Sartre 3 of 7

[CocteauDalighari]

Altho he was an atheist, in his Critique of Dialectical Reason (Vol.I) he wrote as an aside that being baptized was better than never being baptized, because you grow up a member of a church, which, for Sartre, was a special form of groupness. He was really alluding to his own upbringing, which was in the Roman Catholic Church.

[MrEnver2]

With God you are free,,without God you are a slave..

But not everybody understands the deeper meaning of what I say.!

[ThePentagonHQ]

"He owned nothing."

[septip123]

@ThePentagonHQ Unheard of in America, where most are measured by the length, size and color of their beloved SUV!

pathetic

[ThoughtCriminal912]

Agreed you are not free if god exists especially the jewish ,christian or islamic god.

[ddavidpf]

No se puede morir en nombre de nadie, hermano ...la muerte es algo personal y solo los que quedan vivos pueden imaginarse semejante fantasía como es la de creer que otro se muere en nombre de algo o de alguien.

[FantasmaEspectral]

a nombre de quien murieron los que iban en ese camion........................­........la estupidez humana es lo unico que no tiene limites ademas del universo

[kiasmus]

Where's part four?

[Ledvolta]

As a Christian, his ideas don't offend me at all. It's merely different.

[lourak]

Sartre's arbitrary "leap" into social activism, was an act of the utmost "bad-faith" (his terminology), in that he abandoned the essential core elements of his philosophy of existence. To pretend that anything other than a thorough-going nihilism can be derived from a philosophy that posits: "existence precedes essence" - with the attendant stripping away of all objective or metaphysical meaning and value in both the moral and pragmatic spheres of human life, is the ultimate hypocrisy.

[alexstan23]

Well he tried later on in his Dialectic. Ultimately incompatible with Being and Nothingness, yes, but no harm in attempting the leap. After all, we all share at least our position ("facticity"), so a "thorough-going nihilism" seems unduly pessimistic.

[alexstan23]

Universal needs call for universal values/rememdies, e.g scarcity

[plaussible]

I don't think you can say he's a hypocrit derived from his philosophy, He was simply exercising his freedom

[Jadabh3]

Even though he believed that? His free will his passion. You don't get it

[bongolongo]

@lourak The collective recognition that all values are subjective and all beliefs are personal choice, is the only path of hope towards a world without war between ideologies.

War between religions is no different than children arguing which is better: vanilla or chocolate icecream.

Ironically, fighting for high idealism is the most pointless of all pointlessness.

[fastcharles]

no meaning doesn't mean no morals. some people prefer to come to an understanding about the world through their own means instead of being fed some ridiculous, unfounded mythology to base how they live their lives.

[cvjucla3]

Exactly. Sarte seems to have it right. With a god, you are not really free. With no god, you are free. The theist can't quite comprehend that you can create your own moral compass without having to submit to a so-called "moral" god to do so.

[sallyjessyraphael]

religion as a moral hook means existentialists are held to a a higher morality than that of the theists. Beauvoir tried to set up a cohesion on morality and freedom in "The Ethics of Ambiguity". In short, one must integrate others freedom into their own life project as it were. The only pinch-point problem in this is that it must be universally willed, thus extinguishing liberty if prescribed. So, no meaning actually does allow us "no morals"; if not, where did morals come from?

[littlemas2]

Sarte

Yes, he was free to be nothing. Go ahead create your own meaning, and you will be just as free as the animals.

No God, no meaning, no purpose. No point to life. Yes atheists are really strong, only who cares since it is all pointless anyway. Kill yourself, kill others, hurt others, don't hurt others, so what?

[FaizRLZ17]

oh man...stfu...

[Antichrist4Life]

Theists (I don't want to say all, but I'm tempted) are such weaklings.

[applestar132]

unthinking is not the same as weak, even if it can lead to weakness... and not all are unthinking, but chose to ignore certain details of their respective theism that would give obvious reasons to escape it. By ignore I mean place "God works in mysterious ways" OR "I don't know, that's why he's god and I'm not", yes I call that ignore - ance, not necessarily weak though

[Antichrist4Life]

When I said weaklings, I didn't just mean their trembling in the face of reason, rationality and commonsense as if they are frightfully horrid, sinful things (Luther waged war on reason, for example, and said many things against it like calling it "the cleaver whore"). I also meant the inability to get through life or even a day without an imaginary friend.

Sheep. What do you expect from people who call themselves a flock; though that's only Christian theists.

[applestar132]

I still thing that definition of weak comes from a lack of thinking / "everydayness" so to speak ;)

[Antichrist4Life]

Furthermore it is very weak the way fundamentalists attack strong-minded men like Sartre for being able to think outside the theistic box. Their impoverished egos feel superior by calling them degenerate and immoral, not realizing, b/c of their base minds, that they are saying that without a holy book they themselves would be immoral! It's quite risible, actually. They resent anyone who has accepted something very offensive and scarey to them - that they are going to cease to exist one day.

[applestar132]

I'd rather have morals obligatory to humanity than to the idea of a higher power... I'd posted a reply to littlemas2 below, it was eaten, and I didn't feel up to having the same old fight, you and I are on the same page here. Theistic attacks on Sartre irritate me to no end!

[cvjucla3]

Nice exchange.

[cvjucla3]

Excellent.