You cannot self-deceive yourself that you are acting in good faith, because that implies that you know what it is to act in good faith. — JuanZu

Huh? That is precisely my point? I am confused by what you are trying to express here. The very fact that you can deceive yourself into thinking you are living authentically is precisely what I am talking about.

You can deceive yourself into thinking you can know. Therefore you can deceive yourself about your own 'good faith' (authenticity).

If Sartre merely meant authenticity as an unreachable absolute target to aim for, it still means we are able to deceive ourselves into thinking we are moving closer to this ideal or further away from it.

Do you see what I mean?

The paradox is actually different. It is that when we pretend to be determined by our circumstances, social roles, etc., we are already making use of our freedom precisely in order to pretend. As in the case of the waiter who pretends to be a simple waiter, but the very act of pretending makes it clear that he is not a simple waiter. — JuanZu

The 'pretending' here is something more complex. I will think on this and see how it applies to what I am getting at. Thanks :)

it's just I think Sartre is starting on the metaphysics side rather than the epistemology side. — Moliere

They are the same side ;) I think you meant ontological rather than epistemic though?

I have some opinions about this that are not too relevant here. Either way, there is a problem entangled here (which is why I am annoyed with Heidegger tbh). That is a WHOLE other thread so let's not go there on this thread :)

Trying my best to limit the range of discussion in any thread I create from now on.

being-in-itself/being-for-itself — Moliere

It appears Sartre changed the manner in which he applied these terms over time. I have found definitions that state being-in-itself means with 'essence' and elsewhere without (depending on the type of being-in-itself). This is likely to do with what @JuanZu points at above in reference to the 'Other'?

It is self-deception. One cannot always be aware they are acting in 'bad faith'. This misunderstanding might highlight the problem — I like sushi

Agreed. I don't need any philosopher to tell me about this. I can just look at my own life and see it everywhere.

Someone can deceive themselves into thinking they are acting in good faith when they are not - as is commonly done by everyone. We can be 'oppressing' other individuals under the staunch belief that we are acting in good faith rather than 'bad faith'. — I like sushi

So to act in bad faith is to speak dishonesty. — JuanZu

I really hate the phrase "bad faith." Yes, I know that's Sartre's language, not yours. People can live decent, honorable lives and still be out of touch with what Chuang Tzu, one of the founders of Taoism, calls one's "Te," "virtue," "intrinsic virtuosities."

Another thought. As I see it, what Sartre calls "bad faith" is a spiritual failure, not a moral one.

People can live decent, honorable lives and still be out of touch with what Chuang Tzu, one of the founders of Taoism, calls one's "Te," "virtue," "intrinsic virtuosities." — T Clark

I agree.

Going into a metaphilosophical tangeant:

Sartre follows the virtue of honesty to self and others -- to a fault if you have any other virtue on your list of worthwhile habits.

The waiter can live a decent, honorable life in bad faith. This goes a bit into what I was saying about Sartre earlier, at least with respect to B^N: he's describing a problem and giving a solution to it in the same book. I don't thinkit has anything to do with knowledge or ethics, (Well, it does, but it starts at "ontology" rather than the others is what I mean) though of course that's part of The Background given it's a work of philosophy or rather a work on ontology (or metaphysics -- I reread it a few times and I think I ought to have said "ontology" rather than "metaphysics" -- my head-cannon getting in the way of communicating clearly)

BUT:

Sartre is cruel with himself and thereby cruel to others as well, because it's justified and consistent I suppose.

I like his philosophy for being clear, but I really feel a certain cruelty to it. Hence Levinas, ethics, all that stuff.

If you have the time and the inclination I recommend reading this:

Existentialism and Humanism

Whether you agree with him or not I believe attempting to understand is useful - for taking the good and critiquing the bad.

In the Q & A, and elsewhere, there are points where I either do not fully understand what he is saying, or he is tripping over himself a bit. Need to look closer after the weekend when I have more time.

Going to be reading Sartre and Hegel in tandem. Trying to think of a good third to read alongside them. I think Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling would be a nice contrast.

Sartre is cruel with himself and thereby cruel to others as well, because it's justified and consistent I suppose. — Moliere

He seems to say that others see as cruel he simply views as brutally honest. I like the optimism in his take on existentialism and think there was some quite negative attitudes to what was overall a positive outlook on the human condition.

Yeah. I think that's true -- and his positivity is often missed because of his brutal honesty.

I mean, I'm like that too :D -- I'm attracted to Sartre for a reason, but I've come to see some limits to his thinking and I continue to think through that.

@Moliere I am going to get Being and Nothingness printed out this coming week hopefully. Not sure when I can have a serious read of it though because I am really enjoying tackling Hegel atm.

no worries. I'm not ready to commit to a reading group until I finish my thread on Marx, anyways.

Random posts or convo is where I'm at with Sartre. I'm motivated, but I have other thoughts too :)

↪T Clark If you have the time and the inclination I recommend reading this: — I like sushi

I downloaded it. I’ll promise to read the first 10 pages. After that, we’ll see.

Actually, I was thinking more of the idea of the "desire for truth," as just one desire for many, but that sentiment obviously applies in some ways too. Against this there would be the idea in Plato that the desire for what is "truly good" (practical reason) and for what is "truly true" (theoretical reason) is what allows a person to transcend current belief and desire (giveness). The switch is perhaps more clear in Kierkegaard because he seems to demote, if not knock out (always hard to tell because of the pseudonyms) theoretical reason from this part of the equation but keeps the other half.

Kierkegaard because he seems to demote, if not knock out (always hard to tell because of the pseudonyms) theoretical reason from this part of the equation but keeps the other half. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is hard to tell. I read him as demarking a difference in kind that is expressed as the limit of psychology in Concept of Anxiety. Psychology is not thereby condemned.

That is parallel to him saying in Philosophical Fragments that the 'recollection' in Plato is a truth inherent in each person whereas the condition to experience the greater truth comes from beyond oneself.

That sort of messes with the distinction between theoretical and practical reason.

I've come to see some limits to his thinking and I continue to think through that. — Moliere

The same for all philosophical ideas as far as I can tell. I hate it when I cannot see something wrong with someone's thinking BUT I know there is always something.

Sadly people tend to stick resolutely to one idea or another believing it is infallible. I am wary of folk who put any philosophical idea on a pedestal. I believe there is something to be learnt from them all but that none have any universal application.

That's pretty much what I believe, and yet the temptation to complete a system -- or to extend it -- is still there. Kant's claim to having set The Truth on the matter once and for all demands a level of scrutiny that becomes a kind of creative engine unto itself -- it's a paradox of philosophy.