This is just a poorly organized thoughts that come to me when reading the work of Jean-Paul Sartre.
Abuse the Use of Concept without Understanding
Most of those who are making use of this word would be highly confused if required to explain its meaning. For since it has become fashionable, people cheerfully declare that this musician or that painter is “existentialist.” A columnist in Clartes signs himself “The Existentialist,” and, indeed, the word is now so loosely applied to so many things that it no longer means anything at all.
The phenomenon seems to be omnipresent. I believe many of us have been in a situation, where we argued with someone about a particular issue, but it turns out it is a matter of misunderstanding upon certain concept, and the discussion was rendered meaningless because no one’s really understood the other’s opinion, not to mention leaning something through the conversation. And I believe this is the exact reason why in a debate contest, two teams will always have to fight for the definition of concepts.
This also leads me thinking of to two relevant topics, one from Wittgenstein
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” (Die Grenzen meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt.)
who believe that language does not possess a fixed logic or structure, instead, they were given meanings in use, and it would change depends on context or what he called “language game”.
The other is the idea of expansive interpretation vs extensive interpretation. In civil law, these two terms are denoted as follows.
- Expansive Interpretation
: Interpreting a legal provision in a way that extend its meaning while still staying within the possible linguistic meaning of the text
Extensive Interpretation - Interpreting a legal provision in a way that goes beyond the literal meaning of the text
For example, if we interpret “mail” as “e-mail”, this is expansive interpretation. On the contrary, if we interpret “woman” as “man”, this is obviously an extensive interpretation.
We sometimes accept those interpretations because everything is evolving and the existing law might not cover all circumstances. For example, e-mail only emerged from 1971, before that, no legislation would considered crimes involving e-mail. Recently the cryptocurrency and LLMs also brings many challenges to our legal system.
To deal with those challenges. We cannot only rely on revising the law, since it would be a difficult and lengthy process. Another solution is to develop a theoretical system for interpreting legal provisions, just as stated, “the point is how to interpret the law, not how to revise the law”.
Sentiment versus Action
When we run into a moral dilemma, there is no consultant for us to validate our actions.
Sartre gave us an example of a young man who has a mother living upon him. The young man lost his brother during the German intrusion in 1940. And the young man wanted to join the army to fight for justice.
Now, should the young man leave his mother to join the forces or should he take after his mother and let others fight for the entire community?
The young man suffered a lot. And he had to make his decision with instinct because no one will tell him which is the “right” way, not even himself. And only after the action is taken (wether he chose to stay or join the frontline), he realized which one he valued more.
Sartre argued that, the young man’s action is not decided by his sentiment, on the contrary, his sentiment is defined by his action.
In other words, feelings is formed by the deeds that one does. And that is to say that I can neither seek within myself for an authentic impulse to action, nor can I expect, from some ethic, formulae that will enable me to act.
Act without Hope
As for “despair,” the meaning of this expression is extremely simple. It merely means that we limit ourselves to a reliance upon that which is within our wills, or within the sum of the probabilities which render our action feasible. Whenever one wills anything, there are always these elements of probability. If I am counting upon a visit from a friend, who may be coming by train or by tram, I presuppose that the train will arrive at the appointed time, or that the tram will not be derailed. I remain in the realm of possibilities; but one does not rely upon any possibilities beyond those that are strictly concerned in one’s action. Beyond the point at which the possibilities under consideration cease to affect my action, I ought to disinterest myself. For there is no God and no prevenient design, which can adapt the world and all its possibilities to my will. When Descartes said, “Conquer yourself rather than the world,” what he meant was, at bottom, the same – that we should act without hope.