Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 On Sartre - bad faith: " [someone working as a waiter] If there is bad faith here, it is that he is trying to identify himself completely with the role of waiter, to pretend that this particular role determines his every action and attitude. Whereas the truth is that he has chosen to take on the job, and is free to give it up at any time. He is not essentially a waiter, for no man is essentially anything. " (Leslie Stevenson, Seven Theories of Human Nature (1974) (Oxford University Press, 1987) this is bad faith ...? so bad faith is about pretension ... what's that got to do with a 'desire to be'? i doubt Sartre would have said that about a desire to be truly compassionate...? Z > As Sartre would say of you desire to be truly compassionate, > you are living > in bad faith. > > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > so bad faith is about pretension ... what's that got to do with a 'desire to > be'? i doubt Sartre would have said that about a desire to be truly > compassionate...? Bad faith is denying your true nature to yourself. The waiter is a free person and so by thinking of himself as one he is denying that he is a person who chose to be a waiter. Where compassion is something that you belive in, you then try to be compassionate and in doing so deny that really you are a person who chose to be compassionate. Everything we do is the result of a choice, for Sartre you could be an evil person but if you recognize that about yourself and remain true to yourself then there is nothing wrong with that. For Sartre it is meaningless to say that you should be compassionate (why should you?) because there is nothing that you should be other than what you choose to be. If you're compassionate because that is how you are then that is okay, if yo're compassionate because you're supposed to be then you're in bad faith. He probably doesn't even believe in compassion as it is just a label for choices that implies an objective value when one does not exist. Does that make sense? Michael (Wondering whether this should have been called VeganPhilosophyAndTheologyUK now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 are you telling us not to be compassionate? because there is no need to be? should i stop asking others to be compassionate ... i don't have a desire to be compassionate... it is a direction in which i am moving ... > person who chose to be compassionate. Everything we do is > the result of a choice, for Sartre you could be an evil person but if > you recognize that about yourself and remain true to yourself > then there is nothing wrong with that. right .. so if someone is true to themselves and they recognise that and they truly believe that they may kill another or animals should die to be their food ... then there is nothing wrong with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > are you telling us not to be compassionate? because there is no need to be? No, I'm telling you Sartre would say not to be compassionate because you should. > should i stop asking others to be compassionate ... Tough call, you should be free to ask them, they should be free to ignore you making it an empty endeavour. > i don't have a desire to be compassionate... it is a direction in which i > am moving ... Then Sartre would approve of you in his paradoxically non judgmental way. > right .. so if someone is true to themselves and they recognise that and > they truly believe that they may kill another or animals should die to be > their food ... then there is nothing wrong with that? Yup. Sartre did try and create a morality into his existentialism but was forced to reject it, I guess he wasn't too happy about that but he was probably glad to get away from a Kant style categorical imperative too. The same would have to go for killing people, I'm not sure how he wouldd respond to that and I haven't the time to check but it would certainly be difficult for him to argue against murder. It is hard to find a gray area between objective morality and a lack of morality (such as Sartre's). Most people belive in the former but practice a form of the latter with social rules added to govern conduct. But from that you can say that it is wrong to use animals. Anyway my whole point in bringing up Sartre was not to use him as a moralist but because he provides a lucid account of how a person can be denying their true self, something true of anyone who follows a particular dogma (or fragment) such as expecting people not to hate, very much a case of fragmenting experience between the acceptable and the forbidden, which is where this all began many hours ago, although it seems much longer. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 ---Our nature is not the nature it should be!,our nature's only hope is to strive towards getting human to live in love,Our nature can not be as it should be, until the planet is as it should be,We are messing up its nature thus messing our own nature up! Its our home for now so maybe we should treat it as such,at least until we find other suitable planet to live on, even then in some distant future when we look back at this planet burning in the distance and think " Thank God we got out alive " those poor animal eaters just wouldn't listen.our new home planet " heart " waiting,ready prepared for us,to the east,takes five days to get there and when we arrive on the sixth day God greets us saying welcome to my Garden you are welcome to eat from any tree in the garden but not from the tree of knowledge of good and evil because you are not ready to know evil and will succumb to it! thus leading you into destructively short lives,as you can not be allowed then to eat from the tree of life commiting evil acts,We will then say ,If only we had listened the first time we would have saved so much unnecessary misery, At least now we know better! SP, , " mavreela " <nec.lists@m...> wrote: > > so bad faith is about pretension ... what's that got to do with a > 'desire to > > be'? i doubt Sartre would have said that about a desire to be > truly > > compassionate...? > > Bad faith is denying your true nature to yourself. The waiter is a > free person and so by thinking of himself as one he is denying > that he is a person who chose to be a waiter. Where > compassion is something that you belive in, you then try to be > compassionate and in doing so deny that really you are a > person who chose to be compassionate. Everything we do is > the result of a choice, for Sartre you could be an evil person but if > you recognize that about yourself and remain true to yourself > then there is nothing wrong with that. > > For Sartre it is meaningless to say that you should be > compassionate (why should you?) because there is nothing that > you should be other than what you choose to be. If you're > compassionate because that is how you are then that is okay, if > yo're compassionate because you're supposed to be then you're > in bad faith. > > He probably doesn't even believe in compassion as it is just a > label for choices that implies an objective value when one does > not exist. > > Does that make sense? > > Michael > (Wondering whether this should have been called > VeganPhilosophyAndTheologyUK now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > No, I'm telling you Sartre would say not to be compassionate > because you should. hmm.. a man in the western tradition ... i wonder how he would get on with, say, the Dalai Lama... or Confucius (were he alive)... > > should i stop asking others to be compassionate ... > > Tough call, you should be free to ask them, they should be free > to ignore you making it an empty endeavour. i will continue then... > Yup. Sartre did try and create a morality into his existentialism > but was forced to reject it, I guess he wasn't too happy about that > but he was probably glad to get away from a Kant style > categorical imperative too. The same would have to go for killing > people, I'm not sure how he wouldd respond to that and I haven't > the time to check but it would certainly be difficult for him > to argue > against murder. so we can't really use him to argue for or against doing anything ... so long as that action is down true to oneself... > Anyway my whole point in bringing up Sartre was not to use him > as a moralist but because he provides a lucid account of how a > person can be denying their true self, something true of anyone > who follows a particular dogma (or fragment) such as expecting > people not to hate, very much a case of fragmenting experience > between the acceptable and the forbidden, which is where this > all began many hours ago, although it seems much longer. er... i don't expect people not to hate... in fact i expect people to hate... this is not about my expectations of people... i am enquiring into hate... and seeing whether it is relevant and to see whether it is harmful... i want to understand it ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 , " vegicate1 " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > ---Our nature is not the nature it should be!,our nature's only hope > is to strive towards getting human to live in love,Our nature can not > be as it should be, until the planet is as it should be,We are > messing up its nature thus messing our own nature up! > Its our home for now so maybe we should treat it as such,at least > until we find other suitable planets to live on, even then in some > distant future when we look back at this planet burning in the > distance and think " Thank God we got out alive " those poor animal > eaters just wouldn't listen.with our new home planet " heart " waiting,ready > prepared for us to the east of spiral milky way!and when we arrive after five days travel; > the sixth day God greets us saying welcome to my Garden you > are welcome to eat from any tree in the garden but not from the tree > of knowledge of good and evil because you are not ready to know evil > and will succumb to it! thus leading you into destructively short > lives,as you can not be allowed then to eat from the tree of life > commiting evil acts,We will then say ,If only we had listened the > first time we would have saved so much unnecessary misery, At least > now we know better! > SP, > > > > , " mavreela " <nec.lists@m...> wrote: > > > so bad faith is about pretension ... what's that got to do with a > > 'desire to > > > be'? i doubt Sartre would have said that about a desire to be > > truly > > > compassionate...? > > > > Bad faith is denying your true nature to yourself. The waiter is a > > free person and so by thinking of himself as one he is denying > > that he is a person who chose to be a waiter. Where > > compassion is something that you belive in, you then try to be > > compassionate and in doing so deny that really you are a > > person who chose to be compassionate. Everything we do is > > the result of a choice, for Sartre you could be an evil person but > if > > you recognize that about yourself and remain true to yourself > > then there is nothing wrong with that. > > > > For Sartre it is meaningless to say that you should be > > compassionate (why should you?) because there is nothing that > > you should be other than what you choose to be. If you're > > compassionate because that is how you are then that is okay, if > > yo're compassionate because you're supposed to be then you're > > in bad faith. > > > > He probably doesn't even believe in compassion as it is just a > > label for choices that implies an objective value when one does > > not exist. > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > Michael > > (Wondering whether this should have been called > > VeganPhilosophyAndTheologyUK now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2002 Report Share Posted March 26, 2002 > hmm.. a man in the western tradition ... i wonder how he would get on with, > say, the Dalai Lama... or Confucius (were he alive)... I'm sure they would both say " Why do you fragment us into Eastern and Western traditions and pit us against each other? " Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.