...how can he imply that the subjectivity of an individual is synonymous with the responsibility and best interest of mankind as a whole? Is this simply because each individual participates in the overall idea of "mankind?" Help me out here...

...how can he imply that the subjectivity of an individual is synonymous with the responsibility and best interest of mankind as a whole? Is this simply because each individual participates in the overall idea of "mankind?" Help me out here...

I'm currently reading Being and Nothingness but I'm only 50 some pages into it....And this may sound alot more like Aristotle's Categories...However, it seems to make sense...

Mankind itself cannot exist without individuals, it's simply composed of separate entities. Each subjective being is in itself different from every other being, however the entirety of those subjective individuals create the idea of mankind. So in a way, each individual striving in his or her different manner ultimately leads to the complete functioning of mankind...

Think of it like a car, every part is made of something different (mostly), has a different function and different purpose, yet ultimately, is operating to create one single entity, a car.

Every individual strives for his or her own meaning, yet all contribute to the idea of mankind...And unlike a car, mankind has no purpose other than what we give it (existentialism) so whatever meaning we apply and action we take to carry out that meaning is conducive to the best interest of mankind, since it simply lies in what we give it....There is no absolute purpose (something above ourselves) so it's relative to the individual.

I don't know if that's Sartre's view or not...but judging just that one sentence I feel thats what he's getting at...Unless it's some sort of phenomenology metaphor that I completely missed and took literally.

I'm currently reading Being and Nothingness but I'm only 50 some pages into it....And this may sound alot more like Aristotle's Categories...However, it seems to make sense...

Mankind itself cannot exist without individuals, it's simply composed of separate entities. Each subjective being is in itself different from every other being, however the entirety of those subjective individuals create the idea of mankind. So in a way, each individual striving in his or her different manner ultimately leads to the complete functioning of mankind...

Think of it like a car, every part is made of something different (mostly), has a different function and different purpose, yet ultimately, is operating to create one single entity, a car.

Every individual strives for his or her own meaning, yet all contribute to the idea of mankind...And unlike a car, mankind has no purpose other than what we give it (existentialism) so whatever meaning we apply and action we take to carry out that meaning is conducive to the best interest of mankind, since it simply lies in what we give it....There is no absolute purpose (something above ourselves) so it's relative to the individual.

I don't know if that's Sartre's view or not...but judging just that one sentence I feel thats what he's getting at...Unless it's some sort of phenomenology metaphor that I completely missed and took literally.

I believe that is what he's getting at, and I understand the concept presented. My qualms lie in this idea of "mankind" as what seems to be an "absolute" in and of itself. If the same serves for ourselves as does for mankind, then we as well have no other meaning that what we give. Existence precedes essence. If I live my life in direct contradiction of that of another individual, subjectively, the other individual really bears no relevance to my personal meaning. If there is a "conflict of ideas" that occurs from this individual difference in beliefs, it is only in a removed sense a conflict. For subjectively, the views of another should not necessarily impact my views and my life as it does that individual and vice versa.

In terms of the car analogy, suppose that each individual part did exist in and of itself. That does not make necessary the car as a product. I see here however immediately a conflict: What other purpose do these parts of the car serve than that of the overall car itself? I still don't see why individuality necessarily implies the exact opposite on a large scale. The parts exist even when the car does not.

Back to the conflict of individuals, if something is "in the best interest of mankind," how is mankind as an absolute not implied? Ultimately what is relative to the individual is irrelevant to the overall essence of mankind. The best interest of mankind lies in conflict?...

In terms of the car analogy, suppose that each individual part did exist in and of itself. That does not make necessary the car as a product. I see here however immediately a conflict: What other purpose do these parts of the car serve than that of the overall car itself? I still don't see why individuality necessarily implies the exact opposite on a large scale. The parts exist even when the car does not.

That's my fault on not explaining the analogy...Think of the car as our relative view of the limit of the phenomenon of being (to use Sartre's term). Think of the car as time itself, nothing can exist outside of it. The actions of the parts (human action) create the idea of the car (mankind)...The striving for purpose...

Back to the conflict of individuals, if something is "in the best interest of mankind," how is mankind as an absolute not implied?

This kind of sounds like humanistic ethics, finding some sort of objective purpose for mankind, something we all strive for (in the case of humanism it would be happiness through unlocking potential)...However, what makes the ideas of "absolute" (something above us) impossible is that you can always question their fundamental base. What makes one thing better than another? We'd like to say "truth" but truth can be deducted to the point of contradiction: "No absolute truth exists."...That being an absolute truth....And how can we know truth is better than not truth (for lack of a better term)?


Ultimately what is relative to the individual is irrelevant to the overall essence of mankind. The best interest of mankind lies in conflict?...

I would assume the best way to think of it is that you can't separate the parts from the whole...Conflict creates purpose and action, which prevents stagnation and nihilism. Without action (conflict/life) you have inaction (death)...I don't know...Kind of makes sense...

...how can he imply that the subjectivity of an individual is synonymous with the responsibility and best interest of mankind as a whole? Is this simply because each individual participates in the overall idea of "mankind?" Help me out here...

I take it you're reading L'existentialisme est un humanisme? In the text he doesn't really explain it, it's a famous non sequitur. Basically as a communist he didn't want to face up to the individualistic implications of his philosophy.

The French would make the best cooks in the world if they had any butcher's meat. Or as Gordon Brown put it "You can get by without substance some of the time but you can not get by without substance all of the time".