The woman’s decision made prior to the date meant that she did not want to reciprocate the man’s advances (should he make them). This could potentially be a decision made due to a prior engagement where she did not like her actions or the person she came to be in making advances with her date. For Sartre, her ‘flight from anguish’ is due to past experience. However, her decision to refrain from being as she would, had she not had a previous ‘bad’ experience means she is in bad faith. She cannot avoid what she is already aware of.

Essentially the woman on the date is not ignorant of the man’s intentions and by not addressing the situation, she is lying to herself (this does not mean she is in bad faith).

A concept I find difficult to comprehend is the view of our consciousness to be in a constant flux. In keeping my being free of past decisions and to do activities on spurs of the moment could I be free of falling into the category of bad faith?

In the time my mind processes to the moment I act upon my thought I’m acting upon a past notion?
For example, the news readers on the morning news program announce the time as 08:00. But in the time that the news reader took to check her watch and the time it took for her to announce the time a few seconds had passed and the time was 08:01 by the time she finished her sentence. The news reader ‘corrects’ herself but she was initially correct, she simply misrepresented the truth.

reply to lynseeeeey date - 11/03/2010 14:36

Im not sure its a matter of freedom, for Sartre we are always free to do what we want, unless of course our freedoms impose on other people. In the example of the woman on a date I don't think the idea of freedom is involved as such because it is a matter of doing what she knows the man wants to do or not. If she has decided in a previous state of mind that she will not surcome to his advances then by following this previous thougt she is in bad faith because she is blocking her own transendance.

In reply to tom...

So Sartre is saying that other people's freedom is more important that our own? since if "we have an obligation to not impose on other people's freedoms even if it means putting ourselves in bad faith" are we not denying our own freedom in order to ensure somebody elses?

A reply to Catherine

‘And at the very moment when I was disposed to put myself in bad faith, I of necessity was in bad faith’. - Is this quote saying that sometimes it is necessary to be in bad faith so that your desired actions do not deny other peoples freedoms?

If this is the case then the example of the catholic who does not ingage in sex because of the views of their family is still a matter of bad faith. Although the family may become angered by the decision to have sex, by having sex the person is not imposing on their freedoms.

The same is in the example of the woman on a date, no matter what she decides, she can only really effect her own bad faith. Morals, in Sartre, come about because we have an obligation to not impose on other peoples freedoms even if it means putting ourselves in bad faith.

Yeah so i tried to carry this on under your comments but it wouldnt let me post for some reason, anyways see what you think of the above ^_^

So, had she taken each events, such as the man placing his hand on hers, for what they were she would be able to make desicions in the moment?? Instead she made up her mind that she was a person who would not succumb to the mans advances, and that she was nothing more than his friend, when in fact at any moment in time she could change her mind since her comming to be is always in flux?
Is her freedom denied by the very fact that she assumes she is this person made up from her past? Or is she actually free in the first place?

The story

So the way I've now come to understand the story of the woman in a date is this...Firstly she goes on the date with the intension of denying the man any advance apart from the meeting itself, for Sartre she is in bad faith because she does not allow her consciousness to be in constant flux. She stops the mans advancements because of a descision she made previously but by allowing these descisions to stop her coming to be she is in bad faith.

On a first glance at this I feel that bad faith is aparent in the story, by not allowing her transendence and trying to remain in the past she is in bad faith.

Bad Faith? Or being a moral person?

Since i think we're all finding this a bit difficult, i'l just try and pick out some sort of criticism of Sartre's notion of Bad faith...

Is it impractical to believe that we can do exactly what we want to do all the time? And does it take into account a set of morals that as human beings we posses? Even inert morals that come about with our conscience? We don't do certain things, even if we really want to, because we realise the affects they will have on another person. The mistake Sartres points out that we are making is that we believe that "i am not a person who would do such a thing" although i think this is too much of an assumption. Does it not disregard the fact that we inherently know that certain things are morally wrong, and so we resist our urges to do so in order for society to run smoothly??