In response to Kelsey...

Kelsey asks, "Do you agree or disagree with Sartre's idea that any relationship between two people is a fight over freedoms?"

While reading the chapter, I actually made a mark in my text about how adamantly I disagreed with this statement: "... genuine respect for the freedom of other people, in friendship or in erotic love, is an impossible ideal." It immediately leads me to ask, is a "genuine respect for the freedom of other people" not the very basis of a friendship or an erotic relationship? If a relationship of any sort does not include "genuine respect," then it is not truly a "friendship" at all. In my experiences in both friendship and romantic relationships, I've found that conflicts do arise. However, I believe that the ways in which we respond to such conflicts are what truly define the relationship. This is where "genuine [and mutual] respect" comes into play, and where compromise is introduced. If it were our only objective to "attempt to deny or to possess the freedom of the other," (p192) as Sartre explains it to be, no relationships would ever work. Both parties are entitled to excersize their respective freedom, and each party should respect the freedom of the other. If person A wants to go to location X without person B, then person B must respect A's freedom to do so. If person B chooses to break up with person A, then A must accept the free actions of B. If both persons desire the relationship to work, they must seek compromise in the face of conflict.
Q: On page 192, Sartre believes that "the 'look' of another person can have a special power over us," and cause us to feel emotions such as shame or pride. Does this not contradict his belief that we are completely responsible for our emotions? That we feel a certain way because we choose to feel that way? Address this problem.