What is more fundamental for Sartre and Heidegger , knowing our transcendental consciousness or the transcendental universe!? — Gregory

Sartre: Consciousness, that is to say, the project of pour-soi.
Heidegger: Being, which is something like God with a different name. In my opinion.

I am not sure, but I think that transcendental has different meanings or nuances in each of them.

Sartre said solipsism is refuted every time we feel shame — Gregory

The presence of the Other is immediate. Shame is a universal response to this presence-look. The same for the world (thing in-itself). It makes itself immediately present to consciousness. Therefore, solipsism is an artificial construct that contradicts the phenomenological analysis of existence.

I would like to explore the gap between these 2 thinkers in the light of their vision on the existence and the way a philosopher shall or act as a philosopher or teach philosophy. — Beni Issembert

At the origin: Camus was a son of workers in gradual ascent towards the bourgeois who said he did not want to be, and Sartre continually debated himself in an attempt to (self)destroy the bourgeois he knew he was, in order to incarnate himself in an impossible revolutionary without a party.

Two projects with contradictions that were difficult to overcome.

Summarizing: The main cause of the gap between them were communism and colonialism.

From the philosophical point of view: Sartre was a true philosopher (maybe the last of the complete philosophers) and Camus was a literate. Camus' humanism was diffuse. Sartre's existentialism is solid as a rock. (Yes, rocks also have crevices).

I prefer Sartre's books. They're complex and sometimes insightful. Camus' evolution was predictable and shallow.

As you wish. I did a work on the novel and I read it a few times. But I'd have to find an English version to make quotations. Or translate them my way, which can be a bit unsure.

Background: Against rationalism and science. In behalf of irrational belief in Christ.

"If the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth". (Letter to Madame N. D. Fonvisin, March 1854).

I would like to discuss Notes from the Underground. A curious "novel".

So, then, is a person’s awareness of self, the “I,” the Ego, and the person’s awareness of the passage of time (temporality) grounded in the pre-reflective or the reflected consciousness?

Is it Sartre’s position that a person’s consciousness in the first degree (pre-reflective consciousness) is essentially ego-less and timeless?

Is it also Sartre’s position that a person’s consciousness in the second degree (reflective, or reflected consciousness) is essentially and retroactively productive of the awareness of the ego and of time? — charles ferraro

I find also that this discussion is highly productive.

In respect your first battery of questions my answer is hesitant. I need to read again Sartre's texts about the Ego and temporality (in special the three ek-stases).

I am not sure if there is a consciousness of time pre-reflexive and that happens in the development of the personal project. What is reflexive is the concept of doubt.

And, is it for this reason that what Descartes’ COGITO SUM asserts is always “after-the-fact” and confusing the results applicable to one level of consciousness with those applicable to another? — charles ferraro

Yes, I think this is the criticism. In Sartre's words, it is confusing the original temporality with the psychical temporality.

Heidegger said Sartre misunderstood him a bit. — Gregory

Heidegger's first reaction to Being and Nothingness was that Sartre was the philosopher who have understood his theory the most. After that, he possibly read the parts where Sartre criticized him and concluded that Sartre had not understood anything. Since he himself recognized that the concept of Being was not clear in his work, and Being is the center of his theory, it is not strange that Sartre did not understand anything. Neither did I.

I understand that you maybe get Hume by directly reading his writings. If that is the case, you are my hero. — god must be atheist

I read Hume directly, which doesn't mean I always understand him. Sometimes I get stuck. Other times I read a different interpretation than I do.
Many people are irritated by that kind of uncertainty. I like to deal with it. You discover thoughts you never would have thought of. If the book is too dark, I'll quit. And I get irritated sometimes, too. Depends on days.
Philosophy is like that. Take it or leave it.

The analogy is faulty in this aspect. — god must be atheist

Not so much. At a certain level quantum mechanics becomes a topic of interpretation and discussions begin. Which are the interesting thing, in my opinion.

Superiority in what way exactly. Economically, physically, intellectually, interesting way of thinking. Would you elaborate please — LuckilyDefinitive

Superiority in life potential. I don't think Nietzsche gave a narrow definition of what he meant by that. You have to look here and there. Superiority in all that it means to be human: pride, desire, strength, freedom of thought. The latter is important: freedom from the rules of the masses. To destroy or "transvalue" the dominant values of the slave society. To be a hero in terms of thought and life. To put oneself above all else by trying to be the best. Never apologize. He was a nihilist in the positive sense: denying everything to create again.
The things that N rejects are the very things we fight for in our society: money, fame, demagogy, business, submission, etc. All the power that comes with filing one's self.

It sounds very attractive, but it has its great dangers.

You have given me much valuable insight. Thanks. — god must be atheist

You're welcome. If I find something on the subject, I'll tell you.

I would not be able to rely on your interpretation of Nietzsche, — god must be atheist

You do very well. For example: I'm not sure what he took from Lamarck's transformism. Learned characteristics? Doesn't fit.

in this scenario the individuals keep their lordlike and sheeplike qualities fully; or else is the picture better described as a genetic or genetic-like mixing within the individual's response system yielding differing magnitudes of lordlike qualities of behaviour as one measures it from individual to individual. — god must be atheist

I confess I didn't understand the alternative.
For Nietzsche, lordship and servitude are innate characteristics of men. They cannot be changed or modified by behavior, although they can be discovered if one questions oneself with insight, which only superior men are capable of doing. Genetics was alien to Nietzsche's thinking. I don't know how the chromosomes fit into this.
Note: I'm saying what I know and remember about Nietzsche. My knowledge has some gaps. Nietzsche and genetics is one of them. I'm not sure he ever mentioned it, though I doubt it. And I'm sure it was in very primitive terms. Not developed genetics.

you get so angry due entirely to his style, not content. — god must be atheist

How do you know it's the style's fault if you haven't understood it? Maybe what Hume says is stupid.

It's the same for me with quantum mechanics. I don't understand anything. But I don't blame quantum mechanics, but my lack of understanding. But I avoid deepening my ignorance by claiming that quantum mechanics is this or that. At most, I ask the one who understands and try to learn. Caution is the virtue of wise men.

This is a friendly opinion, Not a declaration of war.

It is a beautiful woven fabric of logic inconsistency and twisting words that leaves the reader in a continual state of uncertainty about what the hect he is really trying to get at. — Antidote

If you're associating Nietzsche with the mafia, you've certainly got it wrong. But the insecurity isn't in Nietzsche, it's in your reading. Just because there are some debatable things in Nietzsche doesn't mean that any reading can be admitted.

the Leaders and the Weaks — god must be atheist

Some important clarifications:

Strong and weak are not distributed equally among men and nations. There are weak men and strong men, to the extent that one trend is dominant.

I wrote "Lords", not "leaders". In Nietzsche "Lord" has the sense of someone superior, noble, excellent, proud. The mediocre mob also has its leaders. The paradigm is the priestly class. They are very intelligent people who excel in mediocrity. That is: they preach love to humanity, humility, equality, democracy, hatred of superior men and all that means the joy of living. This is the ideology of the resentment against the nobility. Noble in the sense of vital superiority, of course.

Therefore, we must distinguish some superior leaders, such as Napoleon or Alcibiades, from the shepherds of the flock who are as much sheep as it is. Note that the fate of the great men was their defeat (Alcibiades, Caesar, Caesar Borgia, Napoleon... and others I do not remember).

Nietzsche was explicitly anti-Darwinian -he preferred Lamarck. In his opinion, the struggle for survival entails the triumph of the herd of weaklings and their priestly leaders over superior men. The struggle of the superior men is not to become a better sheep. They can use the inferior men for their purposes, but without losing the luster of their superiority. Therefore, in opposition to the revolutionaries and liberals of this era, Nietzsche did not see Napoleon's coronation as a betrayal, but as a real triumph of the will to power.

To summarize: "power", "strong", "lord", "life" refer to individual and vital forces that oppose the concept of species in biological Darwinism or of nation and race in social Darwinism. That's why he hated German antisemitism.

Doesn't any explanation for the existence of reflected consciousness, which Sartre claims does exist, presuppose irreflexive, non-positional consciousness somehow objectifying itself? — charles ferraro

Sartre addresses the problem especially in L'être et le néant, Part II, Chapter II, Section III. For me, it is one of the most difficult to understand. In any case, he states categorically that the attempt to objectify conscience, that is, to make it an object for reflection, is a failure. From what I understand, because it tries to fix something that is elusive. The example of the Cartesian cogito can clarify this: Descartes claims that he captures by intuition the Ego as a being that doubts. But Sartre argues that the act of doubting implies a temporality: I doubt what was given to me before and can be given in the future. However, temporality cannot be captured intuitively. So Descartes has only captured the present moment of thought, which in itself is nothing substantial. Therefore, any attempt to demonstrate the thinking substance through a merely intentional and timeless act of the intuition of the Self will inevitably fail.

The argument seems to me ingenious.

You made my point for me ... ? If you think slaughtering people to Chopin is a sign of ‘Culture’ — I like sushi

In the context of your commentary "a man of Culture" meant what is normally understood. That is: a man who knows and possibly practices arts, humanities or science. Hans Frank or Joseph Goebbels were men of culture in this sense. And your commentary smelt of cultural elitism. This is what I was pointing out. High culture doesn't warrant high morality.

Basically a person without Culture, inner or outer, is a weak and dangerous person — I like sushi

Hans Frank, the Nazi Governor-General of Poland, passionately played Chopin's Polonaises while exterminating Poles, especially Jews. I don't think the "Culture" prevents social dangerousness.

Of you’re really interested in Neitzsche start at the start (The Birth of Tragedy). The problem is you’ll quickly find that you’ll need to learn a good amount about Plato (views on Art and society) and Aristotle — I like sushi

Let's not exaggerate. A discreet knowledge of Greek culture can help to understand The Birth of Tragedy. Especially the things that Nietzsche invented about the Greeks. But it's not essential. You can understand Nietzsche pretty well by himself. His philosophy was very personal.

Isn’t consciousness of the subject as object (consciousness in the second degree) inauthentic because it transforms and distorts consciousness of the subject as subject (consciousness in the first degree) into that which it is not; viz., an ego object? — charles ferraro

Sartre: The subject cannot be conscious of himself as an object, because he is no such thing. The subject is freedom. One is only an object for another. To conceive of oneself as an object is a false consciousness, that is, bad faith.

In addition, the consciousness of the subject (self-consciousness) is always irreflexive and empty.

I say this based on L'Être et le Néant. I read La Transcendence de l'Ego a long time ago and I remember almost nothing about it.

when natural selection creates a pure leader race, have no use for these institutions? — god must be atheist

"Natural selection" is not a Nietzschean concept. The Darwinian concept refers to populations; the Nietzschean concept of instinct refers to individuals. It is more the triumph of the will of power than a biological mechanism.

Superior men do not limit themselves to a particular political activity. Artists, thinkers and other men of action can also be strong.

Nietzsche's position on weak men is ambiguous. He sometimes speaks of their extinction. Other times he refers to a future in which they would only be under strong men. I believe there is an evolution towards an increasingly aggressive and delusional outlook as his personal powerlessness grew. His latest letters are pathetic.

This is a paragraph from chapter V of "Beyond Good and Evil", a text that is essential to understand Nietzsche. Summarizing Nietzsche in one paragraph is not easy. Let's go anyway.

The paragraph you're proposing starts with races. Nietzsche's racism divides humanity into two: races of lords and races of servants. Lords are dominant, individualistic, violent and instinctive. Servants are intellectual, weak, resentful, moralistic and religious. Lords are healthy, servants are ill. Aryans were masters in the past; Jews are a race of servants.

But these races do not exist in a pure state now. History has mixed them up. Therefore, the battle between lordship and servitude occurs in the same man. When the instincts of power dominate, great men appear in all fields: warriors, kings, leaders, artists and only one philosopher: Nietzsche himself - modesty was not a virtue for him. When the hatred of instincts dominates, the herd dominates. Then, even leaders are unable to let their instincts rise and they preach the morality of the flock and hatred against strong spirits.

Nietzsche believed that he was the prophet of a new race - he was not very modest, I insist - in which the instinct of power would definitely triumph. The overmen. This is another story.

NOTE: If you want to get a sharper insight I recommend that you read the entire chapter V. Here, for example: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch05.htm

Metaphorical expressions always present some difficulty via some unavoidable ambiguity. This is what saved the Christian faith and churches. — god must be atheist

This is true. But metaphor is the core of literary expression and Nietzsche was as much a poet as a philosopher. This makes reading him exciting, sometimes with admiration and sometimes with horror. The official history says that Nietzsche fell into madness in 1889. I think that madness was haunting him long before that. But you mustn't disdain crazy people. Sometimes they're the ones who tell the truth that we "sane" people don't want to see.

Leslie Forster Stevenson: Seven Theories of Human Nature, Oxford University Press.
This is my most obvious option. There are many editions. More of a million of copies sold. I haven't read other ulterior sequels: Ten Theories of Human Nature, Twelve Theories of Human Nature, etc.
A very good introduction to philosophy from Plato to Lorenz. Clear and distinct.

The problem is certainly obvious between the macrophysical and microphysical (quantum mechanics) world, but this could simply be ascribed to our ignorance. — Harry Hindu

Ignorance may be due to epistemological limitations or ontological differences. When the ignorance is deep -as in the case of the mind-brain relation- it is not possible to know if the problem is epistemological or ontological. It is the classic problem of determinism and freedom. The only thing we can see is that there is a difference that is expressed in different languages. The future will tell about the rest. Or it won't.

I believe I have a fair idea that he believed all Apollonian moral systems were inherently flawed and needed to be replaced with a Dionysian based one that he felt was more life affirming in a harsh and meaningless world. — Agathob

Nietzsche admired the Greeks for the harmony between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. This is logical because the Dionysian means destruction. It is necessary but by dose.

does this mean that Nietzsche saw everything as bleak, meaningless and harsh? — Agathob

Everything is not bleak and harsh. Life is something bright and exciting. Nietzsche was elitist. He thought only a minority of select spirits were capable of living life to the fullest. The rest of us are sickly resentful people who cling to anti-vital forces.

Would his overman would end up being an iconoclastic narcissistic brute who carves out his own meaning for himself on his own terms? — Agathob

It is difficult to fully understand the theory of the Overman. On this point Nietzsche expressed himself metaphorically. But the Overman is not a brute. He must be understood as a spirit superior in sensitivity and vital power. Narcissistic is not the exact word. Individualistic in the extreme is. Nor does he disdain violence, but he does not exercise it to dominate anyone but to grow. Some historical models that Nietzsche considered superior were the tragic stereotype of "great men": Cesar Borgia, Napoleon and the Aryan warriors (not to be confused with modern Germans). Actually, they were more literary than historical.

The problem of the relationship between body (objective) and mind (subjective) does not authorize a strict dualism. The mind is not independent of the body. There is no evidence of such a thing. In my opinion it is a problem related to emergence. Different levels of matter cannot be explained by the "lower" ones. That pseudo problem exists even between the macrophysical and microphysical (quantum mechanics) world. And no one says that chrysanthemums are independent of atoms.

Mind dependence of body is well attested. There is no need to abandon materialism.

Doesn't the media depend on readership/viewership/listenership for its sustenance? — TheMadFool

Actually, it' depends on the lobbies, the advertisers and the owners. The same goes for politicians. The unique problem of the media is how to sell the dominant ideology and the dominant economic interests to many people.
The media is a form of politics. And politics is economics, as Marx and Clinton said.

It's not a big problem in itself. The level of people's intelligence, culture, independent thinking, courage and moral responsibility is not that high. So the media battle is the rivalry for the sale of the trinket to the natives.

Freedom of the press? The freedom of the people who have millions.

Saying I'm an agnostic is morely to invite discussion, and I'm not always in the mood. Trial and error helped me to find out that I was happier if I generally said that I was an atheist and clarify that I was actually an agnostic when already in conversation on the topic. — Dawnstorm

Let's say you present yourself as an atheist as a tactic to keep the flies off. But you present yourself as an agnostic when you're in the mood to discuss the subject. There are strange flies in your country. In mine they are not so easily frightened off. Declaring yourself an atheist is the easiest way to get bitten by flies.

My daily life experience back when I self-identified as an agnostic was that it was still easier to call myself an atheist, because not everyone the term "agnostic". — Dawnstorm

I don't see why it's any easier. On the contrary. Thomas Huxley invented the term agnostic because he was tired of being mistaken for an atheist. He had to continually clarify that he had no proof that God doesn't exist. So he invented the term agnostic to make it clear that he also had no proof that God exists, so he abstained. I don't understand why it is easier to go back to the confusion that occurs when, being an agnostic in Huxley's sense, one calls oneself an atheist. In fact, the myriad of websites that get tangled up with this term are produced by not distinguishing between what they call an atheist and what others understand.
Where is the easiness?

Im not really sure what you mean by most of that, but it has a dismissive tone to it — DingoJones

I'm not sure what you're not sure of.

If my tone is dismissive, it is not my intention. Maybe my English sounds dry because it's not good. I am sorry, in any case.

If discourse is violence would it not be better to remain silent? — PuerAzaelis

According to Foucault:

Power is strength over someone.
Not all power is violence. We must distinguish power from domination which institutionalizes power and leads it to violence.
Discourse is not the only form of power. Every social structure implies power. Therefore, there is no point in keeping quiet.
Every human relationship implies power. The absence of power is a utopia. What we have to do is oppose counter-power to the power of domination.

Note that for Foucault power is not bad in itself : it can be creative and a form of rebellion against domination.

I doubt that it's a falsifiable theory. After all, it's philosophy.

I was explaining the evolution of the word in philosophical academia, and not positing it as a reason to prefer one over the other — DingoJones

It has been argued that consensus among experts on the meaning of "atheism" is not unanimous . Antony Flew is the only exception of the consensus that I know. I have shown that this is not exact. Other exceptions come from secondary sources or outside the academic world.

Experts criterion on an issue should be respected if you have not any reason to don't do so. No reason has been argued here... or elsewhere, in my opinion.

I don't know what you are referring to with 'it' in the second to last sentence. And I don't think I have said anywhere that your position or you support theism. — Coben

You said the debate on the meaning of "atheism" was not relevant.
I was explaining to you why I'm discussing this issue. That is, because the main reason given for discussing this issue is that the traditional meaning of "atheism" - which I support - favours theism.
And I maintain that "it," that is, this reason, is not true.
It was an explanation of my position on the interest of discussing this issue.

I hope that my answer is now clear.

I would suggest no longer discussing it. No one can force anyone to change. — Coben

Well then, let it not be said that I use the terms in a way that favors theism. That is a provocation to the debate, isn't it? And besides, it's not true. As I just demonstrated above.

and I'm a creature of habit. — Dawnstorm

This is not a reason.

Theist “ah, so you believe no god exists. You are a believer, we’re the same, operating on faith” — DingoJones

This semantic game has nothing to do with the use of "atheist". The word atheist does not appear in the conversation in your own text. It would be the same if you replaced the name "atheist" with "agnostic". It is not a reason to prefer one or the other.

The "atheist" in your example allows for cheating by defining it in terms of belief rather than propositions. If you say, "I neither affirm nor deny that God exists," you disable the trap from the beginning.

In any case, it is a very harmless trap. Your "atheist" ends with it in a single sentence.

In conclusion: I see no reason to change the academic and traditional meanings of atheist and agnostic.

I insist, academic. I would like to know who taught you that "atheist" means "lack of belief". How many relevant experts do you know who do that in the academic world? This is not a trick question. I'm interested to know.

Additional information:

Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

(Draper, Paul, "Atheism and Agnosticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ )

Note how Antony Flew, who is cited as the leading representative of defining atheism in terms of belief, does not use this term in his latest book There is God. Instead he uses "a-theism" as a synonym for "agnostic" (p. 53).

The change in usage in philosophical academia is due to the evolving argumentation in philosophy. The usage changes as new words come into play (like agnosticism) and in response to new arguments being made. In the case of atheism and the distinction of lacking belief rather than believing no god exists etc etc became necessary when Christian apologetics began using semantic games as part of their arguments. (Concerning belief) — DingoJones

Among experts, whether academic or not, the terms atheist and agnostic are still used in their usual meanings: to affirm that God does not exist and to refrain from affirming or denying. It is among non-experts that the change has been popularized - especially on the Internet-, but I don't know why. Certain "linguistic games" of theists are mentioned, but it never is explained what they are. What "semantic games" do you mean? Can you explain this point?

I'm a little rusty with the term used like this, — Dawnstorm

"Rusty"? Why?

Agnostic and atheist are not the same thing, the former is a position in relation to belief in god and the latter is a position about knowledge of god. — DingoJones

Agnostic and atheist are not things. They're words.

Atheist is a word with a long journey behind and some different meanings. In modern times, when Voltaire, d'Holbach and others were opposed to religion it was understood as the denial of the existence of God. Anyone who claimed that "God does not exist" was an atheist. And this is the dominant sense among experts today.
Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley as an alternative to theism and atheism (in the traditional sense). He said that neither theism nor atheism have conclusive evidence, therefore the rational position is abstention. He defined his position as a form of skepticism.
As you can see, the use of these words was not based on belief or knowledge, but on the main proposition of both ideologies: Yes, no, abstention.

To designate someone who does not believe in gods, always existed the words unbeliever or non-believer. To designate one who denies that God exists because he has any reason to do so, there is no special word because it is understood that the vast majority of atheists (in the academic sense of the word) think they have reason to be so. An atheist irrationalist is almost nonexistent.

Then there is a question that I always asked and no one has answered until today:
The words atheist and agnostic have always been used traditionally and in the academic world. They have precise meanings. Here is my question:

Why do we need to change them?

I am waiting for your answer.

TY!