14 Jan 2008, 1:10 pm
Anubis
Veteran
Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 137
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England
14 Jan 2008, 1:32 pm
14 Jan 2008, 2:12 pm
I merely think that we can't suppose simply suppose morals. Technically though, I think that your statement leads to a logical contradiction within existentialism, we cannot subjectively create something that is objective and then continue to reference it as a subjective element. There is a Jean-Paul Sartre comment relating to this: "To believe is to know you believe, and to know you believe is not to believe" and thus a man cannot truly consciously be an existentialist for that is an admission of belief and thus by affirming that you are, you cease to be an existentialist as you have denied your own beliefs and choices and thus existentialism is a false state between nihilism and faith. Your position is existential of course.
I always knew that below that soporific exterior Sartre was a smart man.
14 Jan 2008, 4:38 pm
HA HA HA!! Yeah, there is a reason I haven't read Being and Nothingness.
22 Jan 2008, 11:43 pm
23 Jan 2008, 5:10 pm
. . . so anyway I tell the doctor "hey if its itching I'm gonna scratch it!"
And he says to me " Well thats why it keeps getting . . .
oops wrong thread, ignore me I'm backing out
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
25 Jan 2008, 9:17 pm
Humans as political animals topic.
I might be a little out of my league here, as this is becoming a little more abstract. I have always been of the opinion that politics is all about choices in groups. It is not a singular thing. There is no logic in politics, therefore it is nonlogical. AG is bang on when he says that J-P Sartre never did label himself as an existentialist as he could not and still be... 
The contradicition is apparent, one of those conditions, a reality of life. It was hard for J-P to write that book, Being and Nothingness. The contradicition was staring him in the face as the Other. (A difficult train of thought, and I could not even write such a book.)
This may be why it is difficult to argue in favour of a universal morality and ethics with widespread laws against engaging in sex with children, the taking of a life without reason, and euthanasia, without people complaining about how evil you may seem to be if you were against universal morality. I happen to be against those three acts and I consider them absolutely wrong. I have different ideas on abortion, killing in self defence and socialism. One could say there are contradictions here. How could I be in favour of someideas and not others? No rhyme or reason. All of these are strong ideas and have been debated by individuals into the ground. But politics is by far a group thing, without rhyme or reason, and the majority often rules. No logic. Laws are also in place to legitimate and legislate what we can and cannot do, again, at least in a democracy, decided by legislation based on case law or by civil law, arrived at in groups. (Not always rational.)
Having said this, politics is nonlogical. It is often irrational.
