Toward a Thicker Notion of the Self: Sartre and von Hildebrand on Individuality, Personhood, and Freedom

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestiones Disputatae Pub Date : 2019-03-26 DOI:10.5840/QD2019925
Alexander Montes
{"title":"Toward a Thicker Notion of the Self: Sartre and von Hildebrand on Individuality, Personhood, and Freedom","authors":"Alexander Montes","doi":"10.5840/QD2019925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In this article, I compare Jean-Paul Sartre's and Dietrich von Hildebrand's analyses of the look of the other to argue that personhood is more fundamental than individuality. Sartre restricts subjectivity to individual consciousness, which, qua individual, is defined as not being what others are. As a result, both freedom and selfhood for Sartre are defined as \"nihilation.\" By contrast, for von Hildebrand, the experience of the loving interpenetration of looks reveals both the self and the other as concrete values precisely insofar as they are persons. I conclude with the implications of this primacy of person over individual for understanding freedom. Both Sartre and von Hildebrand recognize our \"fundamental\" freedom of choosing our ends, which corresponds to our being individuals. However, only von Hildebrand recognizes that the highest freedom is not found in individual choice but, rather, in the \"cooperative freedom\" of personal love.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestiones Disputatae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2019925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract:In this article, I compare Jean-Paul Sartre's and Dietrich von Hildebrand's analyses of the look of the other to argue that personhood is more fundamental than individuality. Sartre restricts subjectivity to individual consciousness, which, qua individual, is defined as not being what others are. As a result, both freedom and selfhood for Sartre are defined as "nihilation." By contrast, for von Hildebrand, the experience of the loving interpenetration of looks reveals both the self and the other as concrete values precisely insofar as they are persons. I conclude with the implications of this primacy of person over individual for understanding freedom. Both Sartre and von Hildebrand recognize our "fundamental" freedom of choosing our ends, which corresponds to our being individuals. However, only von Hildebrand recognizes that the highest freedom is not found in individual choice but, rather, in the "cooperative freedom" of personal love.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
走向更厚的自我概念:萨特和冯·希尔德布兰德论个性、人格和自由
摘要:本文通过比较萨特和希尔德布兰德对他者外貌的分析,认为人格比个性更重要。萨特将主体性限定为个体意识,作为个体,它被定义为不是他人所是。因此,对萨特来说,自由和自我都被定义为“虚无”。相比之下,对于冯·希尔德布兰德来说,爱的眼神相互渗透的经验揭示了自我和他者作为具体的价值观,就他们是人而言。最后,我总结了理解自由时,个人高于个人的重要性。萨特和希尔德布兰德都承认我们选择目标的“基本”自由,这与我们作为个体的存在相对应。然而,只有冯·希尔德布兰德认识到,最高的自由并不存在于个人选择中,而是存在于个人爱的“合作自由”中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quaestiones Disputatae
Quaestiones Disputatae HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Remnants of Substances: A Neo-Aristotelian Resolution of the Puzzles After Survivalism and Corruptionism: Separated Souls as Incomplete Persons Evaluating Hylomorphism as a Hybrid Account of Personal Identity Editor’s Introduction Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Too-Many-Thinkers Problem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1