Per Sartre, even under torture, the victim determines the exact moment at which he chooses to submit to the torture.... — Pantagruel
Not in your mind. It is in the more discerning ones — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Per Sartre, even under torture, the victim determines the exact moment at which he chooses to submit to the torture.... — Pantagruel
So you got nothing. :up: — Artemis
I got that you cannot follow a logic trail and cannot refute it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Which, let us note, is (maybe) a choice, and if a choice, the choice of a moment and nothing more. (By "submit" I assume you mean break, or something like.) But I suspect Sartre himself is not quite so ambiguous: do you have a citation? — tim wood
Sartre views our freedom as essentially unlimited. To the point that he characterizes "vertigo" as the sensation, not that we are going to fall off a high place, but the fear that we might throw ourselves off.... — Pantagruel
We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free. — Pantagruel
Sartre views our freedom as essentially unlimited. To the point that he characterizes "vertigo" as the sensation, not that we are going to fall off a high place, but the fear that we might throw ourselves off.... — Pantagruel
. I ascribe to this view of radical freedom, because I know it to be true in my own life. Moreover, what is most interesting, once you have tried and learned that you possess this ability, it gets continually easier to make "radically new" choices. And this can definitely be a great power to have. — Pantagruel
Later, especially in Critique of Dialectical Reason, Sartre shifts to the view that humans are only free if their basic needs as practical organisms are met (p. 327)." — Artemis
Well, Sartre evolved and refined his thinking eventually, and I suspect so will you :wink: — Artemis
but I'm starting now, and the preface sure seems consistent with the views I've cited" — Pantagruel
exempt — Artemis
People choose to endure something because and when it is meaningful to do so. And when people do, historically, it often is meaningful. — Pantagruel
You keep in saying people "endure" torture, but it's not clear what that even means or who has done so? Can you be more specific? — Artemis
We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free.
— Pantagruel
I think that's an exaggeration. Clearly the torturer has already, de facto, limited our choices and thus our freedom. — Artemis
Now I'm really confused. It was the exact example that we have been discussing? — Pantagruel
We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free. — Pantagruel
Per Sartre, even under torture, the victim determines the exact moment at which he chooses to submit to the torture.... — Pantagruel
We have already shown that even the red-hot pincers
of the torturer do not exempt us from being free. — Pantagruel
Sorry, that is all a non-sequitur. We are "condemned" to be free in the sense that we can not escape it. Our freedom is absolute and inescapable."Exempt" is the key word. According to Sartre, we are condemned to be free. Any notion of freedom as shield, or freedom as ground for some particular moral obligation, no. In every sense, then, yielding to what must be yielded to in no wise is connected to freedom. And this is the only way to reconcile that notions that we're free, and that sooner or later the torturer gets what he wants. — tim wood
↪Pantagruel What's the non-sequitur? — tim wood
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.