The paradox here is that if someone has 'bad faith' how can we tell? This is because the very idea of 'bad faith' is a being-in-itself created by a being-for-itself. What one person may point at as a system of oppression or bad faith may very well be doing so in bad faith.
How can this gap be closed, if at all? — I like sushi
To live in 'bad faith' for Sartre is to live as if you have a predefined human 'essence'/'nature'. — I like sushi
An inanimate object is a being-in-itself whereas a human is a being-for-itself (self-creating). — I like sushi
The paradox here is that if someone has 'bad faith' how can we tell? — I like sushi
Sartre has not
repudiated the Ego; he has only made of it an object of the pre-reflective
consciousness rather than contemporary with it. But it exists just as much
as objects in the world exist. Also Sartre never denies the existence of an
active, organizing (constituante), individual consciousness any more
than does William James, who likewise rejected consciousness as an
cntity. He merely insists that it is essentially a Nothingness which is
individualized by its objects but never wholly determined by past objects
to an extent which would prescribe what it will do with present or
future ones. Consciousness can never blot out the fact that it has been
aware of certain objects (part of which it has unified within the ideal
unity of the Ego); at times it may even let itself be trapped by the Ego
and not actively realize its ability to change its point of view on past
o,bjects. But the possibility is there. When Sartre speaks of inter-subjective
relations, of the phf::nomenon of bad faith, etc. he is referring to
the free conscio'lsness which has been directed toward certain objects,
",:hich usually asserts itself consistently with the general "character" of the
Ego, but which is not forced to do so. In ordinary experience consciousness
for all practical purposes fully asserts itself through the "I", but
anguish occasionally warns us that this familiar "I" is only a screen..
Ncvertheless consciousnesses are particular since they appear at a definite
time and place, thus nihilating Being from a particular point of view.
Sartre has warned us, as we said earlier, that strictly speaking one should
not say "my consciousness" but "consciousness of me." But if I say "consciousness
of me" and if you say "consciousness of me," our consciousnesscs
are as distinct as the Egos of which they are conscious.
Is it even relevant for people to know or say of others that they are in bad-faith? As you point out, it is an 'internal' concept. — Pantagruel
Babies are not blank slates. — T Clark
I think the object is still being-for-itself. An object is already quite meaningful: even rocks are more meaningful than being-in-itself. The Being-in-itself/Being-for-itself distinction is the most basic dualism of Sartre's which is offered as a means for resolving various paradoxes, but like all basic distinctions in a philosophy, it's hard to define it explicitly. — Moliere
He famously stated that "existence precedes essence". As I understand this the very premise Sartre works from is that of atheism. The paperknife is an object created for a purpose, where the purpose is its 'essence'. Humans have no 'essence' because they were not created.
The term object can be attached to a being-for-itself in the realisation of an individual being among other individuals. He terms this as the 'Other'. — I like sushi
Babies are not blank slates.
— T Clark
We do not have to agree with his propositions to explore the contradictions. He is basically appealing to a form of self-determination (termed as Radical Freedom). He admits that people are born in certain circumstances and situations that make avoiding bad faith more or less as of a struggle. — I like sushi
Our actions do not spring from the aether uncaused, nor do we. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The essential thing is contingency. I mean that one cannot define existence as necessity. To exist is simply to be there; those who exist let themselves be encountered, but you can never deduce anything from them. I believe there are people who have understood this. Only they tried to overcome this contingency by inventing a necessary, causal being. But no necessary being can explain existence: contingency is not a delusion, a probability which can be dissipated; it is the absolute, consequently, the perfect free gift. All is free, this park, this city and myself. When you realize that, it turns your heart upside down and everything begins to float...
Human beings have an essence, a nature. To ignore this is simply to be ruled by something that lies outside one's grasp of reality, to be determined by ignorance. Our actions do not spring from the aether uncaused, nor do we. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The paradox here is that if someone has 'bad faith' how can we tell? — I like sushi
The question remains how/if the paradoxical position Sartre gives can be overcome? If not that then merely fortified in some way that is productive? — I like sushi
Furthermore, although it is impossible to find in each and every man a universal essence that can be called human nature, there is nevertheless a human universality of condition. — I like sushi
I'd trace the problem here back to Kierkegaard booting theoretical reason from a determinant role in freedom (Nietzsche too). No longer is determinism seen as in a way conducive (or even essential) to freedom, in that it allows theoretical reason to give us a sort of "causal mastery" of the world through techne (e.g. Leibniz's invocation of PSR in defense of free will). Instead we have to keep retreating posterior to the findings of theoretical reason (the sciences) to defend freedom (a freedom which is increasingly contentless). — Count Timothy von Icarus
The 'external world' affects us: the effect is telegraphed into our brain, there arranged, given shape and traced back to its cause: then the cause is projected, and only then does the fact enter our consciousness. That is, the world of appearances appears to us as a cause only once 'it' has exerted its effect and the effect has been processed. That is, we are constantly reversing the order of what happens. - While 'I' see, it is already seeing something different.
I disagree with this. The idea of human nature is a central one to my way of thinking about people. Based on reading philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science plus my own experience in life, I see that we are deeply human at a biological, genetic, and neurological level. I say that so you know why I am resistant to any denial of its existence. — T Clark
It also strikes me as arrogant. We are who we are, but we are also what we are. Sartre's radical freedom feels like Nietzsche's ubermensch. You can take that with a grain of salt, since I have read very little of either man's work. — T Clark
So to act in bad faith is to speak dishonesty. — JuanZu
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.