Hier zit precies de denkfout. Je hebt geen idee wat anderen van je denken. Jij denkt te weten wat anderen van je denken. Daar geef je vervolgens waarde aan. We geven betekenis aan alles wat we zien, dat is niet erg, noodzakelijk zelf, maar besef wel dat jij degene bent die de betekenis geeft.
We zien de wereld zoals we zijn.
"Hell Is Other People"
Imagine yourself staring at a stranger, say, in a restaurant. Then imagine a different scenario in which you notice someone else doing this to you. How do you feel and react in each situation? As Sartre argues, the presence of others inevitably changes our world, and the fact that we cannot change nor always control that can be very frustrating. The ways in which others alter our worlds vary, but what is always the case is that we cannot avoid some form of relations with others.
In the first scenario, Sartre argues that we must wrestle with the fact that this other person, by analogy, must have a subjective mind like me, but we are forced to only infer this because that other person exists in the realm of objects. We cannot get
into their mind. Thus, we struggle to recognize their subjectivity in the face of their seeming objectivity.
In the second scenario, the tables are turned, and we may feel objectified by the look of another. This "look" as Sartre refers to it (which need not be literal, as simply
imagining how others can look and objectify us is enough to alter our sense of self), is the source of meaning that we get from our relations with other people. This experience can be especially alienating in certain situations.
As Sartre demonstrates, imagine you are alone in a park, but after some time, another person arrives. They need not be near you or even notice you, but the presence of another person alters your experience in the park. But without any judging looks from that other person, the impact on the self is not felt deeply.
In another example of Sartre's, we can see how the impact can, conversely, be felt very intensely; that of his famous "voyeur" case. Imagine peering through a keyhole at someone else in this scenario. The other person does not know you are watching them, so they are completely objectified for you, by you, and you are completely absorbed in the activity of doing so and thus are not very aware or reflective of your own subjective self.
Next, imagine you suddenly hear footsteps—now, you become very aware of your self. In fact, you feel objectified by the other who sees what you are doing and judges you, creating a feeling of shame for having objectified another—now you know how the other person on the other side of the door would feel if they knew they were being watched.
This phenomenon is so powerful that you can be shaken into this situation even if you just thought someone was approaching as you looked through the keyhole. In this case, your sense of self has been deeply affected: as Sartre says, the Other "holds the key to [your] existence" because now this third person who has arrived has the power of a subject because they have objectified you (or so it seems). A cat, for instance, catching us peering through a keyhole would probably not have the same effect on our sense of being a shamed self. Thus,
Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre argued that “Hell is—other people”; what did he mean by that?
www.thecollector.com