter which isn’t refuted by physical determinism.

You made many references to a “Will” through out your post. A good summary of Sartre’s idea regarding such a thing can be found in the essay forum. Here are some important parts:

"In Being and Nothingness he rejects all theories which attempt to explain individual behaviour in terms of general substantive drives, and he is particularly critical of such notions as the libido and the will to power. Sartre insists that these are not irreducible psycho-biological entities, but original projects like any other which the individual can negate through his or her freedom. He denies that striving for power is a general characteristic of human beings, denies the existence of any opaque and permanent will-entity within consciousness, and even denies that human beings have any fixed nature or essence.

Sartre is intent on upholding man’s absolute freedom, rejecting the influence of instinct, denying the existence of unconscious psychic forces, and portraying consciousness as a nothingness which has no essence. In comparison even with other non-reductionist views of man, then, it would seem that the radical nature of Sartre’s thought is unmatched.
However, in a more fundamental respect Sartre’s ontology limits human possibility by (1) declaring that consciousness is a lack which is doomed to vainly strive for fulfilment and justification, and by (2) accepting important parts of the Platonic view of becoming as ontologically given rather than merely as aspects of his own original project.

For Sartre, “the for-itself is defined ontologically as a lack of being,” and “freedom is really synonymous with lack”. 6 Along with Plato he equates desire with a lack of being, but in contrast with Hegel he arrives at the pessimistic conclusion that “human reality therefore is by nature an unhappy consciousness with no possibility of surpassing its unhappy state”. 7 In other words, the human condition is basically Sisyphean, for man is condemned to strive to fill his inner emptiness but is incapable of achieving justified being."

Now remember, from the start Sartre is already in the postion to claim that the nature and experience of volition itself is enough to make an ontological freedom evident. He goes further to defend this by attacking the Platonic notion of the Will as a substantive entity behind voluntary action, as you see, and, gives the same argument as the Mechanists in your post.

Overall the only major disagreement between you and Sartre, I believe, is in the matter of treating “experience” as the antithetical of causal being. He is a dualist, you appear to be a sort of reductionist behaviorist monist. Which is cool, but arguing freewill with him is futile here and in this way.

I liked your post but I have a few objections.

“Human beings do have a Free Will, but the Will’s freedom is extremely limited.”

No, you see, I don’t make this kind of contradiction, which it is, because I don’t think that “freewill” is something that someone “has.” I see it only as an indetermined state “during” and “soon to be” in an experience. No, its not that I wasn’t going to raise my right hand regardless of whether or not I thought I could do otherwise, for that would be causally absurd. Its that this event hadn’t yet happened and that I am exhibiting a free act by intending to fill an absence with a probability: an event where a hand “needed to be raised” was experienced and where I intended the indeterminate outcome to “raise it,” but more importantly, that during this experience my intention was not a necessity: one really feels that they DON’T HAVE TO RAISE THEIR HAND if they don’t want to. This is the practical level of this philosophy and it places primary importance on the nature of this existential experience. Illusion is in this case indeed a very real category if it need be. I have no problem with keeping this idea of freewill valid and uselful.

“Human beings do not “give” value to any action/situation/endeavor.”

Why sure they do. Because there is no such thing as “action” without human occupation. Gratuitous movement and static existence of matter is not “acting.” An action is a commission of meaning toward and for an event which is themeless in the absence of the “idea.” In the smokers case, it was the dropping of the cigarette that devoid his movements as “active,” in the sense that we understand volition, this event did not involve his intentional action, therefore, for all intents and purposes, he did not act at all. The objective world of experience also involves relative and therefore subjective values. Think about this simple statement: “the planet moves.” This concept is only a representation of an objective reality: there is a “being” there, whatever it is, and it is “moving,” whatever that means. But it is, ironically, “whatever that means” that gives it any active meaning which is to be experienced. In the end it is only true or false that what one believes is real or not, but not that one can have “this or that” belief. The value of the proposition “the planet moves” is an approximation which is far from an objective truth, it gives evidence that there is some phenomena being experienced, but not that any one approximation is better than the other. The value of real action in any experience is bound and unique to that “admission of some ignorance,” as an old friend once put it. So I would think that all knowledge and human action is, in the presence of static and meaningless phenomena, the source for any value, reason, purpose or meaning. And again, these are not from without the absolute relativity of experience and are inherently subjective truths: not necessarily “true” as in real, but true as in what is believed. This is a safe way to reason in a world where doubt is possible.

“It is at this point that we must define A NEED. I define a NEED as nothing more and nothing less than that which—when satisfied—causes the host possessing the need to experience some form of pleasure (e.g., joy, satisfaction, feeling of contentment, feeling that things “make sense”, etc.) and/or which—when dissatisfied—causes the host to experience some form of pain (e.g., anguish, discomfort, boredom, ennui, feeling that something’s missing, etc.).”

Now I’m going to ask you to show me the difference between a neuronal discharge and a sensation of “meloncholy(sp?).” You can match behavioral tendencies with predictable responses and assume a generalization. Yet you cannot pinpoint meloncholy down to any one specific set of behaviors or “needs” as being necessary and instinctually “a priori,” so to speak, to the respose and behavior. It is probable and likely at most. These are sensations and I don’t delegate them into neurologically quantifiable states. They are intentional conscious projects and we have complete control over how we feel.

“Logic is a wonderful thing.”

Can’t argue there.

You also display the typical reaction to the generic title of the “dreadful” philosophy of existentialism. I know, I know, oh…how terrible. There’s no God, no reason, no permanence and no value. Funny thing is is that its the other philosophies that see existentialism as so horrible, not the existentialists. Check out Sartre’s lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism” if you get a chance.

4

greetings gabriel…
perhaps rahter, it is your understanding of sartre’s philosophy that is flawed.
yes sartre speaks about free will and choice, however he does not state that we are totally free from any forces in hte world. outside forces do have an effect on us and our needs (which i would come to later)… one must CHOOSE if one submits to those forces or not. if one does, he must say that ‘i choose to submit to them’ nad not blame the forces and say that he did so unwillingly.
"whatever happens to me happens through me’.

you say that we are slaves to our needs. one can choose to, or choose not to. by choosing to go along with your need, you ahve just given value to that need and responsibility to your choice. if you choose to NOT go with that need, you would feel unahppiness, nevertheless, it is your choice.

you say that his conclusions are depressing. on the contrary, existentialism is a humanism. it gives hope, strength, responsibility and choice to mankind for everything that he does. one can choose if he wants to live or not, blame not the ‘survival instinct’, you may choose to die if you please. there are instnaces where things are out of your control, where you play no part in them happening. but as long as there is an action carried out by you, nobody moves those limbs for you. the freedom lies in your ability to choose.

5

Hey Rafajafar…

Let’s start here:

I don’t intend to waste my time trying to prove my assertions of fact (I’ll defend my logic, but that’s it). Nearly every theory that philosophers discuss is nothing more than a guess that cannot be proven. (To support that claim I’ll simply refer you to David Hume). Because I understand that most philosophical speculations are mere guesswork, my intention is to simply offer my explanations to others to see if they won’t benefit from them the way I have. If they find that it helps them to explain their experience in a useful way, then the confidence I now have in these explanations will be validated. I believe that when we ascertain the truth, we will benefit from it.

All of our actions are motivated. That means that either we are [thoughtfully] inspired to act in response to some need or we are prompted into action by our biology’s Default Motivational-Response Program (emotional responses to need-deprivation/satisfaction). The “urge to kill” that is responsible for nearly all murders is a biologically programmed response to pain (or the perceived threat of pain). I call it the Anger Instinct.

The Anger Instinct (observable in infants) urges us to “hurt back” when some thing/person is perceived to be the cause of some experienced pain or some denied pleasure. It’s not a “learned” behavior. (When one infant takes a rattle away from another infant the latter will invariably hit the former. The striking infant’s Anger Instinct perceives the other’s possession of the rattle as the reason why it is not able to enjoy the pleasurable experience of playing with the rattle (see Envy). Curiosity is a fundamental need. Also, we have a fundamental need that is probably best described as an “urge to experience.”)

The typical murderer kills because her Anger Instinct perceives the victim to be a threat (possible source of future pain). Perhaps she fears the victim will “tell on her.” Almost certainly others have killed simply out of curiosity, an urge to experience something that is “forbidden.” Those who like to think that Human Nature is Essentially Good are unfortunately wrong. We have fundamental biological instincts that encourage us to act in ways that hurt others. These “bad” instincts must be overcome, and that is not something that happens “naturally.” In every case, a murderer kills because her actions were not inhibited by a sufficient amount of Fear. Fear is the only thing that is powerful enough to overcome the Anger Instinct. Sometimes the murderer only finally acts because she perceives that she might be able to “get away with it” (will be able to avoid fearful consequences).

One reason why many people will not kill is because they have developed a Moral Identity. A Moral Identity has value because we perceive that it entitles us to the approval of others. In other words, it has value as a means-to-an-end, an end that we find quite desirable. It becomes valued as a precious source of Higher Need satisfaction. The pleasure of this kind of need satisfaction is so enjoyable, our fear of losing the opportunity to experience it is strong enough to discourage us from ever killing another person. The fear of lost opportunities can be a very powerful motivator.

Choices are involved, but only certain choices have the potential to optimize our overall need-satisfaction. So a moral decision is ultimately a matter of being “smart” or “stupid” in one’s choice-making (see Socrates). “Moral” behavior is that behavior which will provide us with the optimal amount of overall need satisfaction that is possible, given all of the variables we need to consider, the most important of which is our fundamental need for Approval. (Our need for Approval is the one big story that is missing from Kant’s Deontology. It changes everything. I’ll save that one for another time.) It turns out that when all the important variables are considered, those actions are moral that will produce favorable consequences for everyone, if EVERYONE were to act in the same way. The second part of that definition is very important. I think this is what Kant was sensing when he said, “"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." My formulation acknowledges that consequences are the ultimate determinant of what is right/wrong while he avoids it (for a reason that I will explain later).

Well, I just ran out of time. I’ll address your other comments perhaps tomorrow…

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

6

This thread is tedious.

There is no lively discussion of ideas.

All we’re getting is a history lesson forced down our throats, and a long, boring one at that!

Did any of you ever actually sit down and have a chat with the philosophers you love to quote?

Let them speak for themselves.

Let us read them for ourselves and when we are ready.

It is immoral to try and force subjective interpretations down the necks of others! And before you mention the word, morality, I would suggest you take the plank out of your own eye!

7

Sartre wrote: “Freedom is the necessity to work”. To work doesn’t mean to have a job, but it means every act to satisfy ones needs. But human life consists not only of needs. There are as well, for example, duties and hopes.
Imagine Orest in greek tragedy. Will he, or will he not kill his mother? Where is the “need” in this situation? This is what freedom means.

8

I couldn’t agree with you more.

It bothers me that someone can go “X and Y ARE WRONG!” and provide no logical reasons AGAINST it.

All he said is, “Sartre said this and this, but he’s wrong, things are really like this and this because I think they should be.”

That’s not philosophy. That being like…I dunno, a motivational speaker or cultist or something. Philosophy is about more than one’s personal beliefs. That’s why I choose to stop going on and on about solipsism. I can prove it, one day (because, much like Gab, I intuit it to be true), but I cannot prove anything …yet. So why bother making such assertions?

Quoting and arguing against a person is entirely useless. I fail to see why Sartre comes into the conversation. He’s not the only one to make the assertions that were covered, and he’s by no means the first. However, Gab targeted HIS writings as being wrong, and not the IDEAS he supports.

I really hate using quotes… but sometimes it’s needed.

9

Rafajafar, you have hit the proverbial nail upon the head. Philosophy is not as much about personal opinions as it is about coherent reasonings.

10

And what about shaping opinions? I’m sure philosophers also do that :slight_smile: .

11

:astonished:
oh my gosh. as a sceptic and subjectivist, ive always seen philosophy as a mere collection of different opinions, coherently reasoned out of course, and nothing else. sartre says this, as opposed to kant said what; and what i think.

12

Gabriel

I assume you’re a ‘born-again-christian’

Are christians not compassionate people?

Does not their master say, ‘love one another?’

Why then are you so intent on finding flaws in Sartre and his philosophy?

“We especially enjoy talking about other people’s imperfections because attention is then distracted away from our own.”

Your very own words I believe! There, you have condemned yourself out of your own mouth!

You want to kick Sartre down to raise yourself up somehow? I don’t think Jesus Ben Pantera would approve of that!

Sartre was human, and did his best, like all of us.

Life is not easy…

Read his biography a little, get to know something of the man and his milieu.

When interviewed five years before his death on how he would like people to remember him, Sartre replied:

I would like them to remember Nausea, one or two plays, No Exit and The Devil and the Good Lord, and then my two philosophical works, more particularly the second one, Critique of Dialectical Reason. Then my essay on Genet, Saint Genet, which I wrote quite a long time ago. If these are remembered, that would be quite an achievement, and I don’t ask for more. As a man, if a certain Jean-Paul Sartre is remembered, I would like people to remember the milieu or the historical situation in which I lived, the general characteristics of this milieu, how I lived in it, in terms of all the aspirations which I tried to gather up within myself. This is how I would like to be remembered.

You cannot examine his philosophy in a vacuum.

Like, the experimenter is a part of, and affects the outcome of the experiment.

13

Hi de’trop…

Once again, I only have a limited amount of time, so I’ll only respond to a couple of your points now…

My ontological position originates from a Cartesian-like attempt to determine what I can know with absolute certainty. Assuming nothing else, I perceive first of all that I am a “thing that thinks.” After establishing that first recognition of existence, instead of going directly to the issue of God, like Descartes does, I go to the next thing I can say about my existence with absolute certainly, and that is that I experience “pain” and “pleasure.” After experiencing pain and pleasure for a while, one notices that these experiences occur as a result of some prior event. Certain kinds of pain and certain kinds of pleasure occur following different kinds of events, so it becomes useful to refer to different “needs” that are responsible for these pain/pleasure events.

Do other people have needs like I do? Apparently they do. I can observe that when it comes to the experience of physical pain, other people seem to consistently be dealing with the same kind of needs that I am dealing with. I make the assumption that they are experiencing the same pain/pleasure/needs that I experience. But wait! When it comes to the non-physical needs I experience, some people seem to insist that they do not feel the same kind of emotional pain/pleasure that I feel. Could it be that they do not have the same needs that I have? Although I once did believe that different people have different needs, I no longer do because I have found that I can account for every appearance to the contrary without exception.

My need-based explanations of human behavior may remind of a classical behaviorist, but I don’t believe that Free Will is an illusion. I like the analogy of an interactive computer game. The game sets up many different outcomes depending on which choices are made by the player. The game, itself, sets up all of the different possible choices you can choose from, but none of your eventual choices are determined by the game’s program, at least not directly. If you make all of the right choices, you can get the highest score possible and you can “win”, so in that way the game determines your choices, but your existence is external to the game and your free will is preserved. My focus in philosophy is on understanding what the rules (needs) of the game are in this Life and knowing how to get the highest score (greatest happiness) that is possible.

More later…

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

14

Do you guys have any idea of what you sound like? You sound terrified. You call yourselves philosophers and you are afraid to offer any counter-assertions? Have your minds actually gone blank?

The idea is to make a counter-assertion that sounds compelling to a reader who is sincerely trying to understand the realities they are dealing with. Instead, you three seem bitterly disappointed that you can’t sucker someone into a futile effort to prove that which is un-provable. You need to get over it and start trying to use your minds to offer a useful critique.

An no, epictete, I am not a “Born-again Christian.”

You’ve guessed wrong again…

Gabriel
wearesaved.org

15

Gabriel

Why do I have the strong feeling that any so-called ‘counter-assertion’ made by me would fall upon your deaf ears for the simple reason that you have already made up your mind and hardened your heart?

What do you mean by, ‘counter-assertion,’ anyway?

You mean you want me to play the part of a heretic stooge to your leading-light dogmatic philosopher?

No, I am far from ‘terrified’ as you put it.

I just read your anti-Sartrean stuff and what comes across is that you chose first to attack Sartre and existentialism and then to fit the ‘facts’ to your ‘case.’

This goes against all scientific method. Therefore all your ‘assertions’ are biased and false in the first place and there is no point served in trying to combat them.

This is my professional opinion, so don’t take it personally! I love you believe it or not!

16

And as for the idealistic guff that the organisation you belong to puts forward, e.g.,

[i]Christians who look to the Bible for guidance in determining whether some “New Message” is ultimately a product of God or Satan need only to reflect on the words, “You will know them by their fruit.” These words have reassured us that the Cause we are investing ourselves in is of God. It is simply not possible to point to any kind of conceivable consequence of Emotional Honesty that would end up harming any living being. The only fruit is good fruit. The only consequences are good consequences.

If we can assume that God wants us to experience good long-run consequences as a result of behaving morally, then it must necessarily be true that seeking to promote Emotional Honesty is both moral and God’s will. To deny this would be to argue that the really desirable consequences of Emotional Honesty must have a source other than God. If we believe that God is the source of all that is Good, then we have to believe that it is God’s will that we embrace Emotional Honesty since the consequences are unequivocally Good.[/i]

If that’s not part of some born-again-christian mumbo-jumbo dressed up in a new suit of clothes and put ‘out there’ to exploit the poor and heavy-laden then I’ll eat my words!

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you have no hidden agenda when you write about Sartre?

Please, before you talk of morals, remove the plank in your own eye!

17

points up

What he said.

Good job, epictete.

18

No, Gabriel, its cool. This little fiasco is my fault. I have been going on and on about Sartre for almost a month now, and it has gotten very old very fast. I think everyone was already a bit edgy before this thread was created. These guys are actually very bright and I don’t think they are affraid of anything, really.

I actually admire the fact that you found the biggest loud mouth in ILP(that’s me…bows to the audience), and directly challenged him. That’s the way to engage, my friend.

I also think the cards were set from the beginning. If you consider the fact that the majority of members here are atheists, not yet 27(an average maybe), somewhat “alternative” as far as life style, and probably experiencing a point in life where responsibility is somewhat overwhelming(with school, relationships, jobs, etc.), you might see how forms of existentialism would be very appealing and attractive.

Now, I haven’t been pushing Sartre for that reason, but I think there was less resistence because of the circumstances and the personalities of the members.

I liked your posts and agree in areas where I can get away with it, but still maintain the central tenents of freewill, as I understand them, and can’t honestly sit there and passively agree.

19

Self appointed loudmouth?

Asshole. I challenge you to a duel.

20

Done.

Meet me at the southside bridge at midnight. No cops, no math, no chains, and no guns allowed…or no deal.

See you there, suckapants. :sunglasses: