“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct

[RoadKingLarry]

You are unthinkingly employing an argumentum ad hominum against Sartre, which indeed will not fly.
I am not a communist fool!  I am merely employing Sartre's theory of freedom...

I disagree. While I can respect his early struggles in occupied France I simply will not accept a "theory of freedom" from a man that also extols the virtues of communism and praises a vile murderer like Guevara. Freedom and communism/socialism are wholly incompatible conditions.

[Brad Johnson]

I am not a communist fool!  I am merely employing Sartre's theory of freedom...

Which failed - miserably - like a turd in a punch bowl.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

Better be careful, RKL, or JP Sartre gonna git you!

[RoadKingLarry]

If you would actually study the texts I employ from Sartre, and, compare them to the way you actually originate  your acts, you would agree with them.  I am not appealing to authority here; I am merely employing what are clearly true descriptions of the origination of human acts...

And that is just your opinion, your truth. I do not accept them.

[dogmush]

Everything you say is merely pure unsupported assertion

Sure it's an assertion.  That's what forum posts are.  Let's try and get it some support, shall we?

Assertion:

Well, they seem to attempt to set forth Sartrean thought.  I'm not sure they succeed.  It's been a while since I read up on this branch of existentialist philosophy, but I recall that other folks could make it basically intelligible, which your posts fail to do.

Anyone in this thread that feels Bosco1's post communicate Sartre's ideas in an intelligible way, please throw us a reply that you understood the whole thing.

As for Sartre's international acceptance, i concede you can probably find several college students in different countries that accept his concept of human freedom as true and unlacking, which meets the strict definition of the words "internationally accepted". 

[Perd Hapley]

Was John Philip Sartre the feller what wrote that patriotic music?

[Perd Hapley]

If you would actually study the texts I employ from Sartre, and, compare them to the way you actually originate  your acts, you would agree with them.  I am not appealing to authority here; I am merely employing what are clearly true descriptions of the origination of human acts...

Did he accept the divinity of Jesus Christ? The virgin birth?

[Bosco1]

I disagree. While I can respect his early struggles in occupied France I simply will not accept a "theory of freedom" from a man that also extols the virtues of communism and praises a vile murderer like Guevara. Freedom and communism/socialism are wholly incompatible conditions.

To argue against the man and not his position is absolutely fallacious.

[Ben]

To argue against the man and not his position is absolutely fallacious.

The man's philosophical position was fallacious:

Sartre held that the Soviet Union was a "revolutionary" state working for the betterment of humanity and could be criticized only for failing to live up to its own ideals, but that critics had to take in mind that the Soviet state needed to defend itself against a hostile world; by contrast Sartre held that the failures of "bourgeois" states were due to their innate shortcomings.[53] The Swiss journalist François Bondy wrote that, based on a reading of Sartre's numerous essays, speeches and interviews "a simple basic pattern never fails to emerge: social change must be comprehensive and revolutionary" and the parties that promote the revolutionary charges "may be criticized, but only by those who completely identify themselves with its purpose, its struggle and its road to power", deeming Sartre's position to be "existentialist".[53]

Sartre believed at this time in the moral superiority of the Eastern Bloc, arguing that this belief was necessary "to keep hope alive"[58] and opposed any criticism of Soviet Union[59] to the extent that Maurice Merleau-Ponty called him an "ultra-Bolshevik".[60] Sartre's expression "workers of Billancourt must not be deprived of their hopes"[60] (Fr. "il ne faut pas désespérer Billancourt"), became a catchphrase meaning communist activists should not tell the whole truth to the workers in order to avoid decline in their revolutionary enthusiasm.[61]

In 1954, just after Stalin's death, Sartre visited the Soviet Union, which he stated he found a "complete freedom of criticism" while condemning the United States for sinking into "prefascism".[62] Sartre wrote about those Soviet writers expelled from the Soviet Writers' Union "still had the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves by writing better books".[63] Sartre's comments on Hungarian revolution of 1956 are quite representative to his frequently contradictory and changing views. On one hand, Sartre saw in Hungary a true reunification between intellectuals and workers[64] only to criticize it for "losing socialist base".[65]

In 1964 Sartre attacked Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" which condemned the Stalinist repressions and purges. Sartre argued that "the masses were not ready to receive the truth".[66]

And you wrote:

When I say "law'' I am referring to that series  of persons who make, mediate, and enforce law; I am not referring to grassroots persons..

Exactly who Sartre admired and defended.

You should educate yourself on the people and political philosophies that Sartre admired. Che Guevara shook off the "shackles of law". There are photos of him laughing as he shot men, women, and children.

As to Sartre's claim that the Soviet state was working for the betterment of humanity, I highly recommend that you read The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to get a glimpse into what Sartre stood for and defended.

[RoadKingLarry]

To argue against the man and not his position is absolutely fallacious.

Again, I disagree. How can you have any faith in the philosophy of a man that on one hands argues for freedom and on the other hand praises communism and the murderous practitioners of it. Freedom and communism are mutually exclusive conditions.
That would be like a person trying to teach me about orbital mechanics while simultaneously promoting flat earth theory.

[cordex]

The original and all subsequent posts set forth Sartrean thought, which thought is not lacking.

I'm not going to claim Sartre was an idiot, but yes, his philosophy absolutely was lacking.  Just as a start he was inconsistent and ambiguous, as has been noted he was an advocate of totalitarianism.  I don't think he was quite as Utopian as you, though.

If you're so blindly adherent to him that you fail to even recognize that his philosophy had shortcomings then your faith in him seems to take on an almost religious cast.

In addition, I don't think your posts even do an adequate job of clearly communicating Sartre, at least as far as I've understood him. 

This is not attempted to be a slight, but is English a second language for you?

Naming Sartre's internationally accepted concept of human freedom as lacking vainly attempts to put yourself ahead of Sartre...

Do you mean to suggest Sartre's philosophy was complete, perfect, and without flaw?  Or that your understanding of it is likewise complete, perfect, and without flaw?

[Bosco1]

Again, I disagree. How can you have any faith in the philosophy of a man that on one hands argues for freedom and on the other hand praises communism and the murderous practitioners of it. Freedom and communism are mutually exclusive conditions.
That would be like a person trying to teach me about orbital mechanics while simultaneously promoting flat earth theory.

One simply has to read, for instance, the texts which I quote from Sartre, and, if one is honest, and actually works to understand what Sartre is describing there, one will see that Sartre's description of the origination of a human act is correct.  I did not know a single solitary thing about his politics!  An ad hominum argument is when one mistakenly argues against a person himself and not his position; that is what you are doing and it is silly...

[Bosco1]

I'm not going to claim Sartre was an idiot, but yes, his philosophy absolutely was lacking.  Just as a start he was inconsistent and ambiguous, as has been noted he was an advocate of totalitarianism.  I don't think he was quite as Utopian as you, though.

If you're so blindly adherent to him that you fail to even recognize that his philosophy had shortcomings then your faith in him seems to take on an almost religious cast.

In addition, I don't think your posts even do an adequate job of clearly communicating Sartre, at least as far as I've understood him. 

This is not attempted to be a slight, but is English a second language for you?
Do you mean to suggest Sartre's philosophy was complete, perfect, and without flaw?  Or that your understanding of it is likewise complete, perfect, and without flaw?

No, I am not claiming Sartre's entire thinking is without foible.  All that I am doing is employing his ontological description of how a human act originates.  I am not employing his entire radically vast writings. Sartre's description of the origin of a human act is predicated upon Spinoza's "...determinatio  negatio est...",i.e., determination is negation. His position is a historical one grounded in Spinoza.  Hegel also said "All determination is negation." The origination of a  human act is a purely negative process and, law deems itself, a given positive extant language, to be a means to originating human action, which is simply incorrect.
The claim that I am not correctly positing Sartre's theory of the origin of action, and, that I do not make it intelligible is absolutely absurd.  I have explained it over and over and over.  It is the membership of this forum which appears to be so radically bigoted against Sartre, that they cannot do other than use ad hominem thinking against him, and, apparently are not energetic enough to work to understand the mere two texts of Sartre which I employ.

[Ben]

I did not know a single solitary thing about his politics!

His politics are part of his philosophy. If you're not familiar with them, perhaps you should read a bit more about the whole of his philosophical positions before focusing on one aspect of them while ignoring the rest. You're responses thus far to people who don't agree with you have mostly been the wordy and pedantic version of "That's what you are, but what am I?". Telling people that they are arguing wrong will not result in any beneficial debate.

[RoadKingLarry]

One simply has to read, for instance, the texts which I quote from Sartre, and, if one is honest, and actually works to understand what Sartre is describing there, one will see that Sartre's description of the origination of a human act is correct.  I did not know a single solitary thing about his politics!  An ad hominum argument is when one mistakenly argues against a person himself and not his position; that is what you are doing and it is silly...

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

A persons philosophy does not spring to life out of a vacuum. His perceptions are colored in such a way that he was a supporter of a communist system that was responsible for the murder of millions of people. He had high praise for a murderous psychopath, racist and homophobe (Guevara) and described him as the era's most perfect man. 
From such a man I will not only suspect his motivations abut also his end goals. Anyone that promotes communism and is a supporter of Marx and a fan of people like Guevara deserve ridicule and derision.

[Bosco1]

His politics are part of his philosophy. If you're not familiar with them, perhaps you should read a bit more about the whole of his philosophical positions before focusing on one aspect of them while ignoring the rest. You're responses thus far to people who don't agree with you have mostly been the wordy and pedantic version of "That's what you are, but what am I?". Telling people that they are arguing wrong will not result in any beneficial debate.

The use of ad hominem argumentation against Sartre is absolutely inacceptable.  Have you ever examined Sartre's entire bibliography?!  Well, let me tell you that it is vastly vast.  One does not need to study the whole of all his writing to comprehend and employ his explanation of the origin of a human act!

[Bosco1]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
That dictum is absolutely absurd!

[Ben]

The use of ad hominem argumentation against Sartre is absolutely inacceptable. 

I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means, or else are purposely misusing it, to once again respond with "that's what you are, but what am I?"

While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

[RoadKingLarry]

The use of ad hominem argumentation against Sartre is absolutely inacceptable.  Have you ever examined Sartre's entire bibliography?!  Well, let me tell you that it is vastly vast.  One does not need to study the whole of all his writing to comprehend and employ his explanation of the origin of a human act!

The world is not a high school debate team competition. As to your claim of ad hominem attacks, we are not criticizing or questioning the person. We are criticizing and questioning the basis of his philosophy based on known and published accounts of his own words.
The Mouse does not care why the cheese is free.

[Ben]

The Mouse does not care why the cheese is free.

AD HOMINEM!!!!!!!!!!
 

[cordex]

No, I am not claiming Sartre's entire thinking is without foible.

Good start.

All that I am doing is employing his ontological description of how a human act originates.  I am not employing his entire radically vast writings. Sartre's description of the origin of a human act is predicated upon Spinoza's "...determinatio  negatio est...",i.e., determination is negation. His position is a historical one grounded in Spinoza.

 
You're taking a small piece of Sartre's writings, wildly extrapolating from that, then complaining that people who don't immediately fall in line with your philosophy can't possibly know what they're talking about because your boy Sartre backs you up with some word salad that doesn't remotely address what you're trying to claim.

Look, I agree that humans are capable of rejecting law.  We do it all the time.  We may face consequences for that rejection, but we can do so.  I don't see how your utopian view of anarchy flows from that.  Nor did Sartre, or Hegel, or Spinoza.

Hegel also said "All determination is negation."

Hegel was another advocate of a powerful, centralized state as well.

The origination of a  human act is a purely negative process and, law deems itself, a given positive extant language, to be a means to originating human action, which is simply incorrect.

In what way is law "a given positive extant language"?  I'm not even sure what you're trying to convey with that phrase.  Again, is English a second language for you?  You use (and misuse) a lot of five dollar words, but also get tripped up on a lot of simple words.  "Inacceptable", for instance, instead of "unacceptable".  I wonder if there is a language barrier that is interfering with this discussion to some extent.

The claim that I am not correctly positing Sartre's theory of the origin of action, and, that I do not make it intelligible is absolutely absurd.  I have explained it over and over and over. 

If you've had to explain it over and over is it possible you're not doing a great job at communicating it?  Or that your understanding conflicts with other's understanding?  Surely someone as dedicated as you are to a radical subjectivist like Sartre wouldn't be trying to push his own reality on other independent actors ...

It is the membership of this forum which appears to be so radically bigoted against Sartre, that they cannot do other than use ad hominem thinking against him, and, apparently are not energetic enough to work to understand the mere two texts of Sartre which I employ.

That may be true.  Maybe you're the only one who is mentally capable of truly grasping it.

[Bosco1]

I'm thinking you don't know what "ad hominem" means, or else are purposely misusing it, to once again respond with "that's what you are, but what am I?"

While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

Certainly I know what it means.  It means to argue against the  man and not against his position.  It is a logical fallacy taught in introductory logic.

[Ben]

Certainly I know what it means.  It means to argue against the  man and not against his position.  It is a logical fallacy taught in introductory logic.

Okay, so you're misusing it then. Just so we're clear.

[Bosco1]

Good start.
 
You're taking a small piece of Sartre's writings, wildly extrapolating from that, then complaining that people who don't immediately fall in line with your philosophy can't possibly know what they're talking about because your boy Sartre backs you up with some word salad that doesn't remotely address what you're trying to claim.

Look, I agree that humans are capable of rejecting law.  We do it all the time.  We may face consequences for that rejection, but we can do so.  I don't see how your utopian view of anarchy flows from that.  Nor did Sartre, or Hegel, or Spinoza.
Hegel was another advocate of a powerful, centralized state as well.
In what way is law "a given positive extant language"?  I'm not even sure what you're trying to convey with that phrase.  Again, is English a second language for you?  You use (and misuse) a lot of five dollar words, but also get tripped up on a lot of simple words.  "Inacceptable", for instance, instead of "unacceptable".  I wonder if there is a language barrier that is interfering with this discussion to some extent.
If you've had to explain it over and over is it possible you're not doing a great job at communicating it?  Or that your understanding conflicts with other's understanding?  Surely someone as dedicated as you are to a radical subjectivist like Sartre wouldn't be trying to push his own reality on other independent actors ...
That may be true.  Maybe you're the only one who is mentally capable of truly grasping it.

Why can't you simply allow me the freedom to be who I am and to say what I say, without questioning each and every thing I write!?  You are hypercritical. No, English is not a second language. You clearly have not mastered "Being and Nothingness" and, hence, are not in a position to constantly claim I am misrepresenting the content thereof, and on and on about my lack of understanding of Sartre, while, you have no understanding at all. This is getting tiresome, and, the membership here keeps on and on exhibiting a profound bigoted ignorance...

[Bosco1]

Okay, so you're misusing it then. Just so we're clear.

You are dead wrong.  I am not misusing it. Members are arguing against the man, not against his position regarding the origin of a  human act.