Sartre 1 of 7 Videos

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - The choices, not only to violate these constraints, but to create oneself as one would deem fit, are severly limited because of the pre-existing punishments which exist for such violations in human etiquette, which would, in most instances, constitute a risk not worth taking. If, say, I want to kill Philip because of something he did to me or to my family etc,

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I would kill him either in a fit of rage, where it qualifies as a crime of passion under the penal code, or in a planned manner where I would most definitely weigh the outcomes of killing him in light of what may and very well will happen to me should I choose to carry out his execution. These socially and lawfully sanctioned punishments are gone to such extremes as to dissuade me from carrying it out

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - in light of what will be taken away from me, what it is that I have been trained and inducted into cherishing

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - by the formulations concerning etiquette and the responsibilities of man in the universe from history, which plays an integral role in the way I live, what it is I choose to do with myself. For example, why I go to college (Social), why I eat (Biological), why I go to the bathroom (Physiological), why I choose to got to the bathroom, or to take a shower (biological/social), or not to piss and shit on myself (social/biological).

debevec12 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - piecemeal23, sartre is not arguing that absolute freedom must be understood out of transcendence but rather it must be understood ontologically

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I am simply stating that when he sought freedom for the individual within a societal construct he strove to lend absolute freedom to the individual within a construct made up of pre-existing societal conditions and other individuals, which, and here is my point, is an impossibility. Freedom is relative and to give one preferential considerations, especially concerning what they may and may not do, over another is how it works.

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - and it boils down to this fact that the world is composed of have and have nots.

debevec12 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - i am simply stating piecemeal23 that you are wrong. you completely misunderstood sartre's argument. sartre is not discussing absolute freedom in the sense that we can do "absolutely" anything we want in a pre-conditioned society. it is that absolute freedom must be understood ontologically. as sartre argues we are simultaneously a facticity(the things that constitute us e.g. our body, past, environment etc) and transcendence in the sense we can always look beyond what constitutes us...

debevec12 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - it is precisely that we can transcend our facticity in any situation why we are free. or as sartre puts it we are "condemned" to be free. since as sartre argues if man truly realised his freedom he would run away from it immediately since we are nearly always in bad faith.

redkierkant Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - hey there retard. you dont transcend your facticity. you nihilate it you morone. you consciuness will transcend ITSELF and give meaning to facticity. you have no idea what sartre meant do you

redkierkant Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - he had a stepfather you clown. he became jealous of him as well, b/c it took froggies attention of his mother away from him. dumb ass..

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - debevec12, niether am I stating this. I am merely saying that his phenomenological accounts and his conceptions of freedom are ignorant to the sizeable influence which others and the world, which is created for the individual through the actions and civic/social/moral beliefs of others as well as themselves, is of some consequence. It is not what will, but what is believed could occur or change in the life of the individual which drives them to certain actions.

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I may seek to eat an omlette made of cigarette butts,or to kill someone out of rage, but my body and my mind would not permit either action in light of the percieved threat to my mind/body's parameters and requirements. This, of course, is hinged upon the idea that belief is stronger than fact when it comes accepting or rejecting an action based upon what I am willing to sacrifice for such an action.

thepodcastdon Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Ace stuff...thanks for uploading the video

mrfatd Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - he is garbage as a philosopher, but brilliant as a novelist

munkybrain Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - in what was was he garbage as a philosopher? wouldn't you agree at least the raw material of his philosophy is brilliant?

mrfatd Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - he tried to synthesise heidegger with descartes, which is just absurd and heidegger himself said that sartre's philosophy is a muck. please check out this video on heidegger by hubert dreyfus posted by flame0430 and let me know what you think!

mrfatd Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - love that music at the beginnin, any1 knows what it is?

munkybrain Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - i'm still sure anyone would have a hard time making me resent the heart of Sartre's philosophy, even if they did point out certain follies of his.sure i will. thanks for recommending the video

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - You're correct, but you must also make the concession that ontologically speaking, humankind is bound out of habit/biological psychological necessity/egotism to maintain as well as bend to the confines of the realm of the possible within the given parameters of the ontological relation between the human individual and the conditions of the universal environment in which we live. This reality as constructed/influenced/occupied by others and forces separate from the individual as well as others.

Piecemeal23 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - the last comment was to debevec12. Thnx.

pilkingtonphil Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - To a large extent the determinist account is, of course, quite true; just ask any sociologist... And even a preliminary reading of "Critique of Dialectical Reason" or even certain passages of "Being and Nothingness" would indicate that Sartre would concede to this. However, it simply does not hold up for certain phenomena. Most specifically the human ability to create something essentially new, even if such creation requires a pre-established (pre-determined) reality...

pilkingtonphil Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - ...as the "base material" which this new creation can be formed out of.Determinism, the process of tracking cause and effect on a rational and observational basis, can tell us an awful lot, but it simply cannot tell us everything, it cannot account for everything.You mentioned psychology, for example. Ever since Freud its been recognised that attempting to conceive humans simply as rational, egoic creatures whose only motivations are self-preservative are destined to fail...

pilkingtonphil Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I think the most basic way to point out the limitations which institutions and other individuals have when we consider their influence over are actions is as follows:Sure, we try and integrate ourselves into a given community by conforming to its regulations. However, its often hard to discern EXACTLY what these regulations are, it often requires a (creative) interpretation on our own behalf. The same is true of our trying to conform to the desires of other individuals... hell is other people!

ellwyn Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing