Sartre - Pros and Cons - Existentialism - Part II

[leviethen]

i believe this saying is a very existentialist saying "nothing is true everything is permited"

[mostpowerfulbenjamin]

fight club is nihilist trash

[mrfreudable]

Interesting subject mate -well done and keep it up!

[natedaug1]

Nausea is basically a novel about "being and nothingness." It is just being and nothingness in short form.

[bigjuicefolife]

Why do you play music when you are trying to tell people about philosophy? I am hearing impaired and at minute 5, I can barely hear what you are saying. I suggest that you lower your music so its barely audible in the background and your speaking is the primary thing that anyone wants to hear.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

@bigjuicefolife I did this video 2 years ago when I barely had a grasp on how to make videos. I'll take your suggestions under consideration. I didn't think this series of videos would get so much exposure, and I didn't put much effort into it. I don't put any music in any of my more recent videos on philosophy as I learned my lesson. A bigger problem is that youtube blocks background music based on copyright. In short, I agree with you.

[chembeche]

What the JAzz Song on the background? does anyone knows? I was listening to him talk them I ended up focusing on the background Jazz track...

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

So What by Miles Davis.

[wanekeef]

I tuned in to hear what you had to say about this particular Satrean concept but I just got sidetracked by so what. I love Kind of Blue but it could be argued that it is a little hackneyed, don't get me wrong here I'm a huge jazz fan , I play the double bass in a quintet. Try something else for the background, as you're discussing a French philosopher of the 20C, how about Django?

[realmadridvideos]

Well you are very good lets say you are75% right. It is an eye oppener about Marting Luther King. But lets not go so far as to say Naziism is based on Christian beliefs even if true I would argue its the preposition of humans to be dumb Well how could such evil be done in the name of LOVE and as tought by JESUS. Actually my orriginal point was that LOVE was something no philosopher has really dealt with yet but Jesus as a philosopher is concerned only about spreading message of Love.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

1. Martin Luther and Martin Luther King are two different people. Martin Luther began Protestantism about 500 years ago. I suppose Martin Luther King Sr. was named after him. I am a fan of Martin Luther King and have a book filled with his writings that I have read. Did you know, however, that Martin Luther extracts much of his nonviolent philosophy from Gandhi, who practiced the religion of Jainism in India? Nonviolence/Love is not exclusive to Christianity.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

2. On Naziism. I argue that there would have been no Holocaust without Christianity. It's more like a recipe or cookbook. Germany in the 1920s had an economic meltdown due to harsh war reparations imposed by the Allies after WWI. The country was in turmoil and poised for a fascist to take control on the promise of economic salvation. The Jews were a kind of scapegoat for blaming all of Germany's problems. But Hitler used Christian doctrine to justify his treatment of Jews.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

3. Stalin. Stalin killed 2 to 3 times more of his own people than the Jews Hitler killed. Stalin WAS atheist. But I think you correctly point out that hatred and violence are not exclusive to one group... all people are prone to succumbing to hate. It knows no bounds. Likewise, a doctrine of being a decent human being that doesn't kill people is not exclusive to one group either. I firmly believe that being a good person has nothing to do with religion OR atheism.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

4. On Jesus. To claim that Jesus is the ONLY philosopher who has preached for love and understanding is hmmm.... Kid, I'm going to give you a break. There are many philosophers who consume themselves with thoughts about how best to act. I can see how in a Christian society, you might be inclined to believe that Jesus is such a unique philosopher, but I think that expanding your reading material might change your opinions.

[realmadridvideos]

There is wealth of material in the Bible, it has consolled the suffering and it has inspired many great men of our time all through the world like Martin Luther King, it has provided a framework of morals that has allowed humans live side by side ... a man of your intellect should realise the bible is not a book to be disregarded just because its not in fashion anymore. On the other hand Existentialism and Atheists take the credit for being the mother and father for german Nazi movement.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Laughable and completely untrue. Hitler was not an atheist. Even if he was, it's completely illogical to conclude that naziism is the result of atheism. David Koresh professed Christian beliefs. Is Christianity bad because it inspires cults and slaughter? Be fair. I don't make the same generalizations about Christianity. My main gripe with christianity is that it is delusional, but I don't cite Christian nutjobs as a primary indictment.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

"In his day, hatred of Jews was the norm. In great measure it was sponsored by two major religions of Germany, Catholicism, and Lutheranism. He greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews. Luther condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption, but he supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Luther said, "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." "Ungodly wretches" he called the Jews in his book Table Talk.

Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938. "

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

In sum, Naziism was the result of Christian beliefs. If you talk to most if not all atheists, slaughtering people on the basis of religion is just plain stupid. Why would atheists single out Jews for discrimination? That doesn't make any sense at all. If atheists were the sort of people who thought exclusion and discrimination was the answer, they would single out ALL religions. But there are no specific strands that connect atheists together. We are a fractious, heterogeneous group.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

And if you're referring to the use of Nietzche's philosophy to support Naziism, you're wrong about that too. It's well known that Nietzsche's sister modified his writings after his death to win favor with Hitler. It's believed that Nietzsche would have completely opposed Naziism, because Nietzsche's entire philosophy was ANTI-TOTALITARIAN.

[natedaug1]

@PianoIsTheRemedy Yeah Nietzche was against the herd, he was the man that guy the ball rolling on existentialism.

[realmadridvideos]

you sound intelligent, but anyone who tells peope what to read and think must be arrogant. Jesus is love. So u can stick your satre where the sun dont shine.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Lol. Usually I delete comments like this one, but this is so entertaining I will leave it up for all to enjoy.

[oxhollowsoulxo]

thanks I enjoyed it.

[andrewmode08]

good work!!

this is what the net is for

[lostm0ments]

Great video man, I like your thoughts!

[11Agamemnon235]

Freddy the Freeloader!

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Miles Davis. It's "So What". But it's on the same album as Freddy the Freeloader. Good call.

[firemist23]

I just became reminded of the Killers..."Are we human, or are we dancers?" Perhaps or perhaps not it relates to existentialism, but...it could probably tie in with the idea that as a human being, we have purpose, choices, and free will. As a dancer, like a puppet, we are manipulated by the strings that hold us together- society controls those strings. Hm.....

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

You need to watch my critique of Killers' "Human". I can't post links in comments, but you can find it if you go to my video search and look for human as a keyword.

[firemist23]

Ahh okay I'll check it out!! =] cool

[JTopTrumpet]

Going back to the quote, but you can never deduce anything about them, I have thought about this concept in heavy thought for a while know. It seems to me that you can never realistically "know" someone because the mere fact that you are near that person most likely dilutes whatever they were going to do and distorts the image of the person. The only way we can "know" a person is to be the person. In my opinion anyway.

[tsinivla]

Great video!! Thank you!

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Welcome!

[malevolentgrace]

Fight Club is about Nihilism, not existentialism, and arguably there are aspects that are anti-existentialist.

Also the comment on the Bible was uncalled for. the Bible, like most religious texts is full of philosophy. Do not let your distaste for religion cloud your understanding. It is unbecoming of intelligence.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Existentialism and nihilism might have some views that overlap. No?

And although the bible may not be devoid of philosophical content, I would argue vehemently that there are other philosophical sources of greater value that render the Bible low on my list of works in my philosophical reservoir. If it works for you, power to you. I find that sifting through the nonsense is such a monumental task, I would prefer to discard it and focus on more fruitful works.

[malevolentgrace]

It works for me, and there lies our difference. Yet calling it "nonsense" or referring to other works as more "fruitful" is not fair. You and I hold different values, beliefs, ideas, jobs, and functions. In existentialism the only truth that is true is your own. I find the Bible to be a great work. I also do not discredit the work of Nietzsche or Sartre. If I prefer sunshine it does not dismiss the rain,and if you prefer something, do not dismiss what stands in contrast.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Fair enough. I despair more at the individual who relies only on the Bible for philosophical insight. It is obvious that your "reservoir" is more inclusive. But I would maintain that you are in a minority. By virtue of being raised Catholic and living in a largely Christian society, I have been exposed to a great deal of Christian philosophy. I tend to revere Gnosticism more than traditional interpretation. If viewed as a fallible figurative work, the Bible may be helpful. Still...

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

By "nonsense" I mean that the Bible has a vast amount of irrelevant information. I focus on reading material that is easily understandable. Some people prefer subtlety, yet I often do not. Insofar as the Bible relies on antiquated and dead languages, is rife with translation error and interpretational disputes, I find that an individual's own sense of insight takes precedence over any philosophical works...

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

I am curious whether you believe the Bible is God's word or merely a book written by fallible men. If the former, we should probably end the debate here, because there is little else to discuss. If the latter, I find your position curious. I often feel that much of my life has been spent undoing the harm from irrational psychological tendencies reinforced by Christianity. Self examination has been key in becoming healthier.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Debating the many philosophical harms in the Bible would be a monumental undertaking. One needs only the first few pages in Genesis to get a sense of eternal guilt for mankind's "fall" which I believe to be completely fictitious. Gnostic and alternative interpretations are better, yet I feel this only because they align more closely with my "inner voice" independent of the story. The Bible may be a conversation starter in the philosophical realm...

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

But more often than not, I find it not to contain profound truths that guide me in the right direction, but silly superstitions and irrational maxims with no other merit than "do it because I say so." The Mitzvoh (613 Jewish laws) are absurd. Do not wear clothes of mixed fibers? No ham? Stone adulterers? Give me a break. This is what I mean by nonsense.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

The result of so much nonsense in the Bible is that adherents "cherry pick" the good and explain away, ignore, or re-interpret the nonsense. In doing so, they impose their own RATIONAL viewpoints that are affected by reason, culture, and biology. Hence, does the Bible contain great philosophical insights? NO. You do. The Bible is simply an instrument for expressing our own intelligence with the guise of supernatural profundity.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

I do not care for Kierkegaard. I don't feel he should be lumped in with non-theistic existentialists. For instance, Nietzsche and Sartre value one's own insight. It is perplexing how one who believes in a book of supernatural authority could champion the same idea.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Lastly, cognitive neuroscience might suggest that there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are humans who read it, insofar as each individual brings his own perception to everything he reads. There is not a unifying meaning in any document, even considering an author's original intent. This, perhaps more than any other argument for me, decimates the idea that the Bible is supernatural. We do not need a book to tell us the golden truth, we need tools to think for ourselves.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Even if I were to read the entire Bible and all literature by every existentialist including Kierkegaard, understanding an author's intent would not be nearly as important as gaining insights that would have practical value in one's life. These insights would be independent of the author's intent. I often read intermittently to gain fodder for thought and write for hours. In some ways, I find writing superior to reading the work of others.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

This means, of course, your own writing is more important to you than others, and even if you share it, its greatest value is to you. This does not bode well for profiting from writing, but it bodes very well for personal development and deeper spirituality. If the Bible is a good muse for your inner insights, once again, I encourage you to use it. All of my diatribe against it is relevant to me. It should not matter to you that someone else does not find value in it. Live and let live.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Even if you discredited the work of Sartre and Nietzsche in favor of the Bible, I would not care unless you imposed your views on me politically. Then I would use the democratic process to further my goals; but accept the outcome even if contrary to my beliefs. One man's sunshine is another man's rain and vice versa. It seems like you may value the Bible and existentialist thought both. Negation of one or the other by someone else should be of no consequence to you.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Best wishes. Many of my friends are Christian and I have had spectacular conversations with them about philosophy, religion, and life. Text often has a more abrasive tone than what I intend, so I apologize if I come off sounding arrogant or off-putting, I apologize.

[TheSelfishTeen]

I love listening to you.

And So What is fabulous. <3

[ubermensch34]

You started out strong but you fell to pieces once you brought up "Fight Club".

Indeed, there are strong elements of Existentialism within the novel/movie, although, the whole novel/movie is better described as Nihilism.

I think I could generally pick you apart, but otherwise you weren't too bad.

[faridjabba]

...for the rest its intereting aLTOUGH u didnt center thatmuch onSArtre or generalEXitencialism,n Ill post a video too wecoudl comentnon .tanks, F

[faridjabba]

Ibelive One is -genraly-Free´(like SArtre said´so)to decide wahat todo or study,threres such diversity in theWorld, u cant expect everyone tostudy what uwant tobe

studied,Ilike Exinsteniialism and willpost a video onit,but I believe BIblical studeis is also a respectable Option, like Sarrte himself defended:u always have options inLife,so,I dont tkin "we should" necesaryly do this or that,each Onedecides what to do....

[riv3rrun]

Oh Sartre, what a chasm between your philosophical pursuits and your life. We mock the Ted Haggards of this world, as we should mock the Sartres. In his private life he relished in "sadisme", "masochisme" et "indifférence".

[riv3rrun]

I have to admit that the third area for discussion, regarding deducing things about others,sounds just a little better than "you can't judge a book by it's cover", written in obfuscating langauge. It's also deeply hypocritical given that Sartre and his partner de Beauvoir enjoyed grooming penniless Jewish girls for sex and threesomes, many of them teens. And this during the mid to late 40s, when young Jewish girls were at their most vulnerable. They many destroyed lives with their sexual abuse.

[zenguin13]

is that miles in the background?

[zenguin13]

i think sartre had a church. it was the church of sitting in a library and sobbing to himself wondering why we are stuck in a meaningless universe.

i can see the tears on the pages of his works from self-inflicted nausea.

[ToryMcAll]

Great videos. I find what you have to say very fascinating and I like your music choices. Let's be friends:)

[alexstan23]

philosophy over scripture any day!!!

people can only be attributed fixed essences retrospectively. thereafter, people, whose essence is self-determining, can and probably will go against what you just said about them. this makes them scary objects (as Sartre says, a threat) because they are not quite just that.

[jcjamrock]

In this sense you have fleed from your conscious present to realize your conscious past.Because of this how you felt 11 minutes ago may not be how you feel right now since you always have the contigency to change your state of mind. Sartre used a homosexual for an example and said that you can not label a homosexual a homosexual because when you try to label him he flees from the past to the present contingency which is whatever his free will chooses.

[jcjamrock]

Sartre thinks of being-for-itself as a duality and a constant fleeing form itself. Therefore the consciousness is split the id from the ego. Think of it like this, if someone asked you how you feel then you would have to think about it and in that second your consciousness would have to reflect on your state of mind. In doing this your consciousness is no longer focusing on the present but how you felt a minute ago since to reflect is to focus on the past.

[Herrunus]

a lot of current philosophers consider sartre a lousy philosopher...especially that heidegger's being and time, which sartre read and then wrote being and nothingness as a companion piece, directly contradicts and disproves much of what sartre says in his "commentary" work.

as for contemporary phenomenology, sartre was loud and vocal and drammatic in his thoughts, but he is one of the least profound of the phenomenologists.

[Herrunus]

good videos

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

At this point in my studies, I am less concerned about the most profound, and more concerned with the "most accessible". Haha.  Thank you for the guidance. I would be open to any "layman" or introductory books you would suggest on phenomenology. I'm talking "phenomenology for dummies" on order of simplicity. I picked up "Being And Time" once and skimmed it. It about gave me an aneurysm. I am candid about my weaknesses.

[Herrunus]

Dermot Moran has the best book on phenomenology i've read; just called "introduction to phenomenology." I wouldn't recommend it though.

Youtube user Zorio has some related videos. I'll put some up too.

oh, and sorry if it felt liked i jumped on you for talking about sartre. Some heideggerian did it to me the same way a couple of years ago and we haven't talked since. =)