Sartre's Contradiction

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part philosophy is for people who are not smart enough to tackle tough questions that have indisputable answers. But unlike artists, linguists, etc they want to pretend otherwise. (Exceptions: Descarte, Leibniz, Russell.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this...

Do you mean to say the following two things:

1. For the most part, philosophers aren't smart enough to solve tough mathematical and/or scientific questions that can be 'proven'?

2. *And* instead, they spend time investigating answers to tough questions that cannot be 'proven' but think that they *are* proving the answers?

If so, I don't think this is the case at all.

Aside comment: a unique aspect of philosophy is that it fundamentally encompasses any other academic discipline or way of thinking....with the right background in philosophy and/or tools resulting from analytical thought in it, one will likely be even better prepared to tackle tough questions that either have or don't have 'provable' answers.

Yugoslav

[NotReady]

Thanks for the post. I've read other Christian assessments of Sartre and existentialism and this author says much the same thing.


[ QUOTE ]

This leads Sartre to distinguish between being-in-itself, which lacks freedom and cannot choose what it will be, and being-for-itself, which is continuously determining itself and hence has no fixed essence of its own.


[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like I'm going to have to go to the horse's mouth. I don't see how being-for-itself can describe God so if this is accurate Sartre set up a false dilemma. He found a logical contradiction by basically saying A is non-A - but the Bible says God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're probably sort of kidding saying this...but if you really don't want to read it, then your question really isn't important.


[/ QUOTE ]



That's not entirely true. I think what Nietszche says is important but I literally can't read him because I can't stand his style.

It's really more a time issue (translate lazy) and was hoping for a shortcut.

Interesting you mention Kierkegaard - I've been considering wading through some of his stuff - he's one of the few name philosophers I've never read at all though I've never read any of them thoroughly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many philsophers are tough to read due to translation issues as well as the fact that their writings are basically 'academic work' and difficult to digest without a deep knowledge base in the specific subject.

Anyway...one reason I mention Kierkegaard is that there is less 'wading' and a bit more 'enjoying' the work in-and-of-itself ( ). I think Either/Or is a must read but he much shorter pieces which perhaps would be 'easier' to start with. I wouldn't choose The Sickness Unto Death to be the first one to read though, despite the seductive title.

Most other Continental philosophers use extremely dense writing and also have little to no interest in brevity or in being concise, [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

Try some Kafka and/or Dostoevsky along with Kierkegaard if you're having a hard time digesting Nieszche/Hegel/Kant/Heidegger/etc.

Yugoslav

[NotReady]

My problem with Nietzsche isn't the difficulty it's his arrogant, supercilious attitude. It just rubs me the wrong way. I've read some of Kafka and Dostoevsky, a little Hegel and a fair amount of Kant - now there's a tough read, mostly because he wasn't always sure what he was trying to say so the language becomes ambiguous.

I'm saving Heidegger and Wittgenstein till after I read Sartre, which hopefully will be never.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

For the most part philosophy is for people who are not smart enough to tackle tough questions that have indisputable answers.


[/ QUOTE ]

What questions are you talking about? Which ones have you tackled? Of those, which ones have you solved?

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with Nietzsche isn't the difficulty it's his arrogant, supercilious attitude. It just rubs me the wrong way. I've read some of Kafka and Dostoevsky, a little Hegel and a fair amount of Kant - now there's a tough read, mostly because he wasn't always sure what he was trying to say so the language becomes ambiguous.

I'm saving Heidegger and Wittgenstein till after I read Sartre, which hopefully will be never.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh! If that's your problem with Niezsche then Sartre should be fine from what I've read/understand.

If you're really just interested in how God/religion is dealt with in existential philosophy I'd go with Kierkegaard.....if you notice a theme it's b/c I've enjoyed reading/gotten the most out of his work than almost any other philosopher I've read.

Yugoslav

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part philosophy is for people who are not smart enough to tackle tough questions that have indisputable answers. But unlike artists, linguists, etc they want to pretend otherwise. (Exceptions: Descarte, Leibniz, Russell.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I never thought I'd say this about one your posts, but...

POTD. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Zeno]

Strange that I had this marked from my reading to post on this forum. It is perhaps appropriate for this thread.

"Metaphysics is a refuge for men who have a strong desire to appear learned and profound but have nothing worth hearing to say. Their speculations have helped mankind hardly more than those of the astrologers. What we regard as good in metaphysics is really psychology: the rest is blah. Ordinarily, it does not even produce good phrases, but is dull and witless. The accumulated body of philosophical speculation is hopelessly self-contradictory. It is not a system at all, but simply a quarreling congeries of systems. The thing that makes philosophers respected is not actually their profundity, but simply their obscurity. They translate vague and dubious ideas into high-sounding words, and their dupes assume, as they assume themselves, that the resulting obfuscation is a contribution to knowledge."

–H.L. Mencken, from Minority Report

.

[pc in NM]

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part philosophy is for people who are not smart enough to tackle tough questions that have indisputable answers. But unlike artists, linguists, etc they want to pretend otherwise. (Exceptions: Descarte, Leibniz, Russell.)

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

Careful, though, you're bordering on self-parody here....

[NotReady]

I'm happy yet shocked to find Mencken agrees with God on something:

18For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written,
"I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.


8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.


1And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
2For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
4and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
5so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

20O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--
21which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith