Being and Nothingness

[Itsonlytrung]

It is littered all around here something about Sartre on being and nothingness. Can some one explain this? I though that this is Hegel's dialectic approach.

[Dinkleberry2010]

xxxxxx

[Itsonlytrung]

I understand now. Sorry for that post, i was in a rush for work and had to post something about Sartre and Hegel--i went to work to find myself not scheduled. I read the Sparknotes on Nothing and Beingness to get a quick understanding on it, but i need some validation of what i think i understand by you guys.

We exist as being-for-itself while material objects like a book exist as being-in-itself. Being-for-itself takes the form of consciousness, searching for what it is, whereas, being-in-itself exist as something that is determined and concrete--Being-in-itself knows what it is.

From now on being-for-itself= pronouns & Being-in-itself= nouns

It is this duality that we draw our reality from. We can never know what we are because consciousness can only exist as someone searching for itself, and, in contrast, a book has a definite definition of itself and what it is not--a book is therefore complete, and the incompleteness of consciousness make us come up with assertions such as "I think, therefore I am."

Does this sound right to you guys?:blush:

[blazeofglory]

I am always caught up in confusions when I read Sartre' s existential theories. Maybe I am not matured enough to comprehend such great philosophies. Existentialism and deconstruction are some of the philosophical or literary ideas that always confuse me. I have read enough of them yet I never could arrive at clarity of them. And I ignore them.

[aquarium444]

I looked at a few pages of the document just now, but I did not read all of it. It sounds to me that he is suggesting that there is an ongoing process of questioning and reasoning (conscience) described in terms of the position in which humans are able to take against themselves in order to transcend toward achieving some desired outcome.

[blazeofglory]

I have yet to understand the central idea of existentialism, albeit I have read a few stories by Sartre, Dostoevsky, Kafka I could not arrive at the idea in which the notion of existentialism is ingrained.

[JonathanLockely]

It is this duality that we draw our reality from. We can never know what we are because consciousness can only exist as someone searching for itself, and, in contrast, a book has a definite definition of itself and what it is not--a book is therefore complete, and the incompleteness of consciousness make us come up with assertions such as "I think, therefore I am."


Judging from what he wrote I believe a better way to put it would be, Consciousness exists as us trying to constantly self identify with the beings-in-themselves that are around us.

Looking on your point there isn't that much of a difference but a minor point none the less. I suppose the difference would be you say we are searching for OURSELVES, but there is no us. We are made from nothing and the book is made from something. we want to be like the book but in our own way. we seek our place in the world but only through the prism that everything else in the world casts.

[aquarium444]

Conscienceness is the motor, and duality is the test of faith, but actually all of this talk is rubbish!

If there is no high level view describing the meaning of the philosophical writing than nothing has been proven. It is than a work of the devil, a confusion spell.

[Itsonlytrung]

Judging from what he wrote I believe a better way to put it would be, Consciousness exists as us trying to constantly self identify with the beings-in-themselves that are around us.

Looking on your point there isn't that much of a difference but a minor point none the less. I suppose the difference would be you say we are searching for OURSELVES, but there is no us. We are made from nothing and the book is made from something. we want to be like the book but in our own way. we seek our place in the world but only through the prism that everything else in the world casts.

Yes, exactly! except for the "we are made from nothing and the book is made from something," part.

[JonathanLockely]

Yes, exactly! except for the "we are made from nothing and the book is made from something," part.

Yes that was badly written. I believe there were two concepts I was trying to put in here.

The first is that we lack something the book has, namely a pre-determined existence. The book has a purpose -that is to be a book.

A human does not have that same purpose. Because we are self aware, Humans cannot exist just to be humans, and yet we are constantly striving for a meaning to existence.

af for the use of nothing and something I can only say that I was caught up in the use of his imagery. something I used to noticeably less effect.

Please tell me what you think of this addendum to my earlier statement. do you think it resonates as well?


I looked at a few pages of the document just now, but I did not read all of it. It sounds to me that he is suggesting that there is an ongoing process of questioning and reasoning (conscience) described in terms of the position in which humans are able to take against themselves in order to transcend toward achieving some desired outcome.

Conscienceness is the motor, and duality is the test of faith, but actually all of this talk is rubbish!

If there is no high level view describing the meaning of the philosophical writing than nothing has been proven. It is than a work of the devil, a confusion spell.

I interpreted this rather differently. He took an idea, That humans control their own existence, and created a philosophy to explain it. You speak that there is no high level view, but the one I found is that we have free will and control our own existence.

[aquarium444]

That is better. You said that he is saying that "we have free will and control our own existence."

Now if that is the high level view, what is the view one increment lower? and two increments lower, etc.

[Paris]

Judging from what he wrote I believe a better way to put it would be, Consciousness exists as us trying to constantly self identify with the beings-in-themselves that are around us.

Looking on your point there isn't that much of a difference but a minor point none the less. I suppose the difference would be you say we are searching for OURSELVES, but there is no us. We are made from nothing and the book is made from something. we want to be like the book but in our own way. we seek our place in the world but only through the prism that everything else in the world casts.

For me...this defines it in a nutshell..a fairly transparent nutshell at that..Sartre is certainly not one of the easier philosophers to comprehend..