A question about Sartre

@Fido,

Okay I understand your reasoning finally. I can get behind what you said, and I agree that we are asking for destruction based upon the value system that is in place in the modern world.

1 Reply

@jos09014,

Ontologically speaking, I think you are right when you say that there is no explicitly stated system of morals in the universe--outside of our minds. It's much like the idea that there is no explicitly stated mathematics in the universe outside of our minds. Does that mean that they don't exist, however?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Yes, they exist: as our creations. But they do no preexit our species.
E=mc2 did not preexist Einstein. He created it; he didn't find it. It tells us about his mind more than about a formula existing in the world apart from human intelligence.

2 Replies

@jos09014,

jos09014 wrote:

Okay I understand your reasoning finally. I can get behind what you said, and I agree that we are asking for destruction based upon the value system that is in place in the modern world.

Social morals which are often laid on the individual as a obligation are that only because all true morals are essential for the survival of the community... If the community says that the individual should make some sacrifice up to, and even of life for the community, then this is what communities have always done and justly so since they give life and give life protection... Morals are not all obligation and sacrifice... Virtue and health are the side of morals only the old can see, and the young see only the drag of it; but society know collectively, through culture more than any individual could possibly ever know... Society knows what works... Society knows what behavior is healthy...

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Yes, they exist: as our creations. But they do no preexit our species.
E=mc2 did not preexist Einstein. He created it; he didn't find it. It tells us about his mind more than about a formula existing in the world apart from human intelligence.

I disagree... What you are saying is that thought or knowledge has some direct power over reality and this is false... First of all, Einstein did not discover the equasion associated with his name, but he turned around an existing equasion by Husserl... Second; it was Einstein whose existence was made with the equasion and not the equasion which was made with him... We know him by the discoveries that were made by him... Before that time, he lived, and after, he existed... E='s was a new form of understanding, but humanity has always been made by their forms whatever they are: Government, morals, science, dwellings, religions, clothing, etc... We discover new forms and are made new by them...

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

I tend to think that these abstracts exist outside of our minds. We didn't create them; we discovered them and we set to explicate them. Einstein's was a discovery within the larger discovery that we attempt to explicate and call mathematics.

I think that the problems lie in the disconnect, infinitesimally small, or large depending on one's point of view, between these abstract things, and our atempts to explicate them, to put our finger on them, as it were.

In regard to morals, I think that there is something that compels us to behave in ways that ensure, on the one hand, our individual welfare, and on the other hand, the welfare of the group within which we find ourselves. This is but one dynamic within the thing we attempt to explicate and call "morals."

(Apologies for any bad grammar and spelling. I'm writing this on a cel. phone, and lack the facility of a spell checker.)

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I tend to think that these abstracts exist outside of our minds. We didn't create them; we discovered them and we set to explicate them. Einstein's was a discovery within the larger discovery that we attempt to explicate and call mathematics.

I think that the problems lie in the disconnect, infinitesimally small, or large depending on one's point of view, between these abstract things, and our atempts to explicate them, to put our finger on them, as it were.

In regard to morals, I think that there is something that compels us to behave in ways that ensure, on the one hand, our individual welfare, and on the other hand, the welfare of the group within which we find ourselves. This is but one dynamic within the thing we attempt to explicate and call "morals."

(Apologies for any bad grammar and spelling. I'm writing this on a cel. phone, and lack the facility of a spell checker.)

We presume reality exists outside of our minds, but abstracts never do... Even mind is an abstraction... We simply have no way of grasping the world beyond such analogy...

0 Replies

A question about Sartre

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know