...is only a partial and incomplete transcendence of his/her existence as a technician of practical knowledge. It still remains fundamentally a bourgeois negation. This view is brilliantly developed in the interview, "A Plea For Intellectuals" and his response to it is developed in "A Friend of the People." Both interviews can be found in English in the collections, "Between Existentialism and Marxism.
The classical intellectual comes to understand the contradiction within him of the universality of his/her knowledge and the particular interests which it serves, thus the contradiction between the universal and the particular within his/her being. This contradiction is, for Sartre, fundamentally a class contradiction, since in spite of claims of his existentialism, Sartre was a Marxist at the time of this interview. For Sartre, the revolt of the classical intellectual is only a partial...
I believe that LennyBound has confused the Sartrean notions of the classical intellectual and the technician of practical knowledge which spawned him/her. The classical intellectual is someone who realizes that the universality of knowledge he/she has acquired through education and training has, in a class divided society, forged him as a member of a particular class fraction, the professional petit bourgeoisie. This realization results in a sort of Hegelian unhappy consciousness. To be cont.
Sartre's very right here when he says a true intellectual is one who fights for universal truths rather than the practical ones. In other words, the intellectual sees the 'big picture' for the world, and he isn't swayed by what is fashionable at the time. Unfortunately, this is also what makes him be seen as an arrogant elitist.
Intellectuals can most certainly come from proletariat beginnings. Many, because of twisted social conditions, don't receive proper compensation for their work. Look into the history of Jazz.
Perhaps many of us don't understand this because of the translation - the French have a different way of thinking about things and expressing their thoughts (which can be seen in the sentence structure and much more verbose diction). I have basic understanding of French and what I gathered is that the "classic intellectual" is marked by the acceptance of the contradictions inherent to man - in thought and action etc.
Okay I'll try and have a go at explaining this for people. Sartre identifies the 'classic' intellectual as someone who is schooled and practiced in particular (and hopefully innocent) disciplines that can contribute to sometimes unintended or unforeseen universal applications that could be potentially amoral. The intellectual framed by Sartre here with his guilty conscience could seek to petition or engage with the masses against atrocity to wash his hands of less desirable implications.
It is this contradiction and schism that might create an Oppenheimer like figure: a part time rebel picketer, uncomfortably aware that his stimulating and perhaps awe-inspiring discoveries and focus studies, are applied to a malevolent whole. The 'new' intellectual possibly sees this compromise as typical of the ivory tower elite and can expose it for self aggrandizing atonement for guilt rather than true concern for the people.
@billhicks8 You are all trying to make a simple topic very complex...the intellectual will never come from the proletariat, thats what he means when says about guilty conscience, we come from the upper classes, have the time to study and evolve intellectually, then reject the bourgeois line of though, that is actually very dogmatic, not pragmatic, and then side with the proletariat, thats as simple as that. There is concern with the people because that is the guilt, being part of upper class.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
@Eopyk Crypto-Jew Sartre did for critical thought what Franz Boas did for anthropology, Guggenheim did for art, and Philip Glass did for music, and for the same reasons of inversion the Frankfurt School cadre explicitly stated. You've been flattered into believing that overlooking the obvious is a sign of intelligence, when it indicates you're a herd animal and a fool.
@11pinrelay There has been racist attacks in Boaz as of late the antropologist HannibalBarca13 here on you tube have defended him. The only thing he did was to suggest that one should work scientificly when looking into culture and not put personal judgments on it.
And I see you are anti-semitic racist fuck. Are you going to tell me that your intelectual ? Tsk tsk.
Listnen there is no jewish race , there is no white race. Genetics disprpves race as a valid classification
@Eopyk “The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”
— Max Horkheimer, Marxist Jew of the Frankfurt School
Bones & logic beat Boasian Bullshit. "Social Anthropology": WTF is that? A distortion and nothing but.
@Eopyk I'm not going to argue what's tanatamount to the earth orbiting the sun, just subsume your vanity into the egregore and ponder how many things you've been taught to look PAST?
@Eopyk An ellipsis is composed of three periods, not two. You shouldn't be in the habit of ending a fully formed sentence with an ellipsis in the first place.
He's just saying when you realize that your work for the general knowledge base is not only abstract (for the text book), but actually used in particular instances (made into things or used as guide for revolutionary action) you then have a moral problem on your hands and so become a so-called 'classical intellectual'. When the 'whole people' spontaneously ("event") denounce the 'text book's' authority they offer a 'different intellectual' authority on possible particular actions.
I was just saying the same exact thing to a friend of mine. But without subtitles. She said she was put off by science and I told her, "well you should be." Research is often disgusting and its application is almost always sinister.
@TheKafkianProcess If I tried to read Gödel’s famous 1931 paper that proved the incompleteness theorem I probably wouldn’t understand it. Yet I would not classify it as incoherent babble. Instead I would readily admit that the failure was with me, and that if I was smarter, or concentrated harder, or read more background, I might get it. Most people who find Sartre incoherent are in the same position as me–they admit there are many things they don’t understand due to some failing on their part.
@TheKafkianProcess (cont.) Hence your claim that we are egocentric people who classify everything we don’t understand as nonsense is false. Whatever mistake we might be making in our assessment of Sartre, it is not the mistake of inferring that Sartre is incoherent simply because we don’t understand him. This is so obvious that I wonder if your original comment was a serious attempt to criticize us or simply an outburst of empty rhetoric.
Actually I think it could plausibly be misconstrued that way. Unfortunately some people do instantly dismiss things they don't understand, however your tone and fluency in expression at least convey someone more observant than this.
Hmmmm.... Let's be more practical for a second and see Michael in the new Nikita series on TV. He works of Division (Sector) which turns out to be more like Specter. He loses his vision of the work he is doing and comes to see his boss as his captor. The new is not an update of the same but rather an inversion of the previous. That which was the system has become its enemy because it is the logical extension of the control that it teaches not to be controlled. runningturtle87
It seems like he only described the classic intellectual and when he started explaining the other type he saw after the French student revolt in the 60's he got cut off.
This idea of the classic intellectual as denouncer is a thread of Godard's film Masculin Feminine. The film concentrates on this contradiction btw universal and particular application Sartre talks about...a bit depressing. Godard has a blip of philo pith in his films, not much, but interesting
My interpretation: Sartre speaks of the classical intellect as being conditioned by society and culture within notions of nationhood. I think what he is reaching for (though tangentially) is a notion of intellectualism that is brought forth universally. If the individual sees society and culture as a matrix of ideas, then transcends them toward a universalism, only then can the individual have a true intellect and have the agency needed in a dynamistic world. Any questions, I'm willing to help?
Ha! Sartre speaks of American imperialism in Vietnam. If that is the way he wants to frame it, then it was French imperialism that was there in the first place.
@Entropy56 Well, Chinese imperialism was there even before the French. By the time the U.S. sent soldiers to 'Nam, all Ho Chi Minh wanted was everybody out: Chinese, French, Americans. (Japan occupied Vietnam during the 30s, but after 1940 let a Vichy French gov. administer.)
Sartre talks of Am. imperialism, because that's what was going on '72, when this movie was made. But in fact Sartre opposed French imperialism & was roundly hated by his fellow French.
What you detractors obviously don't realise is that Sartre offered you the greatest freedom of any other writer that I know ."Existence precedes essence" is all you need to know for now.
The way that the work intellectuals do interacts with and is influenced by various cultural and political forces is an interesting topic. Sociologists and philosophers of science have produced some solid work on this. However, Sartre's speech here is mostly meaningless babble - obscure talk that will seem profound to the intellectually naive but incoherent to everyone else.
@Guaguanco11 My own opinion of Sartre is that he was a political activist but not an intellectual. No doubt he held various academic posts, but I think a minimal requirement for being an intellectual is that one actually produces coherent ideas and gives reasons to justify them, and I doubt that Sartre ever did this. The irony is that if we were to do a public poll of most recognizable intellectuals of the 20th century, Sartre would be near the top of the list.
It's an 800 page existential-phenomenological treatise on ontology. Logically reasoned and recognized as one of the most important/influential works of the 20th Century...
When something like that happens and you are unaware you look like a complete asshole... now you know, so next time be prepared so you won't say something so inane.
@buildingm Several years ago I tutored for a first-year course that spent 3 weeks on Sartre's philosophy. I read excerpts from B&N, plus supporting materials and lecture notes but couldn't discern any clear arguments in Sartre's work (nor could my students). Certainly the lecturer teaching that part of the course thought there were interesting arguments in his work, but when I put several questions to her asking for clarification on what Sartre meant by various terms I got incoherent answers!
@Guaguanco11 This experience was significant in forming my negative evaluation of Sartre’s philosophy and intellectual rigor. That you would use abusive ad hominems and appeals to authority in your criticism of my opinion is disappointing, but consistent with my expectations about the intellectual standards of those who find Sartre’s work appealing.
BUT, because you and a number of students were unable to understand Sartre, therefore, his philosophy is empty and incoherent? So says mr.logic-ad-hominem...
However, I understand why, if you have no background, reading something like "the for-itself is what it is not and is not what it is," sounds incoherent; BUT, surely you aren't so naive as is to think that the linguistic contradiction corresponds to the philosophical sense of that phrase, right?
And for the record you, yourself, threw it a passive-aggressive ad hominem about me and all those with big enough brains to appreciate Sartre...
So you, sir, are a hypocrite!
* Also, FYI, if you were confused about the the whole "reflection," stuff, it is only convoluted because of the translation... In French there are different signs for "reflection (in the mirror)" and "reflection (introspection)."
@Guaguanco11 Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason is incoherent and without reason? You might want to give it a read before making comments like that.
@MarkMcGinn I've only read parts of B&N. Are you suggesting that people who find B&N intellectually inept might have a different experience reading the Critique of Dialectical Reason?
@Guaguanco11 Hmmm, that's odd, because what he is saying makes sense to me. I'm not a stuffy intellectual, I go to community college. Maybe you should watch again and pay close attention to the subtitles. It DOES make sense. Sartre just doesn't flesh out the idea of the 'new intellectual' much because the video ends before he gets the chance. His concept of the classic intellectual is well established in this video. Surprisingly well established for such a short explanation, in my opinion.
@lourak "Philosophically speaking," hmmm...then could you please elaborate on the juvenilia and arbitrary nature of Sartre's performance, as well as explaining why you feel he ought to have chosen the path of a pure logician? Thanks in advance.
@Brianjonestown ha. i like how you put lourak in their place. i wont pretend to know all thats being said, but i do enjoy how people like to sound smart on youtube even when they have no idea what they themselves are talking about. i get the feeling lourak had some help from a dictionary and a thesaurus. ha.
An intellectual shows interest for intellectuality while the knowlegde just flows trought the genius. The intellectual is weak in front of the genius who gets his power from his great nature. Sartre was an intellectual. Intellectuals are the more dangerous kind of human on earth because they think that their thruts are superior.
He says being an intellectual is about claiming. Being strong is about doing. Sartre never liked himself, how could he have been good?
yeah, for a long time i always thought that his self negligence came purely out of humility because for one, i used to think he really was a genius
but going through his biographies and interviews i found out he truly despised his surface, and he cared enough about the surface that he had come to a point where he was entirely in despair.
I think he's pissing good French wine on the intellectual (and himself) in the manner of Diogenes of Sinope. When peace in the "tour d'ivoire" is shattered by the unhappy conscience of unintended consequences and revived by constituting the contradiction thru denunciation (and casual activism), it nevertheless leaves a trail of lukewarm spittal. But comes May & his epiphany that the next generation won't get fooled again. But war is still inevitable as is the universal application of all its fun
Wish this was longer, but the "May movement" was when the university students gathered in protest of the extremely biased and politically right-wing orientated academic agenda; specifically against de Gaulle.
-I take this to mean the nature in which the classic intellectual is manipulated as being something that they are not, while not being what they are i.e. they are the universal which they are not, and are not the particular which they are...
So the classic intellectuals are torn between the universal truths (e.g., atomic theory) they work with and the particular use (e.g., atom bomb) they are put to. These people become politically active against the 'bourgeoisie' who use their technical expertise... then he says something about intellectuals "since May" that I can't fathom.
Sartre seems to be talking about the role of the classical intellectual who is ultimately institutionally conditioned to submit and fulfill the will of bourgoisi or elite ideology. The intellectual employs universal knowledge to justify this ideology, as in the case of science being used to create weapons to use upon the vietnamese population. So Sartre points out that there is a paradox of universal truths and subjectivism, that the intellectual uses truisms to justify subject values
Arfalarf, read about May '68 in France and you will understand why Sartre was not "full of it".
Your theoretical frustration with Sartre's philosophical insight is a testament to his enduring vitality as a radical intellectual. Although charging Sartre with "philosophical crap" really drove home your strident critique.
@brotherwise "Your theoretical frustration with Sartre's philosophical insight is a testament to his enduring vitality as a radical intellectual"
This is the same as saying: 'your frustration with why this painting is called art is a testament to the artist's skill and demeanor', which of course makes no sense.
It might be, because of cognitive dissonance. It just as well might not be.
I think the point about evidence is very valid, since argumentation seems to be a rare thing in Sarte's life.
Sartre was full of it. How about he use a little evidence? How about he not make gross generalizations?
I bet those student demonstrators weren't marching for "the universal" or some other philosophical crap like that. Ten bucks said they had particular, political, parochial demands.
@LennyBound that is such a good attitude man... world should be full of people like you.. but then again. there is in no way of knowing that if this decision was typical of yours
@EverettsVLOG Well basically (for that part at least), he's comparing the political consciousness between intellectuals before May 1968 and after, between knowledge owned by some people for a use that is not compatible with the ideas they develop on universal matters and people who fought for a knowledge shared by everybody, making it more accessible to a large scale, allowing new ideas to be applied universally.
@EverettsVLOG EverettsVLOG Are you not classifying him yourself by making this statement? Whether a "classification system" sounds "arbitrary" or not depends on the interpretive framework through which you are judging it, and someone might likewise say the very same thing in reply to your comment. What most people don't realize is that in making this argument--and it is often made--you are relying on a premise which you are at the same time trying to refute. It is circular.
...is only a partial and incomplete transcendence of his/her existence as a technician of practical knowledge. It still remains fundamentally a bourgeois negation. This view is brilliantly developed in the interview, "A Plea For Intellectuals" and his response to it is developed in "A Friend of the People." Both interviews can be found in English in the collections, "Between Existentialism and Marxism.
HistoriaApologetica 1 day ago
The classical intellectual comes to understand the contradiction within him of the universality of his/her knowledge and the particular interests which it serves, thus the contradiction between the universal and the particular within his/her being. This contradiction is, for Sartre, fundamentally a class contradiction, since in spite of claims of his existentialism, Sartre was a Marxist at the time of this interview. For Sartre, the revolt of the classical intellectual is only a partial...
HistoriaApologetica 1 day ago
I believe that LennyBound has confused the Sartrean notions of the classical intellectual and the technician of practical knowledge which spawned him/her. The classical intellectual is someone who realizes that the universality of knowledge he/she has acquired through education and training has, in a class divided society, forged him as a member of a particular class fraction, the professional petit bourgeoisie. This realization results in a sort of Hegelian unhappy consciousness. To be cont.
HistoriaApologetica 1 day ago
Sartre looks and sounds like Gollum. But that's okay, because in his earlier years, Bertrand Russell looked liked Ted Bundy.
bosman1988 1 month ago 3
interviewer is Andre Gorz
jdmw1982 1 month ago
A lot of philosophy students in this thread.
amirhamzaalfaruqi 1 month ago
The construction is interesting but what about people that has reached these conclusions but don't give a crap about these "Universal truths" ?
We are high tech slaves working for the machine... great!!
How long will people keep dreaming about May68 and realize it didn't achieved anything?
It's time to forget all these childish dreams of Utopia, the machine can't be destroyed or defeated.
The time of revolutions is gone, sabotage, exploit, infiltrate, corrupt.
Midgardboa 2 months ago
Sartre's very right here when he says a true intellectual is one who fights for universal truths rather than the practical ones. In other words, the intellectual sees the 'big picture' for the world, and he isn't swayed by what is fashionable at the time. Unfortunately, this is also what makes him be seen as an arrogant elitist.
dimogoblin 2 months ago
This is from Sartre by himself, right? I would very much like to see the whole thing.
kfDafne 2 months ago
Intellectuals can most certainly come from proletariat beginnings. Many, because of twisted social conditions, don't receive proper compensation for their work. Look into the history of Jazz.
cindyandrob 2 months ago
I concur.
Spartacus217 3 months ago
Comment removed
adrianeaglrck 3 months ago
Perhaps many of us don't understand this because of the translation - the French have a different way of thinking about things and expressing their thoughts (which can be seen in the sentence structure and much more verbose diction). I have basic understanding of French and what I gathered is that the "classic intellectual" is marked by the acceptance of the contradictions inherent to man - in thought and action etc.
FadedFaeries68 3 months ago
Okay I'll try and have a go at explaining this for people. Sartre identifies the 'classic' intellectual as someone who is schooled and practiced in particular (and hopefully innocent) disciplines that can contribute to sometimes unintended or unforeseen universal applications that could be potentially amoral. The intellectual framed by Sartre here with his guilty conscience could seek to petition or engage with the masses against atrocity to wash his hands of less desirable implications.
billhicks8 3 months ago
...cont
It is this contradiction and schism that might create an Oppenheimer like figure: a part time rebel picketer, uncomfortably aware that his stimulating and perhaps awe-inspiring discoveries and focus studies, are applied to a malevolent whole. The 'new' intellectual possibly sees this compromise as typical of the ivory tower elite and can expose it for self aggrandizing atonement for guilt rather than true concern for the people.
billhicks8 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billhicks8 You are all trying to make a simple topic very complex...the intellectual will never come from the proletariat, thats what he means when says about guilty conscience, we come from the upper classes, have the time to study and evolve intellectually, then reject the bourgeois line of though, that is actually very dogmatic, not pragmatic, and then side with the proletariat, thats as simple as that. There is concern with the people because that is the guilt, being part of upper class.
Konicava 3 months ago
How do you pronounce his last name?
Claybear17 3 months ago
@Claybear17 "Sartruh", but not so much pronunciation on the last vowel, i.e. not SartrUH but Sartra.
DrugStabbingTime 1 day ago
por favor, subtitulen esta entrevista al idioma español
147chepe 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have successfuly framed themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
Sartre refused the Nobel Prize for Literature to give himself street cred. Must have damn near killed the Jew phony (forgive the tautology).
"Hell is other Jews." -- Yeshiva University Codex
"...that is what college is for."
@jang15g College is to give a patina to frauds like Sartre.
11pinrelay 5 months ago
@11pinrelay Ehh your comment is anti-semitic nonsense..
Eopyk 4 months ago
@Eopyk Anti-semantism is a threat, it's true. Do you have anything vaguely your own to say, or are you just Pavlovstein's dog?
11pinrelay 4 months ago
@11pinrelay You used terms like jew phony and etc. I wonder what the seemingly anti-semitic rethotic is for ?
And you may not agree with Sartre but to call him a fraud ? That is stupid sorry.
Eopyk 4 months ago
@Eopyk Crypto-Jew Sartre did for critical thought what Franz Boas did for anthropology, Guggenheim did for art, and Philip Glass did for music, and for the same reasons of inversion the Frankfurt School cadre explicitly stated. You've been flattered into believing that overlooking the obvious is a sign of intelligence, when it indicates you're a herd animal and a fool.
11pinrelay 4 months ago
@11pinrelay There has been racist attacks in Boaz as of late the antropologist HannibalBarca13 here on you tube have defended him. The only thing he did was to suggest that one should work scientificly when looking into culture and not put personal judgments on it.
And I see you are anti-semitic racist fuck. Are you going to tell me that your intelectual ? Tsk tsk.
Listnen there is no jewish race , there is no white race. Genetics disprpves race as a valid classification
Eopyk 4 months ago
Comment removed
11pinrelay 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eopyk "And I see you are anti-semitic racist fuck. Are you going to tell me that your intelectual ? Tsk tsk."
I've told you only what's empirically obvious, but thanks for the compliment. I actually LOL at that.
"there is no white race..."
And yet Whites are responsible for every form on malfeasance on earth...while not existing! THAT'S clever!
11pinrelay 4 months ago
@Eopyk “The Revolution won’t happen with guns, rather it will happen incrementally, year by year, generation by generation. We will gradually infiltrate their educational institutions and their political offices, transforming them slowly into Marxist entities as we move towards universal egalitarianism.”
— Max Horkheimer, Marxist Jew of the Frankfurt School
Bones & logic beat Boasian Bullshit. "Social Anthropology": WTF is that? A distortion and nothing but.
11pinrelay 4 months ago
@Eopyk I'm not going to argue what's tanatamount to the earth orbiting the sun, just subsume your vanity into the egregore and ponder how many things you've been taught to look PAST?
11pinrelay 4 months ago
@Eopyk An ellipsis is composed of three periods, not two. You shouldn't be in the habit of ending a fully formed sentence with an ellipsis in the first place.
OldSchopenhauer 4 months ago
He's just saying when you realize that your work for the general knowledge base is not only abstract (for the text book), but actually used in particular instances (made into things or used as guide for revolutionary action) you then have a moral problem on your hands and so become a so-called 'classical intellectual'. When the 'whole people' spontaneously ("event") denounce the 'text book's' authority they offer a 'different intellectual' authority on possible particular actions.
ThewildRageofGordon 5 months ago
@ThewildRageofGordon This seems to be spot on and accurate to his view, thank you!
maskedninjacookie 5 months ago
Camus Can Do, But Sartre is Smartre
doobiesmoke15 5 months ago 2
merci, he did lsd?
faridjabba 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was just saying the same exact thing to a friend of mine. But without subtitles. She said she was put off by science and I told her, "well you should be." Research is often disgusting and its application is almost always sinister.
bvolsky 6 months ago
I enjoy these egocentric attitudes in people that immediately classify anything they don't understand...as incoherent babble.
TheKafkianProcess 7 months ago
@TheKafkianProcess If I tried to read Gödel’s famous 1931 paper that proved the incompleteness theorem I probably wouldn’t understand it. Yet I would not classify it as incoherent babble. Instead I would readily admit that the failure was with me, and that if I was smarter, or concentrated harder, or read more background, I might get it. Most people who find Sartre incoherent are in the same position as me–they admit there are many things they don’t understand due to some failing on their part.
Guaguanco11 6 months ago 12
@Guaguanco11 I've never read him, but that might just mean he was a shitty writer.
kingnat2 1 month ago
@TheKafkianProcess (cont.) Hence your claim that we are egocentric people who classify everything we don’t understand as nonsense is false. Whatever mistake we might be making in our assessment of Sartre, it is not the mistake of inferring that Sartre is incoherent simply because we don’t understand him. This is so obvious that I wonder if your original comment was a serious attempt to criticize us or simply an outburst of empty rhetoric.
Guaguanco11 6 months ago 9
@Guaguanco11
Actually I think it could plausibly be misconstrued that way. Unfortunately some people do instantly dismiss things they don't understand, however your tone and fluency in expression at least convey someone more observant than this.
billhicks8 3 months ago 2
He's talking about species of thought.The thought process itself varies according to task.
bongfodder 8 months ago
"to which I belonged" Arrogant much?
Bladex93 8 months ago
Hmmmm.... Let's be more practical for a second and see Michael in the new Nikita series on TV. He works of Division (Sector) which turns out to be more like Specter. He loses his vision of the work he is doing and comes to see his boss as his captor. The new is not an update of the same but rather an inversion of the previous. That which was the system has become its enemy because it is the logical extension of the control that it teaches not to be controlled. runningturtle87
runningturtle871 8 months ago
Comment removed
PorteousR 9 months ago
...and its fucking ridiculous they focus on this POINTLESS shit in (my CA college) instead of (enter any other important thing here).
GravitysBlues 9 months ago
@GravitysBlues Why is it pointless? (you enter something here)
mrfreudable 8 months ago
It seems like he only described the classic intellectual and when he started explaining the other type he saw after the French student revolt in the 60's he got cut off.
Lebensraum69 9 months ago
This idea of the classic intellectual as denouncer is a thread of Godard's film Masculin Feminine. The film concentrates on this contradiction btw universal and particular application Sartre talks about...a bit depressing. Godard has a blip of philo pith in his films, not much, but interesting
warmwarmerdisco 9 months ago
My interpretation: Sartre speaks of the classical intellect as being conditioned by society and culture within notions of nationhood. I think what he is reaching for (though tangentially) is a notion of intellectualism that is brought forth universally. If the individual sees society and culture as a matrix of ideas, then transcends them toward a universalism, only then can the individual have a true intellect and have the agency needed in a dynamistic world. Any questions, I'm willing to help?
thoserandomaussies 10 months ago
why ever did they take a heavy smoker like that so seriously in France
SunamiJane 11 months ago
Ha! Sartre speaks of American imperialism in Vietnam. If that is the way he wants to frame it, then it was French imperialism that was there in the first place.
Entropy56 11 months ago
@Entropy56 that's why he was against it. Sartre never trust on French democracy
JimLedRock 10 months ago
@Entropy56 Well, Chinese imperialism was there even before the French. By the time the U.S. sent soldiers to 'Nam, all Ho Chi Minh wanted was everybody out: Chinese, French, Americans. (Japan occupied Vietnam during the 30s, but after 1940 let a Vichy French gov. administer.)
Sartre talks of Am. imperialism, because that's what was going on '72, when this movie was made. But in fact Sartre opposed French imperialism & was roundly hated by his fellow French.
CocteauDalighari 7 months ago
Tuck, where are you?
igowithyou 11 months ago
What you detractors obviously don't realise is that Sartre offered you the greatest freedom of any other writer that I know ."Existence precedes essence" is all you need to know for now.
mrfreudable 1 year ago
Ho hum, another lefty who thinks his view of the world makes him smart...I mean intellectual....umm, not!!
mydogbanjo 1 year ago
Me Crashing My Truck Into A Tree
byronscottbuchanan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus christ is king of earth
bass109 1 year ago
Hm... makes perfect sense to me.
caffeininja 1 year ago
He lost the plot after Being and Nothingness. Uncoincidentially around the same time he became a Marxist.
IamTheRealSolidSnerk 1 year ago
read it
adamtzsch 1 year ago
The way that the work intellectuals do interacts with and is influenced by various cultural and political forces is an interesting topic. Sociologists and philosophers of science have produced some solid work on this. However, Sartre's speech here is mostly meaningless babble - obscure talk that will seem profound to the intellectually naive but incoherent to everyone else.
Guaguanco11 1 year ago 17
@Guaguanco11 My own opinion of Sartre is that he was a political activist but not an intellectual. No doubt he held various academic posts, but I think a minimal requirement for being an intellectual is that one actually produces coherent ideas and gives reasons to justify them, and I doubt that Sartre ever did this. The irony is that if we were to do a public poll of most recognizable intellectuals of the 20th century, Sartre would be near the top of the list.
Guaguanco11 1 year ago 8
@Guaguanco11
What?!
Are you serious?
Have you ever heard of Being and Nothingness?
-No?
I thought not...
It's an 800 page existential-phenomenological treatise on ontology. Logically reasoned and recognized as one of the most important/influential works of the 20th Century...
When something like that happens and you are unaware you look like a complete asshole... now you know, so next time be prepared so you won't say something so inane.
(not to mention the Critique...)
buildingm 1 year ago
@buildingm Several years ago I tutored for a first-year course that spent 3 weeks on Sartre's philosophy. I read excerpts from B&N, plus supporting materials and lecture notes but couldn't discern any clear arguments in Sartre's work (nor could my students). Certainly the lecturer teaching that part of the course thought there were interesting arguments in his work, but when I put several questions to her asking for clarification on what Sartre meant by various terms I got incoherent answers!
Guaguanco11 1 year ago 4
@Guaguanco11 This experience was significant in forming my negative evaluation of Sartre’s philosophy and intellectual rigor. That you would use abusive ad hominems and appeals to authority in your criticism of my opinion is disappointing, but consistent with my expectations about the intellectual standards of those who find Sartre’s work appealing.
Guaguanco11 1 year ago 4
@Guaguanco11
I was poking fun—relax...
BUT, because you and a number of students were unable to understand Sartre, therefore, his philosophy is empty and incoherent? So says mr.logic-ad-hominem...
However, I understand why, if you have no background, reading something like "the for-itself is what it is not and is not what it is," sounds incoherent; BUT, surely you aren't so naive as is to think that the linguistic contradiction corresponds to the philosophical sense of that phrase, right?
buildingm 1 year ago
@Guaguanco11
And for the record you, yourself, threw it a passive-aggressive ad hominem about me and all those with big enough brains to appreciate Sartre...
So you, sir, are a hypocrite!
* Also, FYI, if you were confused about the the whole "reflection," stuff, it is only convoluted because of the translation... In French there are different signs for "reflection (in the mirror)" and "reflection (introspection)."
buildingm 1 year ago
@Guaguanco11 Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason is incoherent and without reason? You might want to give it a read before making comments like that.
MarkMcGinn 9 months ago
@MarkMcGinn I've only read parts of B&N. Are you suggesting that people who find B&N intellectually inept might have a different experience reading the Critique of Dialectical Reason?
Guaguanco11 9 months ago
@Guaguanco11 because of what he speaks about at the end, the revolt against the classical intellectual.
JamesGod08 1 month ago
@Guaguanco11 It's not meaningless babble...you're not trolling are you? haha
owsleythebear 8 months ago
@Guaguanco11 Hmmm, that's odd, because what he is saying makes sense to me. I'm not a stuffy intellectual, I go to community college. Maybe you should watch again and pay close attention to the subtitles. It DOES make sense. Sartre just doesn't flesh out the idea of the 'new intellectual' much because the video ends before he gets the chance. His concept of the classic intellectual is well established in this video. Surprisingly well established for such a short explanation, in my opinion.
Manwithcam 6 months ago
@Guaguanco11lol a not "intellectually naive" troll.
Midgardboa 2 months ago
@Midgardboa Troll is a term seemingly used against people who are much smarter than them
JamesGod08 1 month ago
@Guaguanco11 Not that much unintelligible, but it's surely redundant and I waited until the end to realize he could have said this in one sentence.
KrugmanTheKing 1 month ago
@Guaguanco11 you got 15 likes for that? I think I understand which type of irony you refer to.
StefanMarkovski 1 month ago
@StefanMarkovski Wow, you deserve an award for your wittiness!
Guaguanco11 1 month ago
lol 2:46 the guy's just like "yeah man totally...."
dannyman90 1 year ago 4
Philosophically speaking, Sartre's performance here is positively juvenile and arbitrary. But then again, Sartre was never much of a logician.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak "Philosophically speaking," hmmm...then could you please elaborate on the juvenilia and arbitrary nature of Sartre's performance, as well as explaining why you feel he ought to have chosen the path of a pure logician? Thanks in advance.
Brianjonestown 1 year ago
@Brianjonestown ha. i like how you put lourak in their place. i wont pretend to know all thats being said, but i do enjoy how people like to sound smart on youtube even when they have no idea what they themselves are talking about. i get the feeling lourak had some help from a dictionary and a thesaurus. ha.
rodrimrr 1 year ago
Delicious!
Belascuro 1 year ago
An intellectual shows interest for intellectuality while the knowlegde just flows trought the genius. The intellectual is weak in front of the genius who gets his power from his great nature. Sartre was an intellectual. Intellectuals are the more dangerous kind of human on earth because they think that their thruts are superior.
He says being an intellectual is about claiming. Being strong is about doing. Sartre never liked himself, how could he have been good?
pierolivier111 1 year ago
yeah, for a long time i always thought that his self negligence came purely out of humility because for one, i used to think he really was a genius
but going through his biographies and interviews i found out he truly despised his surface, and he cared enough about the surface that he had come to a point where he was entirely in despair.
pakk82 1 year ago
Tuck, where are you?
igowithyou 1 year ago
I think he's pissing good French wine on the intellectual (and himself) in the manner of Diogenes of Sinope. When peace in the "tour d'ivoire" is shattered by the unhappy conscience of unintended consequences and revived by constituting the contradiction thru denunciation (and casual activism), it nevertheless leaves a trail of lukewarm spittal. But comes May & his epiphany that the next generation won't get fooled again. But war is still inevitable as is the universal application of all its fun
gntwrk 1 year ago
I'm so glad analytical philosophy started up so people wouldn't have to listen to needlessly obscure philosophy anymore.
digitalheir 1 year ago
@digitalheir I hear you
BombaMolotov 1 year ago
Wish this was longer, but the "May movement" was when the university students gathered in protest of the extremely biased and politically right-wing orientated academic agenda; specifically against de Gaulle.
-I take this to mean the nature in which the classic intellectual is manipulated as being something that they are not, while not being what they are i.e. they are the universal which they are not, and are not the particular which they are...
same concept as being-for-itself; thoughts?
buildingm 1 year ago
So the classic intellectuals are torn between the universal truths (e.g., atomic theory) they work with and the particular use (e.g., atom bomb) they are put to. These people become politically active against the 'bourgeoisie' who use their technical expertise... then he says something about intellectuals "since May" that I can't fathom.
bayesianconspiracy 1 year ago
Sartre seems to be talking about the role of the classical intellectual who is ultimately institutionally conditioned to submit and fulfill the will of bourgoisi or elite ideology. The intellectual employs universal knowledge to justify this ideology, as in the case of science being used to create weapons to use upon the vietnamese population. So Sartre points out that there is a paradox of universal truths and subjectivism, that the intellectual uses truisms to justify subject values
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago
I love him. He is my hero.
m0thland 1 year ago
is he speaking to foucault?
robottuck 1 year ago
Sartre, nerver impressed me. Now i understand why. Good post anyway
frogbuster20 1 year ago
@frogbuster20
From such a statement I would infer that you, most certainly, live in Bad Faith...
buildingm 1 year ago
I don't understand how Sartre can have this contempt for engineers etc but calls himself a communist.
lesjconj 2 years ago
Arfalarf, read about May '68 in France and you will understand why Sartre was not "full of it".
Your theoretical frustration with Sartre's philosophical insight is a testament to his enduring vitality as a radical intellectual. Although charging Sartre with "philosophical crap" really drove home your strident critique.
brotherwise 2 years ago
@brotherwise "Your theoretical frustration with Sartre's philosophical insight is a testament to his enduring vitality as a radical intellectual"
This is the same as saying: 'your frustration with why this painting is called art is a testament to the artist's skill and demeanor', which of course makes no sense.
It might be, because of cognitive dissonance. It just as well might not be.
I think the point about evidence is very valid, since argumentation seems to be a rare thing in Sarte's life.
digitalheir 1 year ago
Thanks for posting.
lucretius4 2 years ago
Sartre was full of it. How about he use a little evidence? How about he not make gross generalizations?
I bet those student demonstrators weren't marching for "the universal" or some other philosophical crap like that. Ten bucks said they had particular, political, parochial demands.
Arfalarf 2 years ago 4
no idea what this is about... sounds like one of an infinite number of arbitrary classification systems of human behavior
EverettsVLOG 2 years ago 2
Yeah... I don't really understand it either, but since I found the clip I felt it was my philosophical duty to upload it for people who might.
LennyBound 2 years ago 6
@LennyBound that is such a good attitude man... world should be full of people like you.. but then again. there is in no way of knowing that if this decision was typical of yours
pakk82 1 year ago
@LennyBound so your kantian huh
pakk82 1 year ago
In other words: most of "existentialism."
imbalancingact 2 years ago
That was in response to EverettsVLOG.
imbalancingact 2 years ago
@EverettsVLOG
That is exactly what philosophy appears to be. Romanticism is the ripest fruit of philosophical endeavors. The Summit is protected.
TrashHeapHedonist 1 year ago
@EverettsVLOG Well basically (for that part at least), he's comparing the political consciousness between intellectuals before May 1968 and after, between knowledge owned by some people for a use that is not compatible with the ideas they develop on universal matters and people who fought for a knowledge shared by everybody, making it more accessible to a large scale, allowing new ideas to be applied universally.
ariqwab 9 months ago
Comment removed
MarkMcGinn 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EverettsVLOG EverettsVLOG Are you not classifying him yourself by making this statement? Whether a "classification system" sounds "arbitrary" or not depends on the interpretive framework through which you are judging it, and someone might likewise say the very same thing in reply to your comment. What most people don't realize is that in making this argument--and it is often made--you are relying on a premise which you are at the same time trying to refute. It is circular.
MarkMcGinn 9 months ago
Thank you for sharing this.
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago 2