im here after reading the first chapter and watching your longer video on this. i just want to clarify, is it the nothingness that makes being-in-itself so difficult to concretely define? in the sense that because we can keep finding new meanings for something, in your example a hammer, it means that Being will lead to coming up empty BECAUSE of that nothingness?
Yes. We inevitably refer back to human reality in the way we separate objects from being (negation) and define them in accordance with our point of view, rather then how they are in themselves.
@@marcellelee6765 in Kantian philosophy there is the concept of the noumena, which refers to the discrete being (existence) of something (anything ) outside of our perception of it. My example of a hammer defines an object by how it is used. The hammer is only a hammer because it is used as a hammer, so what is it really? It certainly exists, but how can we define it without using terminology that refers us to human reality? The simple fact that it exists unites it with everything that exists, as Sartre often says, ‘it is what it is.’ As soon as we define it, or label it, we separate it from the continuity of everything that is. So, the relation between nothingness and being is that nothingness is used to isolate objects and therefore separate them from the continuity of everything. Whatever name I attribute to the hammer inevitably refers us back to human reality, I may call the hammer a tool, a paperweight, a piece of wood and metal-whatever term I use to refer to the hammer relies on human reality, and human reality is ultimately a nothingness. Imagine every human being vanished from the face of the earth, leaving all of the tools and objects we’ve made behind-would there still be such a thing as a hammer? The answer is no, the hammer depends on the meaning we give to it, it is for this reason that Sartre refers to human reality as a nothingness. I hope that helps… ?
@@robsamartino71 So human reality is nothingness, because without human reality there would be no such thing as a hammer? In that case, doesn't that mean that human reality is not nothing - because we are "creating" the hammer into existence.
Shaggy Randy I’m not sure. Sartre is mostly defining his terms against Descartes, Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger. Although his concept of being is compatible with prior use of the word, he defines consciousness (the for-itself) in relation to the concept of being in-itself.
![อาจารย์ยอด : สวยกินคน [ผี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_-TIJOwkRA4/mqdefault.jpg)
im here after reading the first chapter and watching your longer video on this. i just want to clarify, is it the nothingness that makes being-in-itself so difficult to concretely define? in the sense that because we can keep finding new meanings for something, in your example a hammer, it means that Being will lead to coming up empty BECAUSE of that nothingness?
Yes. We inevitably refer back to human reality in the way we separate objects from being (negation) and define them in accordance with our point of view, rather then how they are in themselves.
@@robsamartino71 okay i think i’ve got it! thank you so much!! i don’t know why i chose this for my dissertation #stressed
I have read this comment and answer more than ten times and I still don't understand it. Is it possible for you to expand on it? Thank you.
@@marcellelee6765 in Kantian philosophy there is the concept of the noumena, which refers to the discrete being (existence) of something (anything ) outside of our perception of it. My example of a hammer defines an object by how it is used. The hammer is only a hammer because it is used as a hammer, so what is it really? It certainly exists, but how can we define it without using terminology that refers us to human reality? The simple fact that it exists unites it with everything that exists, as Sartre often says, ‘it is what it is.’ As soon as we define it, or label it, we separate it from the continuity of everything that is. So, the relation between nothingness and being is that nothingness is used to isolate objects and therefore separate them from the continuity of everything. Whatever name I attribute to the hammer inevitably refers us back to human reality, I may call the hammer a tool, a paperweight, a piece of wood and metal-whatever term I use to refer to the hammer relies on human reality, and human reality is ultimately a nothingness. Imagine every human being vanished from the face of the earth, leaving all of the tools and objects we’ve made behind-would there still be such a thing as a hammer? The answer is no, the hammer depends on the meaning we give to it, it is for this reason that Sartre refers to human reality as a nothingness. I hope that helps… ?
@@robsamartino71 So human reality is nothingness, because without human reality there would be no such thing as a hammer? In that case, doesn't that mean that human reality is not nothing - because we are "creating" the hammer into existence.
Is Sartre attempting a translation Aristotle?
Shaggy Randy I’m not sure. Sartre is mostly defining his terms against Descartes, Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger. Although his concept of being is compatible with prior use of the word, he defines consciousness (the for-itself) in relation to the concept of being in-itself.
If so I think Aristotle did it better! I'm not an expert.
I like your painting! I dabble myself. Extremely satisfying for some reason,....
Shaggy Randy thank you!