...consciousness of our own subjectivity, — Joshs
...consciousness of our own subjectivity,
— Joshs
It's not at all clear what this might be. — Banno
As I read Sartre, his proposal is that rather than starting with a preconceived notion of self, we
should let our understanding of what it means to be a self arise out of our analysis of self-consciousness. — Joshs
For Sartre, the self (the subject in subjective) is not found through introspection, but is manifest in the fact of choice and the presence of the other. — Banno
From what I’m reading, Sartre makes a
distinction between positional and non positional , and between reflective and pre-reflective consciousness.
Pre-reflective consciousness is pre-supposed by introspection, and accompanies rather than is for me strobing choice and the presence of the other. Only positional consciousness is determined by the other, consistent with Husserl. — Joshs
Notice that transcendence of the ego is early work. Perhaps you find Husserl because you are looking for him.
But even if that were an accurate account of Sartre, it is open for us to still reject that part of his account while accepting the other... — Banno
:up:Sartre strikes me as far clearer in his analysis and more astute in his arguments than Heidegger. But then Sartre could write. — Banno
:cool:(I prefer what little I've read of Gabriel Marcel.) — Wayfarer
Your 'dualistic' caricature of my monism demonstrates a profound misunderstanding (or dogmatic misrepresentation) which says more about you, Wayf, than the topic or argument at issue.But you say that that because of materialist ontology, which inverts the relationship between mind and matter, making matter fundamental and mind derivative from it. — Wayfarer
:roll:That is of course the universal assumption of philosophical materialism.
The same (groundless) "ground" as for all beings: "Being" (i.e. atomists' void, spinozists natura naturans) as I wrote ... "Ontological difference" is only a conceptual distinction – being of beings (which includes Dasein) – and not a Cartesian postulate of separate substances of "being" and "beings". After all, SuZ is explicitly anti-Cartesian in this regard (and though greatly influenced by Heidi, Sartre returns to Descartes' mind-body (mind-matter) duality with "being-for-itself" versus "being-in-itself" and describes the former as "consciousness is the nothingness" in the latter being, thus the title: Being and Nothingness.)But what are the putative 'fundamental entities' which you propose are the ground or basis for rational beings?
This gnostic-conceit may be the case (Philosophy is 'anamnesis', un-forgetting or recovering this fundamentalreality. — Wayfarer
So Heidegger represents for you a morally flawed personality , and any wider sociological analysis is seen by you as excuse making. — Joshs
I mentioned your legal background because we all tend to choose a profession that reflects our ways of understanding the world. I chose psychology and philosophy as consonant with my belief system. It seems to me that you view personal behavior primarily from the vantage of character and individual responsibility and choice — Joshs
So every philosopher has a cult following? — Xtrix
Which is to say that the extent to which a philosopher's adherents believe him/her to be surpassingly insightful is significant in determining whether a cult exists. — Ciceronianus
I've always maintained that the law is, quite simply, the law, and nothing else. It's not morality; it's not justice. I'm a sort of legal positivist — Ciceronianus
I'm not sure what you mean by "value-laden" but suspect that it's the equivalent of saying everything that human beings do is value-laden because human beings are human beings, and everything which human beings do is necessarily value-laden, which doesn't strike me as a useful insight. — Ciceronianus
It is almost a guarantee that he will come across as deliberately unclear if the reader has failed to comprehend a host of necessary precursors. This includes Hegel, Nietzsche. Wittgenstein and Husserl ( a background in Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard wouldn’t hurt either ). — Joshs
Does Aristotle come across as deliberately unclear if we haven't read Plato; does Hume if we haven't read Hobbes; does James if we haven't read Peirce? I don't think so. Perhaps it's merely a personal preference, but if I philosopher can't even produce sentences one can read without referencing the work of other philosophers as a kind of dictionary or thesaurus, I don't think that speaks well for the philosopher. — Ciceronianus
Certainly there are cases where we disagree, and for various reasons. Those become problems we may or may not be able to solve. But if we can't resolve them chances are it won't be because what we think is something we use every day turns out not to be real. — Ciceronianus
No two people ever see the exact same ‘object in the same way, so we say that each of us perceives a different appearance of the ‘same’ object. In everyday life this leads to no major misunderstandings because the objects we interact with are defined in very general terms. — Joshs
Every misunderstanding, frustration, annoyance, disappointment we experience in dealing with one another reveals the fact that we are not living in the same world, but interpret according to different vantages and perspectives — Joshs
:up:Our differences arise from the fact that we live in the same world ... If we lived in different worlds, there would be no conflicts. — Ciceronianus
Being in ontology does NOT refer exclusively to sentient entities. — Xtrix
“Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” — Joshs
but I think it's a fault with the modern usage of the word — Wayfarer
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.