Monday, December 8, 2008
Egocentricism and Bad Faith
We must turn the mind’s judging eye solely on ourselves if we are going to make an evaluative statement regarding bad faith. It can never be known whether the women on a date or a waiter working in a restaurant are acting in bad faith. Their actions can be seen but in no way can we know the intricacies of their thoughts and how their thoughts influence their actions. The reason I bring this up is because after Sartre’s lecture Existentialism is a Humanism he takes a few questions from the audience. One individual asks why Sartre thinks it is reasonable to judge people. Sartre responds that he only judges people in bad faith for that reason. (I would quote but I lent my book to someone). Nonetheless Sartre says he can reserve judgment for those in bad faith.
Without a long, serious talk it is not possible to know if someone else is acting in bad faith. I cannot sit down in a Chilis or Applebees and know whether or not someone is in bad faith. Witnessing two people on a date does not show any information about whether they are acting in bad faith or not. The waiter or the person on the date is the only one capable at those moments of being able to recognize if they are in bad faith or not. Their is nothing implicit in any actions that show bad faith.
I think Bad Faith should be an activity of egocentricity. It should only be turned on oneself and oneself only. For lying to yourself is a crime that you, the person you are lying to, can be both the judge and jury. With that settled, I hope the continued harassment of Chili’s employees by saying that they are ignoring their transcendence will stop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But isn't that the point of existentialism? That it is supposed to be about one's self - taking responsibility for one's actions and examining their own life and choices. I didn't think that existentialism was about what someone else thought of you or their judgements on how you act or the things you choose to do. Therefore, being in bad faith and realizing that you are in bad faith is a completely self-contained sort of thing; no one can really look at you and tell you that you are in bad faith because you are ignoring your transcendency or whatnot. Also, even if someone knows that you are lying about something, they cannot just call you out and say "oh! you're lying and therefore ignoring your facticity or your transcendency!" That is something that only you yourself can be aware of, which shows that bad faith and existentialism is about the individual and their own realizations of self.
I don't know about you, but I rather enjoy hasseling waiter's and their lack of transcendence. It may be true that we can't be the one's to judge whether or not someone is acting in bad faith, but, if you really think about it, prettymuch everyone is always acting in bad faith about something or another. At least according to Sartre. However, one could make the argument, that maybe Sartre just WANTS everyone to believe that they are acting in bad faith because he is. He just wants to have friends.
I agree Existentialism is in part about taking responsibility for one's own actions. But I think we have all at some point or other judged someone else whether it be on bad faith, being fake, a tool, or by some other fickle standard. The fact that Sartre says he reserves judgment for those in bad faith for me is problematic. We cannot know if the Waiter is putting on an act that he is conscious of or in fact truly believes that he has to act a certain way as a waiter. Therefore I think judgments should be reserved for ourselves. And if we go as far as to having a heart to heart with a person purely on the grounds of what their like then is it not for our own pleasure.
First of all, Chili's awesome-blossom is amazing.
Secondly, I too agree that, despite my natural inclination to judge others, bad faith is something which is only concerned with the individual actions/freedom. Thus, only the individual has the capability is truly knowing when she/he is in bad faith.
Thirdly, I find it problematic identifying one in the act of bad faith. Like Ursula, where do you draw the line when casting judgment? And isnt "drawing the line" creating an absolute that’s in and of itself bad faith? In other words, how can you create a standard for bad faith. I think if the individual is not in bad faith and acting in complete freedom, then there's no reason to concern himself with the bad faith of others.
Post a Comment