7anooch's review against another edition
4.0
I don’t know what de Beauvoir I’d saying half the time, but when I do know what she’s saying blows my mind.
megahugestrike's review against another edition
5.0
In the Ethics of Ambiguity, Beauvoir makes a case for existential ethics, the problem being that if we are able to subjectively define meaning in existentialism, then shouldn't everything be permitted?
Section 1: Ambiguity and Freedom
To answer this, she first shows us how to achieve existential freedom. To do this, we reject any objective truth and give up in being able to find it, and instead embrace our own subjective truth. This is difficult since it puts us in a state of anguish, a negative feeling that comes from freedom where we realize everything is our responsibility.
While we would rather settle for objective truth than live with anguish, she claims she should instead accept this task of freedom with its consequences. In doing this, we can transcend our facticity, which is basically achieving the freedom possible to us in the future. This transcendence isn't just a singular, objective end, but is something that is constantly strived for but never attained (she calls it a "goal that constantly recedes"). Thus rather than life being projecting oneself to a singular, objective end, we are in a constant tension of facticity and transcendence, redefining what this transcendence means to us as we go.
Section 2: Personal Freedom and Others
The second section gives us different types of people who have not achieved this existential freedom. By doing this, we can see common pitfalls people fall into on the path to freedom. She lays out the path to this freedom in a few steps, the first is realizing your lack of being, which is to realize subjectivity but desire to find objective truth. Next, we deny this lack as a lack, which is to accept it for what it is and positively create our own subjective truths.
First, we start as a child. Children see the world absolute fact, not yet understanding their subjectivity they understandably take all they see as objective truth. At some point, possibly during adolescence, the child begins to learn about their lack and possibilities of freedom. However, it is possible that one can remain stuck in this childlike state if they are kept in a state of ignorance, constraining their freedom. She gives the examples of slaves who are not conscious of their slavery, or the condition of women in some civilizations who only know to submit to the laws benefitting men. However, she makes a case that sometimes even western women who are free still voluntarily choose to be complicit and resign their freedom in an effort to escape existential anguish, resigning their freedom in an effort to keep this childlike state of objective truth. Thus, once we realize our possibility of transcendence, we must act upon rather than remain constrained.
After being the child, the the person lowest on the hierarchy to freedom is what she calls the "sub-man". This is someone who never realizes their lack of being after childhood, and instead flees from the world. They see everything as dull and reject passion, only existing on the plane of facticity but never attempting to transcend it.
Next she brings up the "serious man", which is probably the most important type. This person, realizes their lack of being after childhood, and answers this lack by finding meaning in an objective end. This could be through religion, political leaning, parenthood, a future goal, etc. Beauvoir makes the point that it doesn't matter what the content is, but just that by believing in something this person escapes the anxiety that comes with freedom, pacifying it with objective truths. Whatever it is, the serious man makes themselves a slave to that end, not questioning and doing everything to achieve it. They voluntarily deny their freedom in an effort to constrain themselves and flee to the objectivity of their childhood.
Next is the nihilist, who after realizing their lack of being, the rid themselves of the anxiety of freedom by denying the world (rather than looking to objective truth like the serious man), claiming there is no meaning and that there can never be any. The danger with this position is that it is partially true, the nihilist experiences the ambiguity of existence and the lack of justification given by the world. However, the nihilist forgets that it is their responsibly to use their subjective freedom to give the world justification, and ironically uses this freedom to deny the world rather than positively affirm it.
There are a few more examples given. I found the most interesting of these to be "the adventurer" who seems to be similar to Camus's "absurd man", who while enjoying life remains detached from its content and ends.
Section 3: The Positive Aspect of Ambiguity
While the adventurer is close to being genuinely moral, Beauvoir has one issue with them, which is also present in the other types as well. This is that their attitude is solipsistic, and fails to take into account the subjectivity of other people in their worldview.
This can have disastrous consequences. Beauvoir gives the example of a tyrannical ruler (like Nazi Germany) who as an example of the serious man, would be willing to sacrifice anything, even millions of human lives, to achieve their end. However, we would understand this is immoral since it doesn't take into account the freedom of the individual, and instead denies them their freedom. For us, freedom is both the start and end goal, both facticity and transcendence, so any system which values some sort of objective ideal rather than the freedom of the individual must be misguided.
The consequence of this is that we must revolt against such tyranny, which means we actually must deny the freedom of our oppressor, and using a sort of utilitarian calculation realize that this action would give freedom to more individuals. This is where the "ambiguity" of the ethical framework comes in. There is no hard rule on the means and ends of what we do, we only should strive to achieve freedom for ourselves and others. In some cases it might be moral to deny ones freedom in the present to work for future freedom. But we should also always continually question whether our action is the right one, otherwise we fall into the trap of the serious man who doesn't question their means or ends.
An additional note, in working to give freedom to others, we have to understand that rather than just liberating them, we also have to give knowledge to them such that they would want to be free and transcend their current condition. She gives the example of freeing slaves in America, where after they were freed many didn't know what to do so went back to their old masters. Thus, we should both strive to liberate but also give others the means and knowledge to liberate themselves.
In the end, while this freedom is something that can never be achieved in totality, Beauvoir tells us we should still project ourselves forward despite this. Rather than evade the ambiguity of life with false promises of certainty, we should embrace it and in doing so achieve freedom for ourselves and work towards it for others.
Overall: 5/5
Section 1: Ambiguity and Freedom
To answer this, she first shows us how to achieve existential freedom. To do this, we reject any objective truth and give up in being able to find it, and instead embrace our own subjective truth. This is difficult since it puts us in a state of anguish, a negative feeling that comes from freedom where we realize everything is our responsibility.
While we would rather settle for objective truth than live with anguish, she claims she should instead accept this task of freedom with its consequences. In doing this, we can transcend our facticity, which is basically achieving the freedom possible to us in the future. This transcendence isn't just a singular, objective end, but is something that is constantly strived for but never attained (she calls it a "goal that constantly recedes"). Thus rather than life being projecting oneself to a singular, objective end, we are in a constant tension of facticity and transcendence, redefining what this transcendence means to us as we go.
Section 2: Personal Freedom and Others
The second section gives us different types of people who have not achieved this existential freedom. By doing this, we can see common pitfalls people fall into on the path to freedom. She lays out the path to this freedom in a few steps, the first is realizing your lack of being, which is to realize subjectivity but desire to find objective truth. Next, we deny this lack as a lack, which is to accept it for what it is and positively create our own subjective truths.
First, we start as a child. Children see the world absolute fact, not yet understanding their subjectivity they understandably take all they see as objective truth. At some point, possibly during adolescence, the child begins to learn about their lack and possibilities of freedom. However, it is possible that one can remain stuck in this childlike state if they are kept in a state of ignorance, constraining their freedom. She gives the examples of slaves who are not conscious of their slavery, or the condition of women in some civilizations who only know to submit to the laws benefitting men. However, she makes a case that sometimes even western women who are free still voluntarily choose to be complicit and resign their freedom in an effort to escape existential anguish, resigning their freedom in an effort to keep this childlike state of objective truth. Thus, once we realize our possibility of transcendence, we must act upon rather than remain constrained.
After being the child, the the person lowest on the hierarchy to freedom is what she calls the "sub-man". This is someone who never realizes their lack of being after childhood, and instead flees from the world. They see everything as dull and reject passion, only existing on the plane of facticity but never attempting to transcend it.
Next she brings up the "serious man", which is probably the most important type. This person, realizes their lack of being after childhood, and answers this lack by finding meaning in an objective end. This could be through religion, political leaning, parenthood, a future goal, etc. Beauvoir makes the point that it doesn't matter what the content is, but just that by believing in something this person escapes the anxiety that comes with freedom, pacifying it with objective truths. Whatever it is, the serious man makes themselves a slave to that end, not questioning and doing everything to achieve it. They voluntarily deny their freedom in an effort to constrain themselves and flee to the objectivity of their childhood.
Next is the nihilist, who after realizing their lack of being, the rid themselves of the anxiety of freedom by denying the world (rather than looking to objective truth like the serious man), claiming there is no meaning and that there can never be any. The danger with this position is that it is partially true, the nihilist experiences the ambiguity of existence and the lack of justification given by the world. However, the nihilist forgets that it is their responsibly to use their subjective freedom to give the world justification, and ironically uses this freedom to deny the world rather than positively affirm it.
There are a few more examples given. I found the most interesting of these to be "the adventurer" who seems to be similar to Camus's "absurd man", who while enjoying life remains detached from its content and ends.
Section 3: The Positive Aspect of Ambiguity
While the adventurer is close to being genuinely moral, Beauvoir has one issue with them, which is also present in the other types as well. This is that their attitude is solipsistic, and fails to take into account the subjectivity of other people in their worldview.
This can have disastrous consequences. Beauvoir gives the example of a tyrannical ruler (like Nazi Germany) who as an example of the serious man, would be willing to sacrifice anything, even millions of human lives, to achieve their end. However, we would understand this is immoral since it doesn't take into account the freedom of the individual, and instead denies them their freedom. For us, freedom is both the start and end goal, both facticity and transcendence, so any system which values some sort of objective ideal rather than the freedom of the individual must be misguided.
The consequence of this is that we must revolt against such tyranny, which means we actually must deny the freedom of our oppressor, and using a sort of utilitarian calculation realize that this action would give freedom to more individuals. This is where the "ambiguity" of the ethical framework comes in. There is no hard rule on the means and ends of what we do, we only should strive to achieve freedom for ourselves and others. In some cases it might be moral to deny ones freedom in the present to work for future freedom. But we should also always continually question whether our action is the right one, otherwise we fall into the trap of the serious man who doesn't question their means or ends.
An additional note, in working to give freedom to others, we have to understand that rather than just liberating them, we also have to give knowledge to them such that they would want to be free and transcend their current condition. She gives the example of freeing slaves in America, where after they were freed many didn't know what to do so went back to their old masters. Thus, we should both strive to liberate but also give others the means and knowledge to liberate themselves.
In the end, while this freedom is something that can never be achieved in totality, Beauvoir tells us we should still project ourselves forward despite this. Rather than evade the ambiguity of life with false promises of certainty, we should embrace it and in doing so achieve freedom for ourselves and work towards it for others.
Overall: 5/5
ursodasrflat's review against another edition
Very slow; I finished the introduction chapter and felt that I got the gist of the whole thing well enough to stop there.
samreads97's review against another edition
4.0
I did it! I read philosophy! Did I understand all of it? No! But I do actually feel like I got something out of it, and the fact that I finished it is a personal triumph. It got really redundant the last 30 pages, and some of the references and philosophical “proofs” definitely went over my head, but I did get something out of this! I loved the whole idea of ambiguity, namely in the individual vs. mankind as a whole. I am a STAUNCH collectivist, probably due to my hatred of Ayn Rand and communist leanings. However I loved how this book framed the importance of the individual, just not at the expense of freedom. Beauvoir rightly critiques communist philosophy for wanting mankind to assimilate into one homogenous mass, from our art to self-expression to how we structure society. I think it’s an important to say, yes, mankind can come together and everyone deserves freedom (even… *gasp* poor people and minorities!), but not at the expense of individual thinking and culture and pursuits. I also love her rejection of Nihilism and even Absurdism (which I like much more than Nihilism) and I feel like I actually understand better what existentialism is. I will probably not retain a ton of this, and like I said, a lot of this was probably lost on me, but I read it and I’m glad I did.
isabelromero's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
medium-paced
5.0
I truly loved this. de Beuavoir’s proofs are brilliant and I have never resonated so well on the topics of religion, philosophy, ethics, and art like I did in this book. It will be something I return to often.
philip_rudy's review against another edition
5.0
The philosophy is very individualistic, yet not solipsistic, which I like. It's at tough read, but you can pull a lot of good stuff out of it, and I enjoyed reading it.
jroberts3456's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
5.0