![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
1. I'm spending the day in girl form and surviving without passing. This is a test of character.
2. Sartre vs Dennett:
In Essays in Existentialism, Sartre appears to have anticipated Dennett's objection to consciousness. The difference in the language used by Logical Positivism and Continental Philosophy seems to be the reason why no one else has noticed this before (as far as I can tell).
Basically, Sartre says that the argument that Consciousness exists within Being, and thus is not real consciousness, is insupportable because of the basic relation of positing that idea in the first place. If you're going to talk about Being in a way that it is meaningful, you've already presupposed that Being is bounded, that there is something outside of apparent reality. So to question consciousness is to answer your question. It is still possible to argue that it is indeterminate whether or not consciousness exists, by claiming that the question itself is the product of a flawed facticity. But that's as far as you can go. If you can say the question has an answer, the answer is given.
3. Sartre vs Hegel:
Later on in the Essays, Sartre basically reveals Hegel as a dialectical Platonist. Thus revealing himself as the dialectical Aristotle in some ways.
Hegel derives his forms from the Ur-form which then populate all lesser, more contingent forms. But Sartre devastates this by showing that the Ur-Form itself is contingent, in that it is bounded or meaningless. In other words, if you're going to have a "house" you've already created the conditions for it's destruction. If a hurricane shifts matter around a certain way, the houses in its area are destroyed because they no longer correspond to the Human Definition of what a House is. Without such a definition, things have moved and changed, but even to say that is to say that certain collections of matter have a particular meaning to us, that we can say they've "changed". So to have Absolute Spirit, you have already created the conditions for it's destruction, and thus it is not Absolute at all.
Again, the furthest one can go is an indeterminate dialectic, moving toward something but never ever reaching it, because the indeterminacy is always there, as long as the dialectic is.
4. Walking around a Polish neighborhood which has been invaded by hipsters, as a transwoman reading Sartre: Priceless.
2. Sartre vs Dennett:
In Essays in Existentialism, Sartre appears to have anticipated Dennett's objection to consciousness. The difference in the language used by Logical Positivism and Continental Philosophy seems to be the reason why no one else has noticed this before (as far as I can tell).
Basically, Sartre says that the argument that Consciousness exists within Being, and thus is not real consciousness, is insupportable because of the basic relation of positing that idea in the first place. If you're going to talk about Being in a way that it is meaningful, you've already presupposed that Being is bounded, that there is something outside of apparent reality. So to question consciousness is to answer your question. It is still possible to argue that it is indeterminate whether or not consciousness exists, by claiming that the question itself is the product of a flawed facticity. But that's as far as you can go. If you can say the question has an answer, the answer is given.
3. Sartre vs Hegel:
Later on in the Essays, Sartre basically reveals Hegel as a dialectical Platonist. Thus revealing himself as the dialectical Aristotle in some ways.
Hegel derives his forms from the Ur-form which then populate all lesser, more contingent forms. But Sartre devastates this by showing that the Ur-Form itself is contingent, in that it is bounded or meaningless. In other words, if you're going to have a "house" you've already created the conditions for it's destruction. If a hurricane shifts matter around a certain way, the houses in its area are destroyed because they no longer correspond to the Human Definition of what a House is. Without such a definition, things have moved and changed, but even to say that is to say that certain collections of matter have a particular meaning to us, that we can say they've "changed". So to have Absolute Spirit, you have already created the conditions for it's destruction, and thus it is not Absolute at all.
Again, the furthest one can go is an indeterminate dialectic, moving toward something but never ever reaching it, because the indeterminacy is always there, as long as the dialectic is.
4. Walking around a Polish neighborhood which has been invaded by hipsters, as a transwoman reading Sartre: Priceless.
