Existential Book Club discussion

May's book is Simone de Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity. I've heard that it is a precursor to The Second Sex and since we're in the first few months of the book club, it might be nice to read this one first.
Sorry that this is up a bit late, I've been busy with my degree.

I found The Ethics of Ambiguity a very difficult book to read. I could never discover with clarity what her main arguments were. I had nobody to discuss this book with at the time (another drawback) and wondered if the translation was a poor one. Beauvoir is usually a clear writer, quite systematic and she parcels things very well, as evidenced by the breadth and thoroughness of The Second Sex. I still have my copy of the Ethics, so ... hmm.

I had an email conversation about clarifying Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity a couple of years ago, in French. It helped a great deal. Here is a Google translation:

Gestalt30 June 2015
Hello again,

As your request has not ceased to arouse my reflection since this morning, here is what my modest understanding of the statement developed in Simone de Beauvoir's "Morality of Ambiguity" requires.

Existentialism is essentially defined as the philosophy of ambiguity because, basically, Sartre defines man as a being whose being is not that unnecessary passivity, that subjectivity that is realized only as a presence To the world, this arising engagement of the for-itself immediately given for another as if this share of failure inherent in the mortality of the human condition implied to deny all morality to the latter.

Thus, as soon as the book comes into play, the whole paradox of a philosophy presenting this choice, this freedom committed not so much as a sterile anxiety or an empty subjectivity, but, on the contrary, as an "authenticity" Perhaps, whereas his detractors perceive it on the contrary as a philosophy of absurdity and despair because in any case the part is lost by the condition of mortality of human existence.

For Sartre and Simone, this "unnecessary passing" is in no way imposed on him from without, because being chooses it by its very essence, this being which is made lacking being, in order that there may be constituted being By human existence, the projects and the ends which it implies. The fact that she has no reason to be willing does not mean that she is useless, nor can she justify herself, to give herself the reasons for being that she has not. That is the paradox.

In this formidable effort of popularization, Simone de Beauvoir's exposition allows us to better grasp certain concepts developed in more specific works such as "Being and nothingness" and much more abstract from existentialist philosophy.

Presenting the failure of human existence not outdated but truly assumed, for in order to attain its truth man must not attempt to dissipate the ambiguity of his being, but on the contrary to accept it; Thus human existence asserts itself as an absolute which must seek in itself its justification and not be suppressed, even if it is preserved. For agnostics like myself, far from affecting its relevance, this fundamental paradox at the very foundation of existentialist philosophy confers on it its justification most inherent in the human condition. Hoping not to have contributed unnecessarily to add to your confusion, but to have contributed to the firstfruits would be only the invalids of a personal understanding.

To the pleasure,

Guy

The original:

Gestalt30 juin 2015
Re-bonjour,

Comme votre requête n'a cessé de susciter ma réflexion depuis ce matin, voici tel que demandé ma modeste compréhension de l'exposé développé dans ¨Une morale de l'ambiguïté¨ de Simone de Beauvoir.

L'existentialisme se définit essentiellement comme philosophie de l'ambiguïté car définissant fondamentalement, tel Sartre, l'homme un être dont l'être est de n'être pas, cette ¨passion inutile¨, cette subjectivité qui ne se réalise que comme présence au monde, ce surgissement engagé du pour-soi immédiatement donné pour autrui comme si cette part d'échec inhérente à la mortalité de la condition humaine impliquait de nier toute morale à ce dernier.

Voilà ainsi exposé dès l'entrée en matière de l'ouvrage tout le paradoxe d'une philosophie présentant ce choix, cette liberté engagée non pas telle une angoisse stérile ou une subjectivité vide mais ¨à contrario¨ comme une ¨authenticité¨ de l'être alors que ses détracteurs la perçoivent au contraire comme une philosophie de l'absurde et du désespoir car de toute manière la partie est perdue de par la condition de mortalité de l'existence humaine.

Pour Sartre et Simone, cette ¨passion inutile¨ ne lui est aucunement imposée du dehors car l'être la choisit de par son essence même, cet être qui se fait manque d'être, afin qu'il y ait de l'être constitué par l'existence humaine, les projets et les fins qu'elle implique. Le fait qu'elle n'ait aucune raison de se vouloir ne veut pas dire qu'elle soit inutile, ni qu'elle ne puisse se justifier elle-même, se donner les raisons d'être qu'elle n'a pas. Voilà tout le paradoxe.

Dans ce formidable effort de vulgarisation, l'exposé de Simone de Beauvoir nous permet de mieux saisir certains concepts développés dans des ouvrages plus spécifiques tel que ¨L'Être et le néant¨ et nettement plus abstraits de la philosophie existentialiste.

Présentant l'échec de l'existence humaine non pas dépassé mais véritablement assumé car pour atteindre sa vérité l'homme ne doit pas tenter de dissiper l'ambiguïté de son être, mais au contraire accepter de la réaliser; ainsi l'existence humaine s'affirme comme un absolu qui doit chercher en soi sa justification et non pas se supprimer, fût-ce en se conservant. Pour des agnostiques comme moi, loin d'en affecter sa pertinence, ce paradoxe fondamental à la base même de la philosophie existentialiste lui confère sa justification la plus inhérente à la condition humaine. Espérant ne pas avoir participé inutilement à ajouter à votre confusion, mais avoir au contraire contribué aux prémices ne serait qu'infirmes d'une compréhension personnelle.

Au plaisir,

Guy

I'm finally getting into this book after a very hectic month. Apologies for the lateness. Just finished the first section and I am excited to see where this leads. Her writing, though sophisticated and confident I think relies a lot on a kind of base-level understanding of Existential thought and doesn't explain it as well as I think Sartre has.

Previous posts have acknowledged this book was one of the poorest she produced in terms of clarity - maybe we all can see that.

It is worth mentioning both SDB and Sartre considered freedom the highest value and the idea turns up in their works quite often. It was obviously an ongoing point in their conversations and coloured all their works. Conflict between freedoms was a main chapter in Being and Nothingness and Sartre's plays. It is also discernible in SDBs She Came to Stay.

An interesting issue that comes from all this is how to reconcile power (dictators, as mentioned) with the Sartrean personal "wish to be God", also connected with his theory that acquisition and control is the vainly attempted fusion of the for-itself with the in-itself that permeates our relations with things and others.

Does she mention that anywhere? (I cant remember!)

Does anybody know where i can get an audiobook version of 'The Ethics of Ambiguity' for download?
. I have tried the major retailers and they don't seem to have

o can't find this book in Mexico, does someone know it's name in Spanish?