Sartre’s ethic of generous love reproduced Heidegger’s dominating rather than liberating solicitude

Evidence

But his condescendence toward the loved one (evidently the “poor fragile woman” who needs protection) is defi - nitely Heidegger’s “leaping in and dominating” rather than his “leaping forth and liberating.” Th e scathing letter that Beauvoir wrote Sartre about Vanetti, aft er meeting her in New York (upon her arrival there for her conferences), although obviously sparked by an understandable jealousy, was right on target: “If you’re a male, and you’re driven by an imperialistic passion for generosity, you couldn’t fi nd anyone more appropriate.” Th ere is no doubt that the Notebooks’ depiction of the lover as “creator” of the extremely fragile, vulnerable ” fi nitude/ object” of the loved one, who depends on the lover almost for her very being, makes the lover into a Pygmalion. Although Sartre means to show here the receptivity of the lover to the loved one, the overly active, overprotective attitude of the “lover” certainly replicates Sartre’s own diffi culties in being receptive and giving in a love relationship. — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 144

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Heidegger’s Being and Time on leaping-in versus leaping-forth solicitude, and to feminist criticism of existentialist ethics. — connects to: Heidegger rejected Sartre’s humanist existentialism as philosophically worthless — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 641; Beauvoir’s ‘Woman in Love’ chapter tacitly endorses Nietzsche’s androcentric view of love — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre: The Riddle of…, 122; Sartre’s denial of ontological being-for-others grounds his hostile intersubjectivity — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre: The Riddle of…, 656
• QUESTION: Worth tracing whether Beauvoir’s ‘generosity’ concept is genuinely distinct from Sartre’s imperialistic version, or just projected differently in The Second Sex.

Broader Connections

• Sartre’s denial of ontological being-for-others grounds his hostile intersubjectivity #complicates (0.80) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 656