6/21/2023 0 Comments Sartre being and nothingnessWhich explanation is correct? Are both correct? Or is my understanding just wrong? Humans, on the other hand, can perceive a lack of something and can strive forward to solve its deficiency, and in that sense, it is a being-for-itself. Ordinary objects can only exist, and in that sense, it is a being-in-itself. Other authors explain that 'nothingness' represents the unique ability of a human to perceive a lack of something in the world. Sartre's 'nothingness' is an affirmation of vanishing the boundary between the subject(consciousness) and the object(the external world). Consciousness is nothing more than the state of perceiving numerous individual stimulations consciousness is nothingness. Some authors explain that 'nothingness' is the denial of thinking of one's consciousness as a concrete entity with predefined essence. I am confused about what 'nothingness' mean in Sartre's ⟪Being and Nothingness⟫. A head-up: I am from an analytic background, and I have only read continental philosophy via second sources.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |