he wants to grow and flourish as a tree does independently but in the sense that the trees roots are deeply planted, giving stablity|||A tree does not invite the birds although they perch upon him, nor does the tree miss the birds after they have flown away.|||Some people think a tree is free, because it gets the wind and the sun,
but, it's roots are planted in the ground. %26lt;}:-})|||He wants to be just himself, without adornment, without pretense, without an imaginary picture of himself.|||Translation: this is some kick-butt weed.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Who would win in an arm wrestle? Jean Paul Sartre or Simone De Beauvoir?
Jean Paul Sartre would win but he'd be haunted by the look from Simone De Beauvoir and the fear that she had been complicit in his victory and had let him win.|||The winner would be the one who chose to win, and the loser ... well, they asked for it!|||jean paul. he has the same first name as jean reno, and everybody knows what a tough guy he is! jean is french for john, which of course is john wayne's first name. john is a great tough-guy name - everybody knows that.
:)|||fat bottom arkroyed.|||Simone, she'd catch Jean-Paul off guard for sure.|||sartre- he was a dom|||Neither, as I believe they are both dead. What would win in a celestial arm wrestle is their sparkling Existentialism. Sent with an eclectic smile from Chris in South Portland, Maine, U.S.A. (I am 63 years old and had a couple of books to read by Sartre in prep school which I enjoyed immensely. One was "No Exit." Please have a good evening, now.)|||They are both non-existent/dead, so they cannot arm wrestle.
I assume they are both experiencing the hell that is other people in the afterlife.|||Simone de Beauvoir could whip Jean Paul Sartre any day of the week.|||well that's easy......Simone De Beauvoir.|||Simone - that was one tough femme.|||obviously jean paul sartre because hes the man|||Fatty Arbuckle|||Neither they would be friends.|||I believe that did arm-wrestle once. Even though neither saw the point in it. In a feat of intellectual serendipity, de Beauvoir realised that it would be absurd to prove her essence by the mere existence of her strength. Therefore, while Sartre was bulging his biceps, she swiftly exchanged existential identity with Nietzsche, who mauled Sartre, threw a table on him and walked away with de Beauvoir on his arm.|||pourquoi veux-tu qu'ils se battent ? ils 茅taient amis !!!|||Tricky question- If Simon de Beauvior won it wouldn't matter because John Paul Sartre would have THOUGHT that he'd won.
Does that make it a draw?
:)|||fat bottom arkroyed.|||Simone, she'd catch Jean-Paul off guard for sure.|||sartre- he was a dom|||Neither, as I believe they are both dead. What would win in a celestial arm wrestle is their sparkling Existentialism. Sent with an eclectic smile from Chris in South Portland, Maine, U.S.A. (I am 63 years old and had a couple of books to read by Sartre in prep school which I enjoyed immensely. One was "No Exit." Please have a good evening, now.)|||They are both non-existent/dead, so they cannot arm wrestle.
I assume they are both experiencing the hell that is other people in the afterlife.|||Simone de Beauvoir could whip Jean Paul Sartre any day of the week.|||well that's easy......Simone De Beauvoir.|||Simone - that was one tough femme.|||obviously jean paul sartre because hes the man|||Fatty Arbuckle|||Neither they would be friends.|||I believe that did arm-wrestle once. Even though neither saw the point in it. In a feat of intellectual serendipity, de Beauvoir realised that it would be absurd to prove her essence by the mere existence of her strength. Therefore, while Sartre was bulging his biceps, she swiftly exchanged existential identity with Nietzsche, who mauled Sartre, threw a table on him and walked away with de Beauvoir on his arm.|||pourquoi veux-tu qu'ils se battent ? ils 茅taient amis !!!|||Tricky question- If Simon de Beauvior won it wouldn't matter because John Paul Sartre would have THOUGHT that he'd won.
Does that make it a draw?
Jean paul sartre and art?
what was sartre's philosophical view on art? it was different from plato's right? so do you think i can write a comparative essay about that..? hhe|||I would go with his analysis of objects . . . art would be likely considered another object of consciousness, no different from any other. In Nausea, he makes a point of showing how external objects have a way of impressing themselves in a consciousness and I am assuming he would regard art in a like manner. it may be useful to contrast this with Heidegger's views of art and authentic vs. inauthentic ("nausea" as Sartre has it) existence.
Is jean paul sartre a comoniste or not?
No, he was an existentialist.|||Saeed:
It is possible to be both an existentialist and a communist. In Sartre's case, although he had no particular affinity for the French Communist party and never officially joined it, he was a political activist who embraced the principles of communism (specifically Marxism).
It is possible to be both an existentialist and a communist. In Sartre's case, although he had no particular affinity for the French Communist party and never officially joined it, he was a political activist who embraced the principles of communism (specifically Marxism).
What was the philosophy of jean paul sartre?
Sartre's philosophy is concerned entirely with the nature of human life, and the structures of consciousness. As a result it gains expression in his novels and plays as well as in more orthodox academic treatises. Its immediate ancestor is the phenomenological tradition of his teachers, and Sartre can most simply be seen as concerned to rebut the charge of idealism as it is laid at the door of phenomenology. The agent is not a spectator of the world, but, like everything in the world, constituted by acts of intentionality and consciousness. The self thus constituted is historically situated, but as an agent whose own mode of locating itself in the world makes for responsibility and emotion. Responsibility is, however, a burden that we frequently cannot bear, and bad faith arises when we deny our own authorship of our actions, seeing them instead as forced responses to situations not of our own making. Sartre thus locates the essential nature of human existence in the capacity for choice, although choice, being equally incompatible with determinism and with the existence of a Kantian moral law, implies a synthesis of consciousness (being for-itself) and the objective (being in-itself) that is forever unstable. The unstable and constantly disintegrating nature of free will generates anguish. Sartre's 鈥榦ntological鈥?works, including L鈥櫭妕re et le n茅ant, attempt to work out the implications of his views for the nature of consciousness and judgement. For Sartre our capacity to make negative judgements is one of the fundamental puzzles of consciousness. Like Heidegger he took the 鈥榦ntological鈥?approach of relating this to the nature of non-being, a move that decisively differentiates him from the Anglo-American tradition of modern logic (see being, nothing, quantifier, variable). Sartre's work on other minds illustrates by contrast a strength of the psychological approach, as he explores in detail such experiences as being in the gaze of another person, and connects them with the choices that then result. Sartre's work is notoriously difficult, but emotionally there is no question that he spoke powerfully to the sombre post-war years, when questions of responsibility and its denial held centre-stage in the political life of France.
http://www.answers.com/topic/jean-paul-s鈥?/a>|||Existentialism. Read the play No Exit.|||Try the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
He was an existentialist, one of the first along with Soren Kierkegaard (sp). Believed that people have the freedom to make their own choices, did not believe in fate, viewed that as an excuse.
http://www.answers.com/topic/jean-paul-s鈥?/a>|||Existentialism. Read the play No Exit.|||Try the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
He was an existentialist, one of the first along with Soren Kierkegaard (sp). Believed that people have the freedom to make their own choices, did not believe in fate, viewed that as an excuse.
Is George W Bush an existentialist? Like Jean Paul Sartre there is no exit.?
JP Sartre was an atheistic existenialist, GW tries to connect all his actions to made-up communications with God, so Bush can't possibly be in the same school of though as Sartre or existentialists.
How do you pronounce Jean Paul Sartre's name? Specifically the Sartre part...?
thanks!|||Zhan Paul Sartruh with just the slightest ruh. It almost sounds like Sart, but the ruh sound is barely there.|||Jean: Sounds like John.
Paul : Paul
Sartre: pronounce Sartre like this "SART" as in the word "art" with a "s"|||Sar-tur|||"sart- ruff" minus the "uff"|||Timberwolf has it right, except of course there's a theory that the French and their progeny in Qubec have an extra organ in their airway to allow them to pronounce those R sounds that have no equivalent in the rest of the world.|||the first part, jean, is kind of like a shh souns, but more of a buzzing, so you'd say it with the sound like john, then paul, then you'd say Sat with a little bit of a roll between the a and t, and then you roll the r at the end. it's really difficult to explain, but i'm in french and I'm good with pronouncing things.|||Jean ... sort of like John only the "J" is soft, almost like a "Z". Paul is just Paul and the Satre. Sort of like "sat" only with a slight gurgle sound at the end. Geez, I never realized how difficult it was to describe in words only how to pronounce something.|||http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_S鈥?/a>
Paul : Paul
Sartre: pronounce Sartre like this "SART" as in the word "art" with a "s"|||Sar-tur|||"sart- ruff" minus the "uff"|||Timberwolf has it right, except of course there's a theory that the French and their progeny in Qubec have an extra organ in their airway to allow them to pronounce those R sounds that have no equivalent in the rest of the world.|||the first part, jean, is kind of like a shh souns, but more of a buzzing, so you'd say it with the sound like john, then paul, then you'd say Sat with a little bit of a roll between the a and t, and then you roll the r at the end. it's really difficult to explain, but i'm in french and I'm good with pronouncing things.|||Jean ... sort of like John only the "J" is soft, almost like a "Z". Paul is just Paul and the Satre. Sort of like "sat" only with a slight gurgle sound at the end. Geez, I never realized how difficult it was to describe in words only how to pronounce something.|||http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Paul_S鈥?/a>
Please give the meaning of this quote by Jean Paul Sartre?
"Man (and woman) is nothing else than what s/he makes of him/herself." (Ultimately, you are not what you believe about yourself, or even think yourself to be or even what others think of you; but you are what you do, or don't do.|||Interestingly enough, we discussed Sartre in class today.
When he said,
"I am not what I am. I am what I am not."
He was talking partially about humans in time.
1. What we are is not fixed by what we were yesterday or ten years ago. We are as much what we plan to be, as what we were.
2. You are not wholly defined by any particular thing. For example; a gambler, a waiter, a secretary. Defining yourself as (pick one) a gambler, puts you in the category of a thing. Sartre maintained that people are the opposite of things.
Furthermore, he claimed that only the individual can decide what is important to him/her.
Making that decision... choosing... (big thought and lots of air in my brain ;) )
To choose is to affirm. Your action determines what matters to you, not your speeches.
Good luck and enjoy!|||These philosophies are well known:
To be is to do -- Plato
To do is to be -- Sartre
Do be do be do -- Sinatra
Do be a do bee, don't be a don't be -- Romper Room.
At the heart of existentialism is that only we are capable of making meaning of our own lives -- and we do it by doing.|||I think you answered your question - everyone starts as a blank slate and is defined by their acts and/or omissions.|||John Paul Sarte was an existentialist. He's simply saying that one is only what one makes of one's self. In other words, you weren't born or destined to be a specific something. You are what you make yourself.
When he said,
"I am not what I am. I am what I am not."
He was talking partially about humans in time.
1. What we are is not fixed by what we were yesterday or ten years ago. We are as much what we plan to be, as what we were.
2. You are not wholly defined by any particular thing. For example; a gambler, a waiter, a secretary. Defining yourself as (pick one) a gambler, puts you in the category of a thing. Sartre maintained that people are the opposite of things.
Furthermore, he claimed that only the individual can decide what is important to him/her.
Making that decision... choosing... (big thought and lots of air in my brain ;) )
To choose is to affirm. Your action determines what matters to you, not your speeches.
Good luck and enjoy!|||These philosophies are well known:
To be is to do -- Plato
To do is to be -- Sartre
Do be do be do -- Sinatra
Do be a do bee, don't be a don't be -- Romper Room.
At the heart of existentialism is that only we are capable of making meaning of our own lives -- and we do it by doing.|||I think you answered your question - everyone starts as a blank slate and is defined by their acts and/or omissions.|||John Paul Sarte was an existentialist. He's simply saying that one is only what one makes of one's self. In other words, you weren't born or destined to be a specific something. You are what you make yourself.
What do you think Jean-Paul Sartre was trying to express when he wrote:?
"So I got up and strolled over
To the other side of the cantina
I asked the guy, "why you so fly?"
He said "funky cold medina"."|||I think he meant he was a pitiful drunk that could rhyme.|||haha thats a song!|||I haven't heard that in a long time;)
No clue what he is talking about though~LOL
To the other side of the cantina
I asked the guy, "why you so fly?"
He said "funky cold medina"."|||I think he meant he was a pitiful drunk that could rhyme.|||haha thats a song!|||I haven't heard that in a long time;)
No clue what he is talking about though~LOL
French translation from "Huis Clos" by Jean-Paul Sartre?
Please can someone translate for me
"Les pals, les grils, les entonnoirs de cuir"
which Garcin says right at the beginning of the play. Please don't use an online translator, I've tried those, but typically the results can't be trusted. If the translation for 'les entonnoirs de cuir' is actually 'leather funnels' can you also please explain what that is (in english) and how would it be used for torture?
thanks|||'les pals' are the big stakes made of wood that are driven through the body during the 'impalement', causing deep stabbing wounds.
( impalement: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co… )
'les grils' are, well.. grills, where you burn the victim.
and 'les entonnoirs de cuir' are indeed leather funnels. They're used in 'water torture' (a.k.a water cure) , where you force water down somebody's throat to make them feel like they are drowning. (the funnel is placed in the mouth of the victim and a liquid is poured directly into the throat and at the back of the throat. The stomach expands so rapidly that it causes an excruciating pain.
( water cure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_… )|||the "leather funnels" were used to torture people, same as the weels ("pals") and the grills ("grils") at the Middle Age period.
funnels were used to poor water and other liquids into people stomac (and lumb)
weels to break their joints
grills to burn them
"Les pals, les grils, les entonnoirs de cuir"
which Garcin says right at the beginning of the play. Please don't use an online translator, I've tried those, but typically the results can't be trusted. If the translation for 'les entonnoirs de cuir' is actually 'leather funnels' can you also please explain what that is (in english) and how would it be used for torture?
thanks|||'les pals' are the big stakes made of wood that are driven through the body during the 'impalement', causing deep stabbing wounds.
( impalement: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co… )
'les grils' are, well.. grills, where you burn the victim.
and 'les entonnoirs de cuir' are indeed leather funnels. They're used in 'water torture' (a.k.a water cure) , where you force water down somebody's throat to make them feel like they are drowning. (the funnel is placed in the mouth of the victim and a liquid is poured directly into the throat and at the back of the throat. The stomach expands so rapidly that it causes an excruciating pain.
( water cure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_… )|||the "leather funnels" were used to torture people, same as the weels ("pals") and the grills ("grils") at the Middle Age period.
funnels were used to poor water and other liquids into people stomac (and lumb)
weels to break their joints
grills to burn them
What do you think about Jean-Paul Sartre ?
Jean-Paul Sartre is in no small way responsible for getting the world to give a long hard look at existentialism, and for that he deserves quite a bit of credit.
Existentialism's mantra, that existence precedes essence, is one that I firmly accept. We create the purposes of our own existence. Life does not have a purpose in and of itself. I'm not sure I would have adopted this view without Sartre.
Sartre is one of the great minds of the 20th century, and I am grateful that I've had the opportunity to read some of his work.|||A very smart man.|||I think the name strikes a positive note. Anyone that speaks truth does that to me. Did he say "the heart has its reasons which reason knows not of"? If so, maybe that's why I like him.|||Good academic search results on Sartre:
http://www.sweetsearch.com/search.html?q鈥?/a>
and interesting biography on him from nobel prize web site:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/liter鈥?/a>
Existentialism's mantra, that existence precedes essence, is one that I firmly accept. We create the purposes of our own existence. Life does not have a purpose in and of itself. I'm not sure I would have adopted this view without Sartre.
Sartre is one of the great minds of the 20th century, and I am grateful that I've had the opportunity to read some of his work.|||A very smart man.|||I think the name strikes a positive note. Anyone that speaks truth does that to me. Did he say "the heart has its reasons which reason knows not of"? If so, maybe that's why I like him.|||Good academic search results on Sartre:
http://www.sweetsearch.com/search.html?q鈥?/a>
and interesting biography on him from nobel prize web site:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/liter鈥?/a>
Jean Paul Sartre question?
Sartre explains that, because of our condition, we are beholden to anguish, forlomess, and despair. Explain what Sartre means.
Im trying to understand this for my final exam. Please help.|||Oh I had my existentialism exam in this last Friday so it's fresh in my mind.
Okay, so Sartre believes we live in a God-less world, and we also lack any predetermined human nature. Any coherence we get from our lives comes directly from ourselves as man paints his own portrait in life and has no one to blame but himself. Or as Sartre himself says 'Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself'. We literally cannot place the blame at anyone else's door for how our lives turn out.
This very fact is pretty terrifying for people and is overwhelming and it can lead to feelings of aloneness and abandonment. When we have such feelings we feel anguish - this comes from realizing the full weight of our responsibilities and the consequences that arise from our choices. Despair comes from that fact that we (as agents of free choice) are open to chance - things that may affect our choices etc. Once we embrace this possibility of chance it lead to feelings of hopelessness and ultimately despair.
Now pair these two together and you get bad faith. Bad faith is any form of self-deception that leads to the denial of human freedom and responsibility. People live in bad faith in order to escape the above feelings and to deny their freedom and responsibility. A good example of this is someone who believes in God. This person will say that ultimately God controls what they do, their choices and their lives. But Sartre says this is the very essence of bad faith, as the person is denying their responsibility and is putting their choices into the hands of a higher power - even though God doesn't exist! Things that people subscribe to like religion, science or social standings are good example of bad faith as people are here denying their facticity or transcendence.
Facticity are the qualities experienced by the third party, ie, height, skin colour, weight, job role - but these things cannot define you as a person. Transcendence is the inner relationship we have to the world and can only be experienced by the individual, it's highly subjective. Bad faith comes from denying one or both of these things. Look up Sartre's 'woman seduced' or 'waiter' example for bad faith. The woman is identifying solely in her transcendence and is denying any facticity, but the waiter is denying his transcendence and identifying with his facticity.
Phew...I hope this helps a little bit. Email me if you need more, I got tons of this stuff!|||Sartre’s bad faith is a term used to describe an individual who denies their general state of existence as a being who can transcend his or her own facticity. Bad faith comes from a natural need to lie to ourselves in order to regulate our impulses however it only comes to be fully developed when we begin to believe in this lie.This self-deception does not run into the problems faced by Freud when he tries to explain how the conscious interacts with the unconscious parts. For example when I say “I am not a murderer so I will not do it” it is alright to believe in this reasoning but it is a mistake to buy into it any more than as a regulatory process rather than some hidden drive.
We are induced into bad faith commonly during what Sartre calls “the look” which is when we perceive ourselves as though through others eyes as our own "facticity". Once we begin to define ourselves by what we are in any absolute way we are denying an even more basic definition of ourselves that humans are always free to choose (or free to transcend this facticity). However this freedom is not the remedy for bad faith. transcendence can run in to problems as well when we place too much emphasis on our ability of transcendence. For instance if I admit that I have in the past always acted cowardly but I have the opportunity to change this fact tomorrow I am in bad faith because I am denying a basic understanding of myself. Only by knowing what you are can you begin to change yourself.
In the end Sartre wants people to recognize themselves as brave when they are brave but not to hold too strongly to this definition because you are never more courageous than you are cowardly at the moment of decision. Sartre concludes a balance must be sought between our transcendence and our facticity. Bad faith is a dis harmony between facticity and transcendence.
Although Sartre argues that man can find a balance it seems we are always either in a state of transcendence's bad faith or facticity's bad faith.....swaying between the two never finding that sweet spot.
Im trying to understand this for my final exam. Please help.|||Oh I had my existentialism exam in this last Friday so it's fresh in my mind.
Okay, so Sartre believes we live in a God-less world, and we also lack any predetermined human nature. Any coherence we get from our lives comes directly from ourselves as man paints his own portrait in life and has no one to blame but himself. Or as Sartre himself says 'Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself'. We literally cannot place the blame at anyone else's door for how our lives turn out.
This very fact is pretty terrifying for people and is overwhelming and it can lead to feelings of aloneness and abandonment. When we have such feelings we feel anguish - this comes from realizing the full weight of our responsibilities and the consequences that arise from our choices. Despair comes from that fact that we (as agents of free choice) are open to chance - things that may affect our choices etc. Once we embrace this possibility of chance it lead to feelings of hopelessness and ultimately despair.
Now pair these two together and you get bad faith. Bad faith is any form of self-deception that leads to the denial of human freedom and responsibility. People live in bad faith in order to escape the above feelings and to deny their freedom and responsibility. A good example of this is someone who believes in God. This person will say that ultimately God controls what they do, their choices and their lives. But Sartre says this is the very essence of bad faith, as the person is denying their responsibility and is putting their choices into the hands of a higher power - even though God doesn't exist! Things that people subscribe to like religion, science or social standings are good example of bad faith as people are here denying their facticity or transcendence.
Facticity are the qualities experienced by the third party, ie, height, skin colour, weight, job role - but these things cannot define you as a person. Transcendence is the inner relationship we have to the world and can only be experienced by the individual, it's highly subjective. Bad faith comes from denying one or both of these things. Look up Sartre's 'woman seduced' or 'waiter' example for bad faith. The woman is identifying solely in her transcendence and is denying any facticity, but the waiter is denying his transcendence and identifying with his facticity.
Phew...I hope this helps a little bit. Email me if you need more, I got tons of this stuff!|||Sartre’s bad faith is a term used to describe an individual who denies their general state of existence as a being who can transcend his or her own facticity. Bad faith comes from a natural need to lie to ourselves in order to regulate our impulses however it only comes to be fully developed when we begin to believe in this lie.This self-deception does not run into the problems faced by Freud when he tries to explain how the conscious interacts with the unconscious parts. For example when I say “I am not a murderer so I will not do it” it is alright to believe in this reasoning but it is a mistake to buy into it any more than as a regulatory process rather than some hidden drive.
We are induced into bad faith commonly during what Sartre calls “the look” which is when we perceive ourselves as though through others eyes as our own "facticity". Once we begin to define ourselves by what we are in any absolute way we are denying an even more basic definition of ourselves that humans are always free to choose (or free to transcend this facticity). However this freedom is not the remedy for bad faith. transcendence can run in to problems as well when we place too much emphasis on our ability of transcendence. For instance if I admit that I have in the past always acted cowardly but I have the opportunity to change this fact tomorrow I am in bad faith because I am denying a basic understanding of myself. Only by knowing what you are can you begin to change yourself.
In the end Sartre wants people to recognize themselves as brave when they are brave but not to hold too strongly to this definition because you are never more courageous than you are cowardly at the moment of decision. Sartre concludes a balance must be sought between our transcendence and our facticity. Bad faith is a dis harmony between facticity and transcendence.
Although Sartre argues that man can find a balance it seems we are always either in a state of transcendence's bad faith or facticity's bad faith.....swaying between the two never finding that sweet spot.
Has anyone read The Age of Reason by Jean-Paul Sartre?
What did you think?|||That sometimes the pursue of freedom as the ultimate goal of one existence might lead to one enslavement to it. Which, at the end defeats the whole purpose of being free.
I also learned that being bohemian is harder than what I imagined it to be!
I also learned that being bohemian is harder than what I imagined it to be!
A question about no exit by jean-paul sartre?
so for my english project, i had to choose a play to read, and i thought that no exit sounded like an interesting play. one of the things we have to write about is what TYPES of actors should play the characters (valet, garcin, estelle, inez) and WHY they should. if you could help me with this then that would be a lot of help. thanks.|||No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre
Study Guide:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/noexit/
http://www.shmoop.com/intro/literature/j鈥?/a>
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/monk鈥?/a>
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE: Chronology
http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sart鈥?/a>
Study Guide:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/noexit/
http://www.shmoop.com/intro/literature/j鈥?/a>
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/monk鈥?/a>
JEAN-PAUL SARTRE: Chronology
http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/sart鈥?/a>
Jean-paul Sartre wrote about duplicity, "leech-like", and "slimy". Would bogus personnel on Collins project?
have possessed these attributes, so that, uncannily, Sartre was describing the future ? (Sartre died in 1980, before Collins project had really started).|||I would say you are more than likely right on the money :)
Were Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre's lives mostly similar?
No. Sartre was born in Paris and his father died immediately after his birth. He and his mother moved into his grandparents house in Paris and where, for the first 10 years of his life he lived a bourgeois lifestyle. His mother remarried a man (whom Sartre detested) and they moved to Southern France. They were not particularly poor but the neighborhood was rougher than what Sartre was used to. Given his grandparents wealth Sartre was able to go to fine schools in Paris without holding a job (except the occasional tutoring).
Camus on the other hand was born in Algeria to a poor agricultural family. His father died when he was young. Camus went to University in Algeria on the good will of a teacher who recognized his talents (Camus later dedicated a book to this teacher). Camus got sick (TB I think) and was unable to pursue his studies as seriously as when he started.
Before the war Sartre was uninterested in politics believing that they did not capture the flesh of man. His life-mate, Simone de Beauvoir, agreed. It wasn't until the war that Sartre (escaping from a prison camp on the basis of a disability) became active in the resistance and politics.
Camus joined the communist party before the war. He was an anti-colonialist and though his relationship with the commies was never a comfortable one, he remained politically active his whole life.
Another difference that Sartre made more of a big deal about than Camus. Sartre was ugly. Camus was handsome. Sartre, as a young man, had difficulty seducing women, as a result he turned to words and thoughts as tools of seduction.
There are some similarities (outside of the early death of a father). Camus and Sartre both disregarded marriage as bad faith and as unnatural. Camus was married twice, Sartre was never married but continued a lifelong relationship with Simone de Beauvoir. They both were communist leaning, but never truly "fit in" with the party forming part of the spectrum of the "New Left" or the "third way". However, given their different backgrounds, it is no wonder that they had a falling out. Furthermore it makes sense that this was a public exchange of letters, that is how they met. Sartre read the Stranger and wrote a glowing review, Camus read The Wall and wrote a glowing review (he said that Sartre was someone to keep an eye on as he was creating something new on the literary scene).
Cheers!|||Sartre and Camus were both French thinkers who lived through the second World War and their respective philosophical positions were a direct response to it. Both were existentialist thinkers in that each claimed we have to create our own paths in the world. Both were atheist and rejected organized religion.
I don't know enough about their actual lives to know whether they lived similar lives. Actually, I don't really know what you mean by your question. In any case, they shared many similar experiences and were philosophical allies, even if they weren't really friends. Sartre was a hard guy to be friends with. Besides, why befriend someone who thinks that "Hell is the other person"?
Cheers.
Camus on the other hand was born in Algeria to a poor agricultural family. His father died when he was young. Camus went to University in Algeria on the good will of a teacher who recognized his talents (Camus later dedicated a book to this teacher). Camus got sick (TB I think) and was unable to pursue his studies as seriously as when he started.
Before the war Sartre was uninterested in politics believing that they did not capture the flesh of man. His life-mate, Simone de Beauvoir, agreed. It wasn't until the war that Sartre (escaping from a prison camp on the basis of a disability) became active in the resistance and politics.
Camus joined the communist party before the war. He was an anti-colonialist and though his relationship with the commies was never a comfortable one, he remained politically active his whole life.
Another difference that Sartre made more of a big deal about than Camus. Sartre was ugly. Camus was handsome. Sartre, as a young man, had difficulty seducing women, as a result he turned to words and thoughts as tools of seduction.
There are some similarities (outside of the early death of a father). Camus and Sartre both disregarded marriage as bad faith and as unnatural. Camus was married twice, Sartre was never married but continued a lifelong relationship with Simone de Beauvoir. They both were communist leaning, but never truly "fit in" with the party forming part of the spectrum of the "New Left" or the "third way". However, given their different backgrounds, it is no wonder that they had a falling out. Furthermore it makes sense that this was a public exchange of letters, that is how they met. Sartre read the Stranger and wrote a glowing review, Camus read The Wall and wrote a glowing review (he said that Sartre was someone to keep an eye on as he was creating something new on the literary scene).
Cheers!|||Sartre and Camus were both French thinkers who lived through the second World War and their respective philosophical positions were a direct response to it. Both were existentialist thinkers in that each claimed we have to create our own paths in the world. Both were atheist and rejected organized religion.
I don't know enough about their actual lives to know whether they lived similar lives. Actually, I don't really know what you mean by your question. In any case, they shared many similar experiences and were philosophical allies, even if they weren't really friends. Sartre was a hard guy to be friends with. Besides, why befriend someone who thinks that "Hell is the other person"?
Cheers.
What does jean paul sartre mean by "mauvaise foi" or bad faith?
Attempting to deny your own freedom as a way to avoid the feelings of angst and responsibility that come with making your own choices.
If someone is faced with an unpleasant choice, then in order to avoid the unpleasant emotions that come with acknowledging that you and only you are responsible for that choice, they will try to blame their circumstances and claim that they had no choice.|||Or also just being sheepish and going with the crowd.
If someone is faced with an unpleasant choice, then in order to avoid the unpleasant emotions that come with acknowledging that you and only you are responsible for that choice, they will try to blame their circumstances and claim that they had no choice.|||Or also just being sheepish and going with the crowd.
Jean-Paul Sartre, John Paul Jones, Paula Abdul, or Les Paul?
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar|||John-Les Paula Jones...as you know he was the original designer, fabricator and engineer of one of the most important inventions of the 20th and 21st Century...of course i am speaking of the 'SHAMWOW" towel!!!!..
were u aware it absorbs over 284% of its natural body weight, and can consume nearly 5000 calories a day??
.|||Paul Newman and Paul Simon|||Peter Paula Murray|||Wtf is up with all the Pope humping up in here?? Honestly I expect better from y'all!|||Paula Abdul
Straight up, I like crazy people.|||Paul the Other One.|||As a Naval Officer myself, I'll pick John Paul Jones !!|||Jean Paul Gaultier!|||You forgot RuPaul. Leaving him out would be a real drag. He is the reigning queen of all the Pauls.|||You forgot Pope John Paul II and John, Paul, George %26amp; Ringo.
j0e|||Paula Abdul. She's the only one of those I'm familiar with.|||Pope John Paul, but Paula Abdul has the nicest bum of the bunch.|||John Paul Jones|||Pope John Paul II|||Les Paul|||Les Paul|||John Paul Jones!!!
whoop whoop!|||idk|||Hey...you forgot Ru Paul....can I chose her?
merry xmas buddy!!|||Paulin*my Hair ~
no ..no feathers~~
:)
were u aware it absorbs over 284% of its natural body weight, and can consume nearly 5000 calories a day??
.|||Paul Newman and Paul Simon|||Peter Paula Murray|||Wtf is up with all the Pope humping up in here?? Honestly I expect better from y'all!|||Paula Abdul
Straight up, I like crazy people.|||Paul the Other One.|||As a Naval Officer myself, I'll pick John Paul Jones !!|||Jean Paul Gaultier!|||You forgot RuPaul. Leaving him out would be a real drag. He is the reigning queen of all the Pauls.|||You forgot Pope John Paul II and John, Paul, George %26amp; Ringo.
j0e|||Paula Abdul. She's the only one of those I'm familiar with.|||Pope John Paul, but Paula Abdul has the nicest bum of the bunch.|||John Paul Jones|||Pope John Paul II|||Les Paul|||Les Paul|||John Paul Jones!!!
whoop whoop!|||idk|||Hey...you forgot Ru Paul....can I chose her?
merry xmas buddy!!|||Paulin*my Hair ~
no ..no feathers~~
:)
What is the conflict in the novel nausea by jean-paul sartre?
Ideologically, it's between man and nothingness. In the story there are some other conflicts, but I'm burdened by not seeing them with fresh eyes. Anyway, the nausea Roquentin feels results from him not seeing any meaning in objects or the endeavors of those around him. His memories and struggle to piece together history prove equally meaningless to him, and when he looks at certain things they sometimes look "strange." Probably, he's seeing on some level that they don't have any essence. Although it's a great narrative, you also have to realize that Nausea is a philosophical novel--and the premise of Sartre's philosophy is, in response to Plato, that existence precedes essence.
Jean-Paul Sartre claimed to have devised the only known proof for th NON-existence of God. Is that true? Valid?
The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of God, if God is supposed to be a perfect sentient being: As presented by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness, it states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms.
_()_|||You tell me|||The claim or the proof?
If the claim - no.
If the proof - I don't know what it is, but more than likely, no, it's also not valid.|||No Sir.|||I guess I'm not thinking what piece you're referring to? Maybe the defense of existentialism?
Because, really, I always failed to see how non-knowledge of a god as a prerequisite for absolute freedom was any different from there being no god.
Of course, I've never been a part of that whole monotheist atheist thing where proof or not of a specific deity meant anything. We could all be the dreams of a cockroach and it would not change our reality.|||Had to look him up. Now, this may seem like a trite philosophical discourse, with little practical value. It should be noted, however, that the philosophy of Sartre has provided the basis for much of the postmodern nonsense that we see today, which is not limited to, but certainly includes, the Emerging Church. Looks like either you believe him or you don't.
http://unavoxveritatis.blogspot.com/2007鈥?/a>|||not sure. Don't know who he is. Don't know what he did. And I say God is still here.|||By his "claim" alone, no. That there is logical discussion which talks about the non-existence of an omnipotent being has gone on for many more years than I can imagine... one such being was the Buddha.
_()_|||Poor guy is on an island of delusion.
His evidence is dogmatic, but he claimed it anyway.
_()_|||You tell me|||The claim or the proof?
If the claim - no.
If the proof - I don't know what it is, but more than likely, no, it's also not valid.|||No Sir.|||I guess I'm not thinking what piece you're referring to? Maybe the defense of existentialism?
Because, really, I always failed to see how non-knowledge of a god as a prerequisite for absolute freedom was any different from there being no god.
Of course, I've never been a part of that whole monotheist atheist thing where proof or not of a specific deity meant anything. We could all be the dreams of a cockroach and it would not change our reality.|||Had to look him up. Now, this may seem like a trite philosophical discourse, with little practical value. It should be noted, however, that the philosophy of Sartre has provided the basis for much of the postmodern nonsense that we see today, which is not limited to, but certainly includes, the Emerging Church. Looks like either you believe him or you don't.
http://unavoxveritatis.blogspot.com/2007鈥?/a>|||not sure. Don't know who he is. Don't know what he did. And I say God is still here.|||By his "claim" alone, no. That there is logical discussion which talks about the non-existence of an omnipotent being has gone on for many more years than I can imagine... one such being was the Buddha.
_()_|||Poor guy is on an island of delusion.
His evidence is dogmatic, but he claimed it anyway.
How do you pronounce 'sartre' as in jean-paul sartre?
Sart.|||Its hard to describe in writing. Its in two syllables with the emphasis on the first: SART-ruh. The second syllable is voiced toward the back of the throat as if you are just barely bumping the uvula (that little hangy-down thing dangling at the back of your throat) with the back of your tongue. Almost but not quite as if you were quietly gargling.
Sorry, but that's the best I can do.|||For the most part the "r" and the "e" are silent. as in "Montmartre."|||I was exposed to existentialism.Have they found a cure?|||Saart. The "re" is not silent but supressed. It is ONE SYLLABLE.
Sorry, but that's the best I can do.|||For the most part the "r" and the "e" are silent. as in "Montmartre."|||I was exposed to existentialism.Have they found a cure?|||Saart. The "re" is not silent but supressed. It is ONE SYLLABLE.
Help with Anna Karenina!"Words are more powerful and treacherous than we think"- Jean Paul Sartre.?
Select one sentence from 'Anna Karenina' by Leo Tolstoy that speaks to Sartre's statement. Write a defense of your choice of text. Also, Please provide a description of your chosen quote and how it relates to Sartre's statement. Thanks!|||I guess I'm not the only one who's procrastinating on this i.b. summer assignment lol
Jean Paul Sartre said: 'Existence precede Essence'?
Is it also true that he was an atheist commie?|||He was a marxist but he later abandoned it i think for anarchism , as for athiesm yes but he did made a few statements during his lifetime which could be taken to mean that he is a theist at heart.|||Sartre was not correct.
No matter the form it takes, existence exists (Aristotle.)
Essence is the identity of something that exists. The identity of "existence" is that it exists.
"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents . . . . The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist."
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 74
Therefore; Existence and essence begin as one and the same thing. Existence without its own essence cannot exist.
"A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are."
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55.
The definition of the "essential characteristic" (essence) of existence is that it CONTAINS "every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist."
That existence can "contain" all of that means that: existence did not "precede" all that it contains.
No matter the form it takes, existence exists (Aristotle.)
Essence is the identity of something that exists. The identity of "existence" is that it exists.
"Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents . . . . The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist."
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 74
Therefore; Existence and essence begin as one and the same thing. Existence without its own essence cannot exist.
"A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are."
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55.
The definition of the "essential characteristic" (essence) of existence is that it CONTAINS "every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist."
That existence can "contain" all of that means that: existence did not "precede" all that it contains.
Have you read "Being and Nothingness" by Jean Paul Sartre?
If so, what did you think of it?|||Yes, I did. It was in the 80s at some point. If I remember correctly, he argued that all there is is existence. I think I'm still pondering it. :)|||Word games, like much of philosophy.
Science is better.
Science is better.
For Jean Paul Sartre, all existentialists agree that, in the case of human beings, existence preceeds essence.?
what does he mean by this phrase?|||I think that what it means is that:
Through your action, you are building your essence.
Examples: if one steals and steals again and again, that one becomes essentially a thief.
If one studies and then studies and studies again and again, that one becomes a scholar.
So we are what we do, but first we do.
If we decide to change our essence of thief or scholar, then we can: all we have to do is "do something else" like stop stealing, or stop studying, doing sports, business, being honest, paying back our debts etc. This is what existentialism is: an optimistic philosophy which allows you to change your SELF or essence every single day.
However, it has its drawback: some can understand it the vicious way around: "I allow myself to cheat, because tomorrow, I will catch up and change myself all over again" And, no, it does not work that way and I do not think that existentialists really meant it that way.
There is a Christian branch of existentialism. I am sure they were not preaching sins then redemption. No.
However, there is this deep idea, fundamental that you can redeem yourself and that essence is not carved in stone, in existentialism.|||if you compare humans to chipmunks, you'll note that the chipmunks essence and its existence are pretty much on the same plane through it's entire life. whereas a human adapts to an infinitude of variables all the while maintaining clear focus on subjective desires.
he means to say that we are born needing food and love and shelter. then we convince ourselves via the forces that nurture and inform us that we need more than that. you could almost effectively assert that our essence is not ripe until we've felt desire.|||For something to have a nature and characteristics it must first exist.
Through your action, you are building your essence.
Examples: if one steals and steals again and again, that one becomes essentially a thief.
If one studies and then studies and studies again and again, that one becomes a scholar.
So we are what we do, but first we do.
If we decide to change our essence of thief or scholar, then we can: all we have to do is "do something else" like stop stealing, or stop studying, doing sports, business, being honest, paying back our debts etc. This is what existentialism is: an optimistic philosophy which allows you to change your SELF or essence every single day.
However, it has its drawback: some can understand it the vicious way around: "I allow myself to cheat, because tomorrow, I will catch up and change myself all over again" And, no, it does not work that way and I do not think that existentialists really meant it that way.
There is a Christian branch of existentialism. I am sure they were not preaching sins then redemption. No.
However, there is this deep idea, fundamental that you can redeem yourself and that essence is not carved in stone, in existentialism.|||if you compare humans to chipmunks, you'll note that the chipmunks essence and its existence are pretty much on the same plane through it's entire life. whereas a human adapts to an infinitude of variables all the while maintaining clear focus on subjective desires.
he means to say that we are born needing food and love and shelter. then we convince ourselves via the forces that nurture and inform us that we need more than that. you could almost effectively assert that our essence is not ripe until we've felt desire.|||For something to have a nature and characteristics it must first exist.
Jean-Paul Sartre: what are some problems with his theories (first ethics and second ethics)?
The french philosopher Jean-Paul Sartres write the book: 芦existentialism is an humanism.禄
Inside this book Sartre explains that the important in this life is huamn being must be responsible of himself to achieve his goals. Nobody can replace him to reach the summit. In others words each human is responsable to be a winner or to be a loser. And to be a leader he is necessary to confront many experiences in this life.
Inside this book Sartre explains that the important in this life is huamn being must be responsible of himself to achieve his goals. Nobody can replace him to reach the summit. In others words each human is responsable to be a winner or to be a loser. And to be a leader he is necessary to confront many experiences in this life.
Did Jean-Paul Sartre invent the concept of "bad faith"?
Hello:
Really from what I understand of the philosophy of Existentialism both he and his main lady Simone both discussed it together and so it is likely as much hers as it was his.
Having said that, the concept of acting in a role so as to not have to be yourself...yeah they came up with that idea.
I hope this helps
Rev Phil
Really from what I understand of the philosophy of Existentialism both he and his main lady Simone both discussed it together and so it is likely as much hers as it was his.
Having said that, the concept of acting in a role so as to not have to be yourself...yeah they came up with that idea.
I hope this helps
Rev Phil
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?
|||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
|||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.
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.
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote about "slime". What was he thinking of. The office psychopath perhaps ?
what are you on about? dont recall that in my jps studies.
Jean Paul Sartre self and subjectivity?
Contemporary continental philosophers agree that personal identity and subjectivity are not grounded in a transcendental self as a substance that defines an essential human nature. BRIEFLY describe Sartre's understanding of self and subjectivity in terms of the implications that follow from his thought on how we should live our lives.|||Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). He served in the French army, became a prisoner of war, escaped and worked in the Renaissance movement. He in a way didn't believe there was a god but he believed that humans needed to and would make their own values. He wanted people to understand his way of looking at life and how life really works. Yes, of course we all have our own opinions and beliefs and that is ok, that is what makes us all who we are today. The world would be such a boring place if everyone was the same. He makes you look at things in a different way and ask your self questions. The stuff that he talks about I do wonder about myself. My Fiance doesn't really believe in god either as I do. I do believe in him but don't worship him. I do pray at times just like anyone else but I don't go to church nor do I have to in order to believe in him. I chose this philosopher because he mainly brings out a lot of questions that other people are ashamed to ask or believe in as well. He says that "First, because there is no God, there is no maker of man and no such thing as a divine conception of man in accordance with which man was created. This means, Sartre thought, that there is no such thing as a human nature that is common to all humans; no such thing as a specific essence that defines what it is to be human. Past philosophers had maintained that each thing in existence has a definite, specific essence; Aristotle, for example, believed that the essence of being human is being rational. But for Sartre, the person must produce her or his own essence, because no God created human beings in accordance with a divine concept. Thus, in the case of human beings, Sartre wrote, “existence precedes essence,” by which he meant very simply that you are what you make of yourself". I feel very strongly about that last statement, I do believe it is true. We are only what we make of oursleves. Sartre wrote, “man is freedom”; in fact, he is condemned to be free. Nothing forces us to do what we do. Thus, he said, “we are alone, without excuses,” by which he meant simply that we cannot excuse our actions by saying that we were forced by circumstances or moved by passion or otherwise determined to do what we did. Consequently, because a Godless world has no objective values, we must establish or invent our own values. Which I don't see a problem with. I think he did a great thing by talking to people about these things and teaching them to believe in themselves. We must not always look for the easy way out, life is hard and we all over come it :)
So Atheists: Why do atheistic icons & stalwarts like Oscar Wilde and Jean-Paul Sartre inevitably find Jesus?
Its a marketing ploy. You can only sell so many books to atheists-our libraries are already full, and we simply don't have the shelf space. But if you suddenly announce, "I'm christian!" you open up a whole new market, and you have built-in publicity because every christian on the planet knew who you were and hated your guts before. They'll buy any crap you write as long as you say you were inspired by gawd to write it. I'll bet that eventually, Sam Harris will announce he's christian and become a billionaire!|||…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
………………. .……. . ▀▀▄▄………▄▄▀▀. ………………………………
…………….............=====………...=====……………
……………………. ..…██……………██…………………………………
………………………………….▌…▌…………………………………………. .
…………………………….……▌…▌……………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………. .
……………………………▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄…………………………………
……………………………▌…. . . .…. ..▌…………………………………. .
……………………………▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀..…………………………………
………………………………▀▀▀▀▀▀……………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
……….. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU ? ……|||why do christian zealouts eventually find firearms?|||Answer: they do not.|||Brain damage?|||I DON'T KNOW. ha haha ha
…………………………………………………………………………………
………………. .……. . ▀▀▄▄………▄▄▀▀. ………………………………
…………….............=====………...=====……………
……………………. ..…██……………██…………………………………
………………………………….▌…▌…………………………………………. .
…………………………….……▌…▌……………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………. .
……………………………▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄…………………………………
……………………………▌…. . . .…. ..▌…………………………………. .
……………………………▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀..…………………………………
………………………………▀▀▀▀▀▀……………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
……….. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU ? ……|||why do christian zealouts eventually find firearms?|||Answer: they do not.|||Brain damage?|||I DON'T KNOW. ha haha ha
Jean Paul Sartre belief in God?
How does Sartre connect belief in god with the belief that there is a fixed human nature?|||Like Husserl and Heidegger, Sartre distinguished ontology from metaphysics and favored the former. In his case, ontology is primarily descriptive and classificatory, whereas metaphysics purports to be causally explanatory, offering accounts about the ultimate origins and ends of individuals and of the universe as a whole. Unlike Heidegger, however, Sartre does not try to combat metaphysics as a deleterious undertaking. He simply notes in a Kantian manner that it raises questions we cannot answer. On the other hand, he subtitles Being and Nothingness a “Phenomenological Ontology.” Its descriptive method moves from the most abstract to the highly concrete. It begins by analyzing two distinct and irreducible categories or kinds of being: the in-itself (en-soi) and the for-itself (pour-soi), roughly the nonconscious and consciousness respectively, adding a third, the for-others (pour-autrui), later in the book, and concludes with a sketch of the practice of “existential psychoanalysis” that interprets our actions to uncover the fundamental project that unifies our lives.
What did Jean Paul Sartre mean by saying "Man is nothing else...than the ensemble of his acts, nothing........
.....else than his life????|||A man is defined by his actions alone.|||Jean Paul Sartre was a top contributor of the existentialism. What he meant to say was that every human been is responsible of their own acts, everything is absolute.|||That the essential of man (people) are there actions and that to be remembered is the important thing. That's what the quote suggests to me. That the TREND of one's actions throughout existence, underlining morality, scruples, honesty..etc. make or break one's worth. Anyway, that's what I've always gathered from Sartre
Why did Jean-paul Sartre decline his Nobel prize.?
Existentialism based on its fundamentals and deep notice to human as a human needs
to humanity as a free human.
And doesn't accept politics institutes.|||Hello Mia Kay,
Jean-paul Sartre said he always refused official distinctions and did not want to be "institutionalised". M. Sartre was interviewed by journalists outside the Paris flat of his friend Simone de Beauvoir, authoress and playwright. He also told the press he rejected the Nobel Prize for fear that it would limit the impact of his writing. He also expressed regrets that circumstances had given his decision "the appearance of a scandal".|||There were a number of reasons that Sartre declined. First, it must be remembered that he heard that he was a candidate and wrote right away telling them not to consider him. His letter was addressed wrong and never reached them. The first reason he declined was because of the "Western" or capitalist bias of the prize. He felt that the prize was a political statement that disagreed with communist values (ie Soviet Union). Sartre said that he would refuse the Lenin Prize (their equivalent) as well. He was working on a project of a third choice between the horrors of both communism and capitalism, and he felt that both of these prizes were choosing one side or the other. He also felt that the prize was exclusively for Western Europeans and Americans, complaining that the South Americans, with many talented authors, had not, up to that point, ever won a single prize. Finally, as has been mentioned above, by accepting the award he become part of the institution. He would no longer be just "JP Sartre" but "JP Sartre winner of the Nobel Prize."
Sartre did not know the rules of the prize. He wasn't trying to create a scandal by declining the prize, as he attempted to decline before it was awarded. The famous letter that he wrote to the Nobel committee which is used (ironically) as his acceptance speech bears this out. The Nobel committee decided that even if the award was declined it was awarded anyways (to deter the possibility that ones home country would force someone not to accept, which has happened). Sartre, to my knowledge, is the only person to have declined the award for personal reasons. However, after he declined the award wasn't given to a Frenchman for a long time. They did diversify the Nobel prize to and began giving awards to Latin American writers.
Cheers!
to humanity as a free human.
And doesn't accept politics institutes.|||Hello Mia Kay,
Jean-paul Sartre said he always refused official distinctions and did not want to be "institutionalised". M. Sartre was interviewed by journalists outside the Paris flat of his friend Simone de Beauvoir, authoress and playwright. He also told the press he rejected the Nobel Prize for fear that it would limit the impact of his writing. He also expressed regrets that circumstances had given his decision "the appearance of a scandal".|||There were a number of reasons that Sartre declined. First, it must be remembered that he heard that he was a candidate and wrote right away telling them not to consider him. His letter was addressed wrong and never reached them. The first reason he declined was because of the "Western" or capitalist bias of the prize. He felt that the prize was a political statement that disagreed with communist values (ie Soviet Union). Sartre said that he would refuse the Lenin Prize (their equivalent) as well. He was working on a project of a third choice between the horrors of both communism and capitalism, and he felt that both of these prizes were choosing one side or the other. He also felt that the prize was exclusively for Western Europeans and Americans, complaining that the South Americans, with many talented authors, had not, up to that point, ever won a single prize. Finally, as has been mentioned above, by accepting the award he become part of the institution. He would no longer be just "JP Sartre" but "JP Sartre winner of the Nobel Prize."
Sartre did not know the rules of the prize. He wasn't trying to create a scandal by declining the prize, as he attempted to decline before it was awarded. The famous letter that he wrote to the Nobel committee which is used (ironically) as his acceptance speech bears this out. The Nobel committee decided that even if the award was declined it was awarded anyways (to deter the possibility that ones home country would force someone not to accept, which has happened). Sartre, to my knowledge, is the only person to have declined the award for personal reasons. However, after he declined the award wasn't given to a Frenchman for a long time. They did diversify the Nobel prize to and began giving awards to Latin American writers.
Cheers!
Philosophy question-- Jean-Paul Sartre-- existentialist ethics?
What does Sartre mean by saying that we are "condemned to be free"?|||We are "condemned" to freedom, because our ability to make free choices allows us to do all of the horrible things we humans do to each other. Like make war, commit genocide, and build weapons for the sole capability of completely obliterating millions if not billions of people in the span of a few hours of missile launches.|||Freedom comes with responsibility, so it sucks that we have to be responsible for our own choices... there's no one else to blame when things go wrong
Where can i find a detailed summary of Jean-Paul Sartre's play Les Mains Sales?
it has to be in either French or English aswell as having all the different acts and scenes.|||http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mains_S鈥?/a>
Contents
* 1 Plot
* 2 Cast
* 3 Legacy
* 4 External links
Contents
* 1 Plot
* 2 Cast
* 3 Legacy
* 4 External links
Existentialism-did Jean Paul Sartre really mean to say I am pink therefore I am spam- got lost in translation?
It was Decartes brother who said 'I'm pink therefore I'm jam'.
I believe Sartre said 'Hell is other people' - How true that is.|||It was just food for thought.|||I thought he was a synth player :-)|||No that was Descartes. Satre said: Tesco ergo sum (I shop therefore I am)|||I drink, therefore I am
or was that Monty Python???|||It is a humorous alternative phrase to Descartes's "I think, therefore I am":
Cogito, ergo sum
Meaning
Usually translated from the Latin as 'I think, therefore I am'.
Origin
Possibly the best known of all philosophical quotations; this is from the French philosopher Ren茅 Descartes in his Discourse on Method (1637), where he attempted to prove his existence as a thinking being, by thinking. 'I think, therefore I am' comes to us in English via two translations. Descartes' original statement in French was "Je pense, donc je suis".
This is such a well-known line that it has spawned humorous alternatives, not least:
"I'm pink, therefore I'm spam"
"Ren茅 Descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I am".
I believe Sartre said 'Hell is other people' - How true that is.|||It was just food for thought.|||I thought he was a synth player :-)|||No that was Descartes. Satre said: Tesco ergo sum (I shop therefore I am)|||I drink, therefore I am
or was that Monty Python???|||It is a humorous alternative phrase to Descartes's "I think, therefore I am":
Cogito, ergo sum
Meaning
Usually translated from the Latin as 'I think, therefore I am'.
Origin
Possibly the best known of all philosophical quotations; this is from the French philosopher Ren茅 Descartes in his Discourse on Method (1637), where he attempted to prove his existence as a thinking being, by thinking. 'I think, therefore I am' comes to us in English via two translations. Descartes' original statement in French was "Je pense, donc je suis".
This is such a well-known line that it has spawned humorous alternatives, not least:
"I'm pink, therefore I'm spam"
"Ren茅 Descartes was a drunken fart - I drink therefore I am".
Do you suggest to read from Jean Paul Sartre?
Some People say his books are depressing and will lead you to depression|||Since I was already depressed when I read him I found him very entertaining. Sincerely, he cheered me up on more than one occasion, just by saying things I believed to be true in such an intelligent and mordantly funny way. I think if you're interested in him you should check him out.|||If that's a serious concern of yours, then no. I suggest you don't read Sartre.
What the hell did Jean-Paul Sartre mean when he said: "3pm is too late and too early to start anything"???????
By the way, I feel very lazy after reading Sartre. Why is that????|||I'm not quite sure what he meant. But it's almost 3 pm here now, so I have his permission to not do anything with the rest of my day :).
My guess though is that it's too late to start any of your day pursuits and too early to start any of your night ones.|||I always thought that what he meant by that was that 3:00 pm is too late to start normal daily activities, like going to work, but too early to start normal nighttime activities, like going to a cafe and spending the night dicussing things with friends over drinks.
To me, 3:00 pm has always seemed like the deadest part of the day. It is, really, too early to start a big project that you should have started earlier, and it's too early for the really interesting business that goes on at night, by which I mean discussions that last until 3:00 am.
I always feel lazy after reading Sartre, too, if that's of any comfort. I think it's because he makes me want to sit outside at a cafe, drinking coffee and smoking (though not Gauloises--they're too harsh--I prefer my Camels, thanks very much) and watching people and jotting really deep stuff in a notebook. I never think of him or read him without thinking of sitting in the sun all day and just "thinking", or better yet discussing stuff with someone. If I could spend all my days going to coffee at about 2:00 pm with a friend and talking into the night, I would.
If you want a Sartre quote that you can really wrap your head around, use this one instead: "Hell is other people," from "No Exit." Don't believe me? Think about it the next time you're at a family party and the house is so full there's nowhere to sit down and everyone's kids are screaming and the adults are discussing their digestive problems and the meal is overcooked.
Salut!|||3pm is an awful time of day.
The only thing that could start at 3pm is a children's birthday party. And even then, 2.30pm is superior.
At 2pm, you can be having a late lunch. But by 3pm, a 'late lunch' has become a farcical excuse for eating all day.
By 4pm you can have a late-afternoon coffee break and start getting ready to go home and make dinner. But a coffee break at 3pm is nonsensical and ludricrous. Nothing can be planned at 3pm. It is a lost time of confusion, apathy, emptiness and vague terror. It is the abyss of the afternoon.
Let's face it, 3pm is horrendous. It must be stopped.|||I guess he meant that there isn't much point in doing anything at all. That's existentialism, we're all sentenced to death anyway because we have to die whatever we do ...
I'm not a big fan of Jean Paul either, he's rather depressing ;-)|||Haha did he say that? It sounds like something from a Seinfeld skit. I guess he was commenting on the futility of starting any new project at such an hour. He preferred snoozing.|||Still sucking up the tomato juice, too early to party.|||Ive always liked "Hell is other people"|||%26gt;%26gt;%26gt; By the way, I feel very lazy after reading Sartre. Why is that????
Maybe you have found what your real essence is. :)|||So do I and can't be bothered to answer....sorry
My guess though is that it's too late to start any of your day pursuits and too early to start any of your night ones.|||I always thought that what he meant by that was that 3:00 pm is too late to start normal daily activities, like going to work, but too early to start normal nighttime activities, like going to a cafe and spending the night dicussing things with friends over drinks.
To me, 3:00 pm has always seemed like the deadest part of the day. It is, really, too early to start a big project that you should have started earlier, and it's too early for the really interesting business that goes on at night, by which I mean discussions that last until 3:00 am.
I always feel lazy after reading Sartre, too, if that's of any comfort. I think it's because he makes me want to sit outside at a cafe, drinking coffee and smoking (though not Gauloises--they're too harsh--I prefer my Camels, thanks very much) and watching people and jotting really deep stuff in a notebook. I never think of him or read him without thinking of sitting in the sun all day and just "thinking", or better yet discussing stuff with someone. If I could spend all my days going to coffee at about 2:00 pm with a friend and talking into the night, I would.
If you want a Sartre quote that you can really wrap your head around, use this one instead: "Hell is other people," from "No Exit." Don't believe me? Think about it the next time you're at a family party and the house is so full there's nowhere to sit down and everyone's kids are screaming and the adults are discussing their digestive problems and the meal is overcooked.
Salut!|||3pm is an awful time of day.
The only thing that could start at 3pm is a children's birthday party. And even then, 2.30pm is superior.
At 2pm, you can be having a late lunch. But by 3pm, a 'late lunch' has become a farcical excuse for eating all day.
By 4pm you can have a late-afternoon coffee break and start getting ready to go home and make dinner. But a coffee break at 3pm is nonsensical and ludricrous. Nothing can be planned at 3pm. It is a lost time of confusion, apathy, emptiness and vague terror. It is the abyss of the afternoon.
Let's face it, 3pm is horrendous. It must be stopped.|||I guess he meant that there isn't much point in doing anything at all. That's existentialism, we're all sentenced to death anyway because we have to die whatever we do ...
I'm not a big fan of Jean Paul either, he's rather depressing ;-)|||Haha did he say that? It sounds like something from a Seinfeld skit. I guess he was commenting on the futility of starting any new project at such an hour. He preferred snoozing.|||Still sucking up the tomato juice, too early to party.|||Ive always liked "Hell is other people"|||%26gt;%26gt;%26gt; By the way, I feel very lazy after reading Sartre. Why is that????
Maybe you have found what your real essence is. :)|||So do I and can't be bothered to answer....sorry
Any good website's for Jean Paul Sartre?
I have a research paper due pretty soon and I need a good website that clarifies his views and explains his philosophy on existentialism. Thankss.|||He's dead. No web sites can do HIM any good. So, there aren't any good web sites FOR Sartre.|||Whenever I need good primary sources, I go here. Most of the videos tell where the video/clip is uploaded from. Good guy to research, though ;)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu鈥?/a>
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_qu鈥?/a>
I need some help finding information on Jean Paul Sartre and his idea on God.?
Help I need help finding some websites on this guy and his idea on God. I been looking and can't really find anything. And something on Hume if possible. Thanks|||norman mailer sartre's god problem
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se鈥?/a>
Sartre on God, freedom, and determinism
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c404鈥?/a>
The Incompatibility of God's Existence with Human Freedom: Sartre's Existential Atheism
http://ejournals.ph/index.php?journal=PI鈥?/a>
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se鈥?/a>
Sartre on God, freedom, and determinism
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c404鈥?/a>
The Incompatibility of God's Existence with Human Freedom: Sartre's Existential Atheism
http://ejournals.ph/index.php?journal=PI鈥?/a>
Why did Jean Paul Sartre refuse the Nobel Prize ?
In 1964, Jean Paul Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature but he declined it. He was the first Nobel Laureate to voluntarily decline the prize and he had previously refused the Légion d'honneur, in 1945. The prize was announced on 22 October 1964; on 14 October, Sartre had written a letter to the Nobel Institute, asking to be removed from the list of nominees, and that he would not accept the prize if awarded, but the letter went unread; On 23 October, Le Figaro published a statement by Sartre explaining his refusal. He said he did not wish to be "transformed" by such an award, and did not want to take sides in an East vs. West cultural struggle by accepting an award from a prominent Western cultural institution.
However, Lars Gyllensten, long time member of the Nobel prize committee has controversially claimed in his autobiography that Sartre later tried to access the prize money, but was subsequently turned down. Allegedly, the French philosopher in 1975 wrote a letter to the Nobel Prize committee saying that he had changed his mind about the prize, at least when it came to the money. At which point the prize committee is said to have declined the request, stating that the funds had been reinvested in the Nobel institute. However, there has never been any evidence presented or confirmation given to prove any such story.
So he refused the Nobel because HE DID NOT WISHED TO BE "TRANSFORMED" BY THE AWARD and DID NOT WANT TO TAKE SIDES IN THE "EAST VS. WEST" CULTURAL STRUGGLE by accepting an award from a prominenet western cultural institution.
I was always interested in Sartre and (more) in his partner Simon de Beauvoir. So thanks for posting the question . It gave me a chance to research a bit on them.|||Sartre truly was a troubled genious.
However, Lars Gyllensten, long time member of the Nobel prize committee has controversially claimed in his autobiography that Sartre later tried to access the prize money, but was subsequently turned down. Allegedly, the French philosopher in 1975 wrote a letter to the Nobel Prize committee saying that he had changed his mind about the prize, at least when it came to the money. At which point the prize committee is said to have declined the request, stating that the funds had been reinvested in the Nobel institute. However, there has never been any evidence presented or confirmation given to prove any such story.
So he refused the Nobel because HE DID NOT WISHED TO BE "TRANSFORMED" BY THE AWARD and DID NOT WANT TO TAKE SIDES IN THE "EAST VS. WEST" CULTURAL STRUGGLE by accepting an award from a prominenet western cultural institution.
I was always interested in Sartre and (more) in his partner Simon de Beauvoir. So thanks for posting the question . It gave me a chance to research a bit on them.|||Sartre truly was a troubled genious.
Report Abuse
Friday, December 2, 2011
How would you compare and contrast Baron D'Holbach Jean Paul Sartre?
Anything would help!|||Baron D'Holbach was a "determinist": What the determinist believes: there is only one course of events possible in the universe - the parts of the universe are already laid down in an absolute way - nothing occurs by chance or in a manner different from one that is already prescribed to happen. "Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible."
Jean Paul Sartre was an Existentialists: 鈥搉oun Philosophy. a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individuals unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.
Based on what I quick look, I would say that:
Baron D'Holbach's beliefs were that the universe had a set order that guided it's destination based on the laws of physics, humankind being part of the universe, could not change those laws leading him to feel that our individual destiny was in a sense, pre-determined or pre-destined.
Jean Paul Sartre believed that people could change their destiny, by interacting with it.
To surmise, Baron D'Holbach thought "in the box", Jean Paul Sartre thought "outside the box", when you compare the two individuals philosophy.
Jean Paul Sartre was an Existentialists: 鈥搉oun Philosophy. a philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individuals unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.
Based on what I quick look, I would say that:
Baron D'Holbach's beliefs were that the universe had a set order that guided it's destination based on the laws of physics, humankind being part of the universe, could not change those laws leading him to feel that our individual destiny was in a sense, pre-determined or pre-destined.
Jean Paul Sartre believed that people could change their destiny, by interacting with it.
To surmise, Baron D'Holbach thought "in the box", Jean Paul Sartre thought "outside the box", when you compare the two individuals philosophy.
Jean-Paul Sartre said" I exist,therefore I am"what you think?
I think that is a pretty empty tautology. I exist, so I exist. So what? It tells us nothing.|||I thought it was: "I think, therefor I am" by René Descartes?|||Make it simple. I am that I am. The burning bush and Popeye said that.|||I think that he thought that he thought, so he thought that he was.
This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual structure of an atom and the scale and placement of its components. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons and protons form a dense cluster at the center of the atom and that the electrons orbit in such a way that huge spaces exist between them and the nucleus it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space at any given moment.
This alone does not seem too important until you add the idea that the atoms that make up many seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.
At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that could be thought of as 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that may not be the seemingly solid objects they appear to us to be.
We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.
These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.
From this one could conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turns them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.
I want to add that this is based on my own personal way of looking at the situation and was never intended to be a physics lesson.
Love and blessings Don|||I think, therefore I am? Seems to anchor the most basic assumption we must make to go forward with any further thinking at all. That we exist in a form sufficient to warrant any further attention to ourselves.|||Sartre was existentialist, so he basically thought there was no meaning to life except existing, then we made an existence. I believe we have a purpose in our life.|||That may not have been his words, even in French. But if it's what he meant, then maybe so. But if he didn't say it, then he didn't say it.|||I think this quote came from Descartes, but it went: "I think, therefore I am".
From my view-point, he means that because he can think, he must exist. Of course, this is philosophy we're talking about, so it can mean anything you wish for it to mean.
Your other quote is pretty much the same thing, I think. He recognizes his existence in this world, so he knows is a part of it.|||I am, therefore, I think.|||It's a good balance formula 'twixt Rene and Jean-Paul.
Both are horizontally based; human thinking leads to being; human existence leads to being.
What "being" implies for Descartes is Mind/mind, Soul/awareness, dualism; what being implies for Sartre is supervenient awareness, man as grownup germ, useless passion, reduction to the Newtonian atomistic.
Descartes posited God and therefore Soul; Sartre of course neither posits nor experiences either.
"Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose;
"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov.|||*sigh*, I think Sartre has the most watered down philosphie of any of 'em, and existentialism is a humanism or something like that.
This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual structure of an atom and the scale and placement of its components. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons and protons form a dense cluster at the center of the atom and that the electrons orbit in such a way that huge spaces exist between them and the nucleus it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space at any given moment.
This alone does not seem too important until you add the idea that the atoms that make up many seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.
At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that could be thought of as 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that may not be the seemingly solid objects they appear to us to be.
We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.
These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.
From this one could conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turns them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.
I want to add that this is based on my own personal way of looking at the situation and was never intended to be a physics lesson.
Love and blessings Don|||I think, therefore I am? Seems to anchor the most basic assumption we must make to go forward with any further thinking at all. That we exist in a form sufficient to warrant any further attention to ourselves.|||Sartre was existentialist, so he basically thought there was no meaning to life except existing, then we made an existence. I believe we have a purpose in our life.|||That may not have been his words, even in French. But if it's what he meant, then maybe so. But if he didn't say it, then he didn't say it.|||I think this quote came from Descartes, but it went: "I think, therefore I am".
From my view-point, he means that because he can think, he must exist. Of course, this is philosophy we're talking about, so it can mean anything you wish for it to mean.
Your other quote is pretty much the same thing, I think. He recognizes his existence in this world, so he knows is a part of it.|||I am, therefore, I think.|||It's a good balance formula 'twixt Rene and Jean-Paul.
Both are horizontally based; human thinking leads to being; human existence leads to being.
What "being" implies for Descartes is Mind/mind, Soul/awareness, dualism; what being implies for Sartre is supervenient awareness, man as grownup germ, useless passion, reduction to the Newtonian atomistic.
Descartes posited God and therefore Soul; Sartre of course neither posits nor experiences either.
"Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose;
"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov.|||*sigh*, I think Sartre has the most watered down philosphie of any of 'em, and existentialism is a humanism or something like that.
What are some books like The Stranger by Albert Camus or Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre?
No Exit by Sartre.
Mother Courage by Bertold Brecht
The Bald Soprano by Eugene Ionesco (absurdist)|||Disgrace by JM Coetzee is somewhat similar [the problems, I mean] to Stranger. Also try to look for The White Cloth by Skema. It is lithuanian masterpiece.|||Lolita by Nabakov
The Sound and The Fury by Faulkner
Run, Rabbit by Updike
Waiting for Godot by Beckett
Setting Free the Bears by Irving
A Confederacy of Dunces by Toole
Terms of Endearment by McMurtry
|||The Plague by Camus was a very interesting novel. I liked it much better than The Stranger.|||i would say the sun also rises by hemingway
Mother Courage by Bertold Brecht
The Bald Soprano by Eugene Ionesco (absurdist)|||Disgrace by JM Coetzee is somewhat similar [the problems, I mean] to Stranger. Also try to look for The White Cloth by Skema. It is lithuanian masterpiece.|||Lolita by Nabakov
The Sound and The Fury by Faulkner
Run, Rabbit by Updike
Waiting for Godot by Beckett
Setting Free the Bears by Irving
A Confederacy of Dunces by Toole
Terms of Endearment by McMurtry
|||The Plague by Camus was a very interesting novel. I liked it much better than The Stranger.|||i would say the sun also rises by hemingway
Philosophers that disagree with Jean Paul Sartre's existentialism?
There are two philosophers who come to mind, both of whom were part of the same French philosophical circle as Sartre.
The first is Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The differences between Sartre and Merleau-Ponty are complex and demand a basic understanding of phenomenology, so I can only outline the basics here. For Sartre, we are "condemned to be free." For Merleau-Ponty, we are condemned to have meaning. For Sartre, my history and environment cannot define who or what I am. Merleau-Ponty challenges this position by arguing that we are historical beings, and we would not be who we are if it were not for our environment, history, and personal relationships. Merleau-Ponty, moreover, criticizes Sartre's account of freedom and suggests that Sartre was too hasty in assuming that the self has absolute freedom. For Merleau-Ponty, the human being is always in a situation with cultural, environmental, and physical conditions that limit the choice that can be made. Sartre thinks these limits can be put aside, but Merleau-Ponty suggests that without these limits no choice at all can be made. Both thinkers agree there is no stable self, but Merleau-Ponty does not base this position on a doctrine of absolute freedom.
A second thinker who poses a challenge to Sartre is Emmanuel Levinas, who argues that selfhood is inseparable from the relationship with other people, and that selfhood is essentially ethical in its structure. For Sartre, "hell is the other person," and so the other person is really a source of conflict. For Levinas, the other person is the source of ethical meaning. For Levinas, the other person is not primarily a source of conflict, but gives to my life an ethical meaning that it would not otherwise have. Secondly, Sartre defines the self as "being-for-itself," which means that it is concerned primarily with its own projects. For Levinas, the self is "being-for-the-other,"; selfhood is irreducibly tied to relationships with other people.
Now, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Levinas all agree on one basic thing: human experience is not grounded in an epistemological relationship with the world (i.e., knowledge). Before we can "know" things, we are always already thrown into the world, and the self "lives" life before we reflect on it. That is, each of these thinkers is largely influenced by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger (against the philosophy of Edmund Husserl).
Hope some of these remarks make sense to you!
Cheers.|||Sarte and myself never got along in college. I disagree with him and I told that to my instructor. He helped me transfer to literature but he bothered me there as well. Have you read Camus's the outsider by the way?
The first is Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The differences between Sartre and Merleau-Ponty are complex and demand a basic understanding of phenomenology, so I can only outline the basics here. For Sartre, we are "condemned to be free." For Merleau-Ponty, we are condemned to have meaning. For Sartre, my history and environment cannot define who or what I am. Merleau-Ponty challenges this position by arguing that we are historical beings, and we would not be who we are if it were not for our environment, history, and personal relationships. Merleau-Ponty, moreover, criticizes Sartre's account of freedom and suggests that Sartre was too hasty in assuming that the self has absolute freedom. For Merleau-Ponty, the human being is always in a situation with cultural, environmental, and physical conditions that limit the choice that can be made. Sartre thinks these limits can be put aside, but Merleau-Ponty suggests that without these limits no choice at all can be made. Both thinkers agree there is no stable self, but Merleau-Ponty does not base this position on a doctrine of absolute freedom.
A second thinker who poses a challenge to Sartre is Emmanuel Levinas, who argues that selfhood is inseparable from the relationship with other people, and that selfhood is essentially ethical in its structure. For Sartre, "hell is the other person," and so the other person is really a source of conflict. For Levinas, the other person is the source of ethical meaning. For Levinas, the other person is not primarily a source of conflict, but gives to my life an ethical meaning that it would not otherwise have. Secondly, Sartre defines the self as "being-for-itself," which means that it is concerned primarily with its own projects. For Levinas, the self is "being-for-the-other,"; selfhood is irreducibly tied to relationships with other people.
Now, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Levinas all agree on one basic thing: human experience is not grounded in an epistemological relationship with the world (i.e., knowledge). Before we can "know" things, we are always already thrown into the world, and the self "lives" life before we reflect on it. That is, each of these thinkers is largely influenced by the philosophy of Martin Heidegger (against the philosophy of Edmund Husserl).
Hope some of these remarks make sense to you!
Cheers.|||Sarte and myself never got along in college. I disagree with him and I told that to my instructor. He helped me transfer to literature but he bothered me there as well. Have you read Camus's the outsider by the way?
Why did Jean-Paul Sartre refused the Noble Prize?
Best Answer!|||for the same reason, I think, Russian math genius Grigoriy Perelman, ignored $ 1 million Millenium money for Fields prize often called Nobel prize in Math.
Jean-Paul Sartre's idea in No Exit is often described as "hell in other people."?
Describe what this means, and describe one character and how he or she is making the lobby "hell" for another person.
PLEASE BE DETAILED I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS PLAY
Thank you :)|||Maybe you are not reading a good translation? Try this one:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao087/342/NoExit鈥?/a>
It is not a very difficult play, if you concentrate on your reading. Read it carefully, as if it were a story, and then answer your questions.|||Hell is other people.
Because at the crux of it all.... alliances are fleeting, peace treaties are temporary, ceasefires are brief.... and in the end, everyone else is competition.
Competition for time, space, resources, etc.
Other people are hinderances to rid one's self of.|||It is not 'in', but 'is', " hell is other people ". Sartre refers here to our inauthentic existence where others/society either becomes a model for us or the society imposes values on us. In both the case we loose our sense of being ourselves,our own identity and may live others life,others prescription and hence,it is hell!
PLEASE BE DETAILED I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS PLAY
Thank you :)|||Maybe you are not reading a good translation? Try this one:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao087/342/NoExit鈥?/a>
It is not a very difficult play, if you concentrate on your reading. Read it carefully, as if it were a story, and then answer your questions.|||Hell is other people.
Because at the crux of it all.... alliances are fleeting, peace treaties are temporary, ceasefires are brief.... and in the end, everyone else is competition.
Competition for time, space, resources, etc.
Other people are hinderances to rid one's self of.|||It is not 'in', but 'is', " hell is other people ". Sartre refers here to our inauthentic existence where others/society either becomes a model for us or the society imposes values on us. In both the case we loose our sense of being ourselves,our own identity and may live others life,others prescription and hence,it is hell!
What is your view on "existantialism" of Jean Paul Sartre?
That there exisist a social law which man must escape or break from.
Total control not only means doing what is wanted but constructing ones own set of laws.
exsistance then is valued by the self and therfore must be judged by the self.
The societal norms are not necessarily wrong, yet they should not be chains..
for instance in the stranger both religion is dismissed and murder is not repented for or guilt felt, nor sorrow over a loved one.
is this sad...to outside viewers yes but the internal self is all that matters.|||Why?
|||That Sartre had too much time on his hands to think about such abstract ideas.|||ultimately unfulfilling|||It works for me..|||that he confused Heidegger for Descartes %26gt;_%26gt;
the whole conception of man standing against the world as subject/object.. is plain wrong.
Total control not only means doing what is wanted but constructing ones own set of laws.
exsistance then is valued by the self and therfore must be judged by the self.
The societal norms are not necessarily wrong, yet they should not be chains..
for instance in the stranger both religion is dismissed and murder is not repented for or guilt felt, nor sorrow over a loved one.
is this sad...to outside viewers yes but the internal self is all that matters.|||Why?
Report Abuse
|||That Sartre had too much time on his hands to think about such abstract ideas.|||ultimately unfulfilling|||It works for me..|||that he confused Heidegger for Descartes %26gt;_%26gt;
the whole conception of man standing against the world as subject/object.. is plain wrong.
Did Jean-Paul Sartre succeed in merging existentialism with Marxism?
In my opinion, it has never been Sartre's goal or intentions to merge existentialism with marxism.|||Sartre was the last noted existentialist and even he gave it up a couple months before his death and by his own words, rejecting all that he had said before.
Sartre was a confirmed Marxist but not communist because he did not feel that the communist countries as they were operating were any more than a tyrantical form of dictatorship. he supported and fought for the establishment of a couple communist countries because he hoped they would become truly Marixst. Each time he was proven wrong.
Sartre, as opposed to Nietzsche the first noted existentialst, looked as life as a journey involving happiness as the result of actions instead of gloom and dispair and doing nothing.
So it is doubtful that Sartre's actions combined the two named items|||Sartre was the phylosopher who succeed in explain the concept of liberty. A totality is free because it continuosly destotalize. In my opinion he used the dialectik to show how the totality is created and with the existencialism he could fight against the concept of determined totality politically expresed in stalinist determinism. He used dialectik to show how the totality is not forever. .
On the other hand, Sartre criticized exitencialism showing that Menis a sein (being , ser) threw in the world but not in any world Man is in the world of capitalist relation of production.He succeed
Sorry for my English it is difficult express my thougts in English.
Goodbye|||No. But it didn't stop Tescos opening another supermarket in Norwich|||He didn't even succeed in merging them with himself, let alone each other.
See Soren Kierkegaard for an earlier existentialist.
Sartre was a confirmed Marxist but not communist because he did not feel that the communist countries as they were operating were any more than a tyrantical form of dictatorship. he supported and fought for the establishment of a couple communist countries because he hoped they would become truly Marixst. Each time he was proven wrong.
Sartre, as opposed to Nietzsche the first noted existentialst, looked as life as a journey involving happiness as the result of actions instead of gloom and dispair and doing nothing.
So it is doubtful that Sartre's actions combined the two named items|||Sartre was the phylosopher who succeed in explain the concept of liberty. A totality is free because it continuosly destotalize. In my opinion he used the dialectik to show how the totality is created and with the existencialism he could fight against the concept of determined totality politically expresed in stalinist determinism. He used dialectik to show how the totality is not forever. .
On the other hand, Sartre criticized exitencialism showing that Menis a sein (being , ser) threw in the world but not in any world Man is in the world of capitalist relation of production.He succeed
Sorry for my English it is difficult express my thougts in English.
Goodbye|||No. But it didn't stop Tescos opening another supermarket in Norwich|||He didn't even succeed in merging them with himself, let alone each other.
See Soren Kierkegaard for an earlier existentialist.
In the canon of great philosophers, where does Jean-Paul Sartre stand?
I love Sartre!!! Unfortunately, I don't think he is among the most widely known philosophers or even the most taught one in Western Philosophy classes. I was able to do a lengthy study on him for an Existentialism class I took and found his ideas to be the best when it came to peeling off the layers of the human condition. But that is always up to the reader and what it is that they like.I defiantly suggest he should be a staple in any upper level Western Philosophy study.|||I love him, but he is very marginal in the world of philosophy. A tiny sidebar. Existentialism was big for about ten minutes, and it hasn't really held up - Existentialism was his thing.|||Over the last century Western Philosophy has been in two schools of thought: Analytic and Continental. Sartre is big in Continental Philosophy, but there are some other guys who certainly overshadow him: Husserl, Heidegger, and the forerunners Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. Sartre's contribution to philosophy is building on and applying the Phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger.
If the tradition of contemporary Continental philosophy (refocusing ontology on human consciousness) stands the test of time he still will probably be taught in 100 years. I am not so sure it will, continental philosophy has mostly been a critique of previous ideas. The really big names - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant are all part of the same progressive discussion. One leads to the next. But Nietzsche and Husserl started a new discussion. In the future, if European philosophy picks back up where the idealists left off then Sartre's whole scene might be rejected. But who knows?
Either way, Sartre has become more popular than Heidegger and Husserl amongst the public. He is cooler or something. He is certainly easier to read. Sartre has become a big name in existential and postmodern art. His influence in the long run may be more on culture and art than on philosophy. On Camus' novels for example.|||I'd say on the top five, but I don't know all philosophers.|||In the center of the barrel
If the tradition of contemporary Continental philosophy (refocusing ontology on human consciousness) stands the test of time he still will probably be taught in 100 years. I am not so sure it will, continental philosophy has mostly been a critique of previous ideas. The really big names - Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant are all part of the same progressive discussion. One leads to the next. But Nietzsche and Husserl started a new discussion. In the future, if European philosophy picks back up where the idealists left off then Sartre's whole scene might be rejected. But who knows?
Either way, Sartre has become more popular than Heidegger and Husserl amongst the public. He is cooler or something. He is certainly easier to read. Sartre has become a big name in existential and postmodern art. His influence in the long run may be more on culture and art than on philosophy. On Camus' novels for example.|||I'd say on the top five, but I don't know all philosophers.|||In the center of the barrel
I need to write an essay on existentialism philosophy, Jean-Paul Sartre vs. Martin Heidegger. Having trouble?
So I'm having no trouble finding the information, really, I'm just having a tough time making sense of their views and putting together three main points that they both kind of share and comparing them. Like they obviously don't have to share these views, but I can't find three main points that they both have views on so that I can compare them and pick a side!!|||What I usually did in college when it came to philosophy is rather than picking a side from the information given, I would read both arguments and then come up with my own theories based on the points I disagreed with and agreed with. This is something professors look for because the whole idea of philosophy is about questioning the rules and systems that are in place.|||Just make stuff up then I highly doubt your teacher will read it anyhow.
Where can I find a literary criticism on Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit?
I don't know if there is one. It's metaphorically accurate though, as if we are all in hell and here to torment each other.|||Oct 19, 2006
Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism | Genet, Jean | INTRODUCTION
Jean Genet 1910-1986
French playwright, novelist, and poet.
The following entry provides criticism on Genet's works from 1983 through 1998. For criticism prior to 1983, see CLC, Volumes 1, 2, 5, 10, and 14; for an obituary entry on Genet, see CLC, Volume 44; and for a discussion of Genet's novels, see CLC, Volume 46.
INTRODUCTION
Genet was a member of the controversial and innovative generation of French writers that included Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Jean Cocteau. The author of several highly acclaimed novels, Genet remains best known for plays in which he utilized the stage as a communal arena for enacting personal fantasies involving sex and death. Genet, whom Cocteau dubbed France's “Black Prince of letters,” is linked to such literary figures as the Marquis de Sade and Charles Baudelaire for his use of rich, baroque imagery, his deliberate inversion of traditional Western moral values, and his belief that spiritual salvation may be attained through the pursuit of evil.
Biographical Information
Born in Paris December 19, 1910, Genet was abandoned at birth by his mother, a prostitute, to a state orphanage run by the French Assistance Publique. At an early age Genet was sent to a boys' reformatory for stealing. There he embraced the role of convict and devoted himself to crime, subsequently spending much of his youth and young adult life in European prisons for such offenses as theft, smuggling, and male prostitution. While in prison, Genet began to write novels and produced what critics often regard as his finest work in that genre, most prominently Notre-dame-des-fleurs (1943; Our Lady of the Flowers). In 1948 he was deemed unreformable and threatened with life imprisonment by the French judicial system. Sartre and Cocteau, who discovered Genet's novels earlier in the 1940s, interceded, however, and with the aid of other prominent literary figures obtained a pardon for Genet from French president Vincent Auriol. Genet never again returned to prison. Indeed, he began to enjoy a degree of celebrity that led to the reissuing of his complete works thus far by the prestigious French publisher Gallimard. It was also at this time that Genet's first plays, Les bonnes (1947; The Maids) and Haute surveillance (1949; Deathwatch), were produced, earning Genet acclaim as a playwright. For approximately the next decade, Genet produced a series of dramatic works that were as daring and controversial as his novels had been. After that, however, Genet produced no further major works, devoting himself instead to various political causes, the most enduring being his association with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He moved to Jordan in 1970 and lived with the Palestinians for the next fourteen years. According to critic Mary Ann Frese Witt, Genet had a “desire to abandon stasis for action, poetics for politics.” Genet died in 1986.
Major Works
Genet's novels, which are filled with exotic imagery and metaphors, French street argot, and scatological language, all take the form of non-chronological, semi-autobiographical narratives that alternate between the first and third person. By rejecting the morality of what he perceived to be a repressive, hypocritical society that punishes its least-powerful social castes for crimes universal to all classes of humanity, Genet sought to create in his works what Sartre termed “a black ethic, with precepts and rules, pitiless constraints, a Jansenism of evil.” In Our Lady of the Flowers, Genet inverted traditional Western values to replace ideals of goodness with those of evil, courage with cowardice, and love with betrayal. In Genet's universe, to transgress against the bourgeois social order through theft, rape, or murder is to bring moral censure upon oneself; through a socially imposed sentence of death or imprisonment, the criminal is martyred by society and may thus attain the rank of sainthood. This proposition is explored in Genet's second novel, Miracle de la Rose (1946; Miracle of the Rose). Written in La Sante and La Tourelle prisons in 1943, the book describes in lyrical terms Genet's conversion from a submissively feminine “chicken” at the boys reformatory of the Colonie de Mettray to a dominant, masculine homosexual at the prison at Fontrevault, where he was later imprisoned for theft. In contrast with these early works, Genet's later novels do not use prison settings or themes. Querelle de Brest (1947; Querelle of Brest) is a light nouveau roman (“new novel”) belonging to a trend of the 1940s and 1950s in which French fiction writers pursued a highly formalistic style of writing. Journal du voleur (1949; The Thief's Journal) describes Genet's experiences in the criminal underworld of Spain, Belgium, and other European countries during the 1930s. In his last novel, Pompes funèbres (1947; Funeral Rites), Genet addresses the moral question of how he may mourn for his dead lover, a French Resistance fighter killed in 1944 by a Nazi collaborator, without violating his opposition to traditional ethics.
For Genet, the theater offered the most effective form for the incantatory expression of dream and ritual. His early plays, while true to the inverted universe detailed in his novels, reflect the influence of Sartre's drama No Exit and his dictum that “hell is other people” in their stylized portrayals of inescapable personal rivalries. Genet's first produced play, The Maids, is based on the actual murder of an upper-class mistress by her female servants. In Deathwatch, Genet blended naturalism and fantasy to relate the efforts of a petty criminal, trapped in a cell with two killers, to achieve the “saintly” designation of murderer. Because, unlike his cellmates, he has not killed without reason or motive, he is ridiculed as morally inferior. Contrasting with these works, Genet's later plays focus increasingly on the illusory nature of social roles as well as the rituals of the theater and their relationship to reality. These works, which are generally regarded as Genet's masterpieces, reveal the influence of Antonin Artaud's Theater of Cruelty in their emphasis on violence and sadism, making use of such theatrical devices as mirrors, masks, extravagant costumes, and choreographed gestures to carry their message. The main character of Le balcon (1957; The Balcony) is Madame Irma, the opportunistic proprietress of a brothel known as the Grand Balcony, where clients act out their fantasies of authority, sex, and power. As a revolution occurs offstage, Irma's clients assume the roles of bishop, judge, general, and police chief, and are persuaded by government officials to assume their fantasy roles in public to restore order among the populace. As the old regime retains its power through these new leaders, Madame Irma's establishment comes to represent a microcosm of society in which her client's fantasies emerge as realities. Uncertain and changing identities are again central to Les nègres: Clownerie (1959; The Blacks: A Clown Show). In this drama fantasies of racial revenge are enacted by black actors, half of whom, painted in whiteface and occupying the stage's highest point, represent white society as blacks view them—pompous, hypocritical, and repressive. Genet's last play, Les paravents (1961; The Screens), which is his longest and most ambitious work for the theater, uses colonialism in North Africa as a metaphor for humanity's worst traits. Although Genet indirectly condemned France's involvement in the Algerian War, the work is not revolutionary in intent. The major contribution of The Screens to contemporary drama lies in its innovative stage technique. As the scenes progress, settings are suggested by camera projections onto a series of folding screens or are sketched on canvases by actors.
Critical Reception
Critical controversy was ever-present throughout Genet's career as a novelist and playwright. Even after he became a well-known figure on the French literary scene, he was threatened with imprisonment and condemned in the press. On the other hand, in 1975 the French Ministry of Culture awarded him a prize, which Genet refused, for a screenplay he had written. In 1983 he received the Grand Prix National des Lettres, and two years later The Balcony, which had been notoriously rejected by several producers when it was initially offered for stage production, was included among the repertory of works performed by the Comédie Francaise, a bastion of French cultural respectability. Thus Genet, a one-time social pariah, had gained recognition and respect as a perverse cultural icon in France and as a major contributor to modern theater throughout the world.
Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism | Genet, Jean | INTRODUCTION
Jean Genet 1910-1986
French playwright, novelist, and poet.
The following entry provides criticism on Genet's works from 1983 through 1998. For criticism prior to 1983, see CLC, Volumes 1, 2, 5, 10, and 14; for an obituary entry on Genet, see CLC, Volume 44; and for a discussion of Genet's novels, see CLC, Volume 46.
INTRODUCTION
Genet was a member of the controversial and innovative generation of French writers that included Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Jean Cocteau. The author of several highly acclaimed novels, Genet remains best known for plays in which he utilized the stage as a communal arena for enacting personal fantasies involving sex and death. Genet, whom Cocteau dubbed France's “Black Prince of letters,” is linked to such literary figures as the Marquis de Sade and Charles Baudelaire for his use of rich, baroque imagery, his deliberate inversion of traditional Western moral values, and his belief that spiritual salvation may be attained through the pursuit of evil.
Biographical Information
Born in Paris December 19, 1910, Genet was abandoned at birth by his mother, a prostitute, to a state orphanage run by the French Assistance Publique. At an early age Genet was sent to a boys' reformatory for stealing. There he embraced the role of convict and devoted himself to crime, subsequently spending much of his youth and young adult life in European prisons for such offenses as theft, smuggling, and male prostitution. While in prison, Genet began to write novels and produced what critics often regard as his finest work in that genre, most prominently Notre-dame-des-fleurs (1943; Our Lady of the Flowers). In 1948 he was deemed unreformable and threatened with life imprisonment by the French judicial system. Sartre and Cocteau, who discovered Genet's novels earlier in the 1940s, interceded, however, and with the aid of other prominent literary figures obtained a pardon for Genet from French president Vincent Auriol. Genet never again returned to prison. Indeed, he began to enjoy a degree of celebrity that led to the reissuing of his complete works thus far by the prestigious French publisher Gallimard. It was also at this time that Genet's first plays, Les bonnes (1947; The Maids) and Haute surveillance (1949; Deathwatch), were produced, earning Genet acclaim as a playwright. For approximately the next decade, Genet produced a series of dramatic works that were as daring and controversial as his novels had been. After that, however, Genet produced no further major works, devoting himself instead to various political causes, the most enduring being his association with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He moved to Jordan in 1970 and lived with the Palestinians for the next fourteen years. According to critic Mary Ann Frese Witt, Genet had a “desire to abandon stasis for action, poetics for politics.” Genet died in 1986.
Major Works
Genet's novels, which are filled with exotic imagery and metaphors, French street argot, and scatological language, all take the form of non-chronological, semi-autobiographical narratives that alternate between the first and third person. By rejecting the morality of what he perceived to be a repressive, hypocritical society that punishes its least-powerful social castes for crimes universal to all classes of humanity, Genet sought to create in his works what Sartre termed “a black ethic, with precepts and rules, pitiless constraints, a Jansenism of evil.” In Our Lady of the Flowers, Genet inverted traditional Western values to replace ideals of goodness with those of evil, courage with cowardice, and love with betrayal. In Genet's universe, to transgress against the bourgeois social order through theft, rape, or murder is to bring moral censure upon oneself; through a socially imposed sentence of death or imprisonment, the criminal is martyred by society and may thus attain the rank of sainthood. This proposition is explored in Genet's second novel, Miracle de la Rose (1946; Miracle of the Rose). Written in La Sante and La Tourelle prisons in 1943, the book describes in lyrical terms Genet's conversion from a submissively feminine “chicken” at the boys reformatory of the Colonie de Mettray to a dominant, masculine homosexual at the prison at Fontrevault, where he was later imprisoned for theft. In contrast with these early works, Genet's later novels do not use prison settings or themes. Querelle de Brest (1947; Querelle of Brest) is a light nouveau roman (“new novel”) belonging to a trend of the 1940s and 1950s in which French fiction writers pursued a highly formalistic style of writing. Journal du voleur (1949; The Thief's Journal) describes Genet's experiences in the criminal underworld of Spain, Belgium, and other European countries during the 1930s. In his last novel, Pompes funèbres (1947; Funeral Rites), Genet addresses the moral question of how he may mourn for his dead lover, a French Resistance fighter killed in 1944 by a Nazi collaborator, without violating his opposition to traditional ethics.
For Genet, the theater offered the most effective form for the incantatory expression of dream and ritual. His early plays, while true to the inverted universe detailed in his novels, reflect the influence of Sartre's drama No Exit and his dictum that “hell is other people” in their stylized portrayals of inescapable personal rivalries. Genet's first produced play, The Maids, is based on the actual murder of an upper-class mistress by her female servants. In Deathwatch, Genet blended naturalism and fantasy to relate the efforts of a petty criminal, trapped in a cell with two killers, to achieve the “saintly” designation of murderer. Because, unlike his cellmates, he has not killed without reason or motive, he is ridiculed as morally inferior. Contrasting with these works, Genet's later plays focus increasingly on the illusory nature of social roles as well as the rituals of the theater and their relationship to reality. These works, which are generally regarded as Genet's masterpieces, reveal the influence of Antonin Artaud's Theater of Cruelty in their emphasis on violence and sadism, making use of such theatrical devices as mirrors, masks, extravagant costumes, and choreographed gestures to carry their message. The main character of Le balcon (1957; The Balcony) is Madame Irma, the opportunistic proprietress of a brothel known as the Grand Balcony, where clients act out their fantasies of authority, sex, and power. As a revolution occurs offstage, Irma's clients assume the roles of bishop, judge, general, and police chief, and are persuaded by government officials to assume their fantasy roles in public to restore order among the populace. As the old regime retains its power through these new leaders, Madame Irma's establishment comes to represent a microcosm of society in which her client's fantasies emerge as realities. Uncertain and changing identities are again central to Les nègres: Clownerie (1959; The Blacks: A Clown Show). In this drama fantasies of racial revenge are enacted by black actors, half of whom, painted in whiteface and occupying the stage's highest point, represent white society as blacks view them—pompous, hypocritical, and repressive. Genet's last play, Les paravents (1961; The Screens), which is his longest and most ambitious work for the theater, uses colonialism in North Africa as a metaphor for humanity's worst traits. Although Genet indirectly condemned France's involvement in the Algerian War, the work is not revolutionary in intent. The major contribution of The Screens to contemporary drama lies in its innovative stage technique. As the scenes progress, settings are suggested by camera projections onto a series of folding screens or are sketched on canvases by actors.
Critical Reception
Critical controversy was ever-present throughout Genet's career as a novelist and playwright. Even after he became a well-known figure on the French literary scene, he was threatened with imprisonment and condemned in the press. On the other hand, in 1975 the French Ministry of Culture awarded him a prize, which Genet refused, for a screenplay he had written. In 1983 he received the Grand Prix National des Lettres, and two years later The Balcony, which had been notoriously rejected by several producers when it was initially offered for stage production, was included among the repertory of works performed by the Comédie Francaise, a bastion of French cultural respectability. Thus Genet, a one-time social pariah, had gained recognition and respect as a perverse cultural icon in France and as a major contributor to modern theater throughout the world.
Existentialism is humanism by jean paul sartre?
i was asked by my teacher in Philosophy to report about Jean Paul Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism. He gave me a the article of Sartre and as i ran through the article, I find myself confused. I read it again and again cause I know Philosophy should not be light-read. Then, he told me to prepare a report strategy, a movie, a powerpoint presentation, game, talk show, etc. I chose a movie and a powerpoint presentation. The problem is what movie should I let my teacher and classmates see that's connected to "existentialism is a humanism"? Please help me. you can give me the link of the movie and please put a little/brief explanation about it being connected to Sartre's "existentialism is a humanism". Thanks|||Look at Sartre's definitions for:
1. abandonment (no god, thus no meaning or purpose)
2. anguish (no god or purpose, thus we anguish over the ultimate responsibility of the individual)
3. despair (hopelessness resulting from a purposeless world)
4. the absurd (our response to the abandonment, anguish, and despair where we create our own meaning out of meaninglessness)
Look at movies from "Fight Club" to "Moon" (Sam Rockwell) to "Waking Life" to "Dexter" (HBO series, Michael C. Hall) keeping the above concepts in mind and you'll grab onto the connections pretty quick.
The above movies, etc. are all connected to Sartre because they each display elements of at least some (if not all) of the key concepts mentioned above.
Good luck!|||Hence Philosophy is concerned just and only very carefully Look-See-Watch and Listen to comprhend and Understand how A NON UNIVERSITY STUDENT become not just and only A PHILOSOPHER but A METAPHYSICIAN=RECEIVED KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM.
Well the brieve story is but as a Link to your Providential Answers. Djapi then was he who spent twenty-nine years old life in complete failures both in the school as well as in the active life. though Djapi's wishes were to become a Medical Doctor after Universty Learnings and Studyings. But all of the strong Efforts of Djapi went unfortunaltely IN VAIN. Allah/God Who Willed and Planned others things for Djapi's Destiny then Sent to Djapi His Messenger Arch-Angel Gabriel who came to Djapi in an human Form (as Djapi's senior brother Christian), whom Djapi saw into the FISRT DREAM (Q:7:206) OFDjapi's twenty-nine years old life, wherein (Dream) Djapi's senior brother in POSTURE STAGE (Q:32:16/17). This Dream then Moved Djapi on a TWO YEARS DESTINY ROAD JOURNEY on which along the Paths and Ways Djapi Became A MUSLIM=The Dream.
Behold! Became Muslim on the Adventure, Djapi arrived in Sudan and was living Clandestinily unto A INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ISLAMIC SCHOOL. Djapi did everything he could in order to be even a student after repeating for the fourth times the ADVANCE LEVEL which Djapi wrote the Exams Three good times but IN VAIN. Djapi then began to QUESTION unceaseling all the students he met or have to do with about Islam he became ADHERENT. On doing so Djapi was Known by most of the University's students Comprhending and Understanding not the Art-Kind-Sort of THIRST OF KNOWLEDGE BURNING UNTO MAN. It came then a day on which one of the University student, called on Djapi saying:
Well Djapi is good to Ask and Request that which you Ignore, but you shoul know: KEEPING ON ASKING and REQUESTING BRING FEW. But READING IS BEETER! He then gave to Djapi some few brochures INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM: Djapi took them and went on READING them. Djapi became Calm-Quiet-Silent.
Behold! When Djapi arrived at KA'BA (MAKKAH) the House of Allah/God, Djapi offered Wonder=POOR MAN'S PRAYERS. On which Allah/God ANSWERED in that very place and time (Ramadhan 1997). It was then a day on which Breaking the Fasting day, Djapi and some Muslims brothers were siting round the Ka'ba changing views and about Islam and Muslims and the worlds.
What happened Djapi stood up on going to answer the call of nature (wc-easying himself-uriate). When Djapi came back to his group where they were siting, the man sat in the right of Djapi said: "O brother Gibriel (Gabriel Djapi's Muslim name), when you left to Wc/Toilet, a brother visited us and gave or Shared Gifts/Prsents to us. For you he Gave "THIS=A GREEN PRAYER RUG" which Djapi took and tanked Allah/God. The man himself Received "A WATCH".
Behold! Six years later is Djapi to Comprehend and Understand HEURISTICALLY through Learning and Studying the Holies BOOKS [Bible+Qur'an] that whch the Meaning and Significance of that GREEN PRAYER RUG RECEVED:
Whereof origin and notion: RAYER'S DIVINE DEFINITIONS:
Allah/God needs no praise, for He is above all praise; He needs no petition, for He knows our needs better than we do ourselves; and His bounties are open without asking, to the righteous and the sinner alike. THE PRAYE IS PRIMARILY for our:
1)-SPIRITUAL EDUCATION
2)-CONSOLATION
3)-CONFIRMATION (Q:1:18)
BACKING DIVINE WORDS UNTO DIVINE ACTIONS-There is SAINT DJAPI PREACHING and TEACHING "REPENTANCE MESSENGERSHIP"=METAPHYSICS OF EXISTENCE which Satre taught the Philosophy and yet Saint Djapi's "REPENTANCE METAPHYSICS".
Providing the Authentic and Genuine Answers Asked and Requeted, ye have the Austrian Providential Repentance Youtube Video [djap1]=TRUE REPENTANCE to be Discovered and Found on both Links bellow.
either and mostly here with the whole Explanations-Details-Interpretations ye requested:
www.repentance-saint-djapi.lima-city.d鈥?or www.martyr-saint-djapi. blogspot.com
1. abandonment (no god, thus no meaning or purpose)
2. anguish (no god or purpose, thus we anguish over the ultimate responsibility of the individual)
3. despair (hopelessness resulting from a purposeless world)
4. the absurd (our response to the abandonment, anguish, and despair where we create our own meaning out of meaninglessness)
Look at movies from "Fight Club" to "Moon" (Sam Rockwell) to "Waking Life" to "Dexter" (HBO series, Michael C. Hall) keeping the above concepts in mind and you'll grab onto the connections pretty quick.
The above movies, etc. are all connected to Sartre because they each display elements of at least some (if not all) of the key concepts mentioned above.
Good luck!|||Hence Philosophy is concerned just and only very carefully Look-See-Watch and Listen to comprhend and Understand how A NON UNIVERSITY STUDENT become not just and only A PHILOSOPHER but A METAPHYSICIAN=RECEIVED KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM.
Well the brieve story is but as a Link to your Providential Answers. Djapi then was he who spent twenty-nine years old life in complete failures both in the school as well as in the active life. though Djapi's wishes were to become a Medical Doctor after Universty Learnings and Studyings. But all of the strong Efforts of Djapi went unfortunaltely IN VAIN. Allah/God Who Willed and Planned others things for Djapi's Destiny then Sent to Djapi His Messenger Arch-Angel Gabriel who came to Djapi in an human Form (as Djapi's senior brother Christian), whom Djapi saw into the FISRT DREAM (Q:7:206) OFDjapi's twenty-nine years old life, wherein (Dream) Djapi's senior brother in POSTURE STAGE (Q:32:16/17). This Dream then Moved Djapi on a TWO YEARS DESTINY ROAD JOURNEY on which along the Paths and Ways Djapi Became A MUSLIM=The Dream.
Behold! Became Muslim on the Adventure, Djapi arrived in Sudan and was living Clandestinily unto A INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY ISLAMIC SCHOOL. Djapi did everything he could in order to be even a student after repeating for the fourth times the ADVANCE LEVEL which Djapi wrote the Exams Three good times but IN VAIN. Djapi then began to QUESTION unceaseling all the students he met or have to do with about Islam he became ADHERENT. On doing so Djapi was Known by most of the University's students Comprhending and Understanding not the Art-Kind-Sort of THIRST OF KNOWLEDGE BURNING UNTO MAN. It came then a day on which one of the University student, called on Djapi saying:
Well Djapi is good to Ask and Request that which you Ignore, but you shoul know: KEEPING ON ASKING and REQUESTING BRING FEW. But READING IS BEETER! He then gave to Djapi some few brochures INTRODUCTION TO ISLAM: Djapi took them and went on READING them. Djapi became Calm-Quiet-Silent.
Behold! When Djapi arrived at KA'BA (MAKKAH) the House of Allah/God, Djapi offered Wonder=POOR MAN'S PRAYERS. On which Allah/God ANSWERED in that very place and time (Ramadhan 1997). It was then a day on which Breaking the Fasting day, Djapi and some Muslims brothers were siting round the Ka'ba changing views and about Islam and Muslims and the worlds.
What happened Djapi stood up on going to answer the call of nature (wc-easying himself-uriate). When Djapi came back to his group where they were siting, the man sat in the right of Djapi said: "O brother Gibriel (Gabriel Djapi's Muslim name), when you left to Wc/Toilet, a brother visited us and gave or Shared Gifts/Prsents to us. For you he Gave "THIS=A GREEN PRAYER RUG" which Djapi took and tanked Allah/God. The man himself Received "A WATCH".
Behold! Six years later is Djapi to Comprehend and Understand HEURISTICALLY through Learning and Studying the Holies BOOKS [Bible+Qur'an] that whch the Meaning and Significance of that GREEN PRAYER RUG RECEVED:
Whereof origin and notion: RAYER'S DIVINE DEFINITIONS:
Allah/God needs no praise, for He is above all praise; He needs no petition, for He knows our needs better than we do ourselves; and His bounties are open without asking, to the righteous and the sinner alike. THE PRAYE IS PRIMARILY for our:
1)-SPIRITUAL EDUCATION
2)-CONSOLATION
3)-CONFIRMATION (Q:1:18)
BACKING DIVINE WORDS UNTO DIVINE ACTIONS-There is SAINT DJAPI PREACHING and TEACHING "REPENTANCE MESSENGERSHIP"=METAPHYSICS OF EXISTENCE which Satre taught the Philosophy and yet Saint Djapi's "REPENTANCE METAPHYSICS".
Providing the Authentic and Genuine Answers Asked and Requeted, ye have the Austrian Providential Repentance Youtube Video [djap1]=TRUE REPENTANCE to be Discovered and Found on both Links bellow.
either and mostly here with the whole Explanations-Details-Interpretations ye requested:
www.repentance-saint-djapi.lima-city.d鈥?or www.martyr-saint-djapi. blogspot.com
Summary of "Existentialism is a Humanism" by Jean-Paul Sartre?
I don't understand the article, "Existentialism is a Humanism" and I have to write a paper about it relating to the novel "Slaughterhouse-Five." Please Help, Thank you.|||Information is below.
Jean-paul sartre and Vatican.what do you know about?please let me know.thank you in advance?
i have been to wikipedia.org .i need to read about words of pope in regard with Sartre.and the very day atmosphere..|||Sorry, it's going to be a lot more work than that.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv鈥?/a>
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/鈥?/a>
The question is only complicated because there are two kinds of existentialists. There are, on the one hand, the Christians, amongst whom I shall name Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, both professed Catholics; and on the other the existential atheists, amongst whom we must place Heidegger as well as the French existentialists and myself. What they have in common is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence 鈥?or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective. What exactly do we mean by that?
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv鈥?/a>
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv鈥?/a>
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/鈥?/a>
The question is only complicated because there are two kinds of existentialists. There are, on the one hand, the Christians, amongst whom I shall name Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, both professed Catholics; and on the other the existential atheists, amongst whom we must place Heidegger as well as the French existentialists and myself. What they have in common is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence 鈥?or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective. What exactly do we mean by that?
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv鈥?/a>
Did Jean Paul Sartre and Simone Weil ever meet?
I know that they went to the same university at the same time, but did they ever talk, ever have any memorable conversations? I'd have loved to hear the two of them debate|||no.|||awww
Report Abuse
Why was Jean-Paul Sartre captured by the Nazis?
Was it because of his previous writings and the fact that the Nazis didn't like what was portrayed in them, or was it simply due to the fact that he was in the French army and they didn't really care about his writings.|||satre was a very outspoken opponent of any fasictic dictatorship. He wrote a lot against the Nazis and for some years was member of a resistance movement. The nazis knew who he was and what he had wirtten, this along with the fact that he fought made him an enemy.
No Exit (Jean-Paul Sartre)?
Does anyone know where I can find the script for Jean-Paul Sartre's "No Exit" for free???|||I actually have a copy of it in my room...lol.
did you try eBay, Amazon???
How about your local library??
Email me.
did you try eBay, Amazon???
How about your local library??
Email me.
What are the philosophies of jean-paul sartre and albert camus? do u believe in them? Why?
I think the above answer is not quite right. Existentialism is not JUST about "living for the sake of living" - existentialists believe that human beings have a radical and terrifying freedom of will. In a godless universe with no inherent meaning and no universal morality, it is our duty to use our radical freedom to endow our lives with meaning of our own. It is about living for a cause or in a way of our own free choosing. Some people find this rather bleak, others think it enormously liberating. Personally, I think it a little bit posturing and silly. Nobody is really as 'free' as all that, and the heroic individualism of the existentialists borders on the romantic.|||Philosophy or a result of work of a philosopher is not a religion.|||Albert Camus philosophy was about existentialism, living for the sake of living. Only enjoy the physical pleasures of life and nothing really matters. Death is inevitable.
I find it a bit sad though, living for the sake of living.
I find it a bit sad though, living for the sake of living.
What is L'en soi and Le pour soi in the thought of Jean-Paul Sartre?
For Sartre, the "in itself" (en-soi) refers to things in the world that simply "are". They are inert, passive, and are not open to change. They can be identified, defined, and objectified. They have an "essence," as Sartre puts it. The "for-itself" (pour-soi), on the other hand, refers to consciousness. According to Sartre, consciousness is "no-thing-ness" because it cannot be defined and it does not settle into a stable identity. The for-itself is always changing, always becoming something else by the choices that it makes.
The in-itself/for-itself distinction is at the core of Sartre's account of self-hood. Sartre says that the "for-itself" (the conscious self) has a habit of defining itself objectively (in social roles and expectations). The for-itself has a tendency to reduce itself to an in-itself by labelling itself, or by accepting labels that other people put on it. The "for-itself" thus has a tendency to lie to itself; Sartre calls this "bad faith."
In order for the "for-itself" to truly reach its full potential, it is to shake off all of the labels and categories that reduce it to a "thing-in-itself" and choose its own path in life. That is, the self is to avoid objectifying itself and is to affirm itself as a free consciousness that capitalizes on the possibilities it possesses. As Sartre puts it, "existence" comes before "essence" --- existing by choosing your path in life comes before any attempt to define yourself as a definite thing.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
The in-itself/for-itself distinction is at the core of Sartre's account of self-hood. Sartre says that the "for-itself" (the conscious self) has a habit of defining itself objectively (in social roles and expectations). The for-itself has a tendency to reduce itself to an in-itself by labelling itself, or by accepting labels that other people put on it. The "for-itself" thus has a tendency to lie to itself; Sartre calls this "bad faith."
In order for the "for-itself" to truly reach its full potential, it is to shake off all of the labels and categories that reduce it to a "thing-in-itself" and choose its own path in life. That is, the self is to avoid objectifying itself and is to affirm itself as a free consciousness that capitalizes on the possibilities it possesses. As Sartre puts it, "existence" comes before "essence" --- existing by choosing your path in life comes before any attempt to define yourself as a definite thing.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
For those who know about jean paul sartre please help!?
Sartre says that the root of morality is in need. he also says that all praxis have integral humanity as its unconditioned future and goal. Can you please explain this thank you!|||Stanford, always the best for quality answers:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre鈥?/a>|||see my answer on your other (but the same) question.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre鈥?/a>|||see my answer on your other (but the same) question.
I need to write a paper about Jean Paul Sartre, or possibly exestentialism, any ideas?
Kinda vague however...
You could talk about how belief of existentialism has evolved over the centuries or what the implications of existentialism are for religion.|||Type into a search Jean-Paul Sartre's The Wall and you'll find his short story from 1939, `The Wall' - it's a short read but it's a very powerful piece. In `The Wall' you will find everything stated succinctly which it takes him volumes to say elsewhere (especially in Being and Nothingness). The core belief of Existentialism, as Sartre saw it, was that we are alone in an absurd universe and that death is the only certainty. After you've read `The Wall' I think you'll see how the story illuminates these ideas quite clearly. You can write an entire paper on that one story alone. All the best to you........|||Sartre is just water downed Heidegger. Read him and let Sartre fade into the historical nothingness that awaits him.
You could talk about how belief of existentialism has evolved over the centuries or what the implications of existentialism are for religion.|||Type into a search Jean-Paul Sartre's The Wall and you'll find his short story from 1939, `The Wall' - it's a short read but it's a very powerful piece. In `The Wall' you will find everything stated succinctly which it takes him volumes to say elsewhere (especially in Being and Nothingness). The core belief of Existentialism, as Sartre saw it, was that we are alone in an absurd universe and that death is the only certainty. After you've read `The Wall' I think you'll see how the story illuminates these ideas quite clearly. You can write an entire paper on that one story alone. All the best to you........|||Sartre is just water downed Heidegger. Read him and let Sartre fade into the historical nothingness that awaits him.
Question about Jean-Paul Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism"?
How does Sartre try to make existentialism a philosophy for the masses?|||Through his Literature, of course.|||BY HIS MERE PRESENCE. DR LECTOR
Why did Jean-Paul Sartre call Che Guevara "the most complete human being of our age"?
PLEASE DONT ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST MARXISM, that's not what I need. What I need is existentialist theory.
I googled the quote, but the sites that came up didn't reveal Sartre's whole thought process which led him to call Che that. If possible, please give me a glimpse of the existentialist theories related to Sartre's quote.|||Sartre supported the Cuban revolution from the first and he went to Cuba in 1960 where he met Castro and Che Guevara (famous picture of him and Beauvoir with the Che that you can find anywhere). The concept of Che Guevara as a "complete human being", is first a reference to the "complete man" of the Renaissance, a concept that Sartre radically redefines: to him it means (I think) that Che Guevara made possible the concept of fraternity and revolutionary solidarity that Sartre had described in Critique of Dialectical Reason. Che Guevara thought and acted: that's probably how Sartre saw him (as opposed to himself who was a thinker but not an active revolutionary).
Hope I have made things a little clearer for you.|||Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna (14 June 1928 - 9 October 1967) Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary and Cuban guerrilla leader; usually referred to as "Che" Guevara. Though his birth certificate states June 14 as his date of birth some sources declare an earlier date as likely, with May 14th commonly cited鈥︹€︹€?.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf鈥?/a>|||I have just returned to UK having been on holiday in Cuba and I visited the Che Guevara memorial in Santa Clara. My view would be that Che came from a middle class back ground and he was an educated man he was a dentist, this you probably already know. I think the Cuban people who treat Che as an idol - cannot understand why an educated man of his stature would want to help poor Latin American countries, to help the poor people and get rid of the corrupt governments. Che means 'friend' his real name was Ernesto.
So possibly Jean-Paul was referring to Che's humanity
I googled the quote, but the sites that came up didn't reveal Sartre's whole thought process which led him to call Che that. If possible, please give me a glimpse of the existentialist theories related to Sartre's quote.|||Sartre supported the Cuban revolution from the first and he went to Cuba in 1960 where he met Castro and Che Guevara (famous picture of him and Beauvoir with the Che that you can find anywhere). The concept of Che Guevara as a "complete human being", is first a reference to the "complete man" of the Renaissance, a concept that Sartre radically redefines: to him it means (I think) that Che Guevara made possible the concept of fraternity and revolutionary solidarity that Sartre had described in Critique of Dialectical Reason. Che Guevara thought and acted: that's probably how Sartre saw him (as opposed to himself who was a thinker but not an active revolutionary).
Hope I have made things a little clearer for you.|||Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna (14 June 1928 - 9 October 1967) Argentine-born Marxist revolutionary and Cuban guerrilla leader; usually referred to as "Che" Guevara. Though his birth certificate states June 14 as his date of birth some sources declare an earlier date as likely, with May 14th commonly cited鈥︹€︹€?.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf鈥?/a>|||I have just returned to UK having been on holiday in Cuba and I visited the Che Guevara memorial in Santa Clara. My view would be that Che came from a middle class back ground and he was an educated man he was a dentist, this you probably already know. I think the Cuban people who treat Che as an idol - cannot understand why an educated man of his stature would want to help poor Latin American countries, to help the poor people and get rid of the corrupt governments. Che means 'friend' his real name was Ernesto.
So possibly Jean-Paul was referring to Che's humanity
Jean-Paul Sartre,"Man is a useless passion". Is anybody still alive to support his theory of the Absurd?
I think he must have been depressed and discouraged about his own lack of goal-directed self-control. Rather than seeing his words as an absurd theory, perhaps they could be seen as an expression of his emotions.
Some words to encourage and uplift might have helped him.
It does seem that there still are many people (myself included) whose self-control is lacking... so we aimlessly wend our way through a stream of "useless passion" (ie.. emotion/momentary desires that divert us from useful purpose).|||To spend many years longing and passionately building a life, just to die. Seems to me that is pretty useless. To create and produce beauty just to watch it destroyed, that also seems pretty useless. We seem to use the short time we have wastefully, and then just regret for the final days of life.|||I can understand what he is saying. If man is constantly trying to imitate an unrealized figure then God is only understood from individual perception. And the ideas of who God is and how this being thinks is only their own idea of themselves. Thus the dog chasing its own tail.|||"In life, the worst disasters come from passion."__EURIPIDES
Some words to encourage and uplift might have helped him.
It does seem that there still are many people (myself included) whose self-control is lacking... so we aimlessly wend our way through a stream of "useless passion" (ie.. emotion/momentary desires that divert us from useful purpose).|||To spend many years longing and passionately building a life, just to die. Seems to me that is pretty useless. To create and produce beauty just to watch it destroyed, that also seems pretty useless. We seem to use the short time we have wastefully, and then just regret for the final days of life.|||I can understand what he is saying. If man is constantly trying to imitate an unrealized figure then God is only understood from individual perception. And the ideas of who God is and how this being thinks is only their own idea of themselves. Thus the dog chasing its own tail.|||"In life, the worst disasters come from passion."__EURIPIDES
Jean-Paul Sartre referred to terrorism as a "terrible weapon but the oppressed poor have no others."You agree?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre|||I would agree if the oppressed poor were terrorists. The current terrorists in the world are the oppressing rich (al-Qaida, Hizballah, Hamas)|||i agree
to fight terrorism i guess u should give money and education to all. u can never fight terrorism with weapons... it makes it grow.|||Allow me to paraphrase him:.............When attacked by bigger bullies you grab whatever you can find.....you fight to stay alive.....and that's terrorism?|||I also agree|||i agree|||ummmm aren't the terrorist loaded with money, or is that just the ones that are high up in the field?|||No.
Think civil disobedience and think Ghandi.
There are options.
to fight terrorism i guess u should give money and education to all. u can never fight terrorism with weapons... it makes it grow.|||Allow me to paraphrase him:.............When attacked by bigger bullies you grab whatever you can find.....you fight to stay alive.....and that's terrorism?|||I also agree|||i agree|||ummmm aren't the terrorist loaded with money, or is that just the ones that are high up in the field?|||No.
Think civil disobedience and think Ghandi.
There are options.
I have a question about No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre ?
How are Estelle and Inez similar to each other, but also different ?
I have a question about No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre?
How are Estelle and Inez similar to each other, but also different ?
Is there anyway I could read the short play No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre online for free?
Any links would be helpful|||A google search for "No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre"
turns up this link:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao087/342/NoExit鈥?/a>
turns up this link:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao087/342/NoExit鈥?/a>
I have a question about No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre?
How are Estelle and Inez similar to each other, but also different ?|||Both are total b*tches to each other. After all, Hell is other people.
I need help answering some questions from No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre?
1. Explain the key things that condemn each of the three main characters to Hell.
2. Who are the protagonists and antagonists of the play ?
3. What is Garcins reaction to sharing his room with two females ?
4. Compare and contrast Estelle and Inez.|||1. Inez seduced a friend's wife, who ended up killing Inez and the husband. Estelle married an older man for money, has an affair, gets pregnant by her lover, and then drowns her illegitimate infant. Garcin went AWOL during WWII and cheated on his wife.
2.Garcin is the protagonist, because he is the most average and normal character; he is the one the reader can relate to. Estelle and Inez are the antagonists, and so is Garcin to an extent. As Garcin says, "hell is other people."
3. Garcin is extremely courteous to both the women, despite their rude and annoying behavior.
2. Who are the protagonists and antagonists of the play ?
3. What is Garcins reaction to sharing his room with two females ?
4. Compare and contrast Estelle and Inez.|||1. Inez seduced a friend's wife, who ended up killing Inez and the husband. Estelle married an older man for money, has an affair, gets pregnant by her lover, and then drowns her illegitimate infant. Garcin went AWOL during WWII and cheated on his wife.
2.Garcin is the protagonist, because he is the most average and normal character; he is the one the reader can relate to. Estelle and Inez are the antagonists, and so is Garcin to an extent. As Garcin says, "hell is other people."
3. Garcin is extremely courteous to both the women, despite their rude and annoying behavior.
Jean-Paul Sartre?
what is humanism existentialism?
what is is existentialism?
just your own opinion...
thanks!
^^|||Hello:
Sartre wrote a pamphlet called Existentialism is a Humanism because by its nature it is us that studies our existance through ourselves...by necessity this makes the enterprise very human. Sartre also held the belief that our decisions carried the weight with them that when we choose we choose for the world...or that when we act we give out approval for everyone else to do whatever action we took part in.
The philosophy itself (existentialism) is pretty much...you are a conscious being in a world that you did not choose...you are here ultimately alone because of the nature of consciousness...we can never know if we are in the matrix...of the Truman show...however we are met with others that we know are like us and so we can assume they are like us. These people want things from us...all the time...and so this is where "hell is other people" comes in.
All these people need things...which forces us to act like...a son...a father...a worker...a citizen...and so on...and each time you try to act like...a good son...you run the risk of not being yourself and trying to be some image of a perfect son...Sartre used an example of a waiter that was...too concerned with being a good waiter...Don't worry other people aren't exclusively hell...they can work with us too.
So to act like yourself it to act in good faith...to let yourself slip into roles is to act in bad faith. There is a lot more to this, but thats all you get for a quarter.
I hope this helps
Rev Phil|||http://www.ask.com/web?q=Jean-Paul+Sartr鈥?/a>|||In my opinion, Sartre and Bouvier were blowhards who wrote a lot of words about nothing to describe the obvious.|||existentialism is what you perceive as your reality and how you interact with it.-blurey|||Existentialism: is a philosophical doctrine that gives existence prevalence over essence. A man first exists and then he chooses what he wants to become.
Humanism: is a philosophical doctrine that affirms the dignity of all human beings.
In his work 'Existentialism is a Humanism', Jean-Paul Sartre tries to answer those who had criticized Existentialism for considering it a dehumanizing philosophy.
what is is existentialism?
just your own opinion...
thanks!
^^|||Hello:
Sartre wrote a pamphlet called Existentialism is a Humanism because by its nature it is us that studies our existance through ourselves...by necessity this makes the enterprise very human. Sartre also held the belief that our decisions carried the weight with them that when we choose we choose for the world...or that when we act we give out approval for everyone else to do whatever action we took part in.
The philosophy itself (existentialism) is pretty much...you are a conscious being in a world that you did not choose...you are here ultimately alone because of the nature of consciousness...we can never know if we are in the matrix...of the Truman show...however we are met with others that we know are like us and so we can assume they are like us. These people want things from us...all the time...and so this is where "hell is other people" comes in.
All these people need things...which forces us to act like...a son...a father...a worker...a citizen...and so on...and each time you try to act like...a good son...you run the risk of not being yourself and trying to be some image of a perfect son...Sartre used an example of a waiter that was...too concerned with being a good waiter...Don't worry other people aren't exclusively hell...they can work with us too.
So to act like yourself it to act in good faith...to let yourself slip into roles is to act in bad faith. There is a lot more to this, but thats all you get for a quarter.
I hope this helps
Rev Phil|||http://www.ask.com/web?q=Jean-Paul+Sartr鈥?/a>|||In my opinion, Sartre and Bouvier were blowhards who wrote a lot of words about nothing to describe the obvious.|||existentialism is what you perceive as your reality and how you interact with it.-blurey|||Existentialism: is a philosophical doctrine that gives existence prevalence over essence. A man first exists and then he chooses what he wants to become.
Humanism: is a philosophical doctrine that affirms the dignity of all human beings.
In his work 'Existentialism is a Humanism', Jean-Paul Sartre tries to answer those who had criticized Existentialism for considering it a dehumanizing philosophy.
How are Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre Existentialists?
How is Albert Camus (author of The Stranger) an Existentialist?
How is Jean-Paul Sartre (author of No Exit) an Existentialist?
Thanks!|||Well, begin with the two slightly varying definitions of Existentialism and then apply instances within the two stories which each illustrate an aspect from the definition. Here's an example:
Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
Camus existential beliefs are illlustrated through the actions of ___________ when he is faced with the choice of _______ and ________.
Then you could discuss the freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of the main character's actions and why.
:|||Albert Camus was not an Existentialist!
Although often categorized as one, he is actually an Absurdist. Camus and Sartre were often surprised how they were always lumped in the same category but in fact Camus admit that his work, specifically the 'Myth of Sisyphus is a critique on Sartre's philo.
How is Jean-Paul Sartre (author of No Exit) an Existentialist?
Thanks!|||Well, begin with the two slightly varying definitions of Existentialism and then apply instances within the two stories which each illustrate an aspect from the definition. Here's an example:
Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
Camus existential beliefs are illlustrated through the actions of ___________ when he is faced with the choice of _______ and ________.
Then you could discuss the freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of the main character's actions and why.
:|||Albert Camus was not an Existentialist!
Although often categorized as one, he is actually an Absurdist. Camus and Sartre were often surprised how they were always lumped in the same category but in fact Camus admit that his work, specifically the 'Myth of Sisyphus is a critique on Sartre's philo.
Report Abuse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)