The way I understand it is different. Suppose I am considering what to have for lunch. Maybe beans on toast, or maybe omelette. Neither of these is part of the material world - there are eggs in the kitchen, but no omelette. To consider acting is not to act. So it is not a claim that thoughts themselves are immaterial but that what they are about is immaterial, rather as an architect draws plans for a building that does not (yet) exist. The plans are as material as anything, but there is no building and may never be one. Yet oddly, one doesn't complain about how the architect models the world on these grounds.My reading of this is that he is saying that the mind is withdrawing from the material world. — Hay Digger
To consider acting is not to act. — unenlightened
Is it not? Considering is a verb; does that not make it (and thus considering to act) an act in itself? It requires the passage of time. Time in which material changes take place. This probably highlights my misunderstanding of Sartre's philosophy. — Hay Digger
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.