I am actually pretty familiar with Being and Nothingness and agree with Sartre’s criticisms of Freudian psychoanalysis. However, I still have difficulty grasping exactly how one would define bad faith if not as an individual lying to himself. Would it be something along the lines of where he says “Consciousness (of) being conscious of the drive to be repressed, but precisely in order not to be conscious of it.”
Is Sartre’s belief that certain concepts can’t be mediated (i.e. transcendence and facticity) the impetus for his conclusion that being-for-itself is what it is not and is not what it is?
1. "A man does not like about what he is ignorant of." -Is not always true, some lie about knowing things for the sake of not appearing ignorant. 2. "The liar is possession of the truth in which he is hiding."I find this quote interesting, because it is so truthful yet obvious.
I like how Sartre kind of breaks down the psychology of a form of inauthenticity in this and distinguishes lying in general from lying to oneself. I think Sartre is saying that one who acts inauthentically as someone they're not must know the truth about themselves in order to know what exactly to hide, and they project this false personality to better conform.
I am a little unclear of how Sartre's example of the woman on the date relates to bad faith; is she acting in bad faith because she doesn't immediately decide to be open to flirtation or deny it?
I'm struggling to understand the difference between bad faith and inauthenticity. Is bad faith the psychological justification of inauthenticity?
I find the concept of bad faith to be a little troubling in relation to myself. I find the most convincing lies I have ever told are to myself. I reflect on how many opportunities I may of overlooked or even accepted mistakenly because I was bending my own systems of belief and acting in bad faith.
I liked Startes example of the women on the date to explain bad faith. It gives a clear view into how one can blatently lie to themselves. On the date she ignores the sexual implications of her dates compliments. Instead making them to be romantic, then she seperates herself from her hand when he puts it on him, acting if her mind and body are two seperate things.
I like how Starte uses bad faith to show inauthenticity. It gives a broder definition to a pretty ambiguous statement.
Sartre’s idea of Bad Faith is almost identical to how I conceive one of the most pernicious forms of inauthenticity. In my own life I always equated inauthenticity with a lack of intellectual honesty. So to have authenticity, to me, is to pursue truth by not allowing oneself to be deceived, even by themselves. It seems like this intuition is almost built to guard against bad faith. In fact, reading more about bad faith has made me consider how much more inauthenticity can cover. I think Sartre would argue that Bad Faith has no good place in man. I get the idea that unlike inauthenticity, of which some people claim there is an innocuous variety, bad faith is so damaging to one’s own philosophical well-being that it cannot be excused and it is exclusively a harmful kind of inauthenticity. I wonder though if someone not educated in philosophy at all, would suffer in the wake of bad faith as much – if at all – as the intellectual.
i found Stare's idea that people unintentionally lie to them themselves to be very interesting. When he first started off talking about how people lie to themselves i thought he was talking about people knowingly lying to themselves to make themselves fell better. But when i figured out he was talking about people unconsciously lying to themselves I found it interesting because I had never thought of it that way.
A ponit he made that I agree with is the point about the power of the word no. Satre mentioned that the ability to say no is what distinguishes master and slave. This is a true point that I had never thought about.
Is Sartre invoking the language of metaphysical freedom or that of a materialist behavioral kind? If he is invoking some sort of dualist or idealist notion of freedom the argument can not stand under the weight of the claim. The kind of freedom invoked is that of the materialist behavioral kind, seems to work better with Sartre's original argument. If Sartre is really invoking a material understanding of the idea of freedom he is absolutely right, since inaction is an action we are most assuredly condemned to freedom.
I am actually pretty familiar with Being and Nothingness and agree with Sartre’s criticisms of Freudian psychoanalysis. However, I still have difficulty grasping exactly how one would define bad faith if not as an individual lying to himself. Would it be something along the lines of where he says “Consciousness (of) being conscious of the drive to be repressed, but precisely in order not to be conscious of it.”
ReplyDeleteIs Sartre’s belief that certain concepts can’t be mediated (i.e. transcendence and facticity) the impetus for his conclusion that being-for-itself is what it is not and is not what it is?
1. "A man does not like about what he is ignorant of." -Is not always true, some lie about knowing things for the sake of not appearing ignorant.
ReplyDelete2. "The liar is possession of the truth in which he is hiding."I find this quote interesting, because it is so truthful yet obvious.
I like how Sartre kind of breaks down the psychology of a form of inauthenticity in this and distinguishes lying in general from lying to oneself. I think Sartre is saying that one who acts inauthentically as someone they're not must know the truth about themselves in order to know what exactly to hide, and they project this false personality to better conform.
ReplyDeleteI am a little unclear of how Sartre's example of the woman on the date relates to bad faith; is she acting in bad faith because she doesn't immediately decide to be open to flirtation or deny it?
I'm struggling to understand the difference between bad faith and inauthenticity. Is bad faith the psychological justification of inauthenticity?
ReplyDeleteI find the concept of bad faith to be a little troubling in relation to myself. I find the most convincing lies I have ever told are to myself. I reflect on how many opportunities I may of overlooked or even accepted mistakenly because I was bending my own systems of belief and acting in bad faith.
I liked Startes example of the women on the date to explain bad faith. It gives a clear view into how one can blatently lie to themselves. On the date she ignores the sexual implications of her dates compliments. Instead making them to be romantic, then she seperates herself from her hand when he puts it on him, acting if her mind and body are two seperate things.
ReplyDeleteI like how Starte uses bad faith to show inauthenticity. It gives a broder definition to a pretty ambiguous statement.
Sartre’s idea of Bad Faith is almost identical to how I conceive one of the most pernicious forms of inauthenticity. In my own life I always equated inauthenticity with a lack of intellectual honesty. So to have authenticity, to me, is to pursue truth by not allowing oneself to be deceived, even by themselves. It seems like this intuition is almost built to guard against bad faith. In fact, reading more about bad faith has made me consider how much more inauthenticity can cover.
ReplyDeleteI think Sartre would argue that Bad Faith has no good place in man. I get the idea that unlike inauthenticity, of which some people claim there is an innocuous variety, bad faith is so damaging to one’s own philosophical well-being that it cannot be excused and it is exclusively a harmful kind of inauthenticity. I wonder though if someone not educated in philosophy at all, would suffer in the wake of bad faith as much – if at all – as the intellectual.
i found Stare's idea that people unintentionally lie to them themselves to be very interesting. When he first started off talking about how people lie to themselves i thought he was talking about people knowingly lying to themselves to make themselves fell better. But when i figured out he was talking about people unconsciously lying to themselves I found it interesting because I had never thought of it that way.
ReplyDeleteA ponit he made that I agree with is the point about the power of the word no. Satre mentioned that the ability to say no is what distinguishes master and slave. This is a true point that I had never thought about.
Is Sartre invoking the language of metaphysical freedom or that of a materialist behavioral kind? If he is invoking some sort of dualist or idealist notion of freedom the argument can not stand under the weight of the claim. The kind of freedom invoked is that of the materialist behavioral kind, seems to work better with Sartre's original argument.
ReplyDeleteIf Sartre is really invoking a material understanding of the idea of freedom he is absolutely right, since inaction is an action we are most assuredly condemned to freedom.