Post Your Answer
2 years ago in Non Parametric Tests By Muhammad Umar Farooq
In Being and Nothingness, how does Sartre use the distinction between knowledge and (pre-reflective) awareness to critique Freud’s concept of the unconscious?
I'm working through Sartre's critique of Freud. Sartre seems to argue that the Freudian unconscious is a contradictory "knowing that one does not know." He proposes "bad faith" instead. How does his analysis of consciousness—where all consciousness is consciousness of something, and even pre-reflective awareness is transparent to itself—preclude the possibility of a dynamic, censoring unconscious? What does he mean by saying consciousness is "one," and how does this unity conflict with Freud's model of psychic divisions?
All Answers (1 Answers In All)
By Anoush Answered 1 year ago
Sartre's critique is ontological. For him, consciousness is intentional and translucent; it is always consciousness of something, and in that very act, it is non-positionally aware of itself. There is no "dark cellar" where thoughts hide. The Freudian unconscious posits a censor that both knows the repressed impulse (to repress it) and keeps it unknown from the conscious self—a contradiction for Sartre. He replaces this with bad faith, a single, unified consciousness that simultaneously knows and avoids a truth. For example, in bad faith, I am my avoidance. Consciousness is "one"; its divisions are lived modalities (like bad faith), not separate agencies (id, ego, superego). Repression becomes a conscious, though deceptive, project of the for-itself, not the work of a hidden psychic mechanic. This preserves both the unity of consciousness and human responsibility.
Reply to Anoush
Related Questions