sartre used to say that a man is what he does......his true self is dictated by his actions...and not only his but by acting for himself he acts for the whole of humanity....
is a man defined by his actions? i think not....you?
Printable View
sartre used to say that a man is what he does......his true self is dictated by his actions...and not only his but by acting for himself he acts for the whole of humanity....
is a man defined by his actions? i think not....you?
Why, I think so... By what other measure can we define him?
What luck! I see that you are currently online... I shall go to the kitchen and fix myself a drink, and when I reture, perhaps I will find here your answer. I do look forward to turning this one on all sides. Very interesting topic, and I couldn't be more thrilled since you take the stance opposite mine, (and M. Sartre's)
there is so much more......behind an action there are circumstances, thought, culture......so much more happens in ones mind before actions.....and mostly thought and action don't combine........so complicated to explain myself...is it making sense to u?
so is man undefinable? My question for you remains, if we can not look to a man's actions to define him, how do we do so? Must we not?
After consideration of this, next consider the question of freedom, as I can see that that is going to be quite relevant to our discourse. Is man free? If so, how free is he? If not, by what is he restricted?
ahhh....must also add this.. You say that thoughts and actions don't combine. By combine, I wonder, do you mean agree ? Do you mean to say that man is self-contradictory, or...? I think I understand what you mean, but I could be entirely mistaken.
i'm extreme......i believe that man musn't define and can't be defined.....there is just too much....i give no solution
as to the very light question (remind u its 11 .35 in themorning here) on freedom....well...my romantic side tells me that nietzsche went mad because he found freedom by completely unmasking himself....long process most probably since he used to say that a person has more layers and masks that he himself could ever imagine......
freedom always concerns the complete aknowledgement of something......like man has no purpose...ha! clichee.....is freedom possible and how? still not able to answer......... if only i was religious...could be early hegel , kierkegaard.....what would u say?
of course man is self-contradictory...thats what makes us so interesting...
Your discourse intersts me immensely. You cite all of the philosophers that I love the most. I am totally in agreement that man is undefinable. That's true. However, I believe still, that man defines himself. Not through words though. And we could not relay, one to another, what the definition of any certain man would be. His definition (for lack of a better term) comes about only through his actions, through the choices he makes. So I side with you, and it seems, I side with Sartre. (I suppose what that means is, in true existentialist fashion, I side only with myself. :D )
So therefore, no solution is the only solution. Absurd! Yes, I know. I believe the appropriate face, as chosen from the immediate right on my screen, is thus: :lol: :lol: :lol: The absurd, existential laughter. God bless Soren Kierkegaard.
As far as freedom is concerned, while we're being honest, I suppose I don't know either. I'm not accustomed to honest philosophical debate. Usually, one person states, quite adamantly too, their stance on the given matter. They argue until they're blue in the face. Indeed, they know. They are right. Naturally, I choose my favorite stance and argue for the sake of, well, arguing. But to be perfectly honest, since that's the mood that you have set in our debate, I don't know either. No one knows, I guess...
However, I'm rarely ever in agreement with Sartre on his quite extreme view of absolute human freedom. Hardly ever. Just as rarely though, do I agree with the hard determinist who wishes to explain away metaphysical freedom all together. Hardly ever. So what is my usual stance on the matter? I don't know. I suppose I try not to define (define, there's that word again!) my view with too much rigidity. As soon as I do so, everything that constitutes its being escapes and I'm left with... well...
nothing.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Martha Q, Madame, your presence is very much welcomed here in our philosophical literature thread, at least by yours truly.
define ourselves?what a burden.....ha!
remember hegel...what we think of ourselves never combines with what other peolple think let alone what really is.....obviously we are discussing if what really is truly exists....but thinking about it....the only type of definition we have of ourselves is given to us by others ....... our existence depends o n the existence of others...no conclusions i'm just thinking "out loud"....
merci beaucoup.....appreciation much appreciated.....and corresponded...
But can one really have a definition of oneself? Is the definition itself a foreign object to oneself, or is the definition itself, quite simple, what the self is . Aren't you the only real and accurate definition of what you are, just as I must be the only definition of me? Seems like any definition that others may offer could only be offered in words, and we both know what that leaves us with... words. words words words. Words aren't you or me, they're just words. what do you think?
I fear that I must go ahead and retire for the evening if I desire to be fresh tomorrow. It is nearing midnight in my section of the globe. I shall be very eager to read your response on the morrow, and I do hope you have a lovely afternoon.
Most respectfully, I bid you,
Adieu.
wow, i love just discussing..even thinking out loud with someone else without having to weigh words so delicately.......have to think about it.....cup of tea and notepad this afternoon then i'll give u my answer.................for now it has been a pleasure......
a prestissimo
I have enjoyed this thread immensely. I have wanted to join in, but I feel I am too old. Back in college I loved debates/discussions like this. We could go on for hours about topics that really have no definitive answers. Topics like the true nature of good and evil, and if man could ever truly be either. We discussed freewill until I was sick.
As I have aged, I am more at ease with the fact that we can never know some things for certain, and it seems my patience with such unanswerable questions has thinned out.
I think one of the beautiful things about philosophy is that you never have to come to a conclusion; it is the search that matters.
well said.........i guess philosophy is more about the questions than the answers...
Indeed, I agree with the both of you. Furthermore, (and this is what is so humerous about the entire thing) I suspect that if I ever were to come up with a definitive "answer" to one of these questions, I would be horrified by the boredom that would most surely ensue. The search is all that is, and for that I am truly thankful.
By the way, Psyche, please do join in if you feel so inclined. I, for one, welcome, and would even thank you for, any input.
With age I have grown mundane. How to make the diaper hamper less stinky is the most pressing life question I most often face. :)
And besides that, I have forgotten so much of what I learned in philosophy classes... but I will probably join in from time to time.
I do not mean to sound like such as old grouch, it is actually very important to me that I never stop learning and never stop questioning, and that would be my advice to anyone.
I think so because a man's actions are the result of the choices he makes. And character is fate since choice is a matter of character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Q
I must disagree. A man's actions are the result of the society and circumstances which he is a part of, not his choices. A homeless person's primary action is not to pursue morality, but to persue the next meal or dollar on the ground. If it means stealing, that may not be his character or his choice, but it is his actions.
Indeed, that's the truth. We're influenced more than we realized. Perhaps even compelled. But are we not then defined by those actions? (I don't mean defined by others.... I don't mean defined by words... I mean, don't our actions make us what we are?)
Our faults are not in our circumstances, but in us.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXdarkclarityXX
--Willie Shakespeare
I don’t think it makes any difference weather or not a man’s actions are influenced by his environment. His actions define him. His environment influences the man himself. His environment has an effect on his development and what he becomes. Therefore, if he commits an action as a result of his environment, his environment has effected the definition of the man in a way that caused the man’s action. To use darkclarity’s example of a homeless man, a homeless man who does not believe theft is right and commits theft to feed him or his family is still a thief. Regardless of his environment, his actions still define him.
but man is so much more.....we limit him in so many ways by saying that he is his actions.....maybe we simply cannot define man....most actions are just a superficial manifestation of ones own existence......but existing is more than "acting", its whys and hows......there has to be more in the pre than in the action itself....
The thread brings me back the memories of attending the Sociology Theory class which was held every Friday morning, from 8 to 10 am, and I was not even a Sociology student.
The question u asked was an intriguing one...but what u later replied to ThatIndividual...which is quoted here...is exactly where i find an answer...u see Man has lot of limitations while dciding to act in a particular way...but these limitations only lessen the number of choices he has...they don't finish the choices altogether...u can always chose to do something..Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Q
right or wrong
sane or insane
sensible or insensible
required or unrequired
and if yet you think that before doing a thing you don't have a choice...think again...u can always chose to do a thing or not do it...
what actually defines a person is the way he "choses" to act.
I think a man is what he says, does & is.
Look at his way of life. Look at what he talks about. His word should be his bond...
I think a man is defined only by his actions. After all, it's the only thing we can actually see. His thoughts are his own, so we can do nothing about them.
Circumstance don't define men. One man who grows up in a slum may become a murderer and another a police man, for example. It's always up to that particular man what he makes of himself.
so themis you are saying that a man is defined by the people that surround him based on what they see?
To ask by what a man is defined, one must first clarify who is doing the defining...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Q
Eventually, yes.
@Union Jack: The legal system probably.
Floating around are bits and pieces of exchanged thoughts staying primarily in the realm of outside influences - what about interior?
Not so.Quote:
Originally posted by: Themis
One man who grows up in a slum may become a murderer and another a police man, for example. It's always up to that particular man what he makes of himself.
I speak to you as one of the Intelluctually chalanged :p
Not everyone is born with the ability to learn and retain at the same level.
When you look at the Murder / Policeman Example. I see problems with that.
The murderer may have struggled with school, friends, acceptance
- not only creating but also perpetuating low self esteem.
A personality formed at such a young age is almost impossible to alter.
(drugs - from doctors and dealers, are bound to happen)
The Policeman- Thats a job that takes confidence. Most likely, one who is a policeman was popular in school, had good grades and developed a more positive outlook towards life.
I'm not saying all with less cooperative synapses are going to turn into murders. It just makes it a bit more likely - Lesser brain function created an unhappy individual, so he strikes out at humanity.
Also I'm not saying that all with higher functioning brains will go onto higher education and live wealthy and fulfilling lives.
I know of a woman with a frightningly quick mind, who has worked the cashregister at the salvation army for over ten years now.
(she has an unusal look about her, never made friends as a child, never developed confidence, so also never developed ambition)
* so it seem Physical apperance also plays into what would drive a person to do something with life.
So saying:
It's always up to that particular man what he makes of himself
Is a very narrow minded view of what compels a persons actions.
We were not all delt the same hand.
We were not all born into neuturing familys
We were not all born into wealthy familys
We were not all born with minds capable of obtaining Scholarships
We were not all born with equal physical beauty (makes a difference)
We were not all born with the same options before us.
Look to the past to understand the actions of today.
Why thank you! I never thought of myself as "narrow minded".Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlander
Please do not personalise your comments; it is the ideas that we discuss, not the people.
oh - Nevermind
I just found the use of the word "always" to imply,
that all are dealt an equal hand.
I found it personaly offensive.
An implication that all those who have not obtained some high status in life have only somehow "Failed".
Forgive the offense of my use of the words "Narrow minded".
None was intended. - "Limited view", may have been more appropriate.
As I'm sure your implication of "Always" -an absolute-
was also an unintended offense.
Peace
>is a man defined by his actions?
The first question is who is doing the defining? If it is God, he sees all and can define a man based on everything that comprises him. (God sees the heart.)
If it is man, then we must regress to a subjective evaluation, that is, each person has their own set of standards/rules/beliefs, and each individual looks upon another individual through those standards/rules/beliefs. We are fundamentally unable to take off our perspective glasses; ie: we cannot see clearly anyone.
>sartre used to say that a man is what he does
Batman said this recently too. (--: The premise of Sartre's statement, I believe, is the presupposition that man acts in accordance with himself at all times under all conditions. This is simply not true, in my estimation. Man is a layered creature with various components:physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, psychological, social, ethical, etc.
With so many aspects to his personality, there is bound to be conflict between levels and between components. This is why I always say "Everyone is a hypocrite to a greater or lesser extent."
You are who you are; your behavior is simply a manifestation of some core component in your personality.
For example, there are many people in society who act altruisitcally but for the wrong reasons. A wealthy man may donate a large sum of money to a charity, but the reason behind the donation may have nothing to do with his good-will and everything to do with his status in the community, or support for his own endeavors. Do you consider him a "good man"? I do not. It is called marketing - he is a skilled businessman with good salesmanship skills, but internally he thinks only of himself.
So, he is a hypocrite to a great extent.
Countess
:confused: How did I manage to offend you by using the word "always"? I merely stated my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlander
Still, I'll try to use another word.
If we go over this here we'll be highjacking the thred.
PM on it's way.
Definition implies separation, and so, if a man externalizes his thoughts and feelings, he is indeed separated from some and conjoined with others and thus defined. On a deeper level, our thoughts separate our shadow from our persona, and so at times we are divided even from ourselves. Perhaps the best short I can offer on this is "Borges on Borges."
Because we all do so many strange and irrational things over the course of our lives, things that come from fatigue or hurt or pain or hunger...
I don't believe a person is defined actually by what he/she does.
I do believe however a person is known by the things he or she does.
very interesting discussion guys but are we allowed to contribute to elaboration of the question or is this primary a discussion between you too?
Welcome to the forums :)Quote:
Originally Posted by fzeko
Feel free to just jump on in anywhere! everybody else does :D
Oops, I did not realize that they were more entries. I guess that's what happens when you try to read and write about philosophy after a long day at work.
I believe that you are posing a very philosophical question Martha Q and as it goes with philosophical questions there are not definite answers. Somehow I beleive that our actions define us even though I tend to doubt that at times. In the movie "Hellboy" the last lines are "What defines a man is not his origins or where he comes from but his actions and the way that he decides to end things". I don't remember the words by hard completely but that's how they kind of go.
Genetics, the way we are raised, and society formulate us as personalities and characters but sometimes the only way that we come to understand ourselves and who we are is by looking closely at our actions and decisions.
Hi I have just started posting threads and am new to this so if I make any faux pas please let me know!!
I think that M. Satre was trying to encapsulate an ideology based on psychology and his own perceptions of life around him and may possibly be a basis for his own philosophy on life .
We are who we are by our actions the only way one can define a human being is by those actions and outcomes. I don't think he literally meant any single person. What we do as a collective will have an outcome on humanity, therefore as M. Satre states that in doing so he (man)acts for all of humanity be that positive or negative . I read M.Satres' quote as meaning that we are all important and our actions in this life singly and collectively have a baring on humanity.
I'd say you're right, although there are alot more things to it than that.
Deeds, not words.