The Body | Sartre | Being & Nothingness

[@idrankwhatt]

I absolutely loved your depth in this topic, please keep it up!!

[@ismireghal68]

Pain is underlying presence, a connection to the world, that negates the world, detached from the self. This striving incorporates it in the act of transcending it. Niw, if illness is transcending pain and the striving for negation of the self(state) does the same how can two things so different: Actualizing illnes through pain instances and striving for negation, have the same function? They do feel like opposites: one is constituting me (illnes) via the psychic body The other is behavior negating exactly that. So what does pain do? Constitute myself as illnes or cause me to negate myself or both?

[@SingularityasSublimity]

Thank you for your questions. My understanding of what Sartre is saying here is that pain is first a pre-reflective awareness that is indistinguishable from the immediacy of the body itself. He uses the word "coenesthesia" to capture this idea. He provides the example of pain in the eye. In the more fundamental sense, pain is not "in" the eye but is a way our consciousness exists through our eyes. Pain forms part of a "nonthetic totality" as consciousness-of-painful-reading. At the same time, the for-itself entails the ongoing nihilation of its past (as having been in pain) to move toward the possibility of being pain-free. When I then reflect on my immediate past (as having been in pain), I can begin to look at pain itself. I say to myself, "It is my eye that has been hurting." Now, my eye becomes an object suffering pain. And this is where the concept of "illness" comes into play. Illness is this pre-reflective pain (or totality of pains) reflected upon and thereby becoming an object, and the body now becomes a psychic space (psychic body) that "houses" this history of pains (and joys). I think its important to keep in mind that Sartre is seeing to articulate a relationship with the body in its immediacy and we can extend this line of argument to all sorts of so-called mental experiences. It's helpful to recall times when we only realize we were feeling something after the fact: I look back at some time and see how I was, in fact, sad when I was thinking about my sadness back then. But this manner of reflecting upon my past sadness changes the sadness itself into something other than what was for me when it was happening, just like thinking about my thoughts changes those thoughts.

[@yazanasad7811]

1) body as being for itself Facticity - limitation and condition of possibility for my freedom. Body must be overcome but also through the body look out at the world in own unique socio-cultural-psychological way. Freedom are ways to transcend these things, so they are not essences. Body as not in itself. Not an object. Not just subject too. (Arete zen). Self actualising it's potential through objects. Participant acting in the world. Extend body through objects. Without objects - mood, retrospective awareness of body's contingencies (showing us not living). Affectivity as not living being lived compared to emotions. Pain - underlying presence. Fundmantal aspect but not an object. Striving towards pain free state as part of our possibilitiy(again link between for itself and in itself as pain). I don't have pain illness. I live it. Part of the body but a foreign body as well (transcendent). The unconscious emerged this psychical state of illness (projection of illness as in itself) - I think that's what being said?

[@yazanasad7811]

The others body as it is for me: Sartre: relationship with other is internal, shame is primary way. Body is secondary as contingent possibility. They try to actualise possibilities by objectifying (and I can do the same). Body of the other - accidents as important, the necessary contingency is important for the other, particularly unique standing out from general idea of body (as opposed to just using hammer). So a body in context. The flesh - not isolated. Synthetic totality.

[@yazanasad7811]

The others body as it is for me: Sartre: relationship with other is internal, shame is primary way. Body is secondary as contingent possibility. They try to actualise possibilities by objectifying (and I can do the same). Body of the other - accidents as important, the necessary contingency is important for the other, particularly unique standing out from general idea of body (as opposed to just using hammer). Instead a body in context

[@yazanasad7811]

My body as it is for others: Outside perspective is outside my perception of my body. Alienation of my body becomes object through others gaze. And language helps to see aspects of body we cannot directly apprehend Lived pain transcended by concept of illness (this illness is nowadays primary not and lived body secondary). Language used to conceptualise pain for others as illness. Language as alienating as I guess seeing lived pain less clearly (secondary)