What is the Concept of Being in Sartre's Philosophy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "being" in Sartre's philosophy, particularly in relation to Kant's notion of noumenon and Descartes' famous statement "I think therefore I am." Participants explore the distinctions between Sartre's "in-itself" and Kant's ideas, as well as the implications of existence and being in philosophical discourse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the difference between Sartre's "in-itself" and Kant's noumenon, suggesting that if there is no difference, it could undermine Sartre's philosophy.
  • Another participant interprets Descartes' "I am" as representing existence, while linking "am" to being, proposing that existence is subjective and being is objective.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the distinction between being and existing, questioning how they can be separate concepts.
  • One post raises a philosophical inquiry about the value of knowledge, suggesting it relates to self-preservation and identity.
  • Another participant agrees with the notion that Sartre may be confusing or unclear in his arguments.
  • A later reply questions the relevance of Sartre, indicating a lack of familiarity with his work.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between being and existence, with some finding Sartre's distinctions confusing. There is no consensus on the interpretations of Sartre's philosophy or its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various philosophical concepts without fully resolving the distinctions or implications of Sartre's ideas compared to those of Kant and Descartes. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of existence and being that are not universally accepted.

Rade
From this site:
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/sartre.html

we read:
What is Being? What is Nothingness? How are they related? For Sartre, Being is objective, it is what is. Being is in-itself. Existence, on the other hand, has a subjective quality in relation to human reality. Existence refers to the fact that some individual or thing is present in the world.

But...(here I assume the site is correct about Sartre)...what does Sartre gain by holding on to 'being' since he also rejects, in the introduction to Being and Nothingness, Kant’s concept of noumenon ? So my question, what the difference between the "in-itself" of Sartre "being" and the "in-itself" of Kant noumenon ? If no difference, is philosophy of Sartre then falsified ?

Finally, for Descarte and his "I think therefore I am", is the "I am" of Descarte the "being" or the "existence" of Sartre (or both or neither?) ?

Any thought on either of these two questions is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Rade,

I would think that, in the "I am" of Descartes, the "I" is existence, as it is existence that is the noun (and is reflexive, in a sense, on the subject using it) and the "am" is Being, as 'am' is the first-person singular of 'to be'. It is 'existence' that 'is', to Sartre. So, whether it is Descartes or you or I (or God) who says "I am", it's another way of saying 'existence is' in reference to oneself.
Sartre does seem a little confused (or, at least, confusing), but then, he's not here to speak up for himself. I suppose he's saying that existence is a quality that something must have in order to 'be', which is why he feels it is subjective to the thing that 'is'. Whilst 'being' is the state of existing, which is objective with respect to everything that exists. But, of course, this begs the question "What is it that exists?" I would say 'energy', as it is neither created nor destroyed. And I can think of nothing that exists that is not comprised wholly of energy in some form or another (and, in most cases, a mixture).
Cheers,
Pat
 
i don't see how being isn't existing.
 
To be or not to be, that is the question. It is a matter of self-preservation above all else. Do you value knowledge because you may do something with it or do you value knowledge because with it you may become something?
 
Agreed. That's why I said Sartre appears either confused or confusing.
 
i'd say i value knowledge because i might do something with it one day. who is Sartre?
 

Similar threads

When did the concept of a theoretical construct first appear?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Are Kant, Freud, and Sartre Truly the Pillars of Unbelief?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Undergrad Measure of existence? (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Descartes: I Think Therefore I Am
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
31K
Is Cantor's work on transfinite numbers linked to philosophy and religion?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
What is the Meaning of Our Existence?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Philosophy Reading Group / Kant & Math
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
Undergrad What Does Falsifiability Mean in the Context of Science?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Jocaxian Theorems: Proving the Existence of an Ultimate Reality
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Does Spacetime Have Physical Existence?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K