Do others find your lifestyle and values baffling?

[Mia]

a false transcendence of the ego.

Are you referring to Sartre's concept that we become aware of our own conscious responsibilities? The states and actions that it supports?

 

[Mia]

Do you think Greta Thunberg was right to turn down this monetary award (demonstrating to the world that 'Aspergers have values broader than just monetary ones, that include the welfare of the whole planet' - and setting an example) or do you think her decision is a mistake, perhaps a byproduct of her privileged socio-economic position, and she should have taken the money and allocated it instead to a tree-planting organisation (or split it between several)?

She made her point:

“The Nordic countries have a great reputation around the world when it comes to climate and environmental issues. There is no lack of bragging about this. There is no lack of beautiful words,” she continued. “But when it comes to our actual emissions and our ecological footprints per capita … it’s a whole other story.”

Wish that I could assume that her very stolid stance on climate and environmentalism is an aspect of autism's solid ethical perception of the world. Something that I know to be true for myself. I simply don't know.

 

[DuckRabbit]

Are you referring to Sartre's concept that we become aware of our own conscious responsibilities? The states and actions that it supports?

I'm not sure about Sartre's concept - does he also refer to transcendence of ego, linking that to 'shouldering one's responsibilities willingly and maturely'? What would those responsibilities be - to oneself? civic responsibilities?

The image I had in mind is people who assume that they are enlightened, unselfish, pure or otherwise pious, above the trappings of quotidian life, and can therefore react to all situations with a transcendental serenity. This is often false, because no matter how mature or spiritual someone appears to be, as long as we're alive, life finds ways of pressing our buttons, testing our mettle, and triggering things that matter to us, even if we wish they didn't. There is one theory that our negative emotions signify the unhealed parts of our being (not sure I agree with that in all circumstances). If we don't respond in some way to life's triggers and other taxing circumstances, this can be a symptom of depression, of having opted out - whereas I feel life 'prefers' that we engage, and remain open to its processes - which usually means: being open to suffering aka psychological death, letting go of the 'ego'. But that seems to be the main route by which we attain higher levels of consciousness. Through imposed suffering - because few of us would choose it voluntarily!

Does Sartre also talk about transcending the ego? Or what is his conception of human development?

 

[Mia]

Does Sartre also talk about transcending the ego? Or what is his conception of human development?

It was one his first philosophical writings; "Transcendence of ego".

The self does not, unlike pure consciousness disclose itself to immediate intuition. So it seems that according to Sartre the self belongs among the 'objects'* that transcend consciousness in the world.

In fact in this essay, he was attempting to cast off the ideas of Husserl while being influenced by them, a kind of crypto-idealism that contends that man is a spectator rather than being deeply committed to much of anything in the world, reflective of his later existential world view.



*An object is a philosophy term often used in contrast to the term subject. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. (You likely know this already, only to clarify)

 

[Mia]

which usually means: being open to suffering aka psychological death, letting go of the 'ego'. But that seems to be the main route by which we attain higher levels of consciousness. Through imposed suffering - because few of us would choose it voluntarily!

The letting go of the ego. It seems to happen as one ages or suffers in various ways or both at the same time. Non-attachment to self does appear to align with higher levels of well-being and functioning. Even as it relates to Buddhist inspired concepts, that is attachment to the self that creates egoic functioning and is the center of suffering. The journey toward letting go of self appears to accomplish transcendence of personal suffering.

Personally I have not found that to be true. Self is who I am, and essentially all that I am. Letting go of it would be like someone I used to know with altzheimers where every day all was new, people, places, no history, no background, no prior knowledge. Perhaps people don't quite suffer when there is nothing left to consider other than what to eat that day. Yet, there seems little joy as well, a kind of muted world.

 

[DuckRabbit]

It was one his first philosophical writings; "Transcendence of ego".

The self does not, unlike pure consciousness disclose itself to immediate intuition. So it seems that according to Sartre the self belongs among the 'objects'* that transcend consciousness in the world.

In fact in this essay, he was attempting to cast off the ideas of Husserl while being influenced by them, a kind of crypto-idealism that contends that man is a spectator rather than being deeply committed to much of anything in the world, reflective of his later existential world view.



*An object is a philosophy term often used in contrast to the term subject. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. (You likely know this already, only to clarify)

You sound knowledgeable about philosophy and philosophers. Great to learn this.

Why does it matter if the self is part of the things we observe in this world? As opposed to what? - aligned with a consciousness doing the observing? What would that affect? Or would it generate the detachment towards the world that you talk about when you refer to people being mere spectators?

Rather than viewing Sartre's point as an astute commentary on human nature, I can't help viewing it as telling us more about Sartre's psyche than about our own - that he was projecting his own detachment from the world onto others. There are people passionate about sports, the natural world (eg hiking in nature, gardening, photographing it) or collecting beautifully crafted material objects and appreciating them. There are people raising children, looking after elderly parents, working in homeless shelters, and saving cats and dogs like Eldad Hagar An animal rescue hero: Eldad Hagar of Hope for Paws
I bet these people don't feel like mere spectators.

Sartre obviously lived much of his life in the mental, ideas realm - perhaps that got him down and, coupled with a huge egotism and self-centredness, he felt disaffected about life and accordingly injected his own bleak outlook into his philosophy. Perhaps if he's taken up some practical or more altruistic pursuits, his psyche would have been more balanced and he wouldn't have had such a big unconscious need to project it onto other people.

This echoes what I was saying above about denying any aspect of 'the human experience' at our peril. In astrological terms, it can be good to check whether we're paying homage to all four elements: water (the emotions), earth (the embodied and the practical), air (the mental) and fire (the motivation or willpower to get things done and assert ourselves). No one will ever be completely balanced in all these realms - that's what gives up personality, that we all have biases in different areas, and the ones with the biggest biases and blindposts often end up making history - whether as a terrorist or a contributor to philosophical thought.

Do you know anything about Sartre's biography and lifestyle? (Other than large-scale womanising!)

 

[Mia]

Why does it matter if the self is part of the things we observe in this world? As opposed to what? - aligned with a consciousness doing the observing? What would that affect? Or would it generate the detachment towards the world that you talk about when you refer to people being mere spectators?

The self colours all that we observe, each choice, opinion, even what what we choose to observe or know or understand. The opposite of which would be a blank self without prior experience or understanding or knowledge. It would lack full consciousness, most organisms are subjects of experience.

Detachment is a state, which Sartre spent a lifetime writing about in philosophy and later in his books. He began after the war which he was part of, as well as the resistance. It would appear to be his way of distancing himself from the horrors that he experienced. Husserl was the one who referred to people as spectators, and I too disagree, that we only watch what goes on in the world, rather than participate in it. If that were true and would ever happen, everyone would stay home and have dinner. Little would be invented, understood, experienced, created.

 

[DuckRabbit]

Detachment is a state, which Sartre spent a lifetime writing about in philosophy and later in his books. He began after the war which he was part of, as well as the resistance. It would appear to be his way of distancing himself from the horrors that he experienced

That makes a lot of sense. Good to know that about his background.