Derrida on Sartre "Not a strong philosopher"

[cocojumbo555]

When Anglo-Saxons talk philosophy on youtube they stop by wikipedia first. Then they come & troll. Aren't you supposed to be watching snookie right now?

[soyerpanzen]

Well geez...and of "Americans?" lol.

[DefenceSpeech]

@soyerpanzen They're illiterate, eat big macs all day, and watch too much television.

[soyerpanzen]

I don't think Derrida meant to denigrate Sartre as a person who was a philosopher and for Sartre's philosophical contributions, which can be argued, was a precursor to the fragmentary negotiations done under postmodern deconstruction, of the self, from the imports of existentialism. The headline used on this clip just insinuates this interpretation that Derrida is belittling Sartre, or more likely relegates Sartre to just a literary figure--which is a gigantic accomplishment on its own right.

[DefenceSpeech]

@soyerpanzen I wasn't insulating anything. It's a direct quote, which I don't think could be taken out of context because that's exactly what he meant.

[soyerpanzen]

@DefenceSpeech You mean insinuating...no my message didn't intend to imply that you were consciously insinuating anything, silly. But since this is about Derrida, as you know the delivery is oftentimes as significant as the message. I meant that the headline that this clip is entitled under might make one quickly think, ad-hoc, that Derrida is denigrating Sartre...my interpretation is Derrida has hubris but not necessarily deriding Sartre in this clip.

[DefenceSpeech]

@soyerpanzen Well he is French after all and arrogance is just as much a part of their culture as cheese, wine and bad hygiene.

[SmellyEricv29]

lmao Sartre

[gen6k]

hes "punning" lol...

[GnomesAmok]

Flawed or not, Sarte was leaps and bounds beyond Derrida, thoughtfully speaking

[gklcgr]

@GnomesAmok LoL!!

[feedthedoggies]

Sartre was a dramatist, a play write, a screen writer, a novelist. His philosophical writing was intrinsically bound to the time in which he was writing, a time bound with irony, with international militarism, with frightful political evil. Derrida refers to Sartre's many "mistakes," but Sartre was risking assertion; he spent his life, more and more toward the end, under innumerable death threats. I think Derrida captures something precious about Sartre: his generosity and sense of justice.

[scienquist]

I think the holistic system that Sartre constructs in Being and Nothingness is admirable but it is definitely marred by some inherent logical flaws. But I think that is the nature of an ontological system literally and metaphysically based on nothing or rather nothingness.

[michaelclarke18]

@ftwelve12 - It means he's a jealous little baby

What rot. I've heard many times that Sartre wasn't a strong philosopher. Heidegger, when asked to comment on Being and Nothingness replied ''muck''. That says it all.

[CopingMethod]

 "...not a very good writer...", pot calling the kettle black

[Shreddersebbes]

@Omnicron777 but isn't there a contradiction there? If you ontologically posit complete indeterminacy then what follows for your own freedom in that case? obviously there is some causal determinism in the situations one is put and what choices one has, but freedom to do is a condemnation, it's not an affirmation of life but just the subject's solitude in a world that is absurd. How can you do anything if the world is inherently meaningless though? How is your freedom actually meaningful?

[Shreddersebbes]

@Omnicron777 that's not how Sartre conceived of freedom though. Freedom here is absolute indeterminacy, hence the "existence precedes essence". If there is no purpose to life (save the indeterminacy), from whence does our responsibility spring from? We are responsible for our own actions, but that only comes as something after that we have assumed this existential premise. We can only become responsible for our actions if we make them responsible of the self-> doesn't quite gel with socialism

[jdriscoll2000]

Why is there never any serious mention of Sartre's 'Transcendence of the Ego'? That book anticipates most if not all post-structuralist thinking in regards to the subject, and can even be reconciled quite easily with Lacan. As for Sartre's freedom being 'weak' compared to the Ubermensch, such a comment sounds like a 17 year old wrote it. The absolute freedom we have at any moment to turn and kill our neighbor, for instance, is a very serious and important thing to consider.

[codylawrence100]

what i dont understnd is what derrida means by sartre being a bad writer. i dont understand what this means as sartre wrote many very good plays and novels.

[ftwelve12]

@codylawrence100 It means he's a jealous little baby

[rowanrox]

I haven't read much of Satre but I did read his biography, he looked like he was always afraid that someone or something is constantly robbing him of his freedom, seems very afraid, Satre's idea of freedom is weak when compared to Nietzsche's Übermensch...

[Dodger718]

really like the posts on the this video, got more info than the vid itself :D

[tyronD9]

Derrida is the weaker philosopher. But it depends on what you mean by 'philosophy'. If philosophy is learning established systems of fully constituted theses which rarely have relevance on life outside the hallways of the University then DERRIDA and even HEIDEGGER win every time. If by 'philosophy' is meant an intensely personal project, a questioning and replying of man himself, fully taking into account one's lived experience as it relates to the human condition, then SARTRE in unrivaled.

[donnaholic1987]

Derrida, what's wrong with making mistakes?? that foo swears he was mr. perfect. 

[donnaholic1987]

not that i'm saying i'm into sartre or anything, i've never even read his works, only things about him.

[ovidie85]

Danilo Kis once said: "Everybody in France thinks that Sartre is a philosopher and that peoples from central Europe only reads Zola."

[Beingmeansliberty]

It's Derrida who isn't a strong philosopher.

[DefenceSpeech]

@Beingmeansliberty A quick peak at your channel, and it appears that all you do is leave one line ad hominem attacks on writers, philosophers, and musicians you do not like. Care to elaborate on why you have said this regarding Derrida's philosophy? Why do you disagree with his views on Sartre? Sartre's entire philosophy was built on a misreading of Heidegger! His arguments regarding ethics and existentialism, are also full of contradictions, and have more holes than a tennis racquet.

[Beingmeansliberty]

@DefenceSpeech No contradiction in Sartre's philosophy.

[DefenceSpeech]

@Beingmeansliberty His existentialism fails in the face of science. Existence does not precede essence. If he knew anything about evolutionary biology, he would not have made such a profoundly ignorant argument. What's even more laughable is he tried to argue that human nature does not exist! As Derrida said, he was wrong on politics many times, wrong on metaphysics, and even wrong on ethics. The only reason he was foisted upon the public, and gained popularity was because he was a Communist.

[tyronD9]

@DefenceSpeech, SARTRE saw both communism and capitalism as competing imperialist projects and sought a third way. The communists attacked him constantly for winning 'potential converts of the party' over to SARTRE's own brand of 'existential marxism'. To call him a communist is just ignorant.

It's funny watching a puzzled DERRIDA(who never left the ivory tower) wonder why millions showed up at SARTRE's funeral, its called SOCIAL RELEVANCE and INTEGRITY(who else dared reject the NOBEL PRIZE?)

[rowanrox]

@DefenceSpeech Science is not a transcendent reality that is the soul judge of human existence.....It is but an interpretation just like Satre's philosophy but it has gained a lot of popularity because of its association with the imperial powers of the west.

[IlllllllllllllI]

@DefenceSpeech This is ridiculous. The claims of evolutionary biology have nothing to do with "existence" or "essence" which are specialized philosophical terms, unrelated to how you seem to have read them, as "fact" and "material". Neither is it Sartre's "existentialism", but Heidegger's. By "existence" is meant, the "human MODE of being" not the "human FACT of being".

[DefenceSpeech]

@IlllllllllllllI Sartre was a free will fanatic who had nothing to back up his philosophy.

[areujokingme]

@DefenceSpeech If you were to actually read Being and Nothingness you'd see what a bogus statement you just made. Understand the philosophy (even naively please) before you assume the philosopher is making assumptions. Being and Nothingness if littered with real-life, easily understandable examples of EXACTLY what his philosophy works to make explicit. Free will fanatic? Sure, but I don't see it as a pejorative statement.

[DefenceSpeech]

@areujokingme Free will is the final bastion of the religious mind in the western world, and so understandably people like Sartre, and those that accept these other new age philosophical movements will cling to it with all the desperation in the world. If modern philosophers want to play silly word games to try to prove their arguments, that's fine, but it has no basis in reality.

[areujokingme]

@DefenceSpeech Holy shit, your ignorance of Sartre's existentialism is unsurprisingly obvious. Done with this one.

[DefenceSpeech]

@areujokingme Thank you. I have enough trolls on my videos as it is already.

[Shreddersebbes]

@Beingmeansliberty Sartre was a decadent and out of touch with reality, if you can think that your condemnation to freedom makes you free totally to do whatever(even kill another human being) and at the same time be responsible for the betterment of society(which cannot really exist, since there is no essence to human existence) thenyou are in self-contradiction and just a bad philosopher

[a101060]

@Beingmeansliberty you maybe say something that can be developed, but believe me, the way you put it lacks of argument, in the sense thatyour philosophical skill needs to be developed to attain maturity and complexity

[tyronD9]

@DefenceSpeech, you're parroting a popular academic cliche which was started by HEIDEGGER himself!! The truth is both SARTRE and HEIDEGGER studied phenomenology under HUSSERL and went in different directions soon after. The 'beef' between them is a fundamentally different view of human reality, not some 'misreading'.

SARTRE proclaims the triumph of freedom over 'being', while HEIDEGGER subordinates human existence to 'being'. As such, SARTRE didn't misread HEIDEGGER, he critiqued him!!!

[podfunaug30]

nice