thesis:book-journals:visible-invisible
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
thesis:book-journals:visible-invisible [2018/06/30 22:43] avnerus |
thesis:book-journals:visible-invisible [2018/08/27 15:41] (current) avnerus |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| Each 'being' is a 'displacement' of other past or future 'beings', not the negation of them, so in reality the fissure is deeper than what fills it. | Each 'being' is a 'displacement' of other past or future 'beings', not the negation of them, so in reality the fissure is deeper than what fills it. | ||
| * Sartre quote that I don't understand. (54) - But should refer to Sartr'e definitions: | * Sartre quote that I don't understand. (54) - But should refer to Sartr'e definitions: | ||
| - | Being-in-itself: refers to objects in the external world — a mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so it is neither active nor passive and harbors no potentiality for transcendence. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects, but not to humans, who Sartre says must always make a choice | + | - Being-in-itself: refers to objects in the external world — a mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so it is neither active nor passive and harbors no potentiality for transcendence. This mode of being is relevant to inanimate objects, but not to humans, who Sartre says must always make a choice |
| - | Being-for-itself (être-pour-soi): The nihilation of Being-in-itself; consciousness conceived as a lack of Being, a desire for Being, a relation of Being. The For-itself brings Nothingness into the world and therefore can stand out from Being and form attitudes towards other beings by seeing what it is not. | + | - Being-for-itself (être-pour-soi): The nihilation of Being-in-itself; consciousness conceived as a lack of Being, a desire for Being, a relation of Being. The For-itself brings Nothingness into the world and therefore can stand out from Being and form attitudes towards other beings by seeing what it is not. |
| Back to Merleau-Ponty, there's no pre-reflective cogito, there's no subject - What am I? I am the negation of this consciousn experience of 'things'. I am nothing. My identtiy that is my thoughts, my body - those are only at a close distance to the nihalted self. Exterior being. | Back to Merleau-Ponty, there's no pre-reflective cogito, there's no subject - What am I? I am the negation of this consciousn experience of 'things'. I am nothing. My identtiy that is my thoughts, my body - those are only at a close distance to the nihalted self. Exterior being. | ||
| The world being is a prelongation of the body. Coextensive with consciousness. | The world being is a prelongation of the body. Coextensive with consciousness. | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
| * Hmm what does that say about free will? Some video about answers from the previous book [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOU0VnocKw|here]] | * Hmm what does that say about free will? Some video about answers from the previous book [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOU0VnocKw|here]] | ||
| * **Pages 65-68** Speaking of how we can infer //Nothing// from //Being// and //Being// from //Nothing//. In a pure manner, being is flat. no densities, or ranges of being. Nothingness is absolute. but eventually we discover that it is only in principle and "For itself is encumbered with a body, which is not outside if it is not inside, which intervenes between the For Itself and itself." - But these are all higher level speculations and significations that do not contradict the initial truth of absolute positivity and negativity - //Being and Nothingness//. | * **Pages 65-68** Speaking of how we can infer //Nothing// from //Being// and //Being// from //Nothing//. In a pure manner, being is flat. no densities, or ranges of being. Nothingness is absolute. but eventually we discover that it is only in principle and "For itself is encumbered with a body, which is not outside if it is not inside, which intervenes between the For Itself and itself." - But these are all higher level speculations and significations that do not contradict the initial truth of absolute positivity and negativity - //Being and Nothingness//. | ||
| - | * **Page 71** - About //The Other//, - There is a criticism of Sartre's view of the other as some transcendent thought or concept. This is a solipsistic view of alterity. I am a 'thought', a 'consciousness' (A subject), this is my only access to the world, and the others are my double that I have no access to. In fact - This is an //"Ambivalent or labile relationship with the other -- in which, moreover, analysis would rediscover the normal, canonical form, subjected in the particular case to a distortion that makes of the an anonymous, faceless obsession, an other in general.//" ** This sounds like Stranger Fetishism. ** | + | * **Page 71** - About //The Other//, - There is a criticism of Sartre's view of the other as some transcendent thought or concept. This is a solipsistic view of alterity. I am a 'thought', a 'consciousness' (A subject), this is my only access to the world, and the others are my double that I have no access to. In fact - This is an //"the ammbivalent or labile relationship with the other - in which, moreover, analysis would rediscover the normal, canonical form, subjected in the particular case to a distortion that makes of the other an anonymous, faceless obsession, an other in general.//" ** This sounds like Stranger Fetishism. ** |
| * There is an explanation of this in the book //Understanding Existentialism//: | * There is an explanation of this in the book //Understanding Existentialism//: | ||
| * | * | ||
thesis/book-journals/visible-invisible.1530398602.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/06/30 22:43 by avnerus
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
