Sartrean Freedom; a quick question

[Hegemonicretribution]

I know this may be better in learning or something, but as I am constrained by time (hence lack of posting of late) I thought I would stick it here as it is more likely to be viewed by Sartre nerds here:cool:

Anyway I am writing an essay on Sartrean freedom, and I am currently establishing its ontology. Now its seems that a transcendental deduction is used to get from the existence of nothingnesses, to the role of man in creating these nothingnesses, to the freedom of man. I haven't got time to go through all of Being and Nothingness in detail, so I was wondering if anyone could point me to where Sartre makes this deduction?

My lecturer glossed over this point, and it seems to me that the external factors which determine nothingnesses (along with individual perception), could also determine the individual's perceptions also.

For example;

If I accept that nothingnesses are real, and that they come to be through man (being in-Itself is not sufficient), why must man be free? I experience that Joe is not in my room, this is a combination of a (subjective) genuine expectation to find him here, and an (objective) fact about the world which is that he is not here. The nothingness requires both of these, and that is why I accept that it is through man that nothingnesses come to be. When Sartre asks 'what must man be so that nothingnesses may come into being?' and answers 'they must be free' why is it that they must be free? Expectations, questions, perceptions....all the things which are necessary for nothingnesses and come into being through man could also exist with a determined man could they not?

I don't know, maybe I have missed something, maybe Sartre has. I can answer the other problems with his account, but this one seems to be troublesome. Thanks in advance for any help.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You poor sod, having to make sense of this gobbledygook -- I too had to grapple with it as an undergraduate, so my heart goes out to you.

But, what the hell does this mean:


I accept that nothingnesses are real

Now there can be real leather, real friends, and real money -- but real 'nothingnesses'?

Does this mean there can be artificial, counterfeit or insincere 'nothingnesses', as there can be with leather, money and friends?

And what the dickens is a 'nothingness', anyway?

I have to say, I could make no sense of this verbal spaghetti 25 or so years ago.

Still can't.

As I mentioned in a recent post, philosophers have been inventing empty jargon now for 2500 years in order to derive profound looking theses from the odd use of words.

This then is a classic example.

[Yes, I know he got these odd ideas from Heidegger, but that just condemns them all the more.]

Sorry about the rant, but good luck anyway -- you'll need it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Man ---> Meaning ---> Nothingness

I tried to find some information on it, but I haven't encountered Satre much. Life has facts, science, and it has values, meaning. Establishing meaning requires freedom because if meaning is deterministic, meaning is tangible. If meaning is tangible, it is something science can evaluate. It might be true that meaning is a brain state in individuals. However, then we are faced with the task of evaluating how to interpret brain states. Any scientific criteria for analyzing meaning that does not involve further meanings causes life to be meaningless.

Meaning ---> Science ---> Meaning ---> Science

If we evaluate moral truths purely based on scientific claims, values are somehow nonexistent. If we consider them nonexistent, life is meaningless and science has no meaning and motivation. If determinism is true, meaning is nonexistent.

Since meaning is nonexistent, we need to create meaning to motivate us through life. To create meaning, we must have freedom.

Science is right that meaning is nonexistent. However, the preservation of meaning is more important than science. A life of science entails no meaning. A life with meaning can give meaning to science. We've placed science as valuable because its results are useful for meaning. While particular meanings can be lost, meaning itself is fundamental, and it requires freedom.

I'm not sure having meaning actually removes determinism, but I'm sympathetic to the idea of creating meaning. According to science, meaning doesn't exist. According to meaning, meaning does exist. Although the latter is secular, meaning is more important than science because the former is sufficient for the latter, but the latter is insufficient for the former. Meaning is an intrinsic struggle against the truth that life has no meaning.

[Hit The North]

Meaning is an intrinsic struggle against the truth that life has no meaning. But if meaning is produced through the struggle against the truth that life has no meaning, then it is no longer a truth because meaning has been achieved through the negation of no meaning. :lol:


According to science, meaning doesn't exist.According to social science, meaning and the creation of meanings is an essential fact of the human experience. In social science, meaning is a relation shared by a number of individuals within particular social contexts. It has no objective truth (if such a thing was possible), only an institutional truth.


I'm not sure having meaning actually removes determinismIt doesn't. When seen as a relation, meaning is not merely produced by the individuals, but also imposed upon them. We are caught in webs of meaning.

Not sure what this has to do with Sartre and 'nothingnesses', though - so sorry. :blushing:

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Ok, so basically you need to take "man only is what he is not" seriously. The "nothingness" is the Sartrean term for something like intentionality. Remember the world is first (being/ being-in-itself) then negativity erupts into Being by having something differentiate itself from the world ((I) am not that. (I) am not that.) this innitial negation then becomes negated again ((I) am not not that (I am a revolutionary.)) this method Sartre uses for the nothing(nothing/ being-for-itself). It's been a LONG time since I've read this, but if I had to guess you can find this process in the introduction or in the first part. I'd try sections 2,3, and 4.

Good luck... Being and Nothingness is pretty dense and a lot of the language doesn't translate well from French. I hope that helped.