[ 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: 29 KB, 250x352, sartre2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2927440 No.2927440 [Reply] [Original]

With regards to Existence preceding essence,
how is it possible to create meaning where meaning inherently does not exist?
How does something come out of its opposite?

Or is it that meaning exist in things in a way that isnt necessarily knowable or clearly visible to people?

>> No.2927447

Look at a blank canvas before a painter.


He creates something where something inherently does not exist.

>> No.2927468

>>2927447
Not technically, he merely moved the paint onto the canvas and called it art.

>> No.2927481

>>2927468


And you're moving your self, that is your entire entity, through life and through existence.


Youre taking your experiences and beliefs and rearranging them to create your own being thus by creating meaning.

I mean, the fact that you are that there is no meaning creates meaning. Creating meaning is unavoidable. It happens.

>> No.2927486

Meaning is just a filter through which we interpret the world.

>> No.2927519

>>2927447

Are you a stupid? The painter exists. You comletely missed the point.

>> No.2927534

>>2927481
So what youre saying is is that giving value to something means rearranging things and putting things in hierarchal system of importance and place? Interdasting

Still, how is something formed out of its opposite? In this case meaning from meaninglessness.

>> No.2927565

>>2927519


No, you're creating a logical fallacy to try to prove a moot point.


Op is talking about existence. The fact that it exists means it is there as much as the painter is there. The painter is creating a meaning. By living, you're creating a meaning. Its inescapable.


If you're saying that existence does not inherently contain meaning, that is.


>>2927534


What is meaningless? Existence?

>> No.2927570

>>2927565
OP isn't simply asking "how/why do we create meaning", they're asking how meaning is created where it inherently cannot exist. It's a rather different question.

>> No.2927601

>>2927565
Yeah, existence, matter, being, etc.

>>2927570
Exactly.

>> No.2927617

>>2927601
The philosophical idea is that human beings are born without an identity and set of values, meaning of life, etc. (existence), but through experiencing the world and reasioning we gain these things, and acting accordingly exercises our existence and gives our lives meaning (essence).
That is what it means, it has nothing to do with something being created of its opposite.

>> No.2927632

>>2927617
This. Basically we are born a "blank slate"

>> No.2927638

>>2927632
I have to ask, did Sartre know genes exist?

Because they ensure the slate isn't entirely blank.

>> No.2927668

>>2927632
>>2927638
It's more like that there is nothing expected of us. I guess you could think of his idea of continuous choice as relating to genes or whatever by these inherent things forming what choices can be made.

>> No.2927673

>>2927638
Blank Slate is in regards to experience (including values, morals). Humanity has no universal, predetermined principles or ethics common to all of mankind. Getting cultured in day to day experience does not correlate with genetics.

>> No.2927734

>>2927673
> Humanity has no universal, predetermined principles or ethics common to all of mankind.

Yes and no.

Do people have a universal set of ethics because ethics are 'built into' the human animal, like in genetics? Of course not.

Do people have a universal set of ethics because humans share a skeleton of a global culture? Yes.

Remember that less than one hundred thousand years ago all humanity was basically one tribe, likely speaking a common language and sharing a common culture. All of the diversity we see today is only the historical development of this one tribe, so we still share some shred of a common culture, however different we may be.

(For example -- the universal aversion/disgust at cannibalism, even though there is no explicit ban on cannibalism in any religious book that I'm aware of.)

>> No.2927740

>>2927734
But cultures that approve of cannibalism do exist.

>> No.2927767

>>2927734
>hurr its all relative evolution proves we should be sociopaths fuck morals

>> No.2927777

Propagation with variance, selection, reproduction.

This principle applies perfectly to cultural evolution as it does to physical.

Modern H sapiens originated ca. 40,000 years ago. Our cultural inheritance at that point was likely very basic (spears, fire, elementary clothing, elementary phenomenology). Meaning only exists within the biological context of the brain. 40K years of selection has (as it does in biological evolution, or evolutionary algorithms, or anywhere else) produced a range of highly tuned meaning systems (with a few predominant branches).

Any rational attempt at understanding this *has* to come to grips with biology first or else it's just angels on pinheads.

>> No.2927793

>>2927740
> But cultures that approve of cannibalism do exist.

No. There exist cultures that practice cannibalism, but they all do so explicitly as a way of subverting/channeling the taboo nature of cannibalism.

As far as I know there isn't a culture that isn't aware of the 'shocking' nature of cannibalism and treats it neutrally.

>> No.2927811

>>2927767
> hurr its all relative evolution proves we should be sociopaths fuck morals

The fuck, did you even read what I said?

What I said is that biological evolution is irrelevant, only idiots talk of it as it matters in understanding humanity.

What _does_ matter is the fact that humanity actually has a really short history, and we all still all share a common cultural nucleus. (Even Australian aboriginals and USian suburban landwhales share, essentially, the same cultural heritage in the grand scheme of things.)

>> No.2927889

>>2927777
>this is what idiots actually believe
seriously, why are you on this board? go back to /sci/ you cunt

>> No.2927892

>>2927777
>bunch of retarded assertions
>k guys this is biology

retard

>> No.2927896

>>2927777
I SAY YOU CANT PASS YOUR GENES ON THEREFORE IT IS TRUE


>amateur biologist logic
sociopath

>> No.2928721

lol he mad.

whatevs, if you're content with running in circles in your monkey brain, pretending your rearrangment of the cultural bric-a-brack in there will somehow net you THE TRUTH then by all means enjoy.

when you're interested in actual truth we'll be over here in the science aisle