I find Sartre’s assertion of the being-for-others most convincing from his discussion on shame, especially when he explains how shame is not a reflective phenomenon; that it necessarily involves another being. I think this is best summed up in his statement that, “the Other is the indispensable mediator between myself and me.”
If had difficulty understanding how Sartre deals with the possibility of solipsism. It sounds as if he thinks that even though one cannot prove there are other minds he is still going to behave as if there are. However, I have the feeling his argument is more nuanced than this.
I notice that there is something Hegelian about Sartre’s modality of object-ness, especially in how he describes it as a relation between the self and the other. Hegel asserts that the self and the other negate each other and then validate each other, and Sartre seems to agree that (in experiencing the other) something that is experience is confirmed in the other. I wonder if Sartre confirms his own existence through his experience. It seems likely that this is the case since his experience of radical freedom seems as immediate to him as pain is to most of us. I think Sartre’s idea of shame before the other and pride is fascinating (pg. 385-386). He seems to be making a similar move to the one he makes in the selections on bad faith, where to be shameful is like the gay man denying his facticity in the past and to prideful is a form of bad faith similar to the woman on the date when she denies her facticity in the present.
From what I understood I think it's intresting that Sarte compares our gaze to others saying that we only see from our viewpoint but we are being seen by everyone else with differnt view points. I think thats intresting because who we are seems to be determined by the individuals looking at us, and what they see depends on their own view point. I was a little confused while doing this reading also.
There's a quote from a stand up comedian which has always resonated with me, "I wanted to write a show about performing and was worried that nobody would get it. Then I realised, everyone is performing, all the time". Sartre's proposition of how being for others massively influences our development of a true self makes me consider how many times I may of acted in bad faith to perform within basic interactions.
I'm currently looking at directing a segment of "No Exit" for a theatre class, Throughout this whole reading I was reminded of the quote "Hell is other people". My assumption is, is we were unaware of the need to perform to society's standards and the expectations of others, we would find it much easier to act according to our own personal desires and thus become authentic.
Sartre makes a distinction that shame is more than a feeling one has about themselves. Shame seems to be a reflection of oneself in terms of the Other. That is, you feel shame when you're ashamed of how you appear to other people. This makes me wonder if shame requires an empathetic sense of what other people perceive.
Sartre also reveals a revelatory attribute of shame. "Shame reveals to me that I am this being." Shame signals who you are at this moment in time.
These readings remind one how influential Hegelian thought is within the context of European philosophy. However one thing that I remained puzzled on is that in dialectics all components are retained within the whole, and are not entirely separate. There is something I find unspeakably beautiful about the core of German idealism. However I still cant help but think of consciousnesses itself as a kind of mathematical object, since irreducibly itself is quantifiable.
I find Sartre’s assertion of the being-for-others most convincing from his discussion on shame, especially when he explains how shame is not a reflective phenomenon; that it necessarily involves another being. I think this is best summed up in his statement that, “the Other is the indispensable mediator between myself and me.”
ReplyDeleteIf had difficulty understanding how Sartre deals with the possibility of solipsism. It sounds as if he thinks that even though one cannot prove there are other minds he is still going to behave as if there are. However, I have the feeling his argument is more nuanced than this.
I think Sartre the part in text where Sartre talks about the men and farmhouse can be used to strength Ponty theory of our perception
ReplyDeleteI am slightly confused about Sartre's concept of the drain-hole at the center of the Earth.
ReplyDeleteIs Sartre saying that we are only aware of ourselves when we are being observed by another? Because if so, then I would disagree.
1. This whole work is confusing to me, honestly.
ReplyDeleteI notice that there is something Hegelian about Sartre’s modality of object-ness, especially in how he describes it as a relation between the self and the other. Hegel asserts that the self and the other negate each other and then validate each other, and Sartre seems to agree that (in experiencing the other) something that is experience is confirmed in the other. I wonder if Sartre confirms his own existence through his experience. It seems likely that this is the case since his experience of radical freedom seems as immediate to him as pain is to most of us.
ReplyDeleteI think Sartre’s idea of shame before the other and pride is fascinating (pg. 385-386). He seems to be making a similar move to the one he makes in the selections on bad faith, where to be shameful is like the gay man denying his facticity in the past and to prideful is a form of bad faith similar to the woman on the date when she denies her facticity in the present.
<3
DeleteFrom what I understood I think it's intresting that Sarte compares our gaze to others saying that we only see from our viewpoint but we are being seen by everyone else with differnt view points. I think thats intresting because who we are seems to be determined by the individuals looking at us, and what they see depends on their own view point. I was a little confused while doing this reading also.
ReplyDeleteThere's a quote from a stand up comedian which has always resonated with me, "I wanted to write a show about performing and was worried that nobody would get it. Then I realised, everyone is performing, all the time". Sartre's proposition of how being for others massively influences our development of a true self makes me consider how many times I may of acted in bad faith to perform within basic interactions.
ReplyDeleteI'm currently looking at directing a segment of "No Exit" for a theatre class, Throughout this whole reading I was reminded of the quote "Hell is other people". My assumption is, is we were unaware of the need to perform to society's standards and the expectations of others, we would find it much easier to act according to our own personal desires and thus become authentic.
Sartre makes a distinction that shame is more than a feeling one has about themselves. Shame seems to be a reflection of oneself in terms of the Other. That is, you feel shame when you're ashamed of how you appear to other people. This makes me wonder if shame requires an empathetic sense of what other people perceive.
ReplyDeleteSartre also reveals a revelatory attribute of shame. "Shame
reveals to me that I am this being." Shame signals who you are at this moment in time.
These readings remind one how influential Hegelian thought is within the context of European philosophy. However one thing that I remained puzzled on is that in dialectics all components are retained within the whole, and are not entirely separate. There is something I find unspeakably beautiful about the core of German idealism.
ReplyDeleteHowever I still cant help but think of consciousnesses itself as a kind of mathematical object, since irreducibly itself is quantifiable.