“Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness”
Stephen Wang in Philosophy Now magazine.
In other words [perhaps], another way of pointing to those who, in my view, are able to think themselves into believing in the existence of a “real me” in sync with the “right thing to do”. That way, others can then be judged as more or less “sincere” about living “the good life” to the extent that they live it as you do.
What I call the “bad faith” of the objectivists.
On the other hand [of course], one can then conclude that unless others share this point of view, they are themselves seen by me to be acting in bad faith.
Good faith? Bad faith? Talk about “existential contraptions”!
But, lets face it, psychological defense mechanisms exist above all else to minimize anguish in our lives. Only, as I see it, it still comes down to the actual sets of behaviors that are chosen. What does it mean, when confronting conflicting goods, to claim that one is acting in bad faith? From my frame of mind, it means insisting there is only one obligatory – rational and moral – set of behaviors. But then others can insist that I am then claiming that to the extent others don’t share this point of view themselves, they are acting in bad faith.
Which is not what I am saying at all. If I were, I’d be excluding myself from my own point of view.
This is the part where many come not only to objectify others but to objectify themselves in turn:
Still, I always come back again and again to taking intellectual contraptions/general descriptions such as this out into the world of actual human interactions. What, for all practical purposes, do words such as these mean when describing actual behaviors in conflict?
My point is that to the extent we distant ourselves from objectification, the closer we come to being down in my “hole”…with “I” more or less “fractured and fragmented”.
Then I go in search of the narratives of those who are convinced that they do not objectify “I” [in the is/ought world] but are not in turn fractured and fragmented as “I” am.