Is it bad-faith for a man to think that he is a woman and a woman to think she is a man?
Is it bad-faith for a man to think that he is a woman and a woman to think she is a man?
Is it bad-faith for a man to think that he is a woman and a woman to think she is a man?
Yeah
This is the shit people have to talk about today.
Thanks atheism/secularism.
Base your social control system on true information next time and it won't be so easily undermined
Nice non-sequitur. You can't avoid the fact that this is a stupid thing to discuss and people are forced to talk about it thanks to the secularization of society.
It doesn't matter what you base your view on, you're still going to have to hear or talk about this moronic sodomite crossdressing gay shit at some point. They have a whole month dedicated to promoting this filth, they shut down city streets for it.
When you say this, what you mean is that Christianity is no longer dominant in society and politics. The reason being that it is false, and people can no longer be reliably prevented from discovering this.
When you finish your tantrum, let us discuss alternatives we might install going forward which serve the same purpose but without the weak points from which Christianity was pried apart.
Paganism can return in the arts, without literal belief, as long as the racial basis of society is looked after. There's no saving brown.
you're on a literature board and don't even know what symbolism or metaphor are, and it even hit you smack dab in the face.
Are you a midwit who needs God's word?
Just look at me moron!
In Sartre's system the human exists before identity does. He spent a considerable amount of time writing about universal freedom and if you are interested in this I would recommend reading him, but to offer a condensed answer to this question the typical human adopts societal norms and mores in an effort to alleviate themselves of this universal freedom. The individual is never actually relieved of this freedom, and it ends up manifesting itself in the form of things to do to generate meaning, Sartre addresses what individuals can do if they cannot actualize this. Either way, the prospective individual exists before the construct of man or woman is applied, so in theory if this is what the individual genuinely wants to do and there is no inherent self-resentment then no, it may not be bad faith. The result could be that the individual is ostracized from the various social groups they seek to fraternize amongst if the rest of the adherents are conforming to accepted social norms and mores, and in this case may reject the individual for being an authentic version of themselves. If the individual is being authentic and there is no self-resentment then it may not qualify as being bad faith.
What a load of utter nonsense. How can you have universal freedom if you are ultimately bound by being human.
Slave detected
I'm just self aware enough to know it and humble enough to not be delusional
Then how is it a load of utter nonsense? If your answer is something to the effect that we can't do things the laws of nature do not account for as of yet then you are welcome to be humble and proud about what you are but you have no discernable statement of validity.
Not just the laws of nature but the very limit of our perception of the world which is rooted in ourselves. Only fools think they've become God.
You are the one talking about god, not me. As I previously said, you are more than welcome to be humble and proud about being a slave if you so desire, I frankly do not care and you have demonstrated you have no discernable valid statement, so the opinion of a slave is completely worthless to me. Perhaps you should stick to Bible threads if you can't keep up elsewhere.
>You are the one talking about god, not me.
What you've described is Godhood (universal freedom). Ironic that you would recommend me to stick to bible threads whence what you're literally preaching a religion. Just as delusional as the christians just on the opposite end of the spectrum
I do not care.
I have read it, but if you only think you know then perhaps you should reread it, which is something I alluded to in my original post. This is not meant to discount what you are saying, if a biological male adopts the accepted norms of the identity of what is expected of a man and does not experience resentment then the male is seemingly acting in good faith. If a biological female chooses to adopt the identity of a woman and experiences no resentment then she would be acting in an authentic manner as well. There are no 100% codified rulesets for these constructs, so colloquial definition may come into play as well, and Sartre spent a fair amount of Being and Nothingness using a Freudian filter to further analyze this. As it pertains to your original question, if a biological male decides to adopt the accepted norms of the identity of a woman or vice versa is this something done in bad faith? I do not know if we share similar colloquial knowledge banks or criteria so I removed it from my consideration and placed the emphasis on the individual, so if this individual is acting authentically and experiences no resentment then I would not say they are acting in bad faith, especially if they accept the potential social repercussions of their decision. The derivation meets the criteria you have mentioned.
OP here. It's a little more complicated than that and I suggest you actually read more than just existentialism is a humanism. Sartre actually believes that human beings have like two facets of their self: one is the realm of facticity, your body and environment, the things that you cannot change and choose etc. These aspects of your existence are facts that you must acknowledge to understand yourself and your place in the world, it is limiting. It correspnds to being (I think), while the other part is nothingness, which is the transcendent consciousness which is conscious of those things and goes beyond them. IT is freedom. IT is the "for-itself" of consciousness and deals with intentionality and self-awareness. Sartre was a phenomenologist in a sense.
This dualism is essential to his concept of Bad-faith, which is basically what you do when you lean too much into either one of these aspects and neglect or outright reject the other, you do this in order to escape angst typically and responsibility by for example seeing yourself simply as pure facticity, an object in the world which is bound by pure cause and effect. But you are also in bad faith when you see yourself as pure transcendent consciousness and deny that your facticity, your past, body, environment, etc. has anything to do with who you are.
It's quite complicated and I suggest reading the bad faith chapter in being and nothingness.
Do we know what the field of vision is like for people with a lazy eye? is it like a cow or something?
IIRC he was blind in his weird eye
sounds more like schizophrenia
Sartre would say so; also Brasillach bad cuz he was a gay
>Brasillach
who?
What does this little dash '---' mean in B&N?
He often speaks of something like 'being of ---', or 'the consciousness of ---' etc. I'm reading the Routledge translation, and the translator didn't remark on this dash at all. Is it a typo? A missing word? Or is it intended as a placeholder that means precisely just that, a placeholder, which signifies nothingness or some such thing?