[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 58 KB, 720x480, 312487_139047796189156_100002518088320_213493_2926761_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2505634 No.2505634 [Reply] [Original]

so /lit/, I strongly adhere to Sartre's views on morality, namely his idea of "existence precedes essence" (the creator of an object has authority on if it is being good or bad, if there is an object with no creator, than the object itself gains that authority, aka, humans)

Do you know of any flaws with this theory/idea?

>> No.2505639

>>2505634

the objection is his theory applies to nothing and is meaningless.
prove me wrong.

>> No.2505643

the concept of authority and the use of terms good/bad are all highly questionable.

>> No.2505644

>>2505634
>"existence precedes essence"
>Sartre
>Full retard

No Rand discussion, sage, reported, and tracking you down irl.

>> No.2505656

>>2505634
>the creator of an object has authority on if it is being good or bad
What?

>if there is an object with no creator, than the object itself gains that authority, aka, humans
Ok so humans can decide that with religion? I think you've misquoted him.

>> No.2505659
File: 29 KB, 480x320, 1299151441690.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2505659

>>2505639
what do you mean by his objection? I want to fully understand what you mean before I start debating about it
>>2505643
go on

>>2505644
what?

>> No.2505663
File: 50 KB, 640x480, 1300411304507.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2505663

>>2505656
can you explain how ive misquoted him?

>> No.2505672

>>2505659
a cave man and modern metalworker may both make a knife, one of flint the other of steel. If the creator carried this authority, then they would both be knives of equal quality. It seems instead more likely that a tool should be judged not just by its maker but its user. Man may not have been forged, but we are all used by one another, as social animals we interact and fulfill various purposes for one another. My girlfriend did not create me, but surely she has some insight into whether i am a good boyfriend. The object can never carry authority, only the subject by definition can make judgement.

>> No.2505678

3/10

>> No.2505680

>>2505672

What of your use to yourself? Can you not judge your strengths, weaknesses, and potential? Is an outside judge accurate? Can the outsider even be objective?

>> No.2505685

>>2505663
Because according to you he says religion can be authority on morality since it's human made.

>> No.2505692

>>2505680
Judging yourself accurately is incredibly hard. External judgement is better to go off.

>> No.2505696

>>2505680
You have no use to yourself. Can you imagine yourself lacking yourself? You cannot judge the utility of a thing that you cannot conceive of being without. An outside judge isn't meant to be objective, they are by definition a subject, which is necessary to judge. All judgements are subjective, this is tautology.

>> No.2505700

>Do you know of any flaws with this theory/idea?

It's egotistical claptrap that totally disregards how the world is and has to work.

>> No.2505701

>>2505634
I haven't read any of Sartre's work myself aside from Nausea (2deep4me) but what you've just stated in your original post OP is just another reformulation that there is free will.

Now the problem with this is that you're gonna have to work out the following:
- Most philosopher derived their idea of free will as being given by a creator, for everything is causal and how could one escape causality if not for the grave of god? So how does Sartre then goes on to say that without such a creator, then there is free will anyway? It would be to say that either nothing is determined, which is false, or that everything is but for the human mind, which is arbitrary.

>> No.2505708

>>2505701
So determinism can't be accepted by stirner's egoism?

>> No.2505716

>>2505701
>So how does Sartre then goes on to say that without such a creator, then there is free will anyway?
He disregards the question entirely.

>> No.2505721

>>2505672
I dont think the authority of the creator is supposed to have the authority throughout the argument. To me it seems like he gave the authority to the creator since it seemed to him the only way to have objective morals. But once you get rid of the creator, which he argued was true, then his real philosophy comes out. I think the authority of the creator bit was just a set up

So what you say with the caveman and metal worker would be true for someone who believes in the authority of the creator bit, but i think sartre dismissed that argument, and shows what happens when you do, meaning your argument wouldnt apply.

>>2505680
the only outsider that could be objective would be god. and yes, i think with this philosophy you can value your own strenghts, weaknesses, etc, if you follow the argument through. at its conclusion, every subject is responsible for their own morality

>>2505685
the authority of the creator bit is only used to set up his arugment for subjectivism, i believe

>> No.2505727

>>2505708
Again: 2deep4me

>>2505716
Based on that quote alone then yes.

>> No.2505733

>>2505721
I'm not intending to counter Sartre, who only offers mostly bland inoffensive conclusions. I merely speak against the stupid things the OP said.

>> No.2505736

>>2505700
How? If hes right, the world would operate exactly how it is now. Everyone is determining what they believe to be moral or not, though some do this in an unhealthy way to sartre

>>2505701
I understand the problem with free will, but to be honest it doesnt interest me. Whether or not i have free will, i still have to deal with my life, and sartres argument is a big part of it. Im not sure but I think he also disregards metaphysical problems as not being in the human condition enough

>> No.2505739

>>2505727
>Based on that quote alone then yes.
wut? he very clearly writes it off as irrelevant in his works.

>> No.2505745

>>2505733

OP here

this is me
>>2505721

what have i said that is stupid, and what wasnt stupid to what you just replied to?

>> No.2505746

>>2505739
Oh wait, did you mean that he disregarded the question of free will?

>> No.2505749

>>2505746
yes, what did you think I meant?

>> No.2505752

>>2505745
>the creator of an object has authority on if it is being good or bad, if there is an object with no creator, than the object itself gains that authority

>> No.2505753

>>2505736

>How?

There's no such thing as individual morality. The phrase is pretty much an oxymoron.

>> No.2505758

>>2505721
>every subject is responsible for their own morality
responsible sure, but they're not the ones with whom the judgement call lies.

>> No.2505763

>>2505753
What makes you say that?

>> No.2505771

>>2505749
That my question was relevant but Sartre didn't bother with it, as opposed to "free will isn't important in the context of Sartre's philosophy, he disregards the question entirely".

>> No.2505780

>>2505753
yeah nice argument
>>2505758
im not sure what you just said
>>2505771
yeah from what ive read its definitely the later

>> No.2505788

>>2505780
>im not sure what you just said
Whether your actions are good or bad is your responsibility, but you don't get to decide whether any given action is good or bad. You just choose and accept.

>> No.2505796

>>2505788
I disagree, I think you do choose if any event is good or bad.

>> No.2505794

>>2505788
I disagree, I think you do choose if any event is good or bad

>> No.2505802

>>2505796
But you don't, saying you do just renders the meaning of "good" and "bad" to be entirely vacuous.

>> No.2505804

>>2505794

You can do that, but what you think is right or wrong won't keep you out of prison.

>> No.2505811

>>2505804
Well I agree with you in a sense, its important to understand that the law is not nor tries to be morality. The law has well defined ends and is rigidly systematized, whereas morality is not codified it exists as an evolving inter-subjective response to a given case. Morality itself is non-rational, its concerned with an individual case, not a law which governs all cases.

>> No.2505815

>>2505802
No it doesnt, what the word means is understood and still true, though the context is now different. It becomes like the words I or you, where everyone knows what the words mean, but everytime they are used they are different based on the context
>>2505804
It might, it might not

>> No.2505817

>the creator of an object has authority on if it is being good or bad

I never got this, at all, from "existence precedes essence." You're thinking of essence precedes existence, when talking about objects being created.

>> No.2505823

>>2505817
I understand that, I just used the more popular term that emerged from the entire argument since I was lazy and didnt want to go through the entire thing

>> No.2505828

>>2505804
Might do.
>in the army, it is your duty to follow orders from superiors
>to fulfill duty is morally good
But uh-oh:
>you are ordered to indiscriminatly kill civilians and wipe out entire villages
>you fulfill your duty
>you go face a war crimes tribunal
While it's a little contrived, I think it's a good illustration. Think of Peter Sellers with the crazy general in Dr Strangelove.

>> No.2505837

>>2505828
You have failed to comprehend the point he was making. Attempt to parse the statement again.

>> No.2505840

Sartre is a Cartesian.

Keep this in mind when reading him.

>> No.2505857

>>2505840

>implying im going to read him
>implying we can waste time reading philosophy in the year 2012

>> No.2505860

>>2505840
>Sartre is a Cartesian.
i wouldn't mind hearing your reasoning for this

>> No.2505871

>>2505860

NO

CAN IT REALLY BE YOU

>quick, does he act like an asshole?

>> No.2505874

>>2505860
Being and Nothingness is a Cartesian take on Being and Time. Essentially, Sartre still holds on to the object/subject relationship and has his own version of Dasein that differs from the Heideggerian sense in that he separates it from Being entirely.

>> No.2505882

>>2505874
But the existentialists would reject out of hand the logic of the cogito (they'd prefer it reversed, if anything), which is the classic dictum of bare-faced cartesian thought. Surely Sartre, holding that existence precedes essence, would agree? But then, that would go against the cartesian appellation.

>> No.2505900

>>2505882
His point of thought is influenced by Husserl which follows the Descartes tradition. His take on Heidegger is contra rather then embrace. Nausea deals with this entire debate. Either we embrace authentic existence as inherently devoid of value as freedom to live or we take it as anxiety and despair. While Sartre did dismiss Descartes take on how we relate to the world. The thing is that for Sartre, consciousness and world are existent at the very start but are still separate. The world still exists for consciousness and not them both existing so that we depend on the external.

>> No.2505926
File: 29 KB, 250x352, sartre2tk2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2505926

Sartre's fanbase/fanboys are the worst.
Sartre is a gateway philosopher of the worst kind. He's a bad cartesian, a clusterfuck of ideas and argumentation that isn't very well done by any aspect, but which attempts to compensate for its weaknesses by adding in excessive faggotry and DARKNESS. The normal anon can see this as the shit it is, and may enjoy it, hate it or be indifferent to it, but all the while recognizing that the Ideas itself, regardless of their opinion, are plain bad.

Sartre is basically THE philosopher to attract the most hated fanbase known to /lit/, which is why, regardless of individual opinions, it is the responsibility of every anon to troll the fuck out of this "existentialism" and everyone who likes it, and ensure that no Sartre threads ever encourage the newfriends to show their faces here.

>> No.2505930

>>2505926
/thread

>> No.2505940

>>2505926
Haha, now I'm going to push Sartre in every whereshouldIstartwithphilosophy? thread.

>> No.2505938

>>2505926
You used so many words to express a very simple opinion. And honestly none of what you said was a legitimate refutation of Sartre's ideas, which leads me to the obvious conclusion that you have not read much by him and you are basing your dislike of him on what you perceive as his ''fanboys''. While a few of these people certainly exist, and to me they are forgivable youths, their annoying qualities do not justify disqualifying Sartre's philosophy. I would suggest you read the collection ''Essays in Existentialism'' and come back when you have an informed opinion. Although I'm sure you will rush of to google to find something to make yourself sound more legitimate.

>> No.2505946
File: 21 KB, 333x400, goodonebro5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2505946

>>2505926
>Sartre is basically THE philosopher to attract the most hated fanbase known to /lit/
koroviev's not that bad. he's terrible, but he's not that bad

>> No.2505948
File: 101 KB, 814x802, 1313458283649.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2505948

>>2505938
> Replying to a copypasta mod

>> No.2505950
File: 37 KB, 600x479, 1332533094459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2505950

>>2505948
>spending all of your time on 4chin

>> No.2505984

>>2505950
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Normale Sup., and I’ve been involved in numerous secret arguments , and I have over 300 confirmed articles. I am trained in analytic philosophy and I’m the top philosopher in the entire world. You are nothing to me but just another pleb. I will wipe your arguments the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for some DIALECTICS, maggot. The DIALECTIC that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking meaningless, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can argue with you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare brain. Not only am I extensively trained in oral combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of Western philosophy and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>> No.2505986

>>2505984
Not bad.

>> No.2506013

>>2505984
does the subject still wear pink socks?

>> No.2506027

>>2505984
>normale sup

brofist.jpg

>> No.2506073
File: 30 KB, 419x563, Picture1 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2506073

>Existence precedes essence

Nup. Contrary to Sartre (and Woolf), man does have a nature/essence, but the whole issue becomes complicated with the idea/illusion of free will.

When science catches up with philosophy, and when we have a complete understanding of human psychology, existentialism will become just another antiquated idea.

>> No.2506091

>Do you know of any flaws with this theory/idea?

* Ignores language.
* Ignores logic.
* Assumes "being" can only be described phenomenologically and not accounted for in analytical terms.

>> No.2507335

>>2505926
So which are the patrician core philosophers?

Also list the essential SEOP articles please.

>> No.2507346

>>2506091

Wait so analytic philosophers answered the question "what is being?"

>> No.2507533

>>2506073
>man does have a nature/essence
No he doesn't? You obviously haven't read enough Dostoevsky.

>> No.2507546

>>2506073
>man does have a nature/essence

you has citation? im not baiting you. i actually would like to discover this.