• Artemis
    1.7k
    that even under coercion we are technically free to choose. Pretty much sums it up, I can't really say more about that.Pantagruel

    Which Sartre denied...
  • Pantagruel
    596
    Which Sartre denied.Artemis

    Citation please?
  • Artemis
    1.7k


    Already told you.
  • Pantagruel
    596
    That same article also says:
    "It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom."

    Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom (which stand on their own merit regardless). In any case, as mentioned, I'll definitely be reading the Critique, and thank you. How did you enjoy it?
  • tim wood
    3.8k
    You are free to be the kind of person who succumbs to pressure, who compromises his ideals, or not.Pantagruel

    If it's a free decision, then it's not succumbing or compromising, yes? I suspect we're in agreement, but just some language is in the way.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom (which stand on their own merit regardless). In any case, as mentioned, I'll definitely be reading the Critique, and thank you. How did you enjoy it?Pantagruel

    It's an evolution which blatantly contradicts the way you are trying to present Sartre.
  • Pantagruel
    596
    It's an evolution which blatantly contradicts the way you are trying to present Sartre.Artemis

    "It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom."Pantagruel

    You have a very selective idea about how to read, which is becoming increasingly evident. Moreover, it is not at all unusual for to consider later and earlier philosophies on their own merit.

    As I said, the writings...which I actually read...inspired me. I'm confident that the later work...which you found in an online article...will reconcile with what I have already read...when I read it....inasmuch as it appears to be a political evolution of Sartre's focus, and not a direct commentary on or contradiction of his earlier ontological focus...which the quotation I selected emphasizes.

    :wink:
  • Pantagruel
    596
    If it's a free decision, then it's not succumbing or compromising, yes? I suspect we're in agreement, but just some language is in the way.tim wood

    :up:
  • Xtrix
    323


    Yeah, everyone buys that you're the judge and jury while quoting a book of superstition from savage ages.

    Easy to ignore.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    You have a very selective idea about how to read, which is becoming increasingly evident. Moreover, it is not at all unusual for to consider later and earlier philosophies on their own meritPantagruel

    The latter half of that statement is the obviously more selective way to read. Reading Sartre as a person who evolved and therefore changed his theory and on that basis giving the most consideration to his most mature work is the obviously more holistic approach.

    To paraphrase another great thinker, Ghandi: when asked which of his writings to go with as they changed dramatically over his lifetime, he said to go with whatever he had most recently written. Logically, most writers would agree with that, or else they would not have written that which they have most recently written.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    which I actually readPantagruel

    Would you like an award or something for that? Or just a standing ovation? Maybe some cookies?
  • Pantagruel
    596
    Would you like an award or something for that? Or just a standing ovation? Maybe some cookies?Artemis

    No, thank you. The reading itself has been quite rewarding enough!
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    The reading itself has been quite rewarding enough!Pantagruel

    Which remains incomplete.
    I'm afraid that if you are looking for Sartre to confirm the exact beliefs you've expressed and attributed to him here... you will not find it as rewarding. Spoiler alert: Sartre becomes a Marxist.
  • Pantagruel
    596
    Which remains incomplete.
    I'm afraid that if you are looking for Sartre to confirm the exact beliefs you've expressed and attributed to him here... you will not find it as rewarding. Spoiler alert: Sartre becomes a Marxist.
    Artemis

    Excellent! As soon as my finish my current book on Marx the Critique of Dialectal Reason will be a perfect fit. I love it when the books spontaneously lead into one another. The more I read, the more they do.
    :up:

    edit: I just ordered the Critique. A large and unwieldy tome of mixed reviews, but I'm looking forward to the challenge. I haven't circled back to Sartre in a decade now. By all accounts, it appears to be more of a criticism of Marxism than Marxist, as you suggest. An excellent counterpoint to Marx's own writings I suspect. Can't thank you enough for mentioning this book!

    Oh, I did some article trolling of my own. I found the following commentary fascinating:

    "Unlike competing versions of Marxism, Sartre’s Existentialist-Marxism was based on a striking theory of individual agency and moral responsibility."

    This certainly reconciles completely with my own understanding of his earlier position, moving in a new direction.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    This certainly reconciles completely with my own understanding of his earlier position, moving in a new directionPantagruel

    Not if you're sticking to your freedom under torture theory.
  • Pantagruel
    596
    Sorry, exactly how in-depth is your knowledge of the new "material freedom" concept, versus the original "ontological freedom"? Because Being and Nothingness is over 600 pages and the Critique is over 800. So frankly, if you haven't completely read either then you really don't have the contextual depth to do more than point out that Sartre's later work has a more social dimension than his earlier.

    As to your response, from what I can see, it appears "close enough" for me to work with comfortably, mutatis mutandis.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    So frankly, if you haven't completely read either then you really don't have the contextual depth to do more than point out that Sartre's later work has a more social dimension than his earlier.

    As to your response, from what I can see, it appears "close enough" for me to work with comfortably, mutatis mutandis.
    Pantagruel

    Interesting how you see yourself as exempt from your own strictures.... :chin:

    I don't think Sartre would agree with that kind of behavior either!
  • Pantagruel
    596
    Clearly this has particular interchange has been a waste of time, addition to my reading list aside.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Clearly this has particular interchange has been a waste of time.Pantagruel

    You got a new book. I thought you said that such reading was reward enough?
  • Pantagruel
    596
    You got a new book. I thought you said that such reading was reward enough?Artemis

    Yes, that is exactly what I said "addition to my reading list aside." Another peculiar quirk of your "reasoning", you seem consistently to claim that I have not said something I have said.

    I explained mutatis mutandis, which should have been sufficient to bridge the gap between Sartre's earlier and later views (it was for Sartre).

    I provided substantial critical citations that unequivocally demonstrate that the point you are trying to make is, in fact, in question in exactly the way I suspect it to be, viz:

    "Frankly, I have skimmed the Critique and it is evident to me this represents an evolution of his thought into a more expansive, political gloss, not necessarily a contradiction of his early views on personal freedom"

    and

    "It is an open question whether and how to reconcile the early, ontological conception of freedom with the late, material conception of freedom."

    plus

    "Unlike competing versions of Marxism, Sartre’s Existentialist-Marxism was based on a striking theory of individual agency and moral responsibility."

    This is the framework for a valid thesis. Please do continue to showcase your technique. :)
  • Artemis
    1.7k


    Let me get this straight... You think a valid thesis is based on skimming one book and having only the initial reading done for another book?

    Well, when you've actually finished reading them, let me know. You seem to have a very incomplete understanding of what it means to be a Marxist, or what that entails for autonomy.
  • Pantagruel
    596
    Let me get this straight... You think a valid thesis is based on skimming one book and having only the initial reading done for another book?Artemis

    Actually, I've read Being and Nothingness a great many times (which I mentioned and again you contradict), plus Psychology of the Imagination, Transcendence of the Ego, Emotions, Search for a Method, and his biography of Jean Genet (all of which are in my library). Based on that, and a overview of the later work plus a few different critical articles, yes, I'm prepared to formulate a preliminary thesis.

    Keep it coming.
  • Qwex
    317
    If I theorize something, what judge do I go by?

    There is no perfect judge. Evidence.

    What keeps my theorizing stable from start to end?

    Good morality (Otherwise my theory will become unstable).

    How do I know that the theory is sound at the end?

    My own good judgement; reasoning.

    How high is your authority? Is a good question.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Actually, I've read Being and Nothingness a great many times (which I mentioned and again you contradict), plus Psychology of the Imagination, Transcendence of the Ego, Emotions, Search for a Method, and his biography of Jean Genet (all of which are in my library). Based on that, and a overview of the later work plus a few different critical articles, yes, I'm prepared to formulate a preliminary thesis.

    Keep it coming.
    Pantagruel

    But you haven't read the later works. And you're somehow not willing to accept that these contradict even a segment of your own ideology. So neither with your homework nor with your psychology are you prepared for this conversation.
  • Pantagruel
    596
    But you haven't read the later works. And you're somehow not willing to accept that these contradict even a segment of your own ideology. So neither with your homework nor with your psychology are you prepared for this conversation.Artemis

    Everything you said I addressed in the comment that you quoted. It's a reasonable first step.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Everything you said I addressed in the comment that you quoted. It's a reasonable first step.Pantagruel

    The next step is to actually do your homework. I'll probably be around somewhere once you have and we can take up this conversation again.

    Happy Reading!
  • Pantagruel
    596
    The next step is to actually do your homework. I'll probably be around somewhere once you have and we can take up this conversation againArtemis

    Will you have read the two books by the time I finish the one do you think?
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Will you have read the two books by the time I finish the one do you think?Pantagruel

    At this rate, by the time you finish them, I'll be dead.
  • Pantagruel
    596
    At this rate, by the time you finish them, I'll be dead.Artemis

    Again, I only need to read one.
  • Artemis
    1.7k
    Again, I only need to read one.Pantagruel

    As soon as my finish my current book on Marx the Critique of Dialectal Reason will be a perfect fit. IPantagruel

    Okie dokie.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.