DarkAztek

Jean-Paul Sartre, a famous existentialist author once said, "The tragedy of human existence lies in the absence of any transcendence." In other more simplistic words, life sucks without moving forwards and being able to be above materialism.

Before I go on my own tangent on the subject, I'd like to hear other's opinions on whether it is right or wrong or whatever. Confirm it, deny it, love it, hate it, whatever. Apply it to human nature, if you must.

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

kid_buu

yep, i think now-a-days, people are way too materialistic. remeber thou shall not covet? there is just way too much biological and not enough spiritual.

DarkAztek

It has nothing to do with materialism. It has to do with progress as a person. Is it feasible? Is it POSSIBLE?

__________________
[CENTER]
Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō[/CENTER]
[CENTER]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v293/HookerBodyShots/shark.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[center][b]Filler content[/b][/center]

Trey

Epic Bump!

I was genuinely interested in this though. I agree with Sarte, and I don't see why any logical person wouldn't. Pushing the boundaries of ourselves also opens up avenues in the universe. Things thought impossible last century are here now. World information doubes every two years. By the time I'm in college, I'll be learning shit twice as advanced as when those that are graduating this year did. It's really interesting.

Mashed Potato

To sift this quote through semantics, is Satre referring to a sort of physical-cum-spiritual type of transcendence? i.e. existing without being attached to a tangible entity? I sound like I'm way off, but it was the first thought that crossed my mind, especially when you mentioned materialism.

Mm but he sounds like he's talking about the sort of plateau life travels on. How empty it all is. How dying sort of negates all meaning we once thought to have had. Admittedly I find myself nodding to this sentiment!

Another interpretation: if he's claiming that mankind as a whole lacks progress, then I disagree. Advancement is undeniably present if we were to look back on history.

__________________

♥

Trey

Well, Sarte seems to most likely dealing on the physical plane, as he used existence. The adverse interpretation would be paradoxical. So, bearing that in mind, I disagree with him on several accounts. Human transcendence is prevelant throughout history. We're getting faster, stronger, smarter. All the time.

Now, if he means to transcend the human form or something, as in we're not evolving, then I can't say I agree with him. We as a species have peaked as far as evolution is concerned, I believe. Unless some cataclysmic event forces us into perverse conditions our current bodies aren't able to withstand. And even then, extinction is the prominent occurence.

Mashed Potato

Is he talking about mankind as a whole, or an individual being? Shit needs to be cleared up!

__________________

♥

Trey

I think it's pretty safe to assume humanity as a whole.

Hiraku

when i read this it sounded like for an individual that accepts how there life is as a whole and dont try to advance any further.

For example you have your job and your home and family. You achieve every thing than life has to offer to regular joes and nothing more.

You become complaicent and accept your position in life and dont want or hunger for more other than the things you have or want.

__________________
Hiraku

The Look of Innocence

Trey

^But that itself goes against the very nature of humans. More often than not a person will want more than they have. So I question the validity of that conclusion, though it is an interesting one nonetheless.

Hiraku

Thats how it sounded to me that people that have a good and easy way of life accept it and just dont want to take the effort to improve there position in life cause its better than those around them.

For example compare a child from a high upper middle class in europe to an urban urchin of the poor city's in Latin America.

The child from Latin America will have the drive to achieve and grow to a higher position in life.

Than the European Child would needs to achieve in life.

But may be thats my own interpretation.

That the harder your life is the more drive you have to improve it to make it better. Than if every thing is already at your disposal.

__________________
Hiraku

The Look of Innocence

Ero

This also needs to be cleared up lol.

Are you saying that he's referring to humanity through general and collective tersm?

Or are you perhaps saying that he's referring to humanity through the issues of the individual?

If it is the former, then Trey while your argument is correct, i believe that you may be diverging from [what i believe] to be Sartre's key concern.

I say this because, Sartre's theories and philosophies [as DA had alluded to earlier] were mainly centred around the study of individual human existence.

Thus perhaps the progress of this thread so far into the scientific and evolutionary progress and 'moving forward' [as DA had so very generously put it], may be ill informed.

So where am i going with this?

That perhaps, unlike what you had so purported earlier, Sartre was not so much referring to the physical realm of 'existence' as he was referring to the 'physics' of existence. [if you will allow me this one comparison].

I personally believe that as Hiraku had partially alluded to earlier, Sartre's reference was to the individuals lack of transcendence. However as you had pointed out quite aptly Hiraku's reference to humanities physical and 'social' stagnation was not 100% correct. The lack of transcendence that i believe to be referred to here is [however paradoxical or incongruous this may seem] the one of the 'existential' variety.

That is, the individuals ultimate inability to see through and past the self, as existentialism focuses on the inherent meaninglessness of this reality and the suffering that individuals undergo in their search for purpose and meaning. This search unfortunately, due to the nature of individuality, alienates and isolates all of us.

Thus perhaps the so named 'tragedy of human existence', highlighted by Sartre, may indeed be a reflection of the inability for individuals to overcome this meaninglessness and connect with each other, the inability to transcend the self and cross the barriers of the wall that is our own consciousness.

If this is so, then i partially agree with Sartre, as while some may argue that selflessness and empathy exists in this world, this empathy is not the tragedy so mentioned, rather it is the inability for total and utter selflessness, the absence of the ego, something that is extremely rare [if it 'exists' at all].

While you may question the 'tragedy' of this absence, it can be observed in every day life. We argue, we fight, we bicker because we believe that our own individual perspective is correct, and this collision of ego's is one that undoubtedly causes despair and anguish.

So in conclusion, Sartre here may indeed be leaning partially towards Hegellian schools of thought, that is the concept of spiritual and mental 'communism'.

Apologies if this post seems irrational, illogical or inherently flawed, i just felt a compulsion to post 'is all' XD

Trey

It seems the most confusing part is not the significance of Sarte's words, but the words themselves. One can glean many broad and similar conclusions as well as a few esoteric ones.

I still see his words from a physical front, but upon further reflection and pondering your words I can see how limited my previous interpretation is. It doesn't leave much manueverability for variables.

Ero

without a doubt, his words can still be applied from a physical perspective [ala reader response theory] my goal was merely to contextualise Sartre's words from his existential point of view.

something that i hope would help better the understanding of the quotation and its origins, hence fuel this discussion further.

In other words, it was just me trying to bring this argument to another plane of meaning so that you debaters can debate it further. Its too interesting and thread to let die.

With that said, i'll let you all get to it, this whole arguing/debating thing isn't really my forte.

Trey

Well since existentialism isn't really my cup o', as everytime I reflect upon it when I have a spare thought I always arrive at paradoxical conclusions, I won't get too far into it. We honestly won't find out "why we exist" or "where we came from" until we unravel some of the universe's most guarded secrets. If humanity's apparent ignorance is indeed what Sarte was prodding at, I can agree with those basic terms.

Existentialism itself, I find, has to rely on some faith in either fate or a transentient being. Otherwise, there is no reason why we're here; we just are. Our place in the universe is what we carve for ourselves, not scripted beforehand.