Sartre's transcendence of the ego

Who has read this little work? What do you think? I definitley agree that consciousness is never concerned with an "I" until an unreflected consciousness is reflected on. This seems to be fundamental in Sartre's philosophy as a whole. But without an "emanation point" like the ego, how does one explain things like attention? I can choose to pay attention to the tv or the computer. I know one cannot choose to be conscious or not, but there does seems to be a certain amount of control (however small) over consciosness. What do you think?

 

Well it wouldnt be consciousness unless you were conscious of it. Didnt sartre think that transcendence meant getting away from seeing things in terms of words - ya know like the subvocal flow of words that that accompanies most of what you see - the naming of things -- I dont know I'll have to find out again what that bit of his works about

 

Ah right I just refreshed my memory - Its actually a reply to the central theme of Husserl's phenomenology, in which Husserl believes that we can examine the outside world by reflecting on the internal structures of consciousness. Sartre gives the example of a man who goes toward a tree and much as he wants to reduce the tree to a set of phenomenological attributes he cannot escape the actual physical reality of the tree.
Husserl would have said that we can examin the tree by examining its attributes within the conscious mind but sartre thought the tree had the irreducible quality of existence - it didnt merely exist as a set of attributes but had an existence separate from our consciousness
Sartre is trying to make the point that self and consciousness are two separate aspects of the identity of a person
Sartre argues that the self is not "in" consciousness nor identical to it. The self is "in the world" "like the self of another", the self is a continuing project that interacts with the world, not just self-awareness or self-consciousness like "I think, therefore I am". I exist as a physical prescence too. In other words the world is more than a consciousness of the world. Its not so much how you percieve things but also how others percieve you

 

I'm wondering if by taking away an emanation point like Husserl's transcendental ego then do we just end up with an unrestrained (or as Sartre would put it "free") activity (Consciousness) that cannot in a sense be controlled. If consciousness is just pure spontaneity, how is it that I can direct my attention to different things. There seems to be some control.

I understand that Sartre thinks that selfhood is a transcendent object that doesn't make up the stucture of consciousness, but I'm wondering about the degree of control that one has over awareness. Even if my personality is just a "magical" item and that the "I" only comes in relection, I'm having a hard time understanding just how free consciousness is for Sartre.

 

I dont think that Sartre concuded that consciousness was free - at least not spontaneous in the sense that it is unrestrained. If consciousness was not restrained we would not be able to construct, for example, logical hypotheses about the world. We would not even be able to act in the world with a semblance of order. It is not like we are free if we are free of mental restraints - the insane are not free thinkers - they are inorderly thinkers - they have random thoughts - and if we were truly free and thoughts originated themselves then surely they would originate independent of experience . In other words orderly thoughts are not what enslave us and inorderly thoughts are not what make us free - Our thinking is "thinking about" something
I cannot now remember where sartre may have said this but my understanding of him allows me to say - he would probably have thought this but by the time of my next post I will have done some reading on this issue and let you know the relevent points in sartres work to make sure that what i am saying is true and pertinent to your question

PS I'm not even sure if what I have said is relevent to the specific points you raise - I will look into the debate between sartre and Husserl and give links to relevent bits

 

OK I found this on the internet that may answer your question - personally I am finding this question difficult myself - I have spent hours looking at it and must admit my brain has gone fuzzy or something - I must drink some tea or wine but here is what someone else wrote - how accurate it is - I cant verify - I would say its a pointer toward simplifying the issue so see if this gives you some clues - I will look for more tomorrow. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Transcendence-of-the-Ego&id=210498

 

I've come to the conclusion that Sartre was wrong about the transendental ego. He was reacting against Husserl second conception of the ego (as an empty subject point) but Husserl's third conception of the ego can't be rejected.


When Sartre talks about unreflected consciousness and "the-streetcar-having-to-be-overtaken" he fails to recognize that that steetcar could have been constituted in a different way, but it wasn't. Consciousness "made a decision" so to speak. Husserl talks about the ego's "life-world" where the ego actually has personality traits and has a past. All of this goes into one's constitution of an object. Consciousness can't be just a spontaniety. It isn't pure translucence. Consciousness has a past which shapes it, and that past is the monad that Sartre feared.

So,what does this mean for Sartean philosophy? How does this effect Sartre's understanding of Man as free? Does it effect it at all?

 

Can you show me links to this debate please - sounds interesting !

 

I don't know of any links online concerning the issue. There is a great article called "Consciousness, the streetcar, and the ego: pro Husserl, contra Sartre" by John Scanlon. If you could get your hands on that it will be very helpful. I found it in my library. Also, just look for books/links/etc. about Husserl's later conception of the ego in Cartesian Meditations. "The Routledge guide to Husserl and the Cartesian Meditations" has some good stuff. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

 

Brilliant thanks for the info ! I will go to a university library if I cant get it on the network

 

According to him it is purely relational, the fact that you think you are paying attention shows that "attention" is the object, and your perception of it is consciousness for Sartre, if you ask about "what is the nature of the thing that makes you pay attention?" then, the answer is "nothingness" right? because according to him, the consciousness is purely relational. what I dont agree with- is the perceived factility that is "always" associated with consciousness... or so he claims.

If such factility has to exist in each case, then what about dreams? what about things experienced only with in the mind? Where is factility when it comes to that?

 

Is that like the idea behind the saying "the medium is the message"?
as in the book by Marshall McLuhan
it would have been about the same time as the sartre husserl debate
in the 60's

 

My understanding is very crude, but I've empirically experienced something like a pre-reflective consciousness (a "nothingness") which I came to be aware of only after the event.

I think what transcendence is is what in Christian mysticism and Zen one calls "direct experience", which occurs prior to one's given a chance to reflect upon the instant moment. Sports psychology deals with it a lot too.

Like, what in sports jargon is called "the zone", when the athlete starts performing as an automatum, almost. Like returning a 100 mph serve in tennis without "having time to think about it." Performance anxiety is absent then, because only after the fact do you have the chance to think egocentrically, in terms of success and failure.

Sartre (along with Georges Bataille, Meister Eckhardt, and Max Stirner), incidentally, freed me from the need to resort to Zen to explain the subjective experience I detailed above. It always bothered me that I had to seek outside my own cultural tradition to read about it. No more!

 

My understanding is also very crude, i'll be honest i've only scratched the surface as far as existentialist philosophy is concerned, but I agree with the zen buddhist rendition of 'direct experience'...This is why the zen school is different in that it rejects the intellect and concentrates instead on 'pure awareness' or 'direct experience'. Hence why its described as a 'mind-only' school and tries to be as undogmatic as possible. This is what Koans are for; To encourage responses from the non-conceptual non-rational mind, get out of the intellectual, logical way of thinking and tap into that 'pure awareness'.
There is quite a clear distinction between conceptual thought and direct experience/pure awareness.
Actually fexurbis i'm glad you said this: "Sartre (along with Georges Bataille, Meister Eckhardt, and Max Stirner), incidentally, freed me from the need to resort to Zen to explain the subjective experience I detailed above. It always bothered me that I had to seek outside my own cultural tradition to read about it. No more!" I also feel I may be coming to this conclusion. There was one time I would describe myself as agnostic-buddhist (I still practice zazen meditation and feel I benefit from it hugely) but my interpretation of buddhism (it seems like i've had an existentialist take on it all along) was flatly rejected by other religious/'traditional' buddhists to the point they were complete arseholes about it (basically showed me it was the same as all other religions when you scratch beneath the surface). Incidently I dont associate myself with that label anymore...Existentialism seems to me to be buddhism without all the religious crap , superstition and blind faith. Am I right at all here?

 

I think the difference is that Zen might be a little more proscribed. There is no "way" in existentialism, it is a matter of individual choice.