To Open The Door Of "Hell"

Although Sartre is the thought pioneer of “the other” in Frenchphilosophy, his philosophy of the other still has theoretical origin in thehistory of western philosophy. In Sartre’s opinion, realism view of theothers will inevitably fall into idealism, so he seeks resources in Kant.Specifically, Kant’s “the other” thoughts is mainly reflected in thefollowing aspects: in the epistemology, Kant bases on pure-subject todetermine the universal principles of subjectivity, which makes the selfand the other become the existence of common-subjectivity; in moralphilosophy, moral law is objective and universal, and it has universalsignificance for the all the rational thing; in aesthetics, appreciation andjudgment is not only individual but also universal, and the so-called“universal” requires that all people agree. From the existential perspective,Sartre points out that Kant’s the other is given in our experience, just a personal common nature, but the other is “a special object”. In additionKant confuses “I see things in the other” with“I found thing in my own”,equates the existence of the other with my experiences to the other.In order to avoid the realism and idealism’s theoretical predicament onthe other, the primitive relation between the self and the other mustchange “external negative” into “internal negation”, which leads toSartre’s the inheriting and criticizing for Husserl, Hegel and Heidegger’sphilosophy of the other. Excessive pursuit of philosophy begins rigor,thoroughness and clarity of Husserl’s phenomenology, inevitably leads tosolipsism, but the way beyond the solipsism to the other is to constructthe theory of intersubjectivity. Sartre inherits Husserl’s phenomenologicalmethod, and regards the human existence as the prior structure of the self,the other as a subject; on the other hand, he attempts to understand theother from the “ontological standpoint” instead of “epistemology”, toreveal the conflict relationship between people. Sartre thinks, althoughHegel is earlier in time than Husserl for many years, his the other’sphilosophy is much more mature than that of Husserl. Hegel’s the philosophy on the other mainly concentrates in the “self-awareness”theory, especially in the stage of “relationship between master andservant”, in which the owner is “independent consciousness”, the slave is“depended consciousness”, however the slave in the processtransformation of materialized labor, becomes the owner of the matter,and the master depends on the slave by transfer rights of matter. AlthoughHegel considers that “the other’s deny is direct, internal and mutual” andregards “the existence for the other” as necessary condition to appear as“I am for my own existence”, which is on the upgrade in Sartre’s opinion.However Sartre considers that Hegel still “dose not clearly distinguishbetween understanding and existence”, because “the ontological problemof the other existence someone is still represented by the term ofepistemology”. As for Heidegger, he “thanks to” the former thoughts, andregards all kinds of “reality relationship” between people as existencerelationship, and this relationship should enable the “human esse” dependon each other in the essence of existence, which forms “being-with”theory. Sartre thinks that Heidegger’s emphasis on the coexistence and ignoring confrontation between the people, can be attributed toHeidegger’s ontology of universal epistemology tendency. After analyzingthe above the philosophy on the other, Sartre believed “the other” isdifferent from Kant, Husserl and Hegel’s epistemology of “the other”, andalso from Heidegger co-existence “the other”, but is “the other” inconflict with the self view from ontology.Next, this paper mainly discusses the specific path of Sartre’sconstruction earlier philosophy on the other. First of all, Sartre thinks“pre-flective cogito” is higher prior and more fundamentally than“reflection”, and philosophy is only on the basis of it, which identifies anabsolute original starting point for phenomenological ontologyphilosophy. In order to further demonstrate the unification ofconsciousness and the outside world, and Sartre puts forward the“being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself” theory. On the characteristics ofthe being-in-itself, Sartre summarizes as:“it is being for itself, it is whatit is, it dose exist.” Being-for-itself is the consciousness, which showsbeing-in-itself. Being-for-itself is meaningful where is only connected to being-in-itself, in the same way subject (the self) is also from the world,and not in the consciousness. So the self is bound to deal with the other inthe world, my existence is related to the existence of the other. Sartrepoints out that “look” is the way that makes relationship happen betweenthe self and the other to make, is a kind of the most direct find toexistence. In the “look” and “being looked” mutually objectifying, thepeople are aware that subjectivity of the self and the other is theinevitable conflictory. The body is the carrier that shows the self and theother. There is three-dimensional from the ontological perspectiveanalysis of body: I make my body exist; my body is understood and used;I exist for myself as a body known by the other. To the body through thethree-dimensional discussion, Sartre determines the original basic relationbetween the other and the self, either I doom to force others to exercisehis freedom in order to build my existence; or I doom to cancel thefreedom of others to deter others. This type of relationship in the sexualattitude as a basic model is love series and desire series. However,“wefind ourselves with our experience in reality which is not in conflict with the other but in combination with the other”. Therefore, we should study“We”, which mainly in two forms:“object-us” puts us into the world, weare experienced it as a group of alienation by shame;“subject-us” isformed in the collective activities of some individual or collective labor,who is psychological not original. Although the “we” experience is real,which still can not change the front conclusion, the people really can notget out of this dilemma--or surpass the other or surpassed by the other.Due to the late Sartre’s attitude toward life conversion from “look at theworld” to actively “intervention” social as well as from the Frenchexistentialist school inside and outside criticism, he gradually changes thetheoretical framework of individualism and subjectivism, and tries tomake the method of understanding of existence as the foundation and thehistorical materialism of Marx be integrated, so as to establish “theMarxism of existentialism”. If the core concept of Sartre’s earlyphilosophy is “being-for-self”, and the late is “scarcity”. It used to meetthe shortage of matter people needed, but in Sartre’s opinion, the“scarcity” not only exists on the earth with the human, but also determines the basic relationship between the human. The associationbetween “scarcity” and “individual-practice” is the problem of practice-inert, namely the scarcity of negation and variation. This concept of“inert” refers to the “shaping material” as the practice of alienation. The“practice-inert” exists the inheret logic of domination of man that canbe used “require”,“interest” and “fate” such key words to summarize.The “require” is demand that a group of machine (material) is for thepeople, and the “interest” is “relationship of the people in a social filed”,which is exclusive. If the machine and factory is the interests of factoryowner, but the “fate” of workers “(machine) enables the managers tofreely let workers accept low wages, or frighten the strikers by immediatereplacement with another”. However, the workers do not always yield tothis, and they unite to deny, further revolt the “fate” that factory ownersimposed. Therefore, they formed a class, and it is the inevitable structurebetween the human under physical constraints.The Class indicates that the thesis Sartre discussed transits from therelationship between the human and the matter to the relationship between the human. In the field of practice—inert, the human’s existenceand activity possesses the characteristics of the matter, and it is thevarious inorganic things that act as a unified role in the human’s activities,which is called “collective”. When the collective that expresses the matteris used to name the crowd, it indicates that the collective is in divided andlow organizational level the state. It is the emergency common practicelead to the fact that the collective translates into the group, and the groupcan be divided into three sorts: fusedgroup, organizedgroup, andinstitution. The fusedgroup is the first stage of group, in which there is nodifferentiation between individuals, and everyone is equal, thereforeeveryone is “common individual”. The second stage is theorganizedgroup, whose the degree of organization is higher than thefusion group. The oath is the main way that make the fusedgroup transitto organized group, establishing on the basis of voluntary of the membersof the group, and the freedom has become a tool of inert which isoriginally incompatible with inert. Organizedgroup continues to developin practice with the new contradictions producing on the inside of the organization. In order to regulate these contradictions, the grade isproduced from the organization and the institution is born from the oath.Institution is inert, and operation of the institution is the systematicdomestication from people to people, therefore the human’s positivefreedom translates into enslaved freedom. Eventually, it is theorganization’s autocratic and bureaucratic that caused dissatisfaction, andit disintegrated due to the opposition, then it newly backs to “collective”.From “being and nothing”(1943) to “critique of dialectical reason”(1960), it is interval of seventeen years. With the variation of attitudetoward life, the change of the world and the critique of other philosophers,his philosophy about the other also has taken place in some evolution anddevelopment. First of all, it is the Sartre’s conception of the other havetransformation process from the “look”(psychology) to “do”(practice);secondly, Sartre too much emphasizes on the conflict between the selfand the other in the early, while he recognizes that there also iscooperation relations expect conflict in the latter; finally, the method thathe often uses changes from the early main existential psychoanalysis to the main analysis of Marxism. However, the fundamental conflictrelationship between the people and his subjective subject-metaphysicshas first midst and last not shifted.As for Sartre’s philosophy of the other, we inevitably discusscontemporary French philosopher Levinas who is studying the sametheme in a different perspective at the same time, so it is necessary to docomparison on their philosophy of the other. Firstly, as for theirideological history, two people are affected by Descartes, Husserl andHeidegger thoughts in the very great degree during constructing thephilosophy of the other, but they are from different perspective totransform their thoughts. Secondly, as for as the way the self relates to theother, Sartre (previous) is through “look”, however Levinas is through“face”, and as “look” beyond,“face” is concerned with absolute othernessof the other. Finally, in the theoretical purport, Sartre emphasizesontology, Levinas advocates ethics. Levinas believes that both thetraditional ontological philosophy “understanding” of beings, orHeidegger, Sartre’s ontology “understanding” of beings, are not really encountered the problem of the other, so must change ontology into ethics,and assume unlimited liability for the other in face-to-face.When our country is in the period of social transformation, due tolimited cognitive and many systems is not perfect, there are someproblems to be solved, such as the prevalence of commodity fetishism,the widespread corruption, the indifferent relationship between peopleand people and serious psychological problems of people. As a strong“intervention” society consciousness philosopher, Sartre’s philosophy ofthe other emphasizes on human freedom, inspects the knowledge and thesolution of the conflicted relationships, discusses about avoiding on therigid social system at late stage, which has much important enlightenmentto solve the above problems in our society now——adhere to thescientific outlook on development, establish and perfect theanti-corruption system, construct intersubjectivity interaction society,establish cultural ideas of ability-based and so on.In the conclusion part, on the basis of a brief summary, the paper pointsout that although Sartre’s philosophy of the other has the subject-object dualism traces, but we can not conclude that he is a “philosophical dwarf”.Sartre’s mode of thinking is largely determined by his personal experienceand the contradicted social environment at that time, what more this modeof thinking has got be just perfect to play in the relationship between theself and the other.