Well, Sartre at least had an exquisite taste in women. His wife Simone de Beauvoir is a magnificent read. Classical feminism when it was still intellectually vigorous. I have always found it hard to put her husband in the same league of thinkers. ;-) Big love Alexander Den tors 23 maj 2019 kl 19:06 skrev Steven Quackenbush < [log in to unmask]>: > Hi Alexander, > > Distinctions can be made among (a) what a philosopher says she is doing, > (b) what other people say the philosopher is doing, and (c) what the > philosopher is actually doing. > > Sartre devoted more pages to psychobiography than he did to fiction, > politics, or academic philosophy. His 3000-page study of Gustave Flaubert > dwarfs in size (and, arguably, in scope) the complete set of his major > philosophical works (e.g., *Being & Nothingness*, *Critique of > Dialectical Reason*). As I read it, I don't find myself in the presence > of Mao, Rousseau, Freud, Hegel, Nietzsche, or even Sartre "*the > existentialist*". If I had to classify it, I'd say it has much in > common with the psychobiographies of Erik Erikson (as Stuart Charme has > observed). Still, it remains uniquely "Sartrean" in execution. > Interestingly, Sartre considered it a development of his own early work on > the role played by imagination in human experience (with Flaubert emerging > as *a sorcerer* of "the imaginary"). But even this fails to capture the > richness of the text. > > I can't speak to Sartre's place in the history of philosophy. My own > interest in his writings wasn't elicited by a concern with existentialism, > Marxism, or any other -ism. Rather, I discovered Sartre quite accidentally > as I was exploring the contemporary "narrative psychology" literature, > where his psychobiographies seem to have had a modest impact. > > But since this thread is concerned with the problem of freedom, I'll > conclude with a relevant passage from Sartre's study of Flaubert: > > - "The *person*, in effect, is neither completely suffered nor > completely constructed; furthermore the person *does not exist *or, if > you will, is the always surpassed result of the whole mass of totalizing > operations by which we continually try to assimilate the unassimilable -- > primarily our childhood..." > - "In any event, personalization in the individual is nothing more > than the surpassing and preservation (assumption and inner negation) at the > core of *a project to totalize what the world has made -- and > continues to make -- of us.*" (*The Family Idiot*, Vol. 2, pp. 6-7). > > Take care, > > ~ Steve Q. > > > Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D., Chair > Division of Psychology & Human Development > University of Maine, Farmington > Farmington, ME 04938 > (207) 778-7518 > [log in to unmask] > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:20 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Dear Steven >> >> Excellent points! >> However Sartre is stuck in an almost vulgar intrepretation of Marxist >> dialectics. Please recall that he was also a Rousseauian and a Maoist. >> There you go. >> Hegelian dialectics does not work the same way but is rather more >> sophisticated. >> Freud is very much a Hegelian but not a Marxist. So there is deep >> dialectics going on in psychoanalysis, starting with negation (not thesis) >> moving on to to abstraction (not antithesis) and ending up with concretion >> (not synthesis). While all three simultaneously co-exist with intense >> overlap. >> Without Hegel we would have neither any Freud nor any Nietzsche. And they >> both do fine without Marx. >> Which in turn explains why we in Europe find so little use of Sartre >> these days. >> Psychoanalysis in a dialectical relationship with archeology and >> neuroscience seems a much better place to start from. >> >> Love and respect >> Alexander >> >> Den ons 22 maj 2019 kl 20:29 skrev Steven Quackenbush < >> [log in to unmask]>: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> A quick comment regarding the relationship between Sartre and Freud (as >>> it may shed further light on the problem of freedom). >>> >>> Alexander writes that Sartre "never understood the Freudian revolution >>> to begin with." >>> >>> Sartre agrees: >>> >>> - "I have to say that I was incapable of understanding him because I >>> was a Frenchman with a good Cartesian tradition behind me, imbued with a >>> certain rationalism, and I was therefore deeply shocked by the idea of the >>> unconscious." >>> >>> Still, the mature Sartre's resistance to Freud is considerably more >>> nuanced than much of the secondary literature might lead us to believe: >>> >>> - "I would reproach psychoanalytic theory with being a *syncretic *and >>> not a* dialectical* thought. The word 'complex', indeed, indicates >>> this very evidently: interpenetration without contradiction." >>> - "The results of *syncretism*...can be seen in the Oedipus >>> complex, for instance:" >>> - "[The] fact is that analysis manage to find everything in >>> it, equally well the fixation on the mother, love of the mother, or hatred >>> of the mother, as Melanie Klein argues....The consequence is that >>> an analyst can say one thing and then the contrary immediately >>> afterwards, without in anyway worrying about lack of logic, since after all >>> 'opposites interpenetrate'...Psychoanalytic theory is thus a >>> 'soft' thought. It has no dialectical logic to it." >>> - Of course, "the fixation of a girl on an older man may will >>> come from her father, or the fixation of a young man on a girl may derive >>> from a profusion of original relationships. But what is missing in >>> conventional psychoanalytic accounts is the idea of dialectical >>> irreducibility." >>> - "In a truly *dialectical *theory, such as historical >>> materialism, phenomena derive from each other dialectically: there are >>> difference configurations of dialectical reality, and each of these >>> configurations Is rigorously conditioned by the previous one, while >>> preserving and superseding it at the same time. This supersession is, >>> however, precisely irreducible. While one configuration may preserve >>> another, it can never simply be reduced to its predecessor." >>> - "It is the idea of this *autonomy* that is lacking >>> in psychoanalytic theory. A sentiment or passion between two persons is >>> certainly highly conditioned by their relationship to the 'primal object', >>> and one can locate this object within it and explain the new relationship >>> by it; but the relationship itself remains irreducible." >>> >>> Sartre is clearly over-schematizing here. There are certainly strands >>> of psychoanalytic thought (e.g., the Eriksonian tradition) that can be >>> characterized as authentically "dialectical", as Sartre understands the >>> term. For my part, I read the mature Sartre as a psychoanalytic >>> thinker interested in exploring the "dialectical intelligibility" of human >>> behavior (in a manner quite compatible with the ToK framework): >>> >>> - "The concept of 'lived experience' marks my change since* Being >>> and Nothingness*. My early work was a rationalist philosophy of >>> consciousness. It was all very well for me to dabble >>> in apparently non-rational processes in the individual, [but] the fact that >>> remains that *Being and Nothingness *is a monument of >>> rationality....Today, the notion of 'lived experience' represents an effort >>> to preserve that presence to itself which seems to me indispensable for the >>> existence of any psychic fact, while at the same time this presence is so >>> opaque and blind before itself that it is also an absence from itself....In >>> developing this notion, I have tried to suppress the traditional >>> psychoanalytic ambiguity of psychic facts which are both teleological and >>> mechanical, by showing that every psychic fact involves an intentionality >>> which aims at something, while among them a certain number can only exist >>> if they are comprehended, *but neither named nor known*. >>> The latter include what I call the 'stress' of a neurosis." >>> - "A neurosis is in the first instance a specific wound, a >>> defective structure which is a certain way of living a childhood. But this >>> is only an initial wound: it is then patched up and bandaged by a system >>> which covers and soothe the wound, and which then, like anti-bodies in >>> certain cases, suddenly does something abominable to the organism. The >>> unity of this system is the neurosis." >>> >>> The above quotations are taken from a 1969 interview published in an >>> anthology entitled *Between* *Existentalism and Marxism* (Sartre, >>> 1974). >>> >>> ~ Steve Q. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:19 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Peter and TOK, thank you for the collegial discussion. I would >>>> like to address your comment "The cosmos are just a bit of >>>> collateral damage in also determined so that human determinism can make >>>> sense." I beg to differ. Based on the Endosymbiogenesis Theory, that life >>>> derives from the endogenization of physical properties like oxygen, heavy >>>> metals, ions and bacteria, our physiology is literally founded on the same >>>> Laws of Physics when facilitated by compartmentalization to integrate these >>>> factors in an organic context. So the deterministic and probabilistic >>>> properties are shared by both the animate and inanimate....but that's my >>>> perspective. I welcome rebuttal. IMHO, John >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:57 AM Peter Lloyd Jones < >>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Europe, Alexander, and TOK, >>>>> Between Sartre and Merleau-Ponty I do not know which is winning the >>>>> popularity contest in the USA, and am amused that Europe doesn’t make much >>>>> of Sartre these days. I wish I did know because then I maybe wouldn’t have >>>>> to finish or present this stupid paper that I’m writing. >>>>> >>>>> As to free will not being a philosophy proper, I have not taken on the >>>>> task of mending all of the errors of philosophy. I think that I mentioned >>>>> somewhere above (below?) that John Locke pointed out in the 17th century >>>>> that the term “free will” is problematic. >>>>> >>>>> Your comment, "The future is open. And that is what scares the shit >>>>> out of most of us.” is very Sartrean: we aguish in the face of our freedom. >>>>> As rarely-quoted Sartre wrote, the possibilities of our choices >>>>> are vertiginous. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your thought, >>>>> Best, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peter Lloyd Jones >>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>> 562-209-4080 >>>>> >>>>> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 21, 2019, at 6:22 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Peter >>>>> >>>>> Then here is a little update from Europe: We don't make much out of >>>>> Sartre these days. Even Merleau-Ponty is far more quoted these days than >>>>> good old Sartre (who never understood the Freudian revolution to begin >>>>> with). >>>>> Rather we have arrived at a struggle between Hegel and Nietzsche today >>>>> represented by Zizek and Deleuze. Like the new generation of philosophers, >>>>> like Manuel DeLanda and Aaron Schuster, I'm in both camps in my work. The >>>>> synthesis of Hegel and Nietzsche is simply where it's at. And there is no >>>>> determinism in any of these camps. And certainly no talk of any "free will" >>>>> since that is just Christian theology and not philosophy proper. >>>>> Determinism requires that all things are determined in a closed loop >>>>> of cause and effect with no chance involved. >>>>> All that is required is one single incident during the Universe's >>>>> existence that can be attributed to chance and determinism is dead. >>>>> I would argue even that the big bang itself is such a chance. Also if >>>>> for example biology was not pre-programmed into the big bang, then >>>>> determinism is dead. >>>>> Probabilism only looks deterministic when studying a full field. But >>>>> when fields are broken, that determinism is also broken. That is >>>>> essentially what "chance" is. Whether our own minds then are determinist or >>>>> not is beside the point. If our surrounding reality is not determinist then >>>>> neither are our lives. The future is open. And that is what scares the shit >>>>> out of most of us. Freud, again. >>>>> >>>>> Best intentions >>>>> Alexander >>>>> >>>>> Den tis 21 maj 2019 kl 15:30 skrev Peter Lloyd Jones < >>>>> [log in to unmask]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Alexander, John, et.al >>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__et.al&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=czp9Y7o97w7LCL-W7Vmg0G8SPLqw3mKPGY98LFZb0-U&s=f3hhXp_A_lMTW1PN6V9IWIgcofgvX1yLAobMDBjEysw&e=> >>>>>> ., >>>>>> >>>>>> I was wrong to infer that the determinism debate is between only >>>>>> those from the field of philosophy, though I am pursuing it as a >>>>>> philosophical question. Some today are using interpretations of scientific >>>>>> evidence as their argument. >>>>>> Maybe John is one who (partially) is a proponent of determinism, as >>>>>> per his last note? >>>>>> Sam Harris, famously, though painfully unscholarly he is. >>>>>> Galen Strawson says he isn’t a determinist but argues that we cannot >>>>>> escape the causes that have made us who we are, which is basically a type >>>>>> of determinism since for him it means that human autonomy is an >>>>>> impossibility because we can never step out from under past causes to be >>>>>> autonomous. >>>>>> John Searle, though he seems in the last decade to be hedging on >>>>>> determinism and starting to embrace quantum indeterminism as justification >>>>>> for free will >>>>>> Jerry Coyne, >>>>>> BF Skinner, who in his philosophy of behaviorism was a determinist. >>>>>> Dan Barker doesn’t see free will as a scientific truth or >>>>>> philosophical truth, but as a social truth. But I think he is still dealing >>>>>> with ghosts of his preacher past. >>>>>> It could be that I’m am wasting time on popular opponents of free >>>>>> will that would be best to leave behind. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please know that I am addressing this issue from the context of a >>>>>> 70-year-old tome of existential philosophy, comparing Sartre’s metaphysics >>>>>> to what some claim today about proofs of physics concerning the concept of >>>>>> human autonomy. And I have to do it in 3,000 words. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I use the word consciousness as does Sartre, who did not >>>>>> acknowledge subconscious states. He refers to behavior as being reflective >>>>>> or non-reflective, asserting that most of our behavior is non-reflective. >>>>>> Much of his writing about non-reflective behavior lines up with is being >>>>>> compatibly the subconscious. Sartre has plenty to say about motives and >>>>>> passions and desires, and it would be revealing to suss that out against >>>>>> the background of today’s advances in neuroscience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your thoughtful questions that bolster my self-doubt. I >>>>>> do not say that in sarcasm but truly thrive on self-doubt. It makes me work >>>>>> harder. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best to all, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Lloyd Jones >>>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>>> 562-209-4080 >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 21, 2019, at 6:45 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter, In the name of shameless self promotion, I have proposed that >>>>>> life is both deterministic and probabilistic based on experimental evidence >>>>>> for both cell physiology and its relationship to Quantum Mechanics (see >>>>>> attached). Perhaps you could comment? Best, John >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:51 PM Peter Lloyd Jones < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> John, Alexander, Gregg, and TOK, >>>>>>> It seems that we agree also that choice is better than free will >>>>>>> because the freedom we are taking about when using the rems “free will" is >>>>>>> a doing, not something to have. It is a verb, as John just said, and as >>>>>>> Sartre has said. Sartre of course worked this out deeply on the ontological >>>>>>> level, saying that freedom, choice, consciousness are all one and the same. >>>>>>> His thought is that the only practical way to look at consciousness is how >>>>>>> we are discussing looking at choice, that it is an action, not a container >>>>>>> of things, that we are temporal beings evolving minute by minute. >>>>>>> Consciousness is the life-long pursuit of being that is a doing and never >>>>>>> an inert thing to label. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A few years ago I read an article by a doctor of medicine who >>>>>>> proposed that consciousness is change, a physical change within our brains, >>>>>>> and that using AI or computing metaphors only drives us away from >>>>>>> understanding consciousness. I wrote him asking if his paper was based on >>>>>>> research he might be able to share and he responded that it was just a >>>>>>> hypothesis he was pondering. Dang it. But another start. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am, so far, in agreement with Sartre, that we act within “a >>>>>>> network of determinants.” That though does not mean that our acts are >>>>>>> determined and unfree. So evolution, like conscious choice, is free to go >>>>>>> in novel directions in evolving novel environments, within the context of >>>>>>> its history. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am pondering whether determinism might not be a problem for >>>>>>> determinism. What I mean is, there are countless determinants competing to >>>>>>> influence our every choices, or our evolution, and how can it be >>>>>>> comprehensibly possible that it is already decided for all time which >>>>>>> determinant is going to be the alfa determinant in all events? Further, >>>>>>> this has to be taken on faith as it is unrepeatable and untestable. That >>>>>>> alone should put it outside the boundaries of science and philosophy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alexander, I do think it is a waste of time to be arguing against >>>>>>> determinism, but, in philosophy, there is a whole movement right now >>>>>>> promoting determinism. My hope is to shoot it dead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do like syndeterminism... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you all for your contributions here, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter Lloyd Jones >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>>>> 562-209-4080 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree. Strongly. But why even pretend that determinism has a case >>>>>>> any longer? Why not go straight to the point and cut the chase and ask in >>>>>>> what way determinism predicted the big bang itself? >>>>>>> Now, if the big bang is an emergence proper, as the birth of physics >>>>>>> itself, we can then rethink history as emergences that create their own >>>>>>> vectors. This means there is fundamentally no difference between parallel >>>>>>> universes and the development of physics and later chemistry and later >>>>>>> biology and later mind and later culture. They are all vectors of >>>>>>> emergences in a fundamentally indeterminist metaverse. >>>>>>> Actually a human life can then be seen as vector of an emergence >>>>>>> called birth itself. Now that's what I call an emergence theory worthy of >>>>>>> proper complexity science. >>>>>>> The question is rather whether indeterminism is the appropriate >>>>>>> term? Perhaps syndeterminism is even better? Especially since we do not >>>>>>> even need chance or dices then either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best intentions >>>>>>> Alexander >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ############################ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>>>> following link: >>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ############################ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>>>> following link: >>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>>>> >>>>>> ############################ >>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>>> following link: >>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>>> <1-s2.0-S0079610718300890-main.pdf> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ############################ >>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>>> following link: >>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>>> >>>>> ############################ >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>> following link: >>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ############################ >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>> following link: >>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>> >>>> ############################ >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>> following link: >>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D., Chair >>> Division of Psychology & Human Development >>> University of Maine, Farmington >>> Farmington, ME 04938 >>> (207) 778-7518 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> ############################ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>> following link: >>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> > > > -- > Steven W. Quackenbush, Ph.D., Chair > Division of Psychology & Human Development > University of Maine, Farmington > Farmington, ME 04938 > (207) 778-7518 > [log in to unmask] > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1