JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

replicakill
13.07.2015 Views

Existentialism55epoch? We are in agreement upon this point—that there is no human nature; in otherwords, each epoch develops according to dialectical laws, and men depend upon theirepoch and not upon human nature.M. NavilleWhen you seek to interpret, you say: “This is so because we are dealing with aparticular situation.” For our part, we consider what is analogous or different in thesocial life of that epoch compared with that of our own. If on the other hand, we triedto analyse the analogy itself as a function of some abstract kind, we should neverarrive at anything. If you suppose that, after two thousand years, one has no means ofanalysing the present situation except certain observations upon the condition of manin general, how could one conduct an analysis that was retrospective? One could notdo it.M. SartreWe have never doubted the need for analysis either of human conditions or of individualintentions. That which we call the situation is, precisely, the whole of the conditions,not only material but psycho-analytic, which, in the epoch under consideration,define it precisely as a whole.M. NavilleI do not believe that your definition is in conformity with your texts. Anyhow, itclearly appears that your conception of the situation is in no way identifiable, evenremotely, with any Marxist conception, in that it denies causality. Your definition isnot precise: it often slips cleverly from one position to another, without definingeither in a sufficiently rigorous manner. For us, a situation is a totality that is constructed,and that reveals itself, by a whole series of determining factors, and these determinantsare causal, including causality of a statistical kind.M. SartreYou talk to me about causality of a statistical order. That is meaningless. Will you tellme, precisely and clearly, what you understand by causality? I will believe in the

56Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic WritingsMarxian causality upon the very day when a Marxian explains it to me. Wheneveranyone speaks to you of freedom you spend your time in saying, “Excuse me, butthere is causality.” But of this secret causality, which has no meaning except in Hegel,you can render no account. You have a dream about the Marxian causality.M. NavilleDo you admit the existence of scientific truth? There may be spheres in which no kindof truth is predicable. But the world of objects—this you will nevertheless admit, Ihope—is the world with which the sciences are concerned. Yet for you, this is a worldin which there are only probabilities, never amounting to the truth. The world ofobjects, then, which is that of science, admits of no absolute truth. But it does attainto relative truth. Now, you will admit that the sciences employ the notion of causality?M. SartreCertainly not. The sciences are abstract; they study the variations of factors that areequally abstract, and not real causality. We are concerned with universal factors upona plane where their relations can always be studied: whereas, in Marxism, one isengaged in the study of a single totality, in which one searches for causality. But it isnot at all the same thing as scientific causality.M. NavilleYou gave an example, and developed it at length—that of a young man who came toconsult you.M. SartreWas it not a question of freedom?M. NavilleHe ought to have been answered. I would have endeavoured to ascertain what were hiscapabilities, his age, his financial resources; and to look into his relation to his mother.Perhaps I should have pronounced a merely probable opinion, but I would most

56Jean-Paul <strong>Sartre</strong>: <strong>Basic</strong> <strong>Writing</strong>sMarxian causality upon the very day when a Marxian explains it to me. Wheneveranyone speaks to you of freedom you spend your time in saying, “Excuse me, butthere is causality.” But of this secret causality, which has no meaning except in Hegel,you can render no account. You have a dream about the Marxian causality.M. NavilleDo you admit the existence of scientific truth? There may be spheres in which no kindof truth is predicable. But the world of objects—this you will nevertheless admit, Ihope—is the world with which the sciences are concerned. Yet for you, this is a worldin which there are only probabilities, never amounting to the truth. The world ofobjects, then, which is that of science, admits of no absolute truth. But it does attainto relative truth. Now, you will admit that the sciences employ the notion of causality?M. <strong>Sartre</strong>Certainly not. The sciences are abstract; they study the variations of factors that areequally abstract, and not real causality. We are concerned with universal factors upona plane where their relations can always be studied: whereas, in Marxism, one isengaged in the study of a single totality, in which one searches for causality. But it isnot at all the same thing as scientific causality.M. NavilleYou gave an example, and developed it at length—that of a young man who came toconsult you.M. <strong>Sartre</strong>Was it not a question of freedom?M. NavilleHe ought to have been answered. I would have endeavoured to ascertain what were hiscapabilities, his age, his financial resources; and to look into his relation to his mother.Perhaps I should have pronounced a merely probable opinion, but I would most

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!