Sartre 1 of 7

[MegaGuinle]

for those who do not know about Existentialism, this series will be fascinating...The influence of Sartre is profound.

[takethatDeepPlz]

Tous vos jugements prétendument scientifico-philosophiques, toutes vos remarques à l'endroit de Sartre, tous vos commentaires en somme, procèdent d'une ignorance totale du "socle"de la philosophie : vous salissez de votre orthographe approximative, de votre grammaire improbable une page qui devrait être réservée à ceux qui cherchent et aiment à penser, or vous y videz la substance noirâtre qui comble vos crânes. Gardez donc le silence et vos conseils ! A force d'en donner vous n'en aurez plus !

[jamesarongray]

Doesn't scare me... strange that is does scare some... must stem from a loss of faith in old modes of thinking that i never had.

[spunkets]

Sartre was blind in one eye (pun intended) and not able to accept biological, geographical, familial, cultural, environmental determinants which condition whatever freedoms we may assume.

Not a science guy.

[InertLoop]

fucking commie

[bradominus1]

Sartre just borrowed from other philosphers like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Nietzsche proclaimed man's freedom years earlier...

[heckubiss1]

I think its cool how western philosophy in the 20th century has reached a similar understanding to concepts known to eastern philosophy for thousands of years

[MattyMattThing]

not taking your shit. I rock?

[MattyMattThing]

Not taking your shit. I rock

[MattyMattThing]

wonderful fullfilment.

[lyfft]

The idea, that we are free, is dependent on the fact that we were once NOT free. Until this is accepted, we are stuck trying to escape the past and forced to invent a new future to avoid unescapable, existential truths. Satre described the ultimate victim-aggressor model. Whether it leads to fullfilment.... is another question. But his work is brilliant in describing the aggressor-victim dynamics.

[mrfreudable]

@lyfft I think Sartre meant that we are free but we don't realize it, i.e. we 're free to interpret the world absolutely any way we like. All values are changeable. Nothing is fixed. But the current society we live in passes ideas over as fact, unquestionable values. So yes we are free but we're locked into a society that has already interpreted the world for us, without our consent.

[lyfft]

@mrfreudable

txs. Have been ploughing through Satre, and gotten stuck on the victim-aggressor level/model. But yes, I agree that he meant we are free - but don't realize it.

Especially like the phrase: " we are free but we're locked into a society that has already interpreted the world for us, without our consent."

This makes one feel trapped - until it is seen that we swallowed this interpretation.

We must set our own questions - and answer them, ourselves.

[septip123]

Sartre's philosphy is so difficult for many because it puts all responsibility on the individual, frighteining because we all love to give ourselves excuses at every turn and moment.

[SanGuevara]

What does Baroness Mary Warnock mean when she mentions a "valueless universe" and that nothing is of value? Does she mean this in terms of morality?

[StopBeingBlind]

@SanGuevara I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps the notion that life in general is a revolving cycle with no real conlusion. What value is life without knowledge of death.

[ecaepevolhturt]

@SanGuevara All meaning/essence/purpose is subjective. In a universe without living creatures, meaning would not exist, as long as object that are not conscious (as far as we can tell), are not conscious.

[mrfreudable]

I love Sartre's writings. Nausea is a particular favourite. I dip into Being And Nothingness occasionally. This man was a genius imo. He even rejected the Nobel Prize! A true artist, if that's possible.

[nicetaszaq12wsx]

"hell is others" and, as you, FrenchExpat1 said, you are belong to the human race which implicate than you cannot escape from this. Prima facie it seems very emo :) and revealable bat, I think it is old. Not only Sartre and Heidegger but Pascal too wrote things implicate that we live in "bad environment" (we all are prisoners and executioner take one after another). You have Plato definition of live as beaning graved in material body etc.

But in contradiction to you Schopenhauer said...

[markosatan]

en español???

[lamzy]

Prisoner of Freedom

[FrenchExpat1]

'Hell is others'....well Jean-Paul, what about the fact that you belong to the human race....you cannot escape this.

[Yamauzura10]

@FrenchExpat1

That's the point, idiot.

[MariaVictoriaS]

@Yamauzura10

ahahahahahaha

[Schaard]

@Yamauzura10

Seriously.

[jaybone23]

Perhaps part of the problem is with poor translations, but from my experience, Sartre couldn't write a lick. He was much better describing his ideas to his peers in the cafe rather than putting them on paper.

[Mazurka1001]

Give us a thumb up if you understand that Celine was about 1000 times better writer than this ugly Marxist cunt... Thanks! : )

[crud4]

What most people fail to realize is later on in life he hated his early positions that we are free in any situation which is why he wrote Critique of Dialectical Reason in order to promote socialism. If he really felt we were all free he would not have advocated revolution!

[CocteauDalighari]

@crud4 Actually, Sartre wrote CDR as a rigorous defense of marxism, which he called (in 1957) "arrested." However, he wound up concluding that Marx's notion of class as an objective entity was false; hence, marxism could not be defended.

[crud4]

@CocteauDalighari He separated himself from Marxism on and off- he was more of a libertarian socialist but a socialist non the less. Sartre did indeed say, later in life, he regretted his early positions and he did indeed advocate Marxism for a time but as I said he ended up advocating a more libertarian form of socialism and he wrote CDR to reconcile his views on freedom with socialism. You need to understand Marxism isn't the only type of socialism. I'm sure you know this.

[crud4]

@CocteauDalighari Actually, later in life he became an anarchist because he saw the STATE as the no 1 threat to human freedom. Libertarian socialist = anarchist. It was the Marxist/communist state he rejected, not the idea of a bourgeoisie and proletariat population at odds with each other.

[CocteauDalighari]

@crud4 True, altho after reading the 2 vols. of Critique & the Hope Now interviews, I think of Sartre mainly as anti-authority. I daresay many people that rail against big govt. these days are anti-authority but can't bring themselves to admit it, so they objectify with the anti-big govt. angle. A true libertarian is anti-authority; as in Thoreau's notion that govt. is best when it governs least. I've never seen where Sartre cites Thoreau, but I think he'd've agree with that.

[crud4]

@CocteauDalighari Actually no, the first people to use the term libertarian were socialists. I like Thoreau, enjoyed reading Walden/Civil Disobedience, but, he's more of an individualist like Benjamin Tucker or Max Stirner. Both the terms libertarian and anarchist have been hijacked by right wing capitalists these days. Words are indeed loosing their meaning. Anarchism has always been a part of the broader socialist tradition, it means more than no state or chaos. :)

[CocteauDalighari]

@crud4 >>>Anarchism has always been a part of the broader socialist tradition, it means more than no state or chaos. :) <<<

But then Marx thought little of Bakunin: anarchy or anarchism was just an excuse for ill-discipline & chaos.

[crud4]

@CoteauDali Or it was an alternative to the more authoritarian state socialism. Most of the things we saw in Stalinist Russia were predicted by Bakunin and Kropotkin. The Russian revolution was going all well and good until the Bolsheviks took power from the workers councils (soviets) and centralized decision making power in the communist parties hands. There's a difference between decentralized direct democracy, "ill discipline and chaos". Any centralized state will benefit a ruling class.

[NathMendez]

@crud4 Yes, well, in the context of 18 different countries invading you & propping up Tsarist White armies ... is that a surprise?

[crud4]

@NathMendez Don't apologize for Stalin. I'll send you to the gulags ;)....but it's not like America doesn't imprison more of its citizens than any nation on earth. I don't want to talk about Stalin anyhow, I'd rather discuss Sartre, or better ye, how America used his works to advance capitalism. Have you seen 'century of self'?

[NathMendez]

@crud4 It wasn't meant to be an apology for Stalin, it was meant to put the Russian revolution & civil war in a context which also explains for a part why it turned into the direction it did. The Russian Revolution didn't happen in a vacuum. Also, yes, I'm a big Adam Curtis fan. If you haven't seen it, I recommend the Mayfair Set, brilliant about the economic evolution in the last 60 years. P.S. If you don't know him yet,, check out Mark Steel, you'll like him if you like Curtis.

[coreyalan23]

Making Sartre into a symbol, a cult figure, was the best way for the facist corporatist authoritarian pigs to fight back-- that way his fans would unwittingly fall into the objectification of admiration and thus miss the point entirely.

[lloplop]

how could a fan "unwittingly fall into the objectification of admiration and...miss the point" ? that unfathomably stupid

[lloplop]

*is*

[fede2]

did sartre really talk about freedom in the ontological sense? that is did he deny determinism or was the freedom he refered to in the virtual sense?

[Schaard]

@fede2 The first.

[rezarator]

to GreatGrumbleDick :Sartre n'est pas un Philosophe petit con!

[GreatGrumbledook]

@rezarator: No chance Canadian bed-wetting type! That god-abhorred moron you spoke of was nothing but the bloody scourge of France, a disgrace to humanity and a communist false caterpillar! And of course the Germans spared him on purpose so in case they would loose the war France would still not be victorious and all because of Napoleon! But what good is such a German occupation of the Gestapo does not even made away such degenerated persons?

[GreatGrumbledook]

The history of France, when it is written, will read better than it lived: The best garden in the world with men well led, cared for justice when she could and ruled, for more than 1500, a state as great as Charlemagne's, with heroes like Charles Martell or Jeanne the Maid of Orleans out of legend. France bore many great children. But no philosophers. France had no philosophers. She had whiskered things like Sartre or Foucault but she disowned them! They're not French! Not connected to France!

[Obstacle11]

what about Camus, Bergson, Cioran, Descartes, Deleuze or Pascal ? they were footballers right?

[GreatGrumbledook]

@Obstacle11: Well, for Camus: You can put him with Sartre into a back and beat it, you will not hit the wrong person; while Descartes is the exception that proves the rule; I would have expected here the names of Voltaire, Rousseau, Bodin or Montesquieu (though the last three are rather political thinkers than general philosophers); but the fact remains that France has not produced an important philosopher like Aristotle, J.S. Mill or I. Kant.

[Obstacle11]

well what is important ?? i prefer the word relevant

[GreatGrumbledook]

@Obstacle11: Spare me splitting hairs with words; and if you fail to see the importance of Aristotle for example in terms of philosophy I do not think that this discussion will be fruitful at all. But I cannot prevent you from explaining your objection...

[trinitrotolueno2]

deleuze played tenis

[riskyshotz]

Behold: the idiot who speaks on French philosophy, while omitting Voltaire altogether.

You must be a comedian.

[GreatGrumbledook]

@riskyshotz: I guess by your recent post you have not only proven your self as an idiot by reached the status of a confounded moron straight away! I congratulate you on that but will you fulfil your promise and have the world behold you talking about French philosophy? Besides Voltaire is somewhat the novelist under the philosophers but in comparison to the heavy German and Greek folks a mere writer and he did not only wrote comedies but also some tragedies and moral pamphlets!

[riskyshotz]

"Somewhat the novelist". Name a thing Voltaire wasn't. I was not daring to imply the position that Voltaire was the greatest of France's philosophers, but merely establishing the fact that a person who could overlook such an obvious example was either an idiot, or a troll.

[GreatGrumbledook]

@riskyshotz: For example a stockbroker, a quantity surveyor or a church warden; but I may repeat myself: Voltaire is more a writer than a philosopher and thus not included as such...

[riskyshotz]

So he's omitted as a philosopher because he was great at many things?

I very much disagree with that assessment.

[GreatGrumbledook]

@riskyshotz: No, but all the things he wrote, which would one classify as philosophical writings, are of no importance, read the stuff of Hegel, Nietzsche, Plato or Aristotle to find out the difference!

[riskyshotz]

Others considered Nietzsche a greater philologist than philosopher. This does not exclude him as a philosopher, and I will not take the ignorant position of dismissing him as a philosopher because he was as good (or even better) at other things. Roles in history are not exclusive to single occupations.

Voltaire was a philosopher, and a very obvious philosopher for anyone familiar with French history to name. If he is not your favorite, so be it. He is not mine either. And yet, he remains one.

[GreatGrumbledook]

@riskyshotz: There is an easy way to find out: How many books have Nietzsche written on philosophy and how many on philology? You see: Most of his writings where philosophical; while Voltaire wrote far more plays, poems, novels and history books (Charles XII of Sweden or Louis XIV of France); so Voltaire was not at all focused on philosophy in the way Kant, Plato, Epicurus or Hegel were. If it does make you really, really happy I will consent that he was a part-time philosopher, deal?

[riskyshotz]

It depends on our definition of philosopher, and where we would like to draw the line concerning the term. I believe any contribution to the subject of philosophy is merit enough to warrant the title; love or hate him, Bertrand Russell took a similar approach in regards to outlining philosophical ideas by individuals, as opposed to outlining philosophical ideas by philosophers, in his books. Voltaire easily makes my list, if only for paving the way for Nietzsche's religious critiques alone.

[riskyshotz]

In regards to Nietzsche as a philologist versus a philosopher, I will not play devil's advocate to pretend for even a second that this subject was up for debate-- he will very clearly be remembered as a philosopher first and foremost.

Still, I firmly believe Voltaire's contribution to philosophy is significant considering the time in which his ideas were put forth.

You needn't concede to anything. I acted rash in making personal remarks and was quite deserving of similar sentiments.

[GreatGrumbledook]

@riskyshotz: Well, I guess both of us have said their opinion and given some reasons for it and none felt any need to change his mind, so this discussion could now be stopped...

[greenrate]

Lots of ways to approach Sartre's main point, of course.

My inclination is to zero in on the question: Does Freedom have some special status that makes it the primary human quality?

It seems like it does . . . when one is BEING it and considering everything else FROM it.

But then . . . that also seems true for other qualities (like Awareness) when one is BEING them and considering things FROM them.

[ellwyn]

full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

[Not2Be0utDone]

nice

[mrfatd]

love that music at the beginnin, any1 knows what it is?

[mrfatd]

he is garbage as a philosopher, but brilliant as a novelist

[munkybrain]

in what was was he garbage as a philosopher? wouldn't you agree at least the raw material of his philosophy is brilliant?

[mrfatd]

he tried to synthesise heidegger with descartes, which is just absurd and heidegger himself said that sartre's philosophy is a muck. please check out this video on heidegger by hubert dreyfus posted by flame0430 and let me know what you think!

[munkybrain]

i'm still sure anyone would have a hard time making me resent the heart of Sartre's philosophy, even if they did point out certain follies of his.

sure i will. thanks for recommending the video

[thepodcastdon]

Ace stuff...thanks for uploading the video

[Piecemeal23]

I may seek to eat an omlette made of cigarette butts,or to kill someone out of rage, but my body and my mind would not permit either action in light of the percieved threat to my mind/body's parameters and requirements. This, of course, is hinged upon the idea that belief is stronger than fact when it comes accepting or rejecting an action based upon what I am willing to sacrifice for such an action.

[Piecemeal23]

debevec12, niether am I stating this. I am merely saying that his phenomenological accounts and his conceptions of freedom are ignorant to the sizeable influence which others and the world, which is created for the individual through the actions and civic/social/moral beliefs of others as well as themselves, is of some consequence. It is not what will, but what is believed could occur or change in the life of the individual which drives them to certain actions.

[debevec12]

it is precisely that we can transcend our facticity in any situation why we are free. or as sartre puts it we are "condemned" to be free. since as sartre argues if man truly realised his freedom he would run away from it immediately since we are nearly always in bad faith.

[redkierkant]

hey there retard. you dont transcend your facticity. you nihilate it you morone. you consciuness will transcend ITSELF and give meaning to facticity. you have no idea what sartre meant do you

[debevec12]

i am simply stating piecemeal23 that you are wrong. you completely misunderstood sartre's argument. sartre is not discussing absolute freedom in the sense that we can do "absolutely" anything we want in a pre-conditioned society. it is that absolute freedom must be understood ontologically. as sartre argues we are simultaneously a facticity(the things that constitute us e.g. our body, past, environment etc) and transcendence in the sense we can always look beyond what constitutes us...

[Piecemeal23]

and it boils down to this fact that the world is composed of have and have nots.

[Piecemeal23]

I am simply stating that when he sought freedom for the individual within a societal construct he strove to lend absolute freedom to the individual within a construct made up of pre-existing societal conditions and other individuals, which, and here is my point, is an impossibility. Freedom is relative and to give one preferential considerations, especially concerning what they may and may not do, over another is how it works.

[debevec12]

piecemeal23, sartre is not arguing that absolute freedom must be understood out of transcendence but rather it must be understood ontologically

[Piecemeal23]

You're correct, but you must also make the concession that ontologically speaking, humankind is bound out of habit/biological psychological necessity/egotism to maintain as well as bend to the confines of the realm of the possible within the given parameters of the ontological relation between the human individual and the conditions of the universal environment in which we live. This reality as constructed/influenced/occupie­d by others and forces separate from the individual as well as others.

[Piecemeal23]

the last comment was to debevec12. Thnx.

[pilkingtonphil]

To a large extent the determinist account is, of course, quite true; just ask any sociologist... And even a preliminary reading of "Critique of Dialectical Reason" or even certain passages of "Being and Nothingness" would indicate that Sartre would concede to this.

However, it simply does not hold up for certain phenomena. Most specifically the human ability to create something essentially new, even if such creation requires a pre-established (pre-determined) reality...

[pilkingtonphil]

...as the "base material" which this new creation can be formed out of.

Determinism, the process of tracking cause and effect on a rational and observational basis, can tell us an awful lot, but it simply cannot tell us everything, it cannot account for everything.

You mentioned psychology, for example. Ever since Freud its been recognised that attempting to conceive humans simply as rational, egoic creatures whose only motivations are self-preservative are destined to fail...

[pilkingtonphil]

I think the most basic way to point out the limitations which institutions and other individuals have when we consider their influence over are actions is as follows:

Sure, we try and integrate ourselves into a given community by conforming to its regulations. However, its often hard to discern EXACTLY what these regulations are, it often requires a (creative) interpretation on our own behalf. The same is true of our trying to conform to the desires of other individuals... hell is other people!

[Piecemeal23]

by the formulations concerning etiquette and the responsibilities of man in the universe from history, which plays an integral role in the way I live, what it is I choose to do with myself. For example, why I go to college (Social), why I eat (Biological), why I go to the bathroom (Physiological), why I choose to got to the bathroom, or to take a shower (biological/social), or not to piss and shit on myself (social/biological).

[Piecemeal23]

in light of what will be taken away from me, what it is that I have been trained and inducted into cherishing

[Piecemeal23]

I would kill him either in a fit of rage, where it qualifies as a crime of passion under the penal code, or in a planned manner where I would most definitely weigh the outcomes of killing him in light of what may and very well will happen to me should I choose to carry out his execution. These socially and lawfully sanctioned punishments are gone to such extremes as to dissuade me from carrying it out

[Piecemeal23]

The choices, not only to violate these constraints, but to create oneself as one would deem fit, are severly limited because of the pre-existing punishments which exist for such violations in human etiquette, which would, in most instances, constitute a risk not worth taking. If, say, I want to kill Philip because of something he did to me or to my family etc,

[Piecemeal23]

In addition to this, living so long beneath the repressive security blanket of societal etiquette leaves the population few choices given this living situation. They want these things, they need to have thier jobs, their social connections and contacts with other people and they certainly need not to die. So, in light of these things, where the history and evolution of societal/social constructs has set up a template for human existence for the suceeding generations.

[Piecemeal23]

Over what? The wills and minds of a compliant majority who allow themselves to be trained by the etiquette and social order of their lifetime. Those who, furthermore, would do whatever they could, usually in the form of passive submission, to uphold said social/existential status quo.

[Piecemeal23]

Sartre was all about freedom. Yet, the one answer he continually strived for was and is an impossibility. It is true that, to an individual, people are the greatest threat to that individuals freedom. Yet, it is impossible to negate those people's control and influence simply because, being that everyone is different and has intrinsically separate goals on a surface glance, the institutions which've been created and perpetuated prior to said individual's existence maintain a strict hold.

[bipartitegraph]

The word existentialism is like sticky. To some it is a movement of thought in the 40s & 50s; to others, it is just Sartrean philosophy. To me, I just detest the word, and to call oneself an Existentialist, is an oxymoron. Nevertheless, the word does have one useful meaning and that is to identify a group of problems and questions in philosophy---namely, the problems associated with how one can live when one stops believing that there is an objective meaning to life. C'est l'existentialisme!

[madelinefauchelevant]

je ne comprends pas l'existentialisme

[Kalsanity]

je parle francais petit...mais pourquoi tu ne comprend pas?

[jcjamrock]

Sartre's deontology was interesting as far as he described the being-for-itself as a duality,and a constant escaping from itself.

[remaerd89]

the scaryest thing i ever saw...an old woman saying..."you sould kill men like that, you should burn them" :S

[mihrantheupsetter]

One error: Sartre had no stepfather. He was raised by his mother and his grandparents.

[usernamesarehard]

(mihrantheupsetter)

He did in fact have a step father who worked for the navy.

There are interviews here on YouTube where he describes his relationship with him.

[mihrantheupsetter]

Can you provide a link? I based my comment on what I read in his autobiography, "Les Mots"

[usernamesarehard]

The YouTube link for it is:

" J6F7xjKNY5U "

Type that where it says "v=" in the URL.

It's a very honest and candid illustration of his youth and the beginnings of this philosophy.

[redkierkant]

he had a stepfather you clown. he became jealous of him as well, b/c it took froggies attention of his mother away from him. dumb ass..

[portableshakespeare]

thank you so much for this post.

[zak2di]

merci for theses free lessons. I appreciate your effort.

[Oberhawk]

No, it was Nietzsche

[butterfly9255]

human all too human... isn't that neitzche ? yes it is S: