Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sartre vs. Freud
Message-ID: <jqbD7Kyt8.Eot@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950423215444.4765A-100000@cw-u02.umd.umich.edu> <3nhl23$254@pink.lm.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 07:43:56 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,comp.ai.philosophy
Lines: 56
Sender: jqb@netcom8.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.philosophy.meta:17519 comp.ai.philosophy:27206

In article <3nhl23$254@pink.lm.com>, bali <hanuman@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>Mark Paul Stifter (zarathus@umd.umich.edu) wrote:
>
>> I have a final on Tuesday 25 and I can't get figure this study question
>> out.
>
>> In what way does sartre diagree with the freudian analysis of lying to 
>> oneself and of neuroses.
>
>> Any help would be much appreciated.
>
>> Desperatly seeking Sartre,
>> Mark Stifter
>> zarathus@umd.umich.edu
>
>  It's late and I'm fuzzy-headed, but what the hell: 
>  Sartres critique of Freudian theory focuses on the notion of repression 
>of contents deemed unacceptable to the ego, pushing them back into the 
>unconscious. His arguement hinges around the questions of whats doing the 
>repressing, and how does it know what to repress. Freud speaks of a 
>censor in the mind, somehow able to judge both what would be an 
>unacceptable mental content, and also just how much disguising is needed 
>in order to make the content acceptable, in other words, this censor 
>knows too much, does a whole lot, and ends up seeming very much like the 
>common sense notion of an ego, or "I".
>   Another way of saying it would be like this: if I have repressed 
>something from my consciousness, some horrible event from childhood, say, 
>then I must be just conscious enough of what I'm repressing, so that I 
>can keep it repressed, since if I truelly and totally repressed 
>somethhing, then having forgoten about it completely, I'd run the risk of 
>having it resurface in my awareness. no longer vigalently guarding 
>against it. So, repression can only be partial, a sort of chosen 
>limitation of consciousness, from Sartres point of view, which is what is 
>called self-deception.
>   Sartres whole schtick was that consciousness is absolutely nothing, 
>the nothing which is like the background to any content of consciousness. 
>Freud was making models of consciousness and its various parts, and  this 
>diagramatic approach, would run counter to Sartres view, simply another 
>object of consciousness. Oh yeah, oanother thing, Sartre was very much a 
>believer that consciousness by its own nature was self-evident, 
>transparent to itself. Freuds "repression" introduces an apparently 
>absolute opacity into consciousness. Sartre counters with more of a 
>chosen dimming of ones awareness. hope that helps.
>Dan 

Mark might choose to repeat this on his exam, which would leave him in a
difficult position if he were examined further on his response.  For all
he knows, this is a complete troll.  It would be better to offer him
the sources and methods upon which this analysis is based.  Simply providing
students with test answers defrauds the entire scholastic community (IMNSHO).



-- 
<J Q B>

