What differentiates Jean Paul Sartre from other philo writers in terms of views he holds?

He was an atheistic existentialist who did not believe that life had any inherent meaning. He felt that life was absurd. He wrote about the suffering and type of life that one lives when one realizes that life has no real meaning and is absurd. Other philosophic writers like Voltaire or Rousseau had some purpose to their lives and writings. Sartre embraced purposelessness.|||That's what differentiates him from those who thought life isn't meaningless, however, the answer fails to explain what makes him different from other existentialist philosophers, who thought the same?

Report Abuse

|||Who wrote the age of reason? I think the title of the book gives the answer.I think from some of the other answers by people - it must have been very difficult to choose a best answer to this question - congtatulate all Cheers from Deepak

Report Abuse

|||He is an existentialist, which separates him from most other philosophers... And he was clever, if not downright comedic at times. But he was not the first or only writer to be so. This question will depend upon which Philosophers you are comparing him to.|||Dude, are you serious ? Do you really think that most people on Yahoo Answer are intelligent enough to answer your question ? I took me 5 minutes to understand it..!!|||Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (June 21, 1905 鈥?April 15, 1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, dramatist, novelist and critic. Sartre also adapted The Crucible for the 1957 film Les Sorci猫res de Salem.


For more about Jean-Paul Sartre, see the link


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_S鈥?/a>|||Jean Paul Sartre is a proponent of Existentialism, less popular today than it once was. Whereas many philosophers (cf Kant's Categorical Imperative) stress interaction with others in a responsible manner, many thinkers today view Existentialism as rather shallow and self-centered with its views on the Nausea of living and the inescapability of angst. Rejecting conventional religious strictures and propounding an ethical view of responsibility for the world that is great-sounding but unlikely to be achieved by many, itt was happily accepted by many youths in the 60's and was often a part of the hippie culture. It is still a matter of debate in liberal circles.|||Well, yeah-he was an existentialist, but the question was what separated his views. What made Sartre popular, (which is at least as important in philosophy as the strength of the idea itself) was his lifelong direct challenge of conventionality and conformity. He was not a negativist, nor a proponent of any "hopeless" ideology-though it's true he did not believe in an inherent "meaning" external to arbitrary human decision. The importance of Sartre was his sometimes humorous, and sometimes almost bitter, philosophical attacks on the underlying assumptions that made up the social code of the day. This happened to be at a critical juncture in history, with the "youth movement" both in the US and in France. He then became one of the philosophical pillars supporting the great social changes, including feminism, that were to occur, and was a darling of the hippies-such as Ginsburg.