Sartre's Contradiction

NotReady · #1 07-20-2005, 02:11 PM

I haven't read a lot of philosophy though I have read a lot of reviews of various philosophers. I was browsing through some stuff on Sartre and one critic said that Sartre thought that God is logically impossible because of the following:

God has to be a being-in-itself-for-itself.

I don't see the logical contradiction and though several reviewers repeated the conclusion, they didn't say why.

I break it down like this:

Being-in-itself: The aseity of God, autonomy,self-contained,independent.

Being-for-itself: This is what I'm not sure about. Whatever this means Sartre must have thought it contradicted the other statement.

One interesting thing I found is that Sartre seemed to think man's purpose is to BECOME a being-in-itself-for-itself, i.e., man's desire to be God. That doesn't surprise me. I believe Sartre thought it was impossible but was still the goal we should strive to obtain. What a burden atheists place on themselves.

PairTheBoard · #2 07-20-2005, 02:21 PM

The Muskateers believed in "All or one and one for All". I wonder if Sartre might have just been full of BS.

PairTheBoard

NotReady · #3 07-20-2005, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if Sartre might have just been full of BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt he was. I just wanted to understand the content of this particular BS.

But to be fair he was also very insightful about human nature. I think his line "Hell is other people" is one of the best literary descriptions of fallen mankind ever. Pure brilliance.

Cyrus · #4 07-24-2005, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if Sartre might have just been full of BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, guys, it's threads such as this that props me up after a bad beat.

I mean, I realize it's not for lack of fishes that I seem to come back empty handed from my fishing sometimes.

...Nothing personal.

NotReady · #5 07-24-2005, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You know, guys, it's threads such as this that props me up after a bad beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything to help a poker bro.

maurile · #6 07-20-2005, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if Sartre might have just been full of BS.

[/ QUOTE ]
He was a philosopher, wasn't he?

The Yugoslavian · #7 07-20-2005, 02:42 PM

You really ought to read Being and Nothingness by Sartre if you're interested in understanding his phenomenology.

Anyway, simply put:

A being in itself doesn't have consciousness.

A being for itself does have consciousness.

All sort of problems arise when something has consciousness which doesn't allow it to be in itself...(this something always remains outside of itself due to the way perception works). It is this whole investigation that is actually the cool part of Sartre. The 'nothingness' part of it all is very key and the treatment is also unique from what I understand.

I butchered the whole thing I'm sure but I actually haven't read Sartre, just Maurice Merleau Ponty...and probably need a primer on the whole school of thought before I actually start making a ton of sense.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Yugoslav

NotReady · #8 07-20-2005, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You really ought to read Being and Nothingness

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm trying to avoid. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] May have to bite the bullet someday.

[ QUOTE ]

A being in itself doesn't have consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true I haven't understood what he means. Wouldn't this apply to an inanimate object?

The Yugoslavian · #9 07-20-2005, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You really ought to read Being and Nothingness

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I'm trying to avoid. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] May have to bite the bullet someday.

[/ 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. Because, if it were important, you'd certainly want to read the book and come to a fuller understanding from the *source* of your question.

Or, you can hope someone with a fairly rich understanding of Sartre happens by this thread. Of course, it will be tough to be sure if this individual even knows Sartre thoroughly...b/c...well, you know so little, [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

I am just getting back into 'heavy' reading since I graduated from college...but Sartre could magically appear on my list as I haven't read anything more than excerpts from him. I think my problem was I read several hundred pages of Maurice Merleau Ponty and it really killed all motivation I had to continue in that vein of Philosophy.

Or just read Kierkegaard....you most likely will enjoy it more and may very well get more out of it.

Yugoslav

NotReady · #10 07-20-2005, 05:41 PM

[ 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.