Jean-Paul Sarte and Christianity

[Sair]

If a person is equated with a physical body there is no need to distinguish them with different words. The body does what it is compelled to do like every other physical object and its behaviour is simply an amoral, scientific fact which has no significance whatsoever…

The fact that we linguistically distinguish between person and body is a reflection of cultural construction, not of a genuine need for the distinction. The language of dualism persists because we intuitively feel like we have some kind of independent being apart from our physical bodies, one that directs and governs the actions undertaken by the body.

A lot of this comes from the fact that we are not conscious of all the causes of our actions and thoughts and decisions. We don’t realise just how fully embedded we are in the natural world. Your belief that morality and significance and purpose can only exist if physicalism is false is a product of dualism and theistic belief; clearly these things do exist, but they do so fully within the context of our existence as physical beings. Indeed, without the context, the concepts would truly be meaningless.

 

[David_Castlen]

If a person is equated with a physical body there is no need to distinguish them with different words. The body does what it is compelled to do like every other physical object and its behaviour is simply an amoral, scientific fact which has no significance whatsoever…

But you understand otherwise, yes? … you do not accept that a person is equated with (just) a physical body…

 

[David_Castlen]

The fact that we linguistically distinguish between person and body is a reflection of cultural construction, not of a genuine need for the distinction. The language of dualism persists because we intuitively feel like we have some kind of independent being apart from our physical bodies, one that directs and governs the actions undertaken by the body.

A lot of this comes from the fact that we are not conscious of all the causes of our actions and thoughts and decisions. We don’t realise just how fully embedded we are in the natural world. Your belief that morality and significance and purpose can only exist if physicalism is false is a product of dualism and theistic belief; clearly these things do exist, but they do so fully within the context of our existence as physical beings. Indeed, without the context, the concepts would truly be meaningless.

Sair, clarify this for me.
Are we not one person with a soul and a body. Yes?
And the two act together (in unison) but are distinquishable - body, with a soul composed of a mind, a will and a desire… no?

 

[Patty23]

@Sair

Have you read Sartre?

Sartre argues that only man can give meaning to his existence, but at the same since THIS meaning that he gives is subjective, it can never be objective and therefore meaningless. He argues that MEANING is only an act insofar as man is considered, it is meaningless since it is only always an act, never an apriori good or something from without. He didn’t deny that man gives meaning to his existence but he maintained that any meaning created by man is STILL meaningless in a world where there are only men.

His position that - man is responsible for meaning but this meaning is still meaningless is not meant to be a paradox, but rather the consequence of freedom without God.

 

[tonyrey]

The evidence is quite good that Sartre moved to a belief in God before his death.

According to his friend, Pierre Victor, he said:

*“I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.” !

This is not surprising because belief in human freedom - which he never accounted for - was at the core of his philosophy…

 

[tonyrey]

But you understand otherwise, yes? … you do not accept that a person is equated with (just) a physical body…

It would mean a person is neither moral nor rational nor responsible…

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that we linguistically distinguish between person and body is a reflection of cultural construction, not of a genuine need for the distinction. The language of dualism persists because we intuitively feel like we have some kind of independent being apart from our physical bodies, one that directs and governs the actions undertaken by the body.

A lot of this comes from the fact that we are not conscious of all the causes of our actions and thoughts and decisions. We don’t realise just how fully embedded we are in the natural world. Your belief that morality and significance and purpose can only exist if physicalism is false is a product of dualism and theistic belief; clearly these things do exist, but they do so fully within the context of our existence as physical beings. Indeed, without the context, the concepts would truly be meaningless.

I believe your priorities are misguided. We are physical beings within the context of our existence as persons. The real test is our attitude to others in our daily life. Do we regard them as objects - or subjects?

 

[Sair]

I believe your priorities are misguided. We are physical beings within the context of our existence as persons. The real test is our attitude to others in our daily life. Do we regard them as objects - or subjects?

It would appear that we each believe the other has grasped the wrong end of the stick. To you, mind is a separate, nonphysical entity that is prior to and independent of physical entities and forces; to me, conscious awareness and other mental processes are a product of such entities and forces.

Does this make a difference in how I regard others? Yes, I believe it does. It makes me far more appreciative of how they are affected not only by my actions, but by all the circumstances in which they exist. Yes, we are all objects if by objects you mean physical entities. But like all objects, we are subject to the changing effects of the external environment; and by virtue of the particular kind of objects we are, we are also subject to changing internal conditions which we experience as thoughts and emotions.

 

[Sair]

Sair, clarify this for me.
Are we not one person with a soul and a body. Yes?
And the two act together (in unison) but are distinquishable - body, with a soul composed of a mind, a will and a desire… no?

To clarify - no, I do not believe the person is a dualistic entity with a separable, nonphysical soul. The person is a fully caused physical entity, and mind, will and desire are all the result of physical factors intimately connected to the kind of physical entities we are. It is true that we don’t yet know how such things arise, but they are in principle explicable in a naturalistic context. In a dualistic context, by contrast, we are faced with the apparently insoluble problems of explaining how any nonphysical entity is a) necessary and b) able to interact with or exert any influence whatsoever upon physical reality, without itself being subject to detection or effect.

I once heard the analogy of alcoholic spirits applied to what might be called naturalistic spirituality - the spirit is the purest form of something, and so the spiritual journey for a monist naturalist like myself is one of discovery, of learning to understand and appreciate the true essence of our reality; in the absence of sufficient reason to think otherwise, I believe that essence is physical.

 

[Sair]

@Sair

Have you read Sartre?

Sartre argues that only man can give meaning to his existence, but at the same since THIS meaning that he gives is subjective, it can never be objective and therefore meaningless. He argues that MEANING is only an act insofar as man is considered, it is meaningless since it is only always an act, never an apriori good or something from without. He didn’t deny that man gives meaning to his existence but he maintained that any meaning created by man is STILL meaningless in a world where there are only men.

His position that - man is responsible for meaning but this meaning is still meaningless is not meant to be a paradox, but rather the consequence of freedom without God.

I did read a small amount of Sartre many years ago, but largely in the context of how one approaches literary criticism and authorial intent. I remember him being much more coherent than the likes of Jacques Derrida, but otherwise I remember little of the specific content of his writing.

Essentially, this was what I meant by the idea of being a non-believing theist rather than an atheist - the concepts of a priori goods and higher purposes are primarily theistic concepts; meaning in the context of our own lives is indeed meaningless on a cosmic scale; but the only reason to lament this or to find it depressing is if one feels that we somehow need to have a higher purpose. Whether or not Sartre himself embraced the absurdity of human freedom or shrank from it, I am insufficiently knowledgeable to say.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe your priorities are misguided. We are physical beings within the context of our existence as persons. The real test is our attitude to others in our daily life. Do we regard them as objects - or subjects?

It would appear that we each believe the other has grasped the wrong end of the stick. To you, mind is a separate, nonphysical entity that is prior to and independent of physical entities and forces; to me, conscious awareness and other mental processes are a product of such entities and forces.

In other words you believe we are mere cogs in a machine.

Does this make a difference in how I regard others? Yes, I believe it does. It makes me far more appreciative of how they are affected not only by my actions, but by all the circumstances in which they exist.

A more accurate description would be:

“It makes me far more appreciative of how **all **their thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions are caused not only by my actions but by all the circumstances in which they exist.”

Yes, we are all objects if by objects you mean physical entities. But like all objects, we are subject to the changing effects of the external environment; and by virtue of the particular kind of objects we are, we are also subject to changing internal conditions which we experience as thoughts and emotions.

That confirms your view that we are physically and psychologically subservient** in every respect **to factors beyond our control.

 

[tonyrey]

If a person is equated with a physical body there is no need to distinguish them with different words. The body does what it is compelled to do like every other physical object and its behaviour is simply an amoral, scientific fact which has no significance whatsoever…

If we are entirely embedded in the natural world truth is a meaningless term. We become physical objects acting according to the laws of physics incapable of understanding **intangible **facts and principles because they don’t exist! Either everything is tangible or it isn’t…

 

[Sair]

In other words you believe we are mere cogs in a machine.

If the only other option is to believe that we are the first causes of our actions and decisions, then yes, I do.

A more accurate description would be:

“It makes me far more appreciative of how **all **their thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions are caused not only by my actions but by all the circumstances in which they exist.”

Yes. Don’t you think this leads to a greater level of compassion and understanding than the assumption that our choices are uncaused?

That confirms your view that we are physically and psychologically subservient** in every respect **to factors beyond our control.

Not all factors are beyond our control. As beings fully embedded in nature, we play our part in the causal web. Let’s say that our actions and decisions have their impetus - often in response to environmental stimuli - in some part of our brains, even though we are not consciously aware of all the processes going on - as seems to be the case, based upon various neurological studies. In what respect, given this, is it not us making these decisions and initiating these actions? You scoff at the notion that persons might be ‘mere’ physical entities - but your claim appears to be that in order to actually be persons, we must be in some aspect nonphysical and at some level, uncaused.

 

[tonyrey]

In other words you believe we are mere cogs in a machine.

Unless another option is provided it is reasonable to believe there is no other option.

A more accurate description would be:

“It makes me far more appreciative of how all their thoughts, feelings, decisions and actions are caused not only by my actions but by all the circumstances in which they exist.”

Yes. Don’t you think this leads to a greater level of compassion and understanding than the assumption that our choices are uncaused?

Our choices are not uncaused. The buck stops with us.

That confirms your view that we are physically and psychologically subservient in every respect to factors beyond our control.

Not all factors are beyond our control. As beings fully embedded in nature, we play our part in the causal web.

Precisely - as cogs.

Let’s say that our actions and decisions have their impetus - often in response to environmental stimuli - in some part of our brains, even though we are not consciously aware of all the processes going on - as seems to be the case, based upon various neurological studies. In what respect, given this, is it not us making these decisions and initiating these actions?

It is not “us” but our brains which are playing their part in the causal web. For the physicalist “us” is a figure of speech.

You scoff at the notion that persons might be ‘mere’ physical entities - but your claim appears to be that in order to actually be persons, we must be in some aspect nonphysical and at some level, uncaused.

You assume everything is physical yet even in science there are non-physical facts, principles and relations.

You also assume a person cannot be a cause even though it is the basis of legal systems throughout the world. If you’re not responsible for your conclusions what are they worth?

 

[Sair]

Unless another option is provided it is reasonable to believe there is no other option.

Then you believe we are the first cause of our actions?

Our choices are not uncaused. The buck stops with us.

How does that work? If our choices are not uncaused, how can we be considered the ultimate agents in terms of our behaviour? Certainly, the behaviour manifests in us, but to assume that this means we are the sole originators of our actions seems misguided, to say the least.

Precisely - as cogs.

Do you need to feel that you are the first cause of all your actions in order to feel like you are important?

It is not “us” but our brains which are playing their part in the causal web. For the physicalist “us” is a figure of speech.

What’s the difference between “me” and “my brain”? Why do you imagine these are distinct entities?

You assume everything is physical yet even in science there are non-physical facts, principles and relations.

To what extent are the mental processes that formulate concepts nonphysical? What is it about a ‘fact’ that makes it nonphysical? Our understanding of scientific principles and causal relationships in nature is reliant upon physical processes - those that occur in the external world and those that occur within our brains to store and process information from external stimuli. Why should they be otherwise?

You also assume a person cannot be a cause even though it is the basis of legal systems throughout the world. If you’re not responsible for your conclusions what are they worth?

Even our highly flawed legal systems recognise the importance of mitigating factors. There’s a long way to go in terms of understanding the best ways to regulate behaviour for harmonious social interaction, but we’re getting there, it would appear. If my conclusions are the result of causal interactions with my environment, how does that make them worthless? Indeed, if they are the result of some entity that is independent, unaffected by the circumstances in which I exist within the world, how could they have any worth in the context of my existence?

 

[Abba]

Hello Sair,

To what extent are the mental processes that formulate concepts nonphysical? What is it about a ‘fact’ that makes it nonphysical? Our understanding of scientific principles and causal relationships in nature is reliant upon physical processes - those that occur in the external world and those that occur within our brains to store and process information from external stimuli. Why should they be otherwise?

Have you considered the historical documentation of the psyche trespassing space and time? If you do not simply deny this phenomenon, how do you explain what I would call the ‘trespass’ of the psyche of space and time? In that case, the mind would not completely be reliant on the brain to be active nor confined to the material world and it’s physical laws.

Carl Jung:
youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=LOxlZm2AU4o

 

[David_Castlen]

To clarify - no, I do not believe the person is a dualistic entity with a separable, nonphysical soul. The person is a fully caused physical entity, and mind, will and desire are all the result of physical factors intimately connected to the kind of physical entities we are. It is true that we don’t yet know how such things arise, but they are in principle explicable in a naturalistic context. In a dualistic context, by contrast, we are faced with the apparently insoluble problems of explaining how any nonphysical entity is a) necessary and b) able to interact with or exert any influence whatsoever upon physical reality, without itself being subject to detection or effect.

I once heard the analogy of alcoholic spirits applied to what might be called naturalistic spirituality - the spirit is the purest form of something, and so the spiritual journey for a monist naturalist like myself is one of discovery, of learning to understand and appreciate the true essence of our reality; in the absence of sufficient reason to think otherwise, I believe that essence is physical.

I understand we are one with our soul; however, they (body and soul) ARE distinquishable. I believe you give an excellent example of alcohol: the material liquid is not of its essence without the alcohol, the spirit. But alcohol is a material (I think) an OH radical on a carbon compound.

Never the less, at death I undersand our soul does leave us for awhile and at the resurrection we are united (back to our soul). This is Catholic teaching. Do you agree?

I will get out of this discussion. Not because I do not want to be a part of it but because you guys exceed me intellectually… I do (greatly) look forward to the rest of the responses from all. You, Sair, particularly interest me. Can you elaborate on your premises a bit more - provide more data as proof.

 

[tonyrey]

Then you believe we are the first cause of our actions?

I certainly don’t believe we are the nth cause of our actions…

Our choices are not uncaused. The buck stops

with us. How does that work? If our choices are not uncaused, how can we be considered the ultimate agents in terms of our behaviour?

Our choices are not uncaused. **We **cause them. In any court of law you are considered the ultimate agent of your rational behaviour.

Certainly, the behaviour manifests in us, but to assume that this means we are the sole originators of our actions seems misguided, to say the least.

Tell that to a judge or jury!

Do you need to feel that you are the first cause of all your actions in order to feel like you are important?

Not important but rational and responsible… BTW That is an argumentum ad hominem.

It is not “us” but our brains which are playing their part in the causal web.

What’s the difference between “me” and “my brain”?

Your brain is an **instrument **you use.

Why do you imagine these are distinct entities?

I don’t imagine. I infer from my personal experience that my brain is a physical organ I use to control my body and communicate with others.

You assume everything

is physical yet even in science there are non-physical facts, principles and relations.
To what extent are the mental processes that formulate concepts nonphysical?

Completely! Electrical impulses don’t know what they are doing.

What is it about a ‘fact’ that makes it nonphysical?

It cannot be destroyed - or detected with the senses.

Our understanding of scientific principles and causal relationships in nature is reliant upon physical processes - those that occur in the external world and those that occur within our brains to store and process information from external stimuli. Why should they be otherwise?

Our understanding stems from our intellect and it is also reliant on our subjective experience.

You also assume a person cannot be a cause even though it is the basis of legal systems throughout the world. If you’re not responsible for your conclusions what are they worth?

Even our highly flawed legal systems recognise the importance of mitigating factors.

Mitigating factors presuppose a factor that cannot be mitigated.

There’s a long way to go in terms of understanding the best ways to regulate behaviour for harmonious social interaction, but we’re getting there, it would appear.

Are you a behavourist?

If my conclusions are the result of causal interactions with my environment, how does that make them worthless?

They would be entirely beyond your control. You wouldn’t even be entitled to describe them as “yours”. You would be simply a cog turned by your environment…

Indeed, if they are the result of some entity that is independent, unaffected by the circumstances in which I exist within the world, how could

they have any worth in the context of my existence? Independent but not unaffected…

 

[Abba]

I will get out of this discussion. Not because I do not want to be a part of it but because you guys exceed me intellectually… I do (greatly) look forward to the rest of the responses from all. You, Sair, particularly interest me. Can you elaborate on your premises a bit more - provide more data as proof.

If that’s the reason, I better leave before you do!

The way I see it David Castlen, we never know what will help someone find the way. People can get as analytical, intellectual and what have you as they may like, but in the end we do not know what point will help people see the light. I think that point x varies for every individual in time and place. I was recently reading about Edith Stein and it is interesting that one of the things that had an impact on her was seeing a woman rush in a cathedral from the market place to have a private communion with God.

Our contributions are just as important as anyone else’s.

---

CCC:
997 What is “rising”? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus’ Resurrection.

Enter CCC at this section here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a11.htm

 

[Sair]

I certainly don’t believe we are the nth cause of our actions…
Our choices are not uncaused. **We **cause them.

In other words, yes, you do believe that there is some agent within us that independently initiates our actions and choices.

In any court of law you are considered the ultimate agent of your rational behaviour.

We are held responsible for our actions because they are our actions, no matter what the web of events that caused them. The legal system has, in the modern period, been steadily moving away from retributive punishment and further towards rehabilitation. This is at least some recognition of the fact that we are shaped by our environment and experience.

Not important but rational and responsible… BTW That is an argumentum ad hominem.

Then you don’t believe it is possible to be rational and responsible unless you are the ultimate instigator of your every thought and action.

Your brain is an **instrument **you use.

Then what am I? What, exactly, is this end user to which you refer?

I don’t imagine. I infer from my personal experience that my brain is a physical organ I use to control my body and communicate with others.

Are you aware of using your brain to do such things? Can you consciously detect and shape the way it does them?

Completely! Electrical impulses don’t know what they are doing.

Obviously particular combinations of electrical impulses interacting with certain arrangements of matter do manifest as an organism that is capable of knowing what it is doing. You have yet to explain how anything nonphysical can interact with or influence physical things.

It cannot be destroyed - or detected with the senses.

So what, exactly, is a fact, then, that is apparently impervious and undetectable? If I claim it as fact that there’s a tree in my backyard, this can be perceived and verified as fact by anyone who cares to look. What if I cut down the tree and dig out its root system so that there is no longer a tree in my backyard? What happens to the fact then?

Our understanding stems from our intellect and it is also reliant on our subjective experience.

I would not disagree, but I would add that intellect and subjective experience are manifestations of physical phenomena.

Mitigating factors presuppose a factor that cannot be mitigated.

The legal system can’t be expected to change overnight - the recognition of mitigating factors is a step in the right direction, however. The system was, after all, founded on the notion of contra-causal free will.

Are you a behavourist?

Not strictly, although I do believe that subconscious conditioning plays an important part in shaping our thoughts and actions.

They would be entirely beyond your control. You wouldn’t even be entitled to describe them as “yours”. You would be simply a cog turned by your environment…

Entirely beyond my control, you say - even though I, as a physical entity, am a key component in the process of reaching the aforementioned conclusions. Certainly, I could not take full credit, but that does not mean that I am not involved. You imagine an entity that is you, that is somehow not your physical being, and extrapolate from this that if the environment and the biochemical processes of your brain produce your thoughts and actions, that you are somehow not involved in any of this. But my entire point is that you are indistinguishable from your physical being. For me to have thoughts and to perform actions obviously involves environmental influence - but it has to involve me also. The cogs - to use your dismissive analogy - are, after all, integral to the functioning of the machine!

Independent but not unaffected…

How does that work, then? Independence, in the sense of some nonphysical aspect of a person that generates contra-causal free will, would tend to imply a certain imperviousness to causal influence from outside.