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?
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?
Last edited by Martha Q; 11-08-2005 at 11:26 PM. Reason: ..
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.)
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:
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.
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.
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.- Emma Goldman
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.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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
