Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 6644_53_blog_entries_2255_656x500.jpg (238KB, 655x500px) Image search:
[Google]
238KB, 655x500px
I don't understand Sartre myself. I mean he puts forward this idea of subjective meaning. But isn't something which we call "meaning" supposed to first and foremost be objective? So yes personal meaning might be objective within the context of the self (ie practical meaning) but "subjective meaning" is an oxymoron and a condition of it is logically incoherent. Am I wrong?
>>
>>8304581
Go and actually read Being and Nothingness
>>
>>8304581
Logic itself is logically incoherent
>>
>>8304581
One eye gazes to the self
The other to naught
(He's to small to see the zoo)
>>
File: 1_eye_looking_at_you_1_looking_4_you.jpg (67KB, 720x542px) Image search:
[Google]
67KB, 720x542px
a bag of wind
>>
Sartre sees phenomonology as an answer, or at least a step forward to describe being and meaning. All consciousness is just consciousness of the self and from that platform can be understood easier.
>>
>>8304581
which I should I be looking at?
>>
>>8304581
>But isn't something which we call "meaning
You really need to just read him or read academic writings on him. The problem here is you are taking a complicated subject, reducing to an absurd degree and taking issue with a word because of a particular person definition you have for a word which no one else shares.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2