Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I am looking up sources on Simone de Beauvoir's account of freedom and found this in an old issue of a philosophy magazine:
She had argued with him that freedom of any sort was pretty meaningless for a woman imprisoned in a harem. Sartre had succeeded in overcoming her doubts [...]
What is the source of this argument? I am also specifically looking for Sartre's counterargument.
Note: It is not her The Ethics of Ambiguity.
Simone de Beauvoir, La Force de l’âge, Paris, Gallimard, « Folio », 1999, p.498-499
I argued that from the standpoint of freedom, as Sartre defined it - not stoic resignation but active going beyond the given - the situations are not equivalent: what going beyond is possible for the woman locked in a harem? Even this confinement, there are different ways of living it, Sartre told me. I persisted for a long time and only gave in half-heartedly. Deep down, I was right. But to defend >my position, I would have had to abandon the terrain of individual morality, therefore idealistic, on which we were placed.
(google translation of : Je soutenais que, du point de vue de la liberté, telle que Sartre la définissait - non pas résignation stoïque mais dépassement actif du donné - les situations ne sont pas équivalentes : quel dépassement est possible à la femme enfermée dans un harem ? Même cette claustration, il y a différentes manières de la vivre, me disait Sartre. Je m’obstinai longtemps et je ne cédai que du bout des lèvres. Au fond, j’avais raison. Mais pour défendre ma position, il m’aurait fallu abandonner le terrain de la morale individuelle, donc idéaliste, sur lequel nous nous placions.)
