Opinions on Sartre?

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I was just reading this paper: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
which made me want to know what Revleft thought of this incredible individual. Thoughts on Sartre?

[Susurrus]

Probably my favorite philosopher. Trying to get my hands on Being and Nothingness.

Also epic pic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Beauvoir_Sartre_-_Che_Guevara_-1960_-_Cuba.jpg

[The Jay]

Existentialism ftw!

[MarxSchmarx]

I read Nausea and got through a hefty chunk of being and nothingness.

I must say I don't see the big deal with Sartre. I mean his stuff might be interesting in an arcane academic kind of way, but whereas I think Rawls and even Heidegger, say, are mid-20th century philosophers who really force us to look at the world in a different way, in all the commentary on Sartre's writing and in what of his stuff I've read, I failed to get very inspired or particularly interested. Even Camus, whose ideas never struck me as terribly original, had a way of putting things that I found accessible and could appreciate. I could be completely alone in this, however.

[OHumanista]

Very cool though I haven't read much (and not sure I will anytime soon, too many things to read)
Dad met him and thinks he is awesome

[hatzel]

I'm one of those people who agrees with Heidegger when it comes to Sartre. What is it he said about Being and Nothingness? Something you "you expect me to read this crap?!" If he'd been writing around the turn of the century, he might have been worthwhile, but as it stands, he was a recession from Heidegger, perhaps even returning to a pre-Husserlian perspective in certain aspects, and as such adds very little to philosophy that hadn't been articulated by the earlier so-called 'existentialists.' His work has a certain value if considered in isolation, most definitely, and his status as a kind of 20th-century-Rousseau - an almost celebrity face to expose philosophy to a wider, non-philosophical audience - shouldn't be disregarded, but his writings are effectively worthless if taken in context, given the state of philosophy during the time in which he was writing. He did little but expose earlier ideas to an audience that had never thought to read them in their original forms, hidden in the writings of somewhat less public philosophers...

[o well this is ok I guess]

an almost celebrity face to expose philosophy to a wider, non-philosophical audience This is somewhat unfair.
It's hard to really discern "public faces" from serious academics among french notable french philosophers of the time.
I'm pretty sure they were all public faces, whether their work had academic merit or not.

[Queercommie Girl]

One good thing with Sartre: at least he isn't plagued by dialectical mysticism.

Dialectics is supposed to be fundamentally anti-metaphysics, but some people make dialectics itself into a kind of metaphysics. And the "dialectical implication" is that when dialectics is made into a kind of metaphysics, it becomes the worst kind of metaphysics.

[Sputnik_1]

So far I've only read Nausea and some pieces of his other works on the internet. Great thinker, maybe someone could advice me which of his books should i read next?

[El Louton]

I have a beginners guide but never really started it! Should I?

[Susurrus]

So far I've only read Nausea and some pieces of his other works on the internet. Great thinker, maybe someone could advice me which of his books should i read next?

OP's link.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

One good thing with Sartre: at least he isn't plagued by dialectical mysticism.

Dialectics is supposed to be fundamentally anti-metaphysics, but some people make dialectics itself into a kind of metaphysics. And the "dialectical implication" is that when dialectics is made into a kind of metaphysics, it becomes the worst kind of metaphysics.
Actually, I kind of knew Sartre. I was close to some of his circle, and I had some interesting interactions with Sartre himself. I'm confident he would have taken one look at the post above and told you to stop trying to use others - including himself - to do your philosophical and emotional dirty work. In Sartrean jargon, he would have pegged you as the perfect form of the "inauthentic." Own up to who you really are.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually, I kind of knew Sartre. I was close to some of his circle, and I had some interesting interactions with Sartre himself. I'm confident he would have taken one look at the post above and told you to stop trying to use others - including himself - to do your philosophical and emotional dirty work. In Sartrean jargon, he would have pegged you as the perfect form of the "inauthentic." Own up to who you really are.


Wow, are you Sartre re-incarnate or something?

I guess you fancy that you know more about me than myself right? :rolleyes:

Or perhaps in your mind all trans people are some kind of "fake"? :rolleyes:

Own up to your own implicit prejudices against trans people.

BTW, just so you know, this thread here has nothing to do with that other Freud thread. I don't even consider Freud to be a "dialectician" or whatever, and I don't completely reject Freud in an intrinsic sense either. Fact is, even many people who criticised Freud, such as second-wave feminists etc, nonetheless used some of his ideas in their own work. He was progressive in some ways relative to his time, but people need to move on with the times rather than constantly go back to "classical ideas" in an orthodox manner. At any rate, I don't see why you have to butt in here at all and make irrelevant remarks against me.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Or perhaps in your mind all trans people are some kind of "fake"? :rolleyes:

Own up to your own implicit prejudices against trans people.

You clearly don't understand what he was getting at when he called you inauthentic. He means that you rely on others to define your values and rarely look to yourself. How the hell did you get the idea that he was insulting trans people? :confused:

[Queercommie Girl]

You clearly don't understand what he was getting at when he called you inauthentic. He means that you rely on others to define your values and rarely look to yourself. How the hell did you get the idea that he was insulting trans people? :confused:


"Rely on others to define my values" - how the hell does that make any sense? Did I ever say I follow Sartre? I merely agree with him on the issue that metaphysical "dialectical reasoning" is wrong. Frankly I hate all the "dialectics explains everything" shit some people on RevLeft like to throw around. And even those who do follow Sartre ideologically aren't "relying on him to define their values" either, whatever that means.

I get quite annoyed by the fact that he feels he needs to insult me personally, even in threads that have nothing to do with whatever arguments we've had before. I've certainly not attacked him before he insulted me.

I was deliberately countering him as a response to his senseless insults against me. (Also partly following that other thread on Freud where he called cross-dressers "fucked up people who masturbate in their sister's shoes") I didn't say he was an explicit transphobe, I don't have enough information to make such an explicit accusation yet, but transphobes generally do like to refer to trans-women and trans-men as "fake women" and "fake men", that's an objective fact.

And he said: "Own up to who you really are". I don't see how that's relevant at all to the context of this thread in any way, but I've heard of transphobes using similar language. If he isn't a transphobe then he should clear the matter up, because the language is not clear.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Can we talk about Sartre again, and stop having hissy arguments?

What I like about Sartre the most is him as an individual. He practiced his philosophy and embodyed his ideas in his existence. I enjoy his ideas of freedom which, although not particularly original really (maybe expanded on to a great extent, though), can be studied merely by studying Sarte as a human being who tried to live as freely as possible. Great role model I'd say, and philosophers are rarely such things.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

What I like about Sartre the most is him as an individual.
I can vouch for that. One of the workers at my workplace referred to him as "un grand bonhomme," which translates roughly as "a great man and a great guy rolled into one."

BTW - and just to put this behind us - I hold a certain resentment against "feminists" who go around denouncing "the patriarchy" and "sexism," and then turn around and send offensive and sexually demeaning messages to me, offline. I'm sure the term "inauthentic" would apply.

Let's move on.

[RHIZOMES]

I like Sartre but I get the feeling he was a bit of a media-manufactured intellectual. There are plenty of French intellectuals around at the time who are way more theoretically interesting than Sartre was.

That being said, I respect Sartre as an activist and political spokesperson.

[Rafiq]

Own up to your own implicit prejudices against trans people.


Comrade, this, this was just uncalled for.

[RefusedPP]

Existentialism ftw!

Agreed! I think that even aside from being a Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre goes down as one of my favourite philosophers.

Existentialism is a very fundamental idea to my own happiness and I owe that to people like Sartres, and precursors such as Nietzsche. I think the paper ExUnoDisceOmnes posted is probably the first I read of his which I found insightful.

I must read some more of his works :)

[∞]

Sartre is part of the new generation of philosophers who don't regard philosophy as a science but instead a literary device.


Sartre's philosophy lent itself to his being a public intellectual. He envisaged culture as a very fluid concept; neither pre-determined, nor definitely finished; instead, in true existential fashion, "culture was always conceived as a process of continual invention and re-invention". This marks Sartre, the intellectual, as a pragmatist, willing to move and shift stance along with events. He did not dogmatically follow a cause other than the belief in human freedom, preferring to retain a pacifist's objectivity.

How can you have objectivity as existentialist? Nietzschian introspection is not based logical under-pendings and reality. It is at most, a feeling, a sentiment of someone who knows not whether or not purpose or reality is. However, instead of examining it, he decides to disregard it entirely. It hinders pragmatism and actually allows space for idealism.

[tfb]

I read Nausea and got through a hefty chunk of being and nothingness.

I must say I don't see the big deal with Sartre. I mean his stuff might be interesting in an arcane academic kind of way, but whereas I think Rawls and even Heidegger, say, are mid-20th century philosophers who really force us to look at the world in a different way, in all the commentary on Sartre's writing and in what of his stuff I've read, I failed to get very inspired or particularly interested. Even Camus, whose ideas never struck me as terribly original, had a way of putting things that I found accessible and could appreciate. I could be completely alone in this, however.

We're all completely alone in this! :crying:

[Susurrus]

However, instead of examining it, he decides to disregard it entirely. It hinders pragmatism and actually allows space for idealism.

How so?

And as for the rest of it, should we be dogmatists? Or should we critique things, and correct our beliefs and actions where we find them to be wrong?

[∞]

How so?
Because there is no basis for any of it, therefore there should be no hypothesis.


And as for the rest of it, should we be dogmatists? Or should we critique things, and correct our beliefs and actions where we find them to be wrong?


No but you can only critique if you have a basis either in reality or in a formal science of some kind (possibly mathematics) in order to formulate a hypothesis which give a real outlook on what our reality is, and ho we relate to it. Thats is objective. The existentialist outlook is post-hoc and fulfills this in a subjective fashion.

[Susurrus]

Because there is no basis for any of it, therefore there should be no hypothesis.



No but you can only critique if you have a basis either in reality or in a formal science of some kind (possibly mathematics) in order to formulate a hypothesis which give a real outlook on what our reality is, and ho we relate to it. Thats is objective. The existentialist outlook is post-hoc and fulfills this in a subjective fashion.

The existentialist critique is to say "Reality as we can rationally perceive it=reality." How is that subjective?


What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.

[∞]

The existentialist critique is to say "Reality as we can rationally perceive it=reality." How is that subjective?

Because it implies something else exists beyond a common perception of reality with no shred of evidence.

[Susurrus]

Because it implies something else exists beyond a common perception of reality with no shred of evidence.

What? How so? To me, it denies that.

[∞]

What? How so? To me, it denies that.

Explain to me how it denies that. So I can understand where you're coming from.

[Susurrus]

Explain to me how it denies that. So I can understand where you're coming from.

It denies that there is anything beyond the common perception of reality because there is not a shred of evidence for it.

Because there is no universal "man," there are simply humans as they exists. Because there is no "human nature," there is nothing of humans but what humans are.

[∞]

Interesting, so you have a sociological interpretation of it. I disagree, there is a fundamental human nature, and that is expressed in our genome. But it varies much more than what people think.

[∞]

I find this criticism acceptable.

tJ-526v0T4Q

[Susurrus]

Interesting, so you have a sociological interpretation of it. I disagree, there is a fundamental human nature, and that is expressed in our genome. But it varies much more than what people think.

Well, that kindof fits into what Sartre is saying. He is not saying that there is no genome or whatnot, but that humans are shaped by their life and their decisions into their essence, rather than being defined from the beginning.

[∞]

That makes some degree of sense. I never thought that the existential aspect of Nietzsche was supposed to relater to the state of man.

[Susurrus]

That makes some degree of sense. I never thought that the existential aspect of Nietzsche was supposed to relater to the state of man.

I advise reading Existentialism as a Humanism if you have some time. A fairly good and short intro.

http://marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

[The Insurrection]

I prefer Camus and the ideas of absurdism. I think he articulates the nature of existence better. L'Etranger is an amazing book.

[Susurrus]

I prefer Camus and the ideas of absurdism. I think he articulates the nature of existence better. L'Etranger is an amazing book.

Both are quite good.

[cb9's_unity]

I'm just beginning with Sartre and philosophy itself. However, I find existentialism to be a great compliment to my Marxism, in that it puts the actual individual far more in the forefront than any right wing 'individualist' philosophy while also affirming man's responsibility to mankind.

Marx put man's creative faculties at the center of his view of what humans are. It seems to me that that is basically a positive way of saying existence precedes essence. Man is able to change himself and the world around him because he is not bound to his instincts (his essence).

[El Louton]

Very cool though I haven't read much (and not sure I will anytime soon, too many things to read)
Dad met him and thinks he is awesome

Wow lucky guy! When and where? What was he like?

[L.A.P.]

Because it implies something else exists beyond a common perception of reality with no shred of evidence.

Actually from reading the first few pages of Being and Nothingness Sartre makes your same argument using Nietzsche to back it up.

"But if we once get away from what Nietzsche called 'the illusion of worlds-behind-the-scene,' and if we no longer believe in the being-behind-the-appearance, then the appearance becomes full positivity; its essence is an "appearing" which is no longer opposed to being but on the contrary is the measure of it."
-Jean-Paul Sartre

[Magón]

Interesting, so you have a sociological interpretation of it. I disagree, there is a fundamental human nature, and that is expressed in our genome. But it varies much more than what people think.

After reading Existentialism is a Humanism awhile back actually for a class, Sartre basically stated that if there is a Human Nature, it's not as we define it, or as society folds it to be for society. There are so many variables and ways Humans can be Humans, that calling specific actions "Human Nature" is inevitably going to lead to some problems because what some see as such, some others might not, so the circle goes and Human Nature can never truly be defined as certain actions/reactions to events, etc. will always be different to each varying person.

Though many people in society fold to social norms, and thus react as society wants them to, many people do (on the inside) react differently than they would show on the outside.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I find this criticism acceptable.
that fucking voice

[OhYesIdid]

"Existentialism is a Humanism" changed my life. I entirely agree with it being a compliment to Marxism, but I'm always curious to learn more, so I ask of you: in what way is it a step back from Heiddeger? I don't know much about Heiddeger, but I'm pretty sure Husserl was the father of phenomenological nonsense, so talking about a Husserlian perspective as something positive seems counter intuitive.
at least, that's how I see it anyway.