Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SARTRE’S ONTOLOGICAL FINDINGS

SARTRE’S ONTOLOGICAL FINDINGS

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 61 |Likes:
Published by V.K. Maheshwari

More info:

Published by: V.K. Maheshwari on Feb 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
SARTRE’S ONTOLOGICAL FINDINGS
Dr. V. K. Maheshwari Pallavi Singh
Former Principal Lecturer, D.I.M.S MeerutK.L.D.A.V College, RurkeeSartre distinguishes between metaphysics and ontology Metaphysics is thestudy of individual process which has given birth to the world as a concreteand particular totality. Metaphysics is thus concerned with the problem of why concrete existents are as they are ontology is the study of the structureof being of the existent taken as a totality. Ontology described being itself,the conditions by which there is a world of human reality etc, Sartre is mainlyconcerned with ontology and pay very little attention to the problems of metaphysics. On the basis of his ontology finding he makes one or twometaphysics assumption. He accept that what history is too sociologymetaphysics is to ontology; The aim of metaphysics is to framea hypothesiswhich can explain and unify the given of ontology his ontological finding areas follows:-1.There are two realms of being – being in-itself and being for itself.Being itself is there massive and absolute contingent. Absolute inthe sense that it cannot be deduced form any other being andcontingent in the sense that there is no reason for its being it canbe and cannot be as well
3
. It has no inside which is opposed tooutside. The being-in-itself is not totally exhausted in theappearance we have of it, It is more than the phenomena. In thissense it is transphenomenal. But is it not Kantian noumenon whichis totality different from the phenomena. Being in- itself is neverrevealed completely to consciousness.2.The other being is being for itself or consciousness. It is posterior tobeing –in-itself, because it rises as a negation of being-in-itself ,it isnegation of desire of definition of bring for itself is possible lack-of-being ,It is desire of being-in-itself, lack of-being, appropriation of being as value and at the same time it is a capacity of putting itself at a distance from its objects. As such it is nothingness- freedom. Itis what is not and is. It is bound to fail projects. So it is lonely andanguished. Man is a useless passion.
1
 
3.There is no god. Sartre criticisms the traditional concept of god asens causa sui. If God causes himself, He must stand at a distancefrom himself. This makes god dependent upon something fromwhich he is at a distance. It means that his existences is contingentand if god is not contingent, He does not exist. If there is god, Hecannot create being-in-itself exnihilo.”A creation exnihilo cannotexplain the coming to pass of bring, for it being is conceived in asubjectivity, even a divine subjectivity, it remains a mode of intrasubjectivity being. Such subjectivity cannot have even therepresentation of an objectivity, and consequently it cannot even beaffected with the will to cerate the objective”
4
Furthermore, god cannot be regarded an intelligent being who bothtranscends and includes the totality. “for the god is consciousness,he is integrated in the totality . And if by his nature he is he is abeing beyond consciousness (that is, an in-itself which would be itsown foundation) still the totality can appear to him only as an object(in that case he lacks the totality’s internal integration as thesubjective effort to reprehend the self) on as subject (then sinceGod is not this subject, he can only experience it without knowingit). Thus, no point of view on the totality is conceivable; the totalityhas no outside and the very question of the meaning of the ‘under-side’ is stripped of meaning. We cannot go further”.
Actually God is the fundamental project of for itself . The for it self perpetually tries to grasp in it self to get rid of the nothingness which itcarries But it can never be successful, Because it become being in itself itlose consciousness which is the very negation of bring. So the fundamentalproject is to be founder of being of its being i.e. to be for itself-in- self. Thispossible combination is, in the theological terms, God is fundamental butunsuccessful project of for itself, there is no escape from the gratuitousabsurdity of the world and his being.4. As far as the origin of for itself is concerned, no metaphysical theoryis possible in the light of ontological findings. For-itself as the negation of being is dependent for its being on being-in-itself. But in-itself cannot be thecause of for-itself To be a cause requires unity with the effect and being-in-itself cannot be its own negation without being consciousness. So only as if explanation is possible. Regarding the origin of consciousness ontology candeclare only that every thing takes place as if the in itself in a project tofound itself gave itself the modifications of for itself.2
 
In the light of those ontological finding we can say that Sartre is not adualist. He does not grant equal status to being-for-itself and to being –initself. For-it-self would be mere abstraction without in itself because it isnothing but emptiness of being. “For con- ciousness there is no being exceptfor this precise obligation to be a revealing intuition of something “His standis akin to that of materialistic monism. Being-in-itself is gratuitous andabsolute reality and for-itself anyhow comes as a negation of this massivebeing “The for itself is like a tiny nihilation which has its origin at the heart of being and this nihilation is sufficient to cause a total upheaval to happen tothe in-itself. This upheaval is the world”. The defect of this hypothesis isobvious. How can being in itself cause a tiny nihilation without itself becoming nothingness? Sartre is also opposed to the idea of accepting boththe for itself and itself as the two dimension of one encompassing being.Because the former is the negation of the latter and both cannot becombined in a comprehensive being simultaneously. So, It is clear that for-itself is not a parallel reality to being in itself and it is certainly posterior to initself Although it comes out of being-in- itself but is unique in itscharacteristic. If (for-itself)is desire of denial of appropriation of being etc. Butit is never satisfied in its projects, It can never be one with its values. It isbound to be discontent and anguished. This Sartre declares on the basis of phenomenological analysis of our empirical experiences. But if we pass on tosome deeper experience or spiritual experience, We find that there is nodissatisfaction and those who have gone through such experience enjoyeternal peace and bliss. Should we ignore this aspect of human experiencewhile analyzing our consciousness? Sartre has totally neglected this aspectand has based his analysis on the data supplied by day-to –day experienceonly. But we have got the capacity to go beyond this experience which hisbased on the subject- object dichotomy. This has been accepted by the seersand mystics of all the countries from the time immemorial and now this beingaccepted by the advocates of modern science too. We are one with theultimate comprehensive rtealitywhi8ch cannot be massive and blind being initself but transparent eternal consciousness That is why the discontent of human being is not satisfied only by uniting oneself with the ultimate realitywhich will be the state of desire-less where there would be no dualism of foritself and in-itself. The metaphysical hypothesis of meteriahsticmonism and dualism fails tosolve the problem of the advent of being for itself. Being- for- itself cannotcome out of being in- it-self because the latter cannot hide the former in itself without being it own denial, i.e. consciousness. The dualism is also notacceptable because for itself is posterior to in self. So better we acceptablethe hypothesis of spiritual non-dualistic monism. There is only eternalconsciousness which is not the objective consciousness of something but onlyblissful (stage of) consciousness where there in no difference between the3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->