On the other hand, Merleau-Ponty on the other hand is not that radical. Even though it is not as radical, does not mean that his argument is better. Merleau Ponty does not believe that individuals are completely free (even though he might have overly interpreted Sartre). Merleau Ponty feels that individuals are limited in there choices by their environment and their reality. Here, facticity plays a bigger role. Better yet, our experiences play a bigger role. In the same example, Merleau-Ponty would see that the woman's decision may be based on what chances she may have to survive or if her environment is conducive to the challenge or her situation. Here, her experiences and knowledge plays a bigger role. Her choice is technically her "choice". Yes, she has to make a decision, but her decision is not based completely on her free-will, but also on her limitations. Thus, free-will is not absolute.
I understand both sides of the issue, but I would have to agree that Sartre made the better argument. Though Sartre is more radical, Merleau Ponty takes the responsibility of choices away from the individual, and places it more on the environment and the world. I do not know how Merleau-Ponty's interpretation is beneficial to the individual and the world. At least, I know with Sartre that responsibility and choices are assumed in the individual, and not on the environment. What do you think?
I also find the differences between the two really interesting. While it was a little confusing for me initially to grasp Sartre's idea of freedom, how we are always free but not absolutely free, I've really grown to like the idea. Everything does seem to be up to individual interpretation and perception, which supports the adversarial coefficient. However, I'm not sure that I agree (or even wholly understand) Merleau-Ponty's concept of centripetal signification. In what way does the world give meaning to its inhabitants? How can something inanimate do such a thing in the first place? Maybe I'm just not comprehending his idea, but it doesn't seem as readily acceptable to me as Sartre's.
ReplyDeleteI also really like Sartre's idea of freedom. It seems to make a lot of sense.
ReplyDeleteI had trouble with Merleau-Ponty. It is true that our surroundings, inanimate though they may be, have a direct effect on us. For example, take a traffic jam. When you are stuck in traffic, you are prevented from making it somewhere on time. From my understanding, Sartre would say that, even tough you cannot prevent the traffic jam or make it disappear, you are no less free than before. Merleau-Ponty would say that the inability to act on freedom, means that Sartre's freedom is a false freedom.
Satre seems to have a way of causing casual observers to think his philosophy more radical or counterintuitive when one really gets down to the nuts and bolts of his argument. One can certainly see the benefits of engaging with the world with Satrean freedom as a basis, though I think Sartre's own checkered record of political involvement should provide a voice of caution for us; the notion of radical responsibility didn't stop Sartre from supporting some rather nasty regimes, and may have even (as apparently is Merleau-Ponty's view) contributed to the problem.
ReplyDelete