Sartre on Self and other

Organize and structure your thoughts to write an essay

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Sartre on Self and other by Mind Map: Sartre on Self and other

1. The problem of other minds

1.1. Sartre' framework is conducted from the first person perspective and exploits certain elements of Descartes philosophy. Our knowledge of other minds is deeply problematic. All we have access to in our interactions with others is their bodies and behaviour. Are other bodies just exhibiting mindless behaviour then? We don't have this difficulty as far as our own minds are concerned. Sartre attacks this thinking.

1.2. Avrides claims the problem of other minds is a conceptual problem. How we are to conceive of the mind and explain our conceiving. How can we form a conception of other minds if they are inaccessible to us.

1.3. S's aim is to show that the metaphysical relation between self and other is one of irreducible conflict and ultimately failure.

1.3.1. Inspire someone about your topic?

1.3.2. Specific grade?

1.3.3. Do your best work?

1.4. McCulloch tells us that S just assumes the existence of other minds.

1.5. He tackles the relevant issues with reference to the concept of shame - highly origional approach.

2. The problem

2.1. Shame occurs when one performs a vulgar gesture only to realise that one has been seen. e.g. spying through a keyhole.

2.2. I am ashamed of myself as I appear to the other. Shame is of oneself before the other. Has certain aspects it considers as mine only through involving others.

3. The Reef of Solipsism & Argument from Analogy

3.1. The cartesian framework requires 2 assumptions: 1.Mind and body are logistically distinct. Knowledge of body can provide no justification for knowledge of mind. 2.All knowledge is derived from experience - therefore there can be no knowledge of other minds. S finds 2 difficulties with this argument: 1.We take it to be inconceivable that other minds do not exist. 2. My bodily behaviour presupposes a mind so I can logically move to the conclusion that yours does to.

3.2. S's criticism of the A from A: Other human beings are similar to me - I can infer that they have a similar mental life.

3.3. Problems with the A from A: It involves an inductive generalisation. Secondly, the inference it involves - that other people have minds - cannot be checked.

3.4. Realism cannot solve the problem of other minds. Neither can idealism. S's solution to the problem of other minds, without falling into solipsism, is to analyse the Other as a subject. 1. Others are required for individual consciousness to be organised in certain ways (think shame) 2. This organisation cannot be explicated by causal action (realism), nor appearance (idealism) 3.Awareness of other minds must consist in a relation of being.

3.4.1. Introduction - why are you writing about this?

3.4.2. Subhead 1

3.4.3. Subhead 2

3.4.4. Subhead 3

3.4.5. Conclusion - what summarizes what is most interesting about your topic?

3.5. The analogy with the cogito: Other existence is necessitated by self-consciousness. A sort of 'I think therefore you are.'

4. Other as object/subject

4.1. Spot someone across the park - object. Orientated around the perspective of another. Looking through a keyhole, absorbed in spying, then realising I have been caught in the act - Subject. Appreciate the subjectivity of the other when I become an object for that other.