Intersubjective Attitudes | Sartre | Being & Nothingness

[@Phatdude1337]

It took me 110 days to finish being & Nothingness 😅, but these videos help me understand Sartre deeper, thank you 🙏🏻

[@Enomai4]

Thanks!

[@danielbrockman1221]

I'm just going to put a super thanks on all of your videos because I think all of your content is great, I don't want to write some creative writing on each one, so I'll just copy and paste this meta message, keep up the good work, thank you for all the content, it's amazing! ❤🌼🥦🍀😎🤙🌛🌛🥦🥦🌼❤️⭐

[@ComradeDt]

Keep making these, bud.

[@kerycktotebag8164]

im dx'd Autistic and me & boyfriend invented a word when i was thirteen for me to say back to him when he said "I love you"- we ended up with 'cruvust' (crush-puppyLove-lust) and in retrospect after my most recent adult relationship w/ joyfriend when i was 28 & he was 37. i felt 'cruvust' for them but w/ the difference of frontal lobe integration. After my penultimate relationship which failed when he said my mature-' cruvust" (i just said "companionate love") was missing something. I processed that, and we discussed how his feelings were "rhapsodic, poetic attachment to a We/Us" at a small scale (us two) beyond the sum of the parts (me & him). I didn't feel this & it was the same reason i wanted 'cruvust' as a word earlier in life. But i didn't need to feel it to feel the most significant alterity & want to devote more time for presence, "caress ", intimacy, etc. so we could be closer friends, sharing physicality, relying on one another But this rhapsodic, poetic attachment to more than just companionate, devoted, platonic & sexual, affectionate (which, when i feel all of those simultaneously , i feel like "love" is commensurate to my attachment)... it's something I've never needed to feel nor did i realize was possible. Aside from how i feel about a compelling, cathartic song or something, but i didn't realize ppl felt that way for their partners. My last partner did, like my prior boyfriend, feel this extra thing for me but didn't need my love for them to include it. So i understand what you're talking about, but romantic desire seems like a fishbowl other ppl are swimming in, obvious in retrospect, but that i don't relate to at all except thru empathizing with my partners. Autistic ppl aren't all non-romantic, but I've heard its more common on the spectrum I do feel the Gaze, though. And Oedipus and all that. Just not this romance thing my "We" is usually only Big other, not little. When it's little, it's just friendship + devotion + affection + sensuality/sexuality, but no "greater than the sum of its parts" romanticization of "We" (us two). Is romantic attraction neurotic? It could explain why it's not always a constant in different historical eras-only some ppl feel it or want it. This could be why ppl say "I'm not a very romantic person"

[@yazanasad7811]

Conflict is original meaning for being for others (gaze and gazed upon) Love To engage in others freedom without objectifying them. Being loved means other must make a free choice. Cant be pressured or guilt. But also necessity (not just chance), needs special like soulmate. Faithful commitment freely chosen (contradictions). Love expressed through words. Seduction - not inform but cause other undergo experience. Performative utterance. Seeks to influence hope and desire. But also this is a way to objectify, whuch means less subjectivity. Masochist - pursues own subjectivity, but truly cannot be made into an object (being for itself). You are paying to be hurt so that means transcendence. Bad faith Indifference/Desire/hate/sadism: Love - seeking free recognition of my being to redeem me from fall into shame from other Desire - seeking to get hold of their subjectivity through objectivising them. Flesh - consciousness when felt or touched by others. Incarnation - process of consciousness becoming flesh (lives itself as body). Caress - cause her flesh to be born, fo incarnate the other. Incarnate the conscious with body and freedom. Reciprocal. Sadist - incarnate other through force not caress. Not graceful. Appropriate others freedom. Enslaved. Their freedom succumbed to the flesh. Flesh is integration with consciousness and body (fhe consciousness is always outsdie the flesh). So bad faith as well. Failure to preserve subjectivity while have objectivity. Hate - impossibility as using other to affirm ones being. seek to destroy their subjectivity and objectivity. Assert one owns freedom. Eliminate presence of otherness altogether. Hate fails because cannot erase past therefore no escape from the gaze. Hate leads to despair therefore. Collective: we: We emerges from foundation of being for others. We-subjectand us-object. Third person looking at two. (Creates the us). Class consciousness through perspective of the third. Realisation struggles defined by those in power. And the opressors dont really unit as oppressors until oppressed gaze too (can lead to shame/fear)

[@yazanasad7811]

Grateful acts can cause resentment because it alienates the person receiving it and underlines the others freedom

[@yazanasad7811]

No getting rid of the gaze - the death of the father leads to return of father (repressed maybe more heightened form)

[@yazanasad7811]

Chat gpt: In a way, Sartre suggests that love always carries a tension between wanting to fully possess the other (which love resists) and fully respecting their freedom (which makes love fragile and elusive). Love seeks a unity beyond desire, but it’s often haunted by desire’s pull, making love a constant negotiation between self-interest and respect for the other's freedom. For Sartre, this is part of the tragic beauty of love: it's something we pursue with intensity, knowing it can never be fully achieved without undermining the freedom of the person we love. Links to idea that love needs to be reaffirmed every day, and this subjectivity is created/fabricated (to avoid idea of it being chance and therefore more likely to fail)

[@yazanasad7811]

His body/gaze/attitudes sections are very good. Grounding power below material conditions

[@noahwaiwaiole7888]

Would you recommend reading it straight through, or hoping around. It’s a massive book.

[@SingularityasSublimity]

It is massive. Most do what I did when reading it for the first time, which is read the chapter on Bad Faith and the three-chapter section of Being-for-Others (especially the parts on the gaze). These are the most famous and referenced parts of the book.