It's probably not useful to you anymore, but for anyone, you can get automatic youtube transcript by clicking on the 3 dots below the video. It's automatic so it's poor quality, but it's a nice starting point usually.
Great lecture! Sartre's take on freedom and facticity reminded me so much of Epictetus and the Stoics. Wonder if there is a major distinction in their thinking here.
Sir, do you have transcripts (or perhaps notes) of your classes? It'd be of great assistance to us, phil students, from around the globe, esp before exams! Ty so much for taking your time out to make these videos!
Thank you so much for these videos, they're great! Yes, unconscious Being/Existence equals no God in the beginning but how about God is becoming and evolving with the Universe?? ,😊
so glad I found your vids on the main channel mentioning your lecture channel. I had always struggled with the idea of experiences coming before a form of objective reality conceptually but your example of a child was perfect because its instantly obvious then as we ALL grew up that way.😄 When you mentioned about the idea of God's creation being the opposite I had a humongous light bulb moment! A-ha!!! now it makes sense to me why some philosophies are inheritently atheistic. Also, that puppet dance...amazing. i've rewatched it about 10 times 🤣
It is an interesting point that is very similar here...in the Nine Inch Nails song happiness in slavery, "I have found you can find happiness in slavery"...a song that made me think about a lot of thing at an early age..there is a lot of depth to it...because it is not saying "slavery is good because slaves can be happy" it is infact saying "this is a terrible place and I shall carve out and make my world as happy as I can inside hell" Trent Reznor...way more than Metallica is definitely a philosopher...thinking about and probably researching philosophy...for sure..
@@EricDodsonLectures And they're taking existential psychology? You're a comedian in measure: you make hilarious quips with a straight face, and your sarcasm is wholly inoffensive. You kill me man...
Satre's theory, is a priori the research in genetics ,which shows us that inherited influences exist in a significant way .Therefore, essence must precede existence , to some degree.
Hi i'm studying about Sartre and I'm enjoying all your videos about the existentialism of Sartre!! But I'm also curious about the driving force for how Sartre could actively participate in all the protests and act justice (such as acting against the Vietnam war or the Nazis) Could you also post videos about this? Thank U
Well, Frankl pointed out in "Man's Search for Meaning" that Sartre's philosophy that we create the meaning of life is wrong. He clearly asserted that we can DISCOVER the meaning of life along the way.
Are our past experiences not also a part of our facticity? It seems fallacious to suggest that in the example of the concentration camp, that everyone was equally free to choose the meaning of their circumstances and experience, as if facticity and our past experiences doesn’t also limit the thoughts one will possibly have.
A defiant person says “fk you I won’t do what you tell me!!! “. - rage against the machine. And against the dying of the light !!!!! Bravo ! Keep them coming. No year off. What’s that business !
Long time dungeons and dragons players...dungeons and dragon is the epitome of freedom and factisoty...the dungeon master tells you what IS in that world....you have so much choice...but unlike a lot of acting improv and similar things you determine what you do, the DM determine how that works in this world...freedom with boundaries of the "reality" which is some sort of construct...to a certain degree...
Responseibiliy is how you respond to the world וזוהי החירות שלך, איך שאתה מגיב וההשלכה של זה על חייל אל תיהיה מוגבל בגלל העוסבבדה של החיים, היופי בחיים הוא להתגבר על העוהדתיות הלא משתנה יותר של החיים נניח רצחת מישהי איך 'אתה מגיב אחרי זה , זה עלים בתור אדם חושב. איך שאתה תיקח את האחריות וותגיב לזה
When you say freedom and responsibility, I somewhat imagine a woman standing in the cold, the cold being workforce, and she must go through it to taste freedom. This isn't entirely true, though. But whatevs.
Sartre made many thoughtful observational insights, but there is one fatal flaw: he thinks individuals are a blank slate with “infinite” potential. The problem is we are an evolved animal with myriad instincts that are the primary drivers in our lives. In addition, individual abilities vary. He reminds me of Marx in how he builds a philosophy on a faulty, idealistic, foundation. Both have much to say that is worth listening to, especially in helping break the chains of historical dogma, but then they run aground. Still, we are condemned to freedom, but we all can’t be a Sartre, or Beatle, or whatever. In addition, the universe of possibilities is limited by our evolved mindset / viewpoint / consciousness. This is inherently limited in scope.
But Marx's philosophy was dialectical materialism. He turned Hegels dialectical idealism and the school of German idealism more broadly on its head. In other words, I'm quipping with the description of Marx' philosophy as idealistic, when it was explicitly materialist.
Dillon Roberts you win on that point! The main point I’d like to make is that there will be no perfection of man, and no real progress - just change. The overall societal construct we live within was defined by evolution and therefore is fairly hardwired. Just like it is with any other animal. How much freedom do we really have, via culture or individual choice, to change this? The more I learn and observe the less I think possible. We are just riding a wave of human nature while some write songs about the evolutionary mechanisms of our social bonds (love) and others spin tales of the hierarchy of human relations when in fact we are just plundering Earth to make social status trinkets (flub dubs, houses, cars, perfumes, etc etc) and dominating others because we are a highly social animal that always needs to know its place in the hierarchy (both as an individual and its identifying group.)
Sartre is terribly naive. He denies Cathay there is such a thing as human nature at all, as if we are not animals and therefore endowed with instincts and innate drives and character traits. His notion of freedom makes no sense at all. We are obviously not free to choose our values - no one can choose what they like and don’t like, what they admire and what they despise. A normal person cannot choose to behave like a psychopath and vice versa. And the coward cannot choose to be brave. Character is not something we choose at all and it’s not something we can alter. A weak, indecisive person cannot choose to be bold and self confident. Passions can override reason. It’s strange that Sartre became so popular and influential when his philosophy is so clearly misguided.
nice haircut...I've been cutting my own hair and children's hair...and wifes...for the last 10 years...corona got nothing my own cheapness.....hehe I've been social distancing my whole life.
Nothing wrong with quoting metallica....its also a valid voice in the world stage...sometimes very stupid...but that can also be said about a lot of philosophers as well.
To say we can choose our attitude to facticities and are therefore free seems to me to be begging the question. How do we know we ARE free to choose our attitude? What , if we are free, are our choices based upon? Our values? Intelligence? Desires?Character? But can we choose those? Isnt Sartre implying that we pop into existence fully formed? In that case, we can only choose in alignment with that. Free- will always strikes me as an incoherent idea.
Well, I suspect that the answer to your question has to do with the nature of phenomenological inquiry, as opposed to the "natural attitude" (Husserl's phrase) inquiry in which we typically believe. Basically, phenomenology has to do with reflecting upon our experience, and then deriving whatever conclusions may come to us. So, the way to know if we're free or not is to gaze into the vortex of our experience of life, and see if it provides a confirmation of our freedom (or not). For Sartre, the answer is that it does, despite the fact that our freedom is always bound up with various facticities, such things like our natural intelligence, the biological elements of our character, our values insofar as we've adopted them from the surrounding culture, etc. However, that still doesn't answer the question about how we might end up agreeing (or disagreeing) with Sartre about all of that. And here it's mostly a matter of examining our own, personal experience, and then comparing its import to the substance of his claims. And so, the question becomes: When we look at what life has shown us thus far, do we feel genuinely free or not? Does freedom seem real and substantive, or is it more on the order of a fanciful illusion? Of course, all of that is made more tricky by the prevalence of Bad Faith, which is our ongoing tendency to deny the reality of our freedom... to flee from it, mostly by generating justifications and excuses for ourselves. So, if we're inclined to regard freedom as an incoherent illusion, then the question becomes: What makes us so sure that that idea isn't just an expression of our desire NOT to regard ourselves as free, and hence as responsible for our lives? Could it be that we're using our freedom to choose to regard ourselves as un-free? And ultimately, that's the very essence of Bad Faith as Sartre conceives of it. And on the other hand, freedom will seem real to us in direct proportion to our deciding to regard it as real (which of course invites a certain conceptual circularity). And finally, as you may have inferred, there's an irreducible element of personal, subjective experience in all of this. As I said in another thread, "One man's meat is another man's poison." Or... one man's freedom is another man's incoherent illusion. But of course, that doesn't make freedom any different in principle from a lot of other things in this world. Well, those are my thoughts this morning... or noon in your time-zone. Cheers, Eric D.
@@EricDodsonLectures Where lies the truth?? Not being a pro -philosopher like yourself, Eric, please forgive me if I'm blundering around asking silly questions. The thing is that such questions matter ( at least to me) and aren't just a clever intellectual diversion. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Back to freedom! One point I'd like to make is that relying on our immediate subjective experience as a guide to the nature of reality (and a basis for our resulting behaviours) has an unedifying history. An example. I am sitting still on a chair which is not moving. This is my subjective experience. We now know of course that I am in fact moving rapidly through space around the sun. Saying so could get me boiled in oil once upon a time. Why do phenomenolgists put so much faith in the subjective? Isn't there a psychological term for taking internal objects for external realities? Psychosis, I think.Was Sartre psychotic!? Furthermore, wrt what we give attention to. Your example of being in a landscape and noticing the trees but not the flowers. Is it coherent to say that I choose not to notice something? Surely not noticing is what happens, and I only become aware of that afterwards, perhaps when my wife points out the sock left lying on the floor! I believe neuroscience has shown that there are synaptic firings several seconds prior to a decision say, to move a hand up or down, and the experimenters can know the decision before the subject! There is a great deal of processing going on in the brain prior to the results being 'handed up' to consciousness, to use Schopenhauer's expression. I really don't know on this one. As you know, Nietzsche said that everything is personal. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Have a nice weekend!
@@arthurchinaski3736 Well, in reality I'm just blundering around, and asking silly questions, too... just like yourself. I don't regard myself as anything like a "professional." Instead, I see myself as a student of philosophy, and perhaps of life more generally. But in any case... "Where lies the truth?" Well, from a Sartrean perspective the truth lies in the intersection of the objective and the subjective.... or perhaps more accurately, where everything objective is also something subjective, and vice versa. In other words, where the truth does NOT lie is in the polar absolutes... neither in a stolidly objective determinism, nor in the fanciful whimsy of a pure subjectivism. Instead, the locus of truth lies in the confluence and simultaneity of the two. And for any given question, it's sometimes preferable to take a more objective tack. For instance, if we want to know how fast our chair is moving relative to the sun, it's probably best to estimate it by (2 x 93 million miles x pi) / (365 x 24) miles per hour (sorry, but we Neanderthals here in the U.S. haven't yet graduated to the metric system). On the other hand, if we want to know what it means to fall in love, it's probably *not* very satisfying (at least to most people) to give a very objective answer like, "It's just DNA's way of trying to replicate itself relative to the overarching processes of evolution." It's a little like asking, "What's the meaning of life?" and getting the answer: 42 (Douglas Adams reference). From an objective point of view, 42 may be a perfectly valid and justifiable answer. The problem with it is something much more subjective... namely, that it doesn't really satisfy the very subjective, animating spirit of the original question. In other words (drum roll please)... sometimes a very objective answer is the worst one. And sometimes a very subjective answer (like, "This chair isn't moving at all") is the worst one. And to a large extent, wisdom is about being able to discern what kind of answer is best in any given context. The upshot for Sartre is that inquiring into the nature of consciousness or Being... calls for a mostly subjective, phenomenological approach. But of course, according to his logic, we're always free to think otherwise. Your neighbor across the (Amy) Pond... Eric D.
@@EricDodsonLectures Thanks again for your response Eric. Its getting towards evening here in old Europa, so I'll mull it over with a glass or two of red. On the companions, Sarah Jane Smith for me...🍷
@@arthurchinaski3736 ... Yeah, it's pretty hard to beat Sarah Jane. It was great to see her (and K9) in a few of the later episodes, too. As far as fathoming phenomenology goes... well, the main reason why its insights can easily seem counter-intuitive is that it's operating from a fundamental paradigm that's very different from the one the West usually espouses. Basically, we're not very used to honoring our subjective experience, or taking it seriously. As I sometimes tell my students, "The reason why phenomenology seems complex and difficult is that it's actually far simpler than you think." Anyhow, enjoy your red. As we used to say in Latin class, "In vino veritas." Perhaps the truth of phenomenology would be included in that... ha ha... Eric D.
And yet, however you response to the boulder, has been predetermined since the big bang and there's no reason to think otherwise. Even though you have many many options of what to do with the boulder, even though the point of the boulder in a narrow path is to limit your options, whatever choice you ultimately make, say you are a scientist and decide to happily study the sedimentary, you are choosing this option because you had already chosen to be a scientist and existentially defiant because your parents told you science and philosophy was the best because that's what their parents told them when they were children so you have no choice but to be happy and so Sartre; nice try but you did not order the best words for explaining this reality. I will become the greatest fool/philosopher of all time just by tweaking Sartre 7 degrees, YESSSS!
Not a student, but finding your channel was a goldmine.
We are all students :) ZEN!!!
Not a student, but I enjoyed this comment.
Ditto kiddo ‘-
thank you for this! i never got the opportunity to go to college and have always been interested in learning more about philosophy. thank you!
It's probably not useful to you anymore, but for anyone, you can get automatic youtube transcript by clicking on the 3 dots below the video.
It's automatic so it's poor quality, but it's a nice starting point usually.
omg, I've just discovered your channel and I'm already addicted to it!! I'm going to watch all of your videos!!
Thanks for a fantastic lecture.
+1 to this, you are the hidden gem of youtube. Thanks a lot for sharing the knowledge!
I’ve never encountered existentialism in such practicality . And this is coming from 35 years of addiction to philosophy . You’re a great teacher
I love etymology and Latin... I love syntax and context...I love communication...this is good times..
Really engaging and easy to understand. Great lecture
We Chose You, Professor! Thank you for this nice presentation. It is so helpful during the "dark" period as we live now!
very much enjoying these lectures, thanks for making them so easily accessible!
Absolutely loving this video, explanation and personality!
These lectures are so good. Trying to view one a day and learning so much. The delivery and content is spot on.
Pure wisdom!
Thank you so much, professor! 🙏🙏🙏
Your content is pure gold. Hope you would upload more. Thanks, man!
This talk is a truly nice bit of damage. Very clear about a small number of central ideas. Thanks muchly.
What a lovely educator, well explained also.
I cannot stop myself listening to these lectures
Sisyphus’s task to roll the rock up and down was his facticity. How he FEELS about it is his freedom. BOOM! Thanks Prof!
You explained Entire video in just three lines.
You are doing great job.
Love it! Thank you for such a good explanation. Not a student but just interested with the subject.
I do find you very interesting. I begin to understand things better. This gives me a good feeling.
I appreciate the relatable examples
Great lecture! Sartre's take on freedom and facticity reminded me so much of Epictetus and the Stoics. Wonder if there is a major distinction in their thinking here.
Sir, do you have transcripts (or perhaps notes) of your classes? It'd be of great assistance to us, phil students, from around the globe, esp before exams!
Ty so much for taking your time out to make these videos!
Thank you so much for these videos, they're great! Yes, unconscious Being/Existence equals no God in the beginning but how about God is becoming and evolving with the Universe?? ,😊
Thank you so so much for these
so glad I found your vids on the main channel mentioning your lecture channel. I had always struggled with the idea of experiences coming before a form of objective reality conceptually but your example of a child was perfect because its instantly obvious then as we ALL grew up that way.😄 When you mentioned about the idea of God's creation being the opposite I had a humongous light bulb moment! A-ha!!! now it makes sense to me why some philosophies are inheritently atheistic. Also, that puppet dance...amazing. i've rewatched it about 10 times 🤣
It is an interesting point that is very similar here...in the Nine Inch Nails song happiness in slavery, "I have found you can find happiness in slavery"...a song that made me think about a lot of thing at an early age..there is a lot of depth to it...because it is not saying "slavery is good because slaves can be happy" it is infact saying "this is a terrible place and I shall carve out and make my world as happy as I can inside hell" Trent Reznor...way more than Metallica is definitely a philosopher...thinking about and probably researching philosophy...for sure..
Beautiful thanks 🙏🏼
this lecture helped me alot on my test
You can tell this man is very smart based off of how quickly he can connect ideas.
he looks like a truck driver
Enjoyable and educational...I like the music references also lol
Love you, sir!
Thank you!
I love this.
I love how you had to define the word "precedes" for us (3:24).
Well, that probably wasn't for *your* benefit. But you'd be surprised at how many normal English words the average college student doesn't know.
@@EricDodsonLectures
And they're taking existential psychology?
You're a comedian in measure: you make hilarious quips with a straight face, and your sarcasm is wholly inoffensive. You kill me man...
Thank you, could you pls. Talk also about Sartre S idea about love and otherness of others .
Is it possible to have access to the notes presented on the screen?
"You can always choose your attitude"
Satre's theory, is a priori the research in genetics ,which shows us that inherited influences exist in a significant way .Therefore,
essence must precede existence , to some degree.
Hi i'm studying about Sartre and I'm enjoying all your videos about the existentialism of Sartre!! But I'm also curious about the driving force for how Sartre could actively participate in all the protests and act justice (such as acting against the Vietnam war or the Nazis) Could you also post videos about this? Thank U
Because Vietnam was a French colony. That war was, initially, a war of decolonization, it became a central battleground of the Cold War by 1950.
Thank you! Are there recommended readings for laypeople? I have a group of teenagers that are searching for better ideas.
Got the Humanism of Existentialism Essays, thanks. Excerpts?
If everything has a good side and a bad side. The good side of corona apocalypse is definitely you professor ;)
I'm gettin' it. ps, this is a great channel
"There's no master of puppets." There's NO master of PUPPETS! His name is Robert Paulson.
@Hong Hamdan
No one cares. Fuck off.
Can I have the assignments and the read materials please?
Can i get access to the lecture notes?
dude i love u
2:16 Phenomenalogy
Well, Frankl pointed out in "Man's Search for Meaning" that Sartre's philosophy that we create the meaning of life is wrong. He clearly asserted that we can DISCOVER the meaning of life along the way.
Sir, " Define yourself ".........what does it mean? How can every person/ individual Define themselves?
Are our past experiences not also a part of our facticity? It seems fallacious to suggest that in the example of the concentration camp, that everyone was equally free to choose the meaning of their circumstances and experience, as if facticity and our past experiences doesn’t also limit the thoughts one will possibly have.
It does . But even two people who had replicate life experiences are nevertheless still not constrained to the same course of action ( s ) .
A defiant person says “fk you I won’t do what you tell me!!! “. - rage against the machine. And against the dying of the light !!!!! Bravo ! Keep them coming. No year off. What’s that business !
Are you going to be able to get to niz?
Yes.
❤❤❤
Subscribed because of the Metallica reference 😅
Long time dungeons and dragons players...dungeons and dragon is the epitome of freedom and factisoty...the dungeon master tells you what IS in that world....you have so much choice...but unlike a lot of acting improv and similar things you determine what you do, the DM determine how that works in this world...freedom with boundaries of the "reality" which is some sort of construct...to a certain degree...
Responseibiliy is how you respond to the world
וזוהי החירות שלך, איך שאתה מגיב וההשלכה של זה על חייל
אל תיהיה מוגבל בגלל העוסבבדה של החיים, היופי בחיים הוא להתגבר על העוהדתיות הלא משתנה יותר של החיים
נניח רצחת מישהי איך 'אתה מגיב אחרי זה , זה עלים בתור אדם חושב. איך שאתה תיקח את האחריות וותגיב לזה
I don't know. It's all pretty hellabitchin to me. Thanks for the upload.
When you say freedom and responsibility, I somewhat imagine a woman standing in the cold, the cold being workforce, and she must go through it to taste freedom.
This isn't entirely true, though. But whatevs.
(possibly) Essence means 'mindfulness'
W professor
I got the hair cut from the wife as well bless are wife’s God gaves us
My wife puts up with everything I have done she is my firsts only Love
Sartre made many thoughtful observational insights, but there is one fatal flaw: he thinks individuals are a blank slate with “infinite” potential. The problem is we are an evolved animal with myriad instincts that are the primary drivers in our lives. In addition, individual abilities vary. He reminds me of Marx in how he builds a philosophy on a faulty, idealistic, foundation. Both have much to say that is worth listening to, especially in helping break the chains of historical dogma, but then they run aground. Still, we are condemned to freedom, but we all can’t be a Sartre, or Beatle, or whatever. In addition, the universe of possibilities is limited by our evolved mindset / viewpoint / consciousness. This is inherently limited in scope.
But Marx's philosophy was dialectical materialism. He turned Hegels dialectical idealism and the school of German idealism more broadly on its head. In other words, I'm quipping with the description of Marx' philosophy as idealistic, when it was explicitly materialist.
Dillon Roberts you win on that point! The main point I’d like to make is that there will be no perfection of man, and no real progress - just change. The overall societal construct we live within was defined by evolution and therefore is fairly hardwired. Just like it is with any other animal. How much freedom do we really have, via culture or individual choice, to change this? The more I learn and observe the less I think possible. We are just riding a wave of human nature while some write songs about the evolutionary mechanisms of our social bonds (love) and others spin tales of the hierarchy of human relations when in fact we are just plundering Earth to make social status trinkets (flub dubs, houses, cars, perfumes, etc etc) and dominating others because we are a highly social animal that always needs to know its place in the hierarchy (both as an individual and its identifying group.)
Sartre is terribly naive. He denies Cathay there is such a thing as human nature at all, as if we are not animals and therefore endowed with instincts and innate drives and character traits. His notion of freedom makes no sense at all. We are obviously not free to choose our values - no one can choose what they like and don’t like, what they admire and what they despise. A normal person cannot choose to behave like a psychopath and vice versa. And the coward cannot choose to be brave. Character is not something we choose at all and it’s not something we can alter. A weak, indecisive person cannot choose to be bold and self confident. Passions can override reason. It’s strange that Sartre became so popular and influential when his philosophy is so clearly misguided.
That is a nice haircut sir
What arguments can one bring up to support the continued existence of humanity in am imaginative attack by an advanced race of aliens?
It’s “Essence Precedes Existence!” 🌹
But I’m not an existential. speculative-materialist, nihilistic-narcissist …
@@HeyManWhereAmI lol? 🔥
I don't "inhabit a body"; I AM a body. *sigh*
nice haircut...I've been cutting my own hair and children's hair...and wifes...for the last 10 years...corona got nothing my own cheapness.....hehe
I've been social distancing my whole life.
after listening to this I called my gf and told her i dont need you anymore lol
Nothing wrong with quoting metallica....its also a valid voice in the world stage...sometimes very stupid...but that can also be said about a lot of philosophers as well.
Nice haircut
Ahh...Radical...is much like Radish...a ROOT vegetable.
makes sense now
To say we can choose our attitude to facticities and are therefore free seems to me to be begging the question. How do we know we ARE free to choose our attitude? What , if we are free, are our choices based upon? Our values? Intelligence? Desires?Character? But can we choose those? Isnt Sartre implying that we pop into existence fully formed? In that case, we can only choose in alignment with that. Free- will always strikes me as an incoherent idea.
Well, I suspect that the answer to your question has to do with the nature of phenomenological inquiry, as opposed to the "natural attitude" (Husserl's phrase) inquiry in which we typically believe. Basically, phenomenology has to do with reflecting upon our experience, and then deriving whatever conclusions may come to us. So, the way to know if we're free or not is to gaze into the vortex of our experience of life, and see if it provides a confirmation of our freedom (or not). For Sartre, the answer is that it does, despite the fact that our freedom is always bound up with various facticities, such things like our natural intelligence, the biological elements of our character, our values insofar as we've adopted them from the surrounding culture, etc. However, that still doesn't answer the question about how we might end up agreeing (or disagreeing) with Sartre about all of that. And here it's mostly a matter of examining our own, personal experience, and then comparing its import to the substance of his claims. And so, the question becomes: When we look at what life has shown us thus far, do we feel genuinely free or not? Does freedom seem real and substantive, or is it more on the order of a fanciful illusion? Of course, all of that is made more tricky by the prevalence of Bad Faith, which is our ongoing tendency to deny the reality of our freedom... to flee from it, mostly by generating justifications and excuses for ourselves. So, if we're inclined to regard freedom as an incoherent illusion, then the question becomes: What makes us so sure that that idea isn't just an expression of our desire NOT to regard ourselves as free, and hence as responsible for our lives? Could it be that we're using our freedom to choose to regard ourselves as un-free? And ultimately, that's the very essence of Bad Faith as Sartre conceives of it. And on the other hand, freedom will seem real to us in direct proportion to our deciding to regard it as real (which of course invites a certain conceptual circularity). And finally, as you may have inferred, there's an irreducible element of personal, subjective experience in all of this. As I said in another thread, "One man's meat is another man's poison." Or... one man's freedom is another man's incoherent illusion. But of course, that doesn't make freedom any different in principle from a lot of other things in this world. Well, those are my thoughts this morning... or noon in your time-zone. Cheers, Eric D.
@@EricDodsonLectures Where lies the truth?? Not being a pro -philosopher like yourself, Eric, please forgive me if I'm blundering around asking silly questions. The thing is that such questions matter ( at least to me) and aren't just a clever intellectual diversion. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Back to freedom! One point I'd like to make is that relying on our immediate subjective experience as a guide to the nature of reality (and a basis for our resulting behaviours) has an unedifying history. An example. I am sitting still on a chair which is not moving. This is my subjective experience. We now know of course that I am in fact moving rapidly through space around the sun. Saying so could get me boiled in oil once upon a time. Why do phenomenolgists put so much faith in the subjective? Isn't there a psychological term for taking internal objects for external realities? Psychosis, I think.Was Sartre psychotic!? Furthermore, wrt what we give attention to. Your example of being in a landscape and noticing the trees but not the flowers. Is it coherent to say that I choose not to notice something? Surely not noticing is what happens, and I only become aware of that afterwards, perhaps when my wife points out the sock left lying on the floor! I believe neuroscience has shown that there are synaptic firings several seconds prior to a decision say, to move a hand up or down, and the experimenters can know the decision before the subject! There is a great deal of processing going on in the brain prior to the results being 'handed up' to consciousness, to use Schopenhauer's expression. I really don't know on this one. As you know, Nietzsche said that everything is personal. You pays your money, you takes your choice. Have a nice weekend!
@@arthurchinaski3736 Well, in reality I'm just blundering around, and asking silly questions, too... just like yourself. I don't regard myself as anything like a "professional." Instead, I see myself as a student of philosophy, and perhaps of life more generally. But in any case... "Where lies the truth?" Well, from a Sartrean perspective the truth lies in the intersection of the objective and the subjective.... or perhaps more accurately, where everything objective is also something subjective, and vice versa. In other words, where the truth does NOT lie is in the polar absolutes... neither in a stolidly objective determinism, nor in the fanciful whimsy of a pure subjectivism. Instead, the locus of truth lies in the confluence and simultaneity of the two. And for any given question, it's sometimes preferable to take a more objective tack. For instance, if we want to know how fast our chair is moving relative to the sun, it's probably best to estimate it by (2 x 93 million miles x pi) / (365 x 24) miles per hour (sorry, but we Neanderthals here in the U.S. haven't yet graduated to the metric system). On the other hand, if we want to know what it means to fall in love, it's probably *not* very satisfying (at least to most people) to give a very objective answer like, "It's just DNA's way of trying to replicate itself relative to the overarching processes of evolution." It's a little like asking, "What's the meaning of life?" and getting the answer: 42 (Douglas Adams reference). From an objective point of view, 42 may be a perfectly valid and justifiable answer. The problem with it is something much more subjective... namely, that it doesn't really satisfy the very subjective, animating spirit of the original question. In other words (drum roll please)... sometimes a very objective answer is the worst one. And sometimes a very subjective answer (like, "This chair isn't moving at all") is the worst one. And to a large extent, wisdom is about being able to discern what kind of answer is best in any given context. The upshot for Sartre is that inquiring into the nature of consciousness or Being... calls for a mostly subjective, phenomenological approach. But of course, according to his logic, we're always free to think otherwise. Your neighbor across the (Amy) Pond... Eric D.
@@EricDodsonLectures Thanks again for your response Eric. Its getting towards evening here in old Europa, so I'll mull it over with a glass or two of red. On the companions, Sarah Jane Smith for me...🍷
@@arthurchinaski3736 ... Yeah, it's pretty hard to beat Sarah Jane. It was great to see her (and K9) in a few of the later episodes, too. As far as fathoming phenomenology goes... well, the main reason why its insights can easily seem counter-intuitive is that it's operating from a fundamental paradigm that's very different from the one the West usually espouses. Basically, we're not very used to honoring our subjective experience, or taking it seriously. As I sometimes tell my students, "The reason why phenomenology seems complex and difficult is that it's actually far simpler than you think." Anyhow, enjoy your red. As we used to say in Latin class, "In vino veritas." Perhaps the truth of phenomenology would be included in that... ha ha... Eric D.
And yet, however you response to the boulder, has been predetermined since the big bang and there's no reason to think otherwise. Even though you have many many options of what to do with the boulder, even though the point of the boulder in a narrow path is to limit your options, whatever choice you ultimately make, say you are a scientist and decide to happily study the sedimentary, you are choosing this option because you had already chosen to be a scientist and existentially defiant because your parents told you science and philosophy was the best because that's what their parents told them when they were children so you have no choice but to be happy and so Sartre; nice try but you did not order the best words for explaining this reality. I will become the greatest fool/philosopher of all time just by tweaking Sartre 7 degrees, YESSSS!
Pastor of Muppets AKA Eric D
Ha ha... Pastor of Muppets... I'll take it!
Sartre's philosophy was so flawed that one of his own eyes was trying to escape his head.
🤣😂🤣