Jean-Paul Sartre: November 2011

Thursday, November 24, 2011

What are the basic philosophies of Jean Paul Sartre?

Hello:

Sartre Started out studying Phenomenology and then grew it into/discovered existentialism and then he eventually pushed this aside to lead a more active life...which is to say activist.

His study of existentialism pretty much says that as humans we are alone because of the nature of out consciousness separated by it from other people (we cannot know their consciousness nor can they know ours). This separation causes fear and despair because it tells us we are actually alone in the universe...separated from everything in the world. Now when we look at other people it is tough to see a person...what we more often see is a role...friend, mother, son and so on...so what happens is whenever we are looked at we know in some way what the other person expects of us so we have a tendency to stop being just ourselves and try to live in whatever role they envision for us. In this philosophy meaning comes from the individual and they must find their place in the world by recreating themselves with in constantly.

Eventually Sartre started not finishing books and spent a large amount of time being an activist rather than worrying about theory (n part this is a portion of his existentialist moral philosophy...we life in this world and it is the world we all choose...so if we don't like it then we are obligated to change it.

I hope this helps

Rev Phil

Question on Jean Paul Sartre?

I was just wondering what Jean Paul Sartre added to the world of Phenomenology?

Thank you|||Sartre made significant contributions to Phenomenology.

For Sartre, the practice of phenomenology proceeds by a deliberate reflection on the structure of consciousness. Sartre's method is in effect a literary style of interpretive description of different types of experience in relevant situations — a practice that does not really fit the methodological proposals of either Husserl or Heidegger, but makes use of Sartre's great literary skill. (Sartre wrote many plays and novels and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.)

Sartre's phenomenology in Being and Nothingness became the philosophical foundation for his popular philosophy of existentialism, sketched in his famous lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism” (1945). In Being and Nothingness Sartre emphasized the experience of freedom of choice, especially the project of choosing one's self, the defining pattern of one's past actions. Through vivid description of the “look” of the Other, Sartre laid groundwork for the contemporary political significance of the concept of the Other (as in other groups or ethnicities). Indeed, in The Second Sex (1949) Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's life-long companion, launched contemporary feminism with her nuanced account of the perceived role of women as Other.|||Crazy eyes.

How does jean paul sartre connect belief in god with the belief that there is a fixed human nature ?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

"Sartre" redirects here. For other uses, see Sartre (disambiguation).

Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre in 1950

Full name Jean-Paul Sartre

Born 21 June 1905

Paris, France

Died 15 April 1980(1980-04-15) (aged 74)

Paris, France

Era 20th-century philosophy

Region Western Philosophy

School Existentialism, Continental philosophy, Marxism

Main interests Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Literature, Politics, Phenomenology, Ontology

Notable ideas Existence precedes essence, Bad faith, Nothingness

Influenced by[show]St. Augustine of Hippo, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Marx, Mao, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, Jean-Jacques Rousseau,[1] Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Jaspers, De Beauvoir, Camus, Kojève, Flaubert, Céline, Merleau-Ponty, Dos Passos, Freud, Voltaire

Influenced[show]De Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, Che Guevara, Frantz Fanon, R. D. Laing, Iris Murdoch, André Gorz, Alain Badiou, Fredric Jameson, Michael Jackson, Albert Camus, Kenzaburo Oe, Doris Lessing, William Burroughs, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Michel Foucault, Nanavira Thera, Joss Whedon.

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (French pronunciation: [saʁtʁ], English: /ˈsɑrtrə/; 21 June 1905 – 15 April 1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. He was one of the leading figures in 20th century French philosophy, particularly Marxism, and was one of the key figures in literary and philosophical existentialism. His work continues to influence fields such as Marxist philosophy, sociology, critical theory and literary studies. Sartre was also noted for his long polyamorous relationship with the feminist author and social theorist Simone de Beauvoir. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature but refused it.

Exodus 20:8-11|||I just keep it real. Fck all that nonsense. That is all the Good Lord wants from us, just keep it real. Damn, ya'll are looking more and more like monkeys to me. HALLOWED|||who is this??? GOD GAVE INTELLIGENCE FOR US to make our choices....sinful nature came from the devil.

The following quote of Jean-Paul Sartre comes from his work, "Existentialism is a Humanism."?

“[…] Man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does”

Does any one know the exact reference to this quote (I need it for my college paper's work cited page).

Thank you|||Does any one know the exact reference - - provided as you asked:

The sources:

Sartre, JP

L'Existentialisme err un humanisme. Paris: Nagel, 1946.

Sartre, JP

Translated as Existentialism and Humanism, by Philip Mairet. London: Methuen, 1973.

Page 33

A modern source:

Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings

Author(s) - Jean-Paul Sartre

Editor(s) - Stephen Priest

List Price: £70.00

ISBN: 9780415213677

ISBN-10: 0415213673

Publisher: Routledge

Publication Date: 23/11/2000

Pages: 352

Page 33 (the quote)|||The Yahoo Philosophy folks would have gotten this as well, but I well avoid that area: some very smart folks.

Report Abuse

|||http://www.quoteland.com/search.asp?quer…|||It's page 23.

Here's the bibliography info:

Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions, NY. The Citadel Press, n.d., pp. 22, 23

Sartre rocks my world. Read Foucault, and you will love on the French forever.

Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre?

existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre says, "when we say man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men." how, in the framework of existentialist beliefs, is this paradoxical statement true?|||As Tim states, "there is no paradox". You cannot be responsible for self without being aware of the environment in which you exist, and that is inclusive of other people. That means that your-self responsibility encompasses all of that which you are aware. To be responsible for self means that you must do (or not do) that which improves your relationship to that environment always in your own self interest.

No paradox at all.|||Not only does the individual account for what he does or does not do but how it effects society as a whole|||I'm not using yahoo to do my assignments and neither should you|||Certainly wasn't true for him...he sold out his fellow Jews.

His responsibility rests on no firm truth basis, and this is one reason that Camus ( a real existentialist) went from admirer to not being able to stand him.|||If one is an "existentialist," one's own developed awareness of the human condition may or may not incline one toward one or another type of responsibility.

The question is, then, how does an existing one develop awareness and responsibility. For Sartre, screwing young philosophy groupies pimped by Simone Beauvoir was a good thing. Someone else might find killing Ukrainians a good thing (J. Stalin), or killing intellectuals (Chairman Mao). These too are "existentialists," as they found no God, no Transcendent Truth, and literally said there was none (a bit of a logical error, btw). A. Hitler likewise found Jews to be obnoxious, subhuman, and acted accordingly.

Thus, "awareness" and "responsibility" are, for the existentialist, paradoxical, as even relative values are conditioned. Derrida, postmodernism, and Rorty are examples of thinkers who opined so.

Thus, while Sartrean existentialism carries within it the seeds of its own paradoxical deconstruction, it is undeveloped by Sartre, who simply opted for a particular socialist humanism, disregarding the more profound implications of his notions, which in turn have been explicated by Derrida, Rorty, et al.

Can you help me find Jean-Paul Sartre's "The Wall" ("Le mur") online?

It can be in English (The Wall), Spanish (El muro) or French (Le mur). Searchble PDFs are preferred.

I have looked everywhere, from the gutenberg project to ebook blogs, Limewire and nothing.

I own the physical book, but I need to make word searches on it.|||The Gutenberg Project has tens of thousands of books available for free download in pdf

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/main_page.鈥?/a>

If, by chance, there is something you can't find there... then one of my English professors gave me this site, which is basically the same thing and was put together by the University of Pennsylvania:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/lis鈥?/a>

All copyrighted material is illegal to download. Here are some sites that have non-copywrited material for reading:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/bro鈥?/a>

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/ebooks/...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/

http://www.baen.com/library/

http://www.ebooks3.com/

http://www.bookyards.com/

http://www.redbirdstudio.com/e_books/...

http://www.free-online-novels.com/...

http://www.bibliomania.com/1/frameset.ht鈥?/a>

http://www.starry.com/novel/authors.htm.鈥?/a>

http://www.bygosh.com/features.htm...

http://www.bygosh.com/thebestnovels.htm.鈥?/a>

http://www.bookspot.com/ask/

http://www.bookspot.com/

But I would try the Gutenberg Project first. I think their collection is more extensive.|||You can find in Plaza Rio Tijuana

te mando un beso y un abrazo

Atte: Giancarlos Amanti

What are the four main points to Jean-Paul Sartre's view of Existentialist Philosophy?

I'll give you 2. His point of view in his stories are feeling alone and unique in a hostile universe.

According to jean paul sartre in his book no exit...what is man nothing?

according to jean paul sartre in his book no exit...what is man nothing?|||It's been a while since I read Sartre, but as I recall, his point is that man must generate his own meaning. He cannot expect it to be granted to him by God or Communism.

Does anyone know where I can find an English translation of the book Les Jeux Sont Faits?(by Jean-Paul Sartre)?

I am trying to find an English translation of the book Les Jeux Sonts Faits by Jean-Paul Sartre. Thanks|||http://www.amazon.co.uk

Is there anyway I could read the short play No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre online for free?

Any links would be helpful|||here you go.

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1o8o1/S鈥?/a>

a lot of libraries nowadays have e-books you can use, for future reference. ;]

I have a question about No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre ?

How are Estelle and Inez similar to each other, but also different ?

What's your reaction about the philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre?

I need everyone opinion|||Nausea.|||Who can write novel to present his philosophy.

Existentialist always has such a strong gift|||You're free to ask, but what difference does it make to you? Seriously, that's my answer.

Jean Paul Sartre-- Philosophy question, existentialist ethics?

What does Sartre mean by saying that responsibility for our actions involves being responsible for everyone?

Here is a sentence from my book.

"And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only meawn that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men"|||If one human dies of hunger then every human is at fault for the ones death.

That is being human and humane.

If one person is being killed as one thousand turn their heads, then the one thousand are as guilty as the one.

When one person falls and breaks a leg, those that walk past are responsible for any and all injuries that follow or develop as a result of.

That is what separates Humans from wild animals.

The inactive Human is as responsible for an event as the active participants are.

see Germany and the Holocaust, see Russia and the Holocaust, see Serbia and the Holocaust, see Turkey and the Holocaust...list is long.|||Isn't Sartre, actually inferring that it is up to the individual to determine his own actions, and not try to influence others, to think in the same way.

In that, I think he is trying to rationalise certain Political, etc, Activities|||The way I understood it back then is that you are not only responsible for yourself and not even only for everyone. You are responsible for everything. Yes you are responsible for the planet Krypton exploding.

When someone goes hungry somewhere else, you LET him go hungry. You made that choice. This doesn't necessarily mean he wants you to be altruistic, but it is just a fact. And then your choice is a burden on you. It is not someone else's choice to let that person go hungry. It is YOUR choice. It is YOUR morality.

And even if there really is nothing you can do about it, ultimately what Sartre says you are responsible for, is its meaning. Existence precedes essence and that means things exist, and only after that do you supply its purpose.

So a child dies in Africa. According to your moral standards, that is okay. Isn't it okay for the majority of us? This is the angst that we individually must bear.|||i believe that if a person cannot answer a question in a manner all can understand then that person really doesn't have an answer. perhaps that explains my love of Bertrand Russell's writing.

perhaps when we do good we add to the goodness in the world.perhaps when we do evil it adds to the sum total of evil.

or maybe i'm confusing this with Blackwell's Humanism or the preface of Principia Ethica. Whatever, Kierkegaard lives...

i believe good things happen to good people. could it be that in the world of the existental "you are what you do" and extending that one might say that each of our actions has an effect globally?

Hypothetically,If Jean-Paul Sartre was alive and American,who would he vote for in the presidential election?

Why?|||he wouldn't vote. he is an existentialist and believes in people making their own decisions. he wouldn't like an institution governing people. a bit more subjective life.

if he really had to vote, he would choose a liberal. that steps away from the consevative standpoint and makes people think and open their eyes. connect it existentialism|||Ron Paul because he believes in personal responsibility and individual liberty.|||Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir were front and center in the French feminist movement. Hillary would be their candidate.|||invoice might be right,but who knows?

this question remind me of this one thishttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;鈥?/a>|||There's no doubt. A self-absorbed, long-winded hypocrite like Sartre would vote for Ralph Nader: two "petits pois" from the same "cosse."|||Interesting question. He probably would dislike Hilary less than the other two... she's more of a realist; less of a dreamer.|||He was an existentialist, so no one who believes in God.|||a nader man.. kucinich a close second. appropriately, neither is relevant. nor was sartre for that matter|||Bill Richardson... he had a sense of humor..

What were Jean-Paul Sartre's beliefs? dumbed down version?

What you do, defines you.

Which of Jean-Paul Sartre's works gives the best general description of his existentialist philosophy?

"Existentialism is a Humanism" is the best general overview. It is a lecture he gave early in his career to present his theories to the general public, so it avoids some of the phenomenological technicalities of his other work, like "Being and Nothingness" It has recently been re-published, so it's easy to find.|||There is an excellent piece in a text-book called "The Existentialists"

It describes Sartre's view that man "has no nature" i.e. there is no such thing as "human nature", as well as condensing his other beliefs.|||"Existentialism is a Humanism" is a short, concise work about his philosophy. Not too awful bad to understand.|||None. I believe that JPS's entire body of work has not stood the test of time. |||Existentialism is a Humanism is far to brief to be considered his most descriptive work, and was a response to another philosopher's claims of existentialism. Try "Essays In Existentialism" by Sartre..

In Philosophy: I need to write a 10 page essay on Soren Kierkegaard vs. Jean-Paul Sartre- The Meaning of Death?

So not only is my problem the fact that I can't split up their ideas into three main points, it's the fact that I cannot find ANY information on their views on this topic at all!!! These philosophers don't even seem to speak of the meaning of death. I thought I could find it in their views of existentialism, but is that the same thing? I'm extremely confused.|||You might begin by thinking about the name of Sartre's most famous book: "Being and Nothingness."

Does that mean the same thing as would a title that said, say, "Life and Death"? It sounds plausible, but the answer is No.

Actually, in Sartre's view, "Being and Nothingness" means, roughly, "Death and Life"! What Sartre meant by "being" is, roughly, inert matter or predictable mechanism. A dead body has being. Only a living human being brings "nothing" into the world -- into his own world.

Your university library probably has the multi-volume ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY. If it does, go to the article on "Nothing." Or, heck, never mind. I'll link you to it below. Look for the bit about Sartre and his understanding of Nothing.

I don't know if you'll be able to spin that into a full paper (or even into half a paper): but it ought to get you started.

I'll give you an even quicker clue for Kierkegaard. Find the Spark Notes for his book "Sickness Unto Death".|||Ok so here is what you do write out the first paragraph saying all the stuff your going to explain ect ect... Then for the next 9 pages just write garbage sentences. On the last page talk about all the stuff you explained in the paper. That should get you an a or b grade depending on how well the teacher is feeling that day because they clearly dont read a 10 page essay.

Anyone know the exact wording of a quote by Jean Paul Sartre, "life is between B and D and is C" ?

Life is between B and D and is C, B being birth and D being death and C being choice...

anyone knwo the exact wording and where it's from?

its by

Jean Paul Sartre|||무한도전!

Who was Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre and what were his ideoloies and impact?

Just a small summary would help. I looked all over the internet but I can barely understand what their talking about. Any help putting his ideologies in a simple form would be greatly appreciated!|||Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (21 June 1905 鈥?15 April 1980), commonly known simply as Jean-Paul Sartre, was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. He was one of the leading figures in 20th century French philosophy.

The basis of Sartre's existentialism can be found in The Transcendence of the Ego. To begin with, the thing-in-itself is infinite and overflowing. Sartre refers to any direct consciousness of the thing-in-itself as a "pre-reflective consciousness." Any attempt to describe, understand, historicize etc. the thing-in-itself, Sartre calls "reflective consciousness." There is no way for the reflective consciousness to subsume the pre-reflective, and so reflection is fated to a form of anxiety, i.e. the human condition. The reflective consciousness in all its forms, (scientific, artistic or otherwise) can only limit the thing-in-itself by virtue of its attempt to understand or describe it. It follows, therefore, that any attempt at self-knowledge (self-consciousness - a reflective consciousness of an overflowing infinite) is a construct that fails no matter how often it is attempted. Consciousness is consciousness of itself insofar as it is consciousness of a transcendent object.

The same holds true about knowledge of the "Other." The "Other" (meaning simply beings or objects that are not the self) is a construct of reflective consciousness. One must be careful to understand this more as a form of warning than as an ontological statement. However, there is an implication of solipsism here that Sartre considers fundamental to any coherent description of the human condition. Sartre overcomes this solipsism by a kind of ritual. Self consciousness needs "the Other" to prove (display) its own existence. It has a "masochistic desire" to be limited, i.e. limited by the reflective consciousness of another subject. This is expressed metaphorically in the famous line of dialogue from No Exit, "Hell is other people."

The main idea of Jean-Paul Sartre is that we are, as men, "condemned to be free." This theory relies upon his atheism, and is formed using the example of the paper-knife. Sartre says that if one considered a paper-knife, one would assume that the creator would have had a plan for it: an essence. Sartre said that human beings have no essence before their existence because, there is no Creator. Thus: "existence precedes essence". So, and just for that, the sartrian man with his freedom will became a god, but he remain always only a bankrupt god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_S鈥?/a>

Jean Paul Sartre and Existentialism?

how did Jean Paul Sartre get involved with existentialism?|||Albert Schweitzer's first cousin, Anne Marie Schweitzer, became Jean-Paul's mother. His father died within a year of J-P's birth. In this sense, his "No Exit" has an illegitimate child who is drowned by his mother. In J-P's life, his mum took him with her to live with a stern paternal grandfather, Charles Schweitzer. For little "Poulou," life was very harsh; he retreated into reading and writing fantasy and other literature to "escape."

He wrote of his time growing up that it was "dark" and "horrifying," themes that would resurface in his "Nausea" as symptomatic of "rudderless man," which relates to his alienation from father and grandfather, and his self-described "feminization."

He ended up in a good school, with classmates Weil, Levi-Strauss, Merleau-Ponty, and later de Beauvoir.

He studied with Edmund Husserl, but did not experience what the "epoche" imported. Rather, Sartre's more materialistically-conditioned naive experiential understanding of "baby condemned to be free" and responsible for a limited degree of what it becomes, particularly reflects his own worldline.

"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov,

"Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose.

|||he's french

Can anyone explain this theory by Jean-Paul Sartre to me?

freedom is the nothingness we experience when we are conscious of what we are not

WTF?|||Its pretty simple actually. "What we are not" always makes us depressed in dejected on a certain level. So you are sitting in a car in a parking lot and it wont start because its a 1987 Oldsmobile and some dude gets into his Maserati which is parked right next to you and zooms off you become "Consious" of what you dont have. But, you are "free" to go out an and do whatever it takes to get a Maserati if you want. Get it.|||by seeing what others are, we can know what we are not and are. therefore knowing the various thinks we could be, we realize that we had the freedom to choose.

thats what i understand from it|||OK. It does sound obtuse but let's work on it together.

First of all think about who you are not. You are not President Bush, of Obama, or Hillary, or Mugabe, or the drug addict that lives down the block from you, you are not a car or a tree, or countless other people or things. Right? Right.

Can you relate to them? Probably not. It is really difficult to put yourself in their shoes, tires or roots, partially because our ability to empathize is limited somewhat and because a lot of what we see is a facade that each of them has created to present themselves to the world. That is the nothingness. The part that if we are honest we have to admit we really know nothing about.

Well how does that relate to freedom? Does it mean that we are free to not be them? That we are free to emulate them? That we are trapped inside of being ourselves and have no freedom to be someone else? Or something else?

Just what does that freedom mean to you? That is the freedom that Sartre is talking about. You have to make that choice of what it means to you. Only YOU can make that choice. That is your freedom, to be you in all the different ways you can be you. And that freedom takes you on a path called your life.|||First you have to understand and accept that we are everything.

And "everything" means everything that is real and imaginable that we can perceive with the faculties we have as beings of this existence. That includes emotion and thought.

That means that our consciousness includes all of the universe and everything imaginable that is beyond the physical universe.

So, because we are part of the universe, we are the universe or existence (whichever word you prefer to use). Of this we are conscious. We are conscious that we are part of existence. And consciousness ties us to this universe or existence. Consciousness is what keeps us in this existence. That we know.

So the essential aspect of this existence is that we are conscious of this existence. If you are not conscious of this existence, then what are you conscious of? Remember existence includes imagination and feelings. Anything that happens in this existence whether physical or not is part of existence.

So if consciousness is essential for knowing that we exist and are part of this existence, if it is the very building block of existence, then it is what ties us to existence.

For example: A house is made of bricks. It is dependent on bricks to exist. The bricks are consciousness. Without bricks there is no house. Without consciousness there is no existence.

So, we are prisoners of consciousness because existence requires consciousness for it to be and we are existence.

We are made of consciousness.

We are prisoners of consciousness.

If there is no consciousness, we are free from existence.

Can you imagine having absolutely no consciousness?

I can't. It is beyond imagination because imagination is part of consciousness.

So Jean-Paul Sartre's comment is a bit comical because no one can be conscious of what we are not. That would be like being dead. But if you believe in soul then death is not the end of existence. That's why it's funny.

To be really non existent is beyond consciousness. That is ultimate freedom. Even the term nothingness is something.

So true freedom is beyond nothingness. It's beyond consciousness.

According to jean paul sartre in his book no exit...what is immanent bad faith?

according to jean paul sartre in his book no exit...what is immanent bad faith?|||THAT IS WHAT I GOT OUT THE BOOK

According to jean paul sartre in his book no exit...what is transcendant bad faith?

according to jean paul sartre in his book no exit...what is transcendant bad faith?|||I could be wrong about this, but I don't think that Sartre used the expression 'transcendent bad faith'. But I can say this:

Sartre believed that human existence is radically free. We are "condemned to be free." Bad faith is acting in such a way as to avoid acknowledging this fundamental freedom, or finding ways to avoid taking responsibility for it.

The term 'transcendent' in this sort of context stems from the Kantian notion of looking at the grounds of experience. The grounds of experience cannot be experienced 鈥?they transcend experience. Edmund Husserl (the founder of phenomenology who was Heidegger's teacher, and Sartre was a student of Heidegger) used the notion of a "transcendental ego" as the basis for conscious experience. In other words, the source of consciousness is beyond consciousness. Sartre rejected this notion of a transcendental ego. In this light, I doubt that Sartre would embrace a notion of 'transcendent bad faith'.

'Hell is other people', said Jean Paul Sartre. Is this confrontational statement of any help?

And if it is true what can anyone do about it?|||Of course it isn't a good outlook on life because as a human you should consider your s e l f as the w o r l d and by that I mean everything in the world is you and vice versa, so if you think other people are hell (and Paul did I guess) then you yourself, my friend are hell as well. ta da.|||When you think about it, there really isn't a society without other people, would we be lonely without other people, or would that be heaven. Depends on your environment I suppose. Probably heaven to begin with, after awhile perhaps we'd share our heaven with any hellish person. But it's the basis for Karma, without other people and their strife we may not want to be here. But, I have to agree with him, big time!|||Being a part of the human race is a gift as much as it is a curse. Personally I think the world would be a better place if a huge meteor came and killed all of us. lol. pity that probably won't happen anytime soon.|||I think he may have been having a bad day. Probably had the Jehovah's round for a visit. They can make you eschew humanity temporarily.|||read NO EXIT in its entirety...good read|||misery loves company and yes some people bring hell to us.

Our sucess depends on how many we bless.

What is the significance of Jean-Paul Sartre?

He was one of the leading existentialists. He pretty much defined atheistic existentialism. ("There is no god, so how do I find meaning?") He wrote "Being and Nothingness," which is difficult, but brilliant.|||Jean-Paul Sartre was a brilliant philosopher and, as Todd indicated, is appropriately credited with his work in atheistic existentialism.

A quote you will often hear is "Existence precedes essence." This is Sartre's. He essentially indicated that life, in and of itself, does not come with a ready-made purpose. Rather, we give our own lives purpose by choosing one for ourselves. The consequences of this are serious and revolutionary.

I happen to think Sartre was a genius, and I have found quite a bit of useful thought in his work. Some of his work is a little dense, but I do recommend you give it a chance. It will change the way you think about life.

What were Jean Paul Sartre thoughts on why there was no God?

He was an existentialist. Read Nausea.|||It's weird, but I do not remember the person. It seems it has already fallen into oblivion.

Yet - some 3500 years ago someone said (and wrote these words, still very well known as a person and as a Book). Psalms, written by Solomon:

"Only a fool has said in his heart: there is no God". Peculiar, no?

What did Jean-Paul Sartre say when he left the motion picture theatre?

I think he said good bye

"Everything has been figured out, except how to live"-Jean-Paul Sartre?

1.) Restate the quote/explain the quote in your own words

2.) Explain what the quote means

3.) Describe any unfamiliar words or words that will aid in understanding

4.) Give an example supporting/illustrating the meaning of the quote

5.) Explain why you agree or disagree with the quote

6.) State what elements of existentialism the quote relates to and how|||One of my favorite quotations.|||This quote is outdated and lacks any significance in today's world.

We live in a mechanical environment amongst mechanical people. The will to live has disappeared man only exist, he has ceased being a subject filled with subjectivity. And because man no longer has a will "how to live" has no meaning or importance.

Existentialism is dead because man exist in a state of the virtual. Man does not suffer, question or exist in a constant state of dread because his will has simply disappeared into the creature comforts that are afforded him through capitalism.|||1. it seems it's your homework.

2. it means 'ignorant'.

3. http://www.suite101.com/content/understa鈥?/a>

4. celebrity

5. I agree - the reason is the majority is blind or blindfolded.

6. do your own research - I will have to do mine.|||Poor, nihilistic Go Sane.

Of course it is true. The answer is different for everyone as how to live is different for everyone. My life style would probably drive others mad (and vice versa) but it is my choice not theirs.

"I confuse things with their names: that is belief"-Jean-Paul Sartre?

"It is only in our decision that we are important"-Jean-Paul Sartre?

Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre and Holden Caulfield?

Are they similar?

Does Jean-Paul Sartre learn from his mistakes?

Does Jean-Paul Sartre ever accept modern existence?|||They are similar, the word is "ennui."

Holden learns from his mistakes.

The only "mistake" that Sartre may have learned from was turning down teh nobel prize money, and he neverchanged his viewpoints, although he made a parody of himself at one point which was not serious.

What inspired jean paul sartre to write the wall?

what specific event inspired it? this is a question on my take home final, %26amp; the answer is not the Spanish Civil War..|||http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_S鈥?/a>

Can anyone explain in as simple terms as possible, the basic ideas of Jean-Paul Sartre?

or is it basically impossible? (to keep it simple I mean?)

I would love to understand the basics of the man's philosophy but the wikipedia article just makes your head hurt|||He was an existentialist which means that he came to the realization that human life has no purpose or meaning. (He was an atheist but there are Christian existentialists too.) He said you feel nausea when you realize this. But if you are cool, like he was, then you overcome the nausea and construct your own purpose for living.

I'm guessing there are 3 types of people then: those without a clue, those with nausea, and at the top the existentialists.

I don't think it would have been his nature to be self-congratulatory about figuring this out.|||****, if something on wikipedia makes your head hurt, there ain't no way you're going to ever understand sartre.|||dead - you cannot enjoy|||Existentialist.

And now go research that.|||Sarte believed that man is alone in the universe (without a god to guide them) and that there is no predestined path for a man to follow. A man's life has no a priori meaning, but rather is given meaning by the choices he makes. Each individual creates himself and is responsible for assigning value to his own actions and creating his own morals.|||first Define term existence for your self

2nd it would define everything .|||he was confused

because if he would have been born a girl his named would have been jean, so his parents should have just stuck with paul, but they didnt like the beatles either.|||sartre is fun to read if you get a good text -- existentialism is often misunderstood as it goes against organized religion (so organized religion usually teaches against it in its own theatre of the absurd) but not necessarily religious thought in and of itself.

in the simple of terms sartres existentialism you are responsible for yourself and this will free you to do the right thing. while many people believe being responsible for your own morals would be burdensome he thought it to be liberating.

many people get bogged down in the absurd in existential writing. most existential books are more like modern grims fairy tales -- for those who don't live existential existences they wake up as cockroaches, trapped inside walls, etc etc. existentialism deals a lot with the absurdity of life and culture as we know it and the humor of their parables is often lost on the humorless.

Where can I read Bad Faith by Jean-Paul Sartre?

In my English class, I have to write a paper over the summary of either Bad Faith by Sartre or Slave-Master Morality by Nietzsche. Does anyone know where I can read either of these two works?|||Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception.[1] It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self deception. Faith is a strong or unshakable belief in something; bad faith is when the strong or unshakeable belief is irrational or unreasonable given known facts, or pretended to be held as a belief.[1] A common expression is "to assume bad faith", to see in another person's actions negative motivations, whether or not they actually exist.

Bad faith may be viewed in some cases to not involve deception, as in some kinds of hypochondria with actual physical manifestations. There is a question about the truth or falsity of statements made in bad faith self deception; for example, if hypochondriac makes a complaint about their psychological health, is it true or false?[2]

The expression “bad faith” is associated with “double heartedness”,[1] which is also translated as “double mindedness”.[3][4][5] A bad faith belief may be formed through self deception, being double minded, or "of two minds", which is associated with faith, belief, attitude, and loyalty. In the 1913 Webster’s Dictionary, bad faith was equated with being double hearted, "of two hearts", or “a sustained form of deception which consists in entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings, and acting as if influenced by another”.[1] The concept is similar to perfidy, or being "without faith", in which deception is achieved when one side in a conflict promises to act in good faith (e.g. by raising a flag of surrender) with the intention of breaking that promise once the enemy has exposed himself. After Jean Paul Sartre’s analysis of the concepts of self deception and bad faith, bad faith has been examined in specialized fields as it pertains to self deception as two semi-independently acting minds within one mind, with one deceiving the other.

Some examples of bad faith include: a scientist who holds metaphysical beliefs which are not consistent with the findings of science, but puts forth his belief system as though they were;[6] a company representative who negotiates with union workers while having no intent of compromising;[7] a person who edits an online encyclopedia to be consistent with their point of view rather than verifiable facts; a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false;[8] an insurer who uses language and reasoning which are deliberately misleading in order to deny a claim.[8]

Bad faith has been used as a term of art in diverse areas involving feminism,[9] racial supremacism,[10] political negotiation,[11] insurance claims processing,[8] intentionality,[12] ethics,[13] existentialism, and the law.|||Start with local library, even if they don't have it, they may be able to order it for you. Otherwise, try Amazon, since it is for a class, even a beat-up cheap copy would probably work fine for your purposes.

Blessings on your Journey!|||Yes, the library should have both of them. I would go with Bad Faith.

The last lines of "Nausea" of Jean Paul Sartre?

I have downloaded "Nausea" from Jean Paul Sartre and if any of you has got a copy, in English, of this work can you please write to me the last lines (or at leas the last line) for me to know if the copy I have is the right one or only a part of it.

Please don't judge me because I have downloaded illegally, but where I live there are no works of Sartre published and I can't buy one online.|||My copy (translated by Robert Baldick 1965) has this as the last paragraph:

Night is falling. On the first floor of the Hotel Printania two windows have just lighted up. The yard of the new station smells strongly of damp wood: tomorrow it will rain over Bouville.

The last section of the book (last 30 pages or so) is under the heading 'Wednesday. My last day at Bouville'.

So do you have a complete copy?!

Where is this Jean Paul Sartre quote from?

"Man is fully responsible for his nature and his choices."

Work book, essay, etc. is this from?|||Existenitalism 101

How do you pronounce the name of "Jean Paul Sartre"?

I have a presentation on existential psychotherapy in a few hours and I need to pronounce his name correctly. I have only ever seen it written, never heard it pronounced. Help!|||zhon paul sar-trugh

break a leg (that means good luck).|||agree with the first person|||Jean sounds like "shan't" without the "T" and with the sound in "vision" instead of the SH. Paul sounds as in English, only that the L is like the first one in Little, not like the second. Sartre sounds like "Sartra", with an A as in "Cat".

What were the reasons for Jean Paul Sartre turning down the Nobel Prize in Literature?

Sartre turned down the Prize, citing citing his deeply held principle of rejecting all official honors. Shortly after refusing the honor, Sartre wrote to the Swedish Academy and said that he had changed his mine. He asked that the money be sent to him in confidence. The Academy refused.

This is detailed in an essay titled "Hell is Jean-Paul Sartre" in "50 Reasons" by Alex Clarke %26amp; Jules Eden (2006).

What are your thoughts/ideas on Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza and Jean-Paul Sartre philosophically?

What a fascinating question! Putting these two together on the same page is something that I have not seen done. These are both very complicated, but also very brilliant philosophers. Of course, they are opposed in much of their respective ontologies, but Sartre does take away a lot from Spinoza by way of contrast. In Being and Nothingness Sartre ridicules Spinoza's notion of the infinite regress of causes of consciousness (an idea is caused ad infinitum to previous ideas). Spinoza is of course considered the great enemy to the ontology of freedom from his basic premise that everything has a cause. He says that contingency is merely just our ignorance and in truth there is nothing outside of necessity. However, what Spinoza misses is the notion of negation or what Sartre calls negatit茅. This is the notion that without negation, without definition (this is this and not that) there is nothing but being (being is, being is what it is, being is in itself). Spinoza, like many others, sees negation as merely a mistaken judgment (I thought I had five dollars when in fact I only had three) that does not in fact exist (in the above example there is only positive terms, I posit this but when compared to positive phenomenon I realize that this positive phenomenon is the truth). Sartre however provides a more primordial negation that is the nec. conditions for the possibility of that kind of negation. When we ask a question, for instance, we have an expectation of a particular type of answer. (What is wrong with my car? It could be the radiator or the thermostat.) By positing this expectation we actually see the two types of negation.

1. Recognizing a thing as a thing (a car is not a dog)

2. Recognizing a possible answer (there is something there that I do NOT know).

By positing a question we open the possibility to the answer being nothing, nobody, NO. What wrong with my car? Nothing.

Sartre's brilliant example of destruction will do well here. Without negation it is not even possible to have destruction. In full positivity some sort of geological placation comes through to (say) a house. The house is not destroyed, but merely its matter is redistributed. Furthermore, it would be wrong to even describe it as redistribution, for that would require a negation-synthesis (It was here but is no longer here, the pile of wood is no longer a house but it was a house). Without negation you only have the Moment, the now, or the disconnected series of nows.

For Sartre, this introduction of negation, which is consciousness, is what is our freedom. Man is what he is not and is not what he his. Man is the negation of being, and the being of negation. Without a notion of negation (proper) Spinoza lacks the language to describe freedom at all, but instead describes positivity (all things have a cause and are substantial (God)). However, his ideas require negation (distinguishing between this and this). His system is missing the portico of negation, so he stays on the outside looking in at a bleak misrepresentation of lived experience.

I hope I am not being too harsh on poor Baruch. I don't think that the image of the philosopher was ever better portrayed than through the three S's, Socrates, Spinoza, Sartre. They are all three philosophers which I come back to again and again. With the exception of Socrates, these philosophers are not taken as seriously as they should be by the academic (grad schools) community.

Cheers!

Hell Is Other Poeple: Who quote's Jean-Paul Sartre in a movie.?

In what film does a man doing a voice over say "Jean-Paul Sartre once said that 'hell is other people'?|||I think it may have been the film"No Exit" based on the 1944 Sartre play" Huis Clos"( Behind Closed Doors.

Why did Jean-Paul Sartre said that FREEDOM is our DOOM?

Jean Paul Sartre Said: My own noblest possession, freedom, is my doom: I am "condemned to freedom." I am doomed to failure. I am an eternal Boston Red Sox fan, under a cosmic curse.|||.. To answer this question we d better look at the poster logo of Sartres existentialism .

"the being exceeds the purpose"

we exist with no given purpose. we are in a way casted to be, to exist without our intention ,and any purpose given by others.

its very absurd cuz we exisit but we dont know why.

so we are doomed with this absurdity where the freedom is only what we have.

even though we have freedom this absurdity never changes. still we have no choice but to go on with the freedom which we have.

so freedom is our doom.

existentialists never say such words " I am doomed to failure under cosmic curse"

as long as you have your freedom , you can and must try again cuz you are doomed with your freedom, your free will.|||Admittedly I haven't read Sartre, however, I would hazard a guess that Freedom could be your doom because it is a great responsibility. Freedom is a gift %26amp; a curse. If you are forced to do something, if you have no choice then you are exempt from responsibility, but if you are free to make your own choice then there's no one to blame but yourself for your mistakes. It can be scary, knowing that you are the author of your fate. It's overwhelming.

In high school, my religion teacher had a saying "God gives us enough rope to hang ourselves" (a tad morbid in retrospect!!!) All she meant was that God gives us freewill. Our lives are ours to lead however we choose. We may choose good or evil, it's up to us. Some will choose evil or self-destruction, others will choose good %26amp; self-survival, but it's up to us.

There have been a few points in my life when I was at a crossroads and had to choose between two paths (or more). While I might have seen myself as lucky to have the luxury of options, instead I was overwhelmed %26amp; scared of making a mistake. I didn't know what to do. I wanted a big hand to reach down from the sky %26amp; point which way to go.

A long time ago my family had a dog that always wanted to get out of the yard. We had to keep the gate closed or he'd run away. Sometimes my brother would forget or it wouldn't close properly %26amp; he'd get out. One morning he got out %26amp; was hit by a car. It was devestating. He longed for freedom %26amp; it was his doom. A prison is safe. Nothing can happen to you in there. Freedom is a risk, you don't know what will happen when you take a chance. But life isn't worth living if you don't take any risks.

Freedom is our doom %26amp; our salvation. We direct our own lives. We choose what we do and where we go, not knowing the outcome but hoping for the best. Freedom is our gift %26amp; our curse.|||I adore Sartre.

I believe he was making the point that with freedom, comes more responsibility that we can't necessarily handle. We're human. We're irrational and greedy and impulsive at times. Having freedom allows us to act on those traits, and therefore gives us the ability to condemn ourselves in various ways. Freedom isn't necessarily safe, as we don't have someone to hold our hand and guide us and keep us out of trouble. I believe that's what he's saying.

What was Jean-Paul Sartre's view on what was right?

I just need in simple words his view on what was right. I think it was something like: It is right if that person believes it was right.

Thanks!|||What's right for you is what's right.

What significance does Jean-Paul Sartre's beliefs have on our lives?

It has varying influence depending on the individual. For the vast majority, they make no difference at all; few today know who Sartre was, much less what he believed.

For myself, I found him confusing. Existentialism in general I find agreeable. But Sartre's pessimism, his constant portrayal in his novels and plays of human beings as directionless automatons, struck me as curiously disconnected from the freedom which existentialism implies.

So in my case, I found his general philosophy liberating and his specific illustrations of it depressing.

And I'd say that anyone who asks "what influence did (any thinker's) beliefs have on our lives" is making a generalization error; individual lives are affected quite, quite differently by the beliefs of any great thinker. My life has been somewhat influenced by the ideas of Morgan Robbins; yours probably not at all.|||why he don't say any word against Stalin???(STALIN KILL MORE HUMAN THAN HITLER)

What do you think Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus would say about a site(s) like Facebook and Myspace?

Would they hate social networking sites?|||I think they would only respect communication that is intellectual discourse, not the drivel that is published on social networking sites.|||I think you should have added Narcissus to your list, even though he wouldn't quite fit into the classification as a philosopher it would certainly drum up more traffic to answer you. Narcissus would love the site because he could be on it but hate the fact others were competing with him for the space. I think the same is true for Sartre and Camus. They would love it for being able to express free thought but abhor it for the narcissists using the sites.|||Well, Sartre despised the bourgeoisie, so there you go.

As for Camus, he would provably say that what you should really be asking is wether you should commit suicide or not.

edit:

Let's not forget that Sartre's philosophy helped ignite a wave of revolutions against tyranny across the globe. Including the Cuban Revolution, when he used to meet often with his friend Ernesto "Che" Guevara.

For better or for worse his ideas changed the world so... gloomy French philosopher? really?|||Sartre would re-iterate that hell is other people!

EDIT: Mme.grayure, I must also chime in about the epithet "gloomy." Je pense que Sartre was trying to make an ontological assessment, thus it's NOT a literal 21st century Anglo-American use of "hell" OR a typical contemporary tongue-in-cheek version of it, either. The assessment is simply this: your subjectivity is forced to contend with other subjectivities, or beings-for-themselves, to make meaning. That is all.|||Yes, but they're miserable French philosophers who are notoriously gloomy. I mean, "hell is other people"?! What's their problem?

Saturday, November 19, 2011

What are the basic philosophies and beliefs of Jean Paul Sartre?

"Jean Paul Sartre." Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.

Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. (check your local library Web site for access)

This is an excerpt...

From 1933 to 1935 Sartre was a research student at the Institut Fran莽ais in Berlin and in Freiburg. He discovered the works of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger and began to philosophize in the phenomenological vein. A series of works on the modalities of consciousness poured from Sartre's pen: two works on imagination, one on self-consciousness, and one on emotions. He also produced a first-rate volume of short stories, The Wall (1939).

In 1960 Sartre returned to philosophy, publishing the first volume of his Critique of Dialectical Reason. It represented essentially a modification of his existentialism by Marxist ideas. The drift of Sartre's earlier work was toward a sense of the futility of life. In Being and Nothingness he declared man to be "a useless passion," condemned to exercise a meaningless freedom. But after World War II his new interest in social and political questions and his rapprochement with Marxist thought led him to more optimistic and activist views.|||Rather than quote excerpts or speak of his philosophy as if you already understand it, I'll give you this:

He is famous for saying that existence precedes essence, which means that we are not born with a defined identity that limits us. As a very superficial example, just because I am born to a family of scientists does not mean I am going to become one as well; as a deeper example, just because I am a human being does not mean I am obligated to satisfy a social definition of what it is to be human. Similarly, Sartre finds a problem with those who see others as their roles, i.e. identifying a cashier as nothing more than one who works at a cash register to serve your needs, rather than as an equally free being. (This is actually the foundation of his ethics, where others are recognized as free individuals.) There is much more to this aspect of his thinking, but to sum it up: because we are free, we are defined solely by ourselves.

It is important to note, however, that he also does not exactly approve of self-definition. When we confine ourselves to particular systems (roles, principles, etc.), we are reducing ourselves from the "for-itself" (free being) to the "in-itself" (in short, a defined object), a process he calls "bad faith." According to Sartre, this is a retreat from the reality of the formlessness of our consciousness because of our fear, anxiety, and despair over our freedom and the responsibilities that lie therein. An example of bad faith would be, to use a previous case again, limiting oneself to the role of cashier.

Along with his philosophical work, he produced some fiction, most notably Nausea, to capture the essence of his philosophy in practice. I suggest reading Being and Nothingness, Existentialism Is a Humanism, The Transcendence of the Ego, and Nausea to get the full view of his thought.|||Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology (sometimes subtitled A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology) is a 1943 philosophical treatise by Jean-Paul Sartre that is regarded as the beginning of the growth of existentialism in the 20th century. The French title is L'脢tre et le n茅ant : Essai d'ontologie ph茅nom茅nologique. Its main purpose was to define consciousness as transcendent.

The basis of Sartre's existentialism is found in The Transcendence of the Ego. To begin with, the thing-in-itself is infinite and overflowing. Sartre refers to any direct consciousness of the thing-in-itself as a "pre-reflective consciousness." Any attempt to describe, understand, historicize etc. the thing-in-itself, Sartre calls "reflective consciousness." There is no way for the reflective consciousness to subsume the pre-reflective, and so reflection is fated to a form of anxiety, i.e. the human condition. The reflective consciousness in all its forms, (scientific, artistic or otherwise) can only limit the thing-in-itself by virtue of its attempt to understand or describe it. It follows, therefore, that any attempt at self-knowledge (self-consciousness - a reflective consciousness of an overflowing infinite) is a construct that fails no matter how often it is attempted. Consciousness is consciousness of itself insofar as it is consciousness of a transcendent object.

The same holds true about knowledge of the "Other." The "Other" (meaning simply beings or objects that are not the self) is a construct of reflective consciousness. One must be careful to understand this more as a form of warning than as an ontological statement. However, there is an implication of solipsism here that Sartre considers fundamental to any coherent description of the human condition.Sartre overcomes this solipsism by a kind of ritual. Self consciousness needs "the Other" to prove (display) its own existence. It has a "masochistic desire" to be limited, i.e. limited by the reflective consciousness of another subject. This is expressed metaphorically in the famous line of dialogue from No Exit, "Hell is other people."

What makes Jean-Paul Sartre's 'Nausea' a philosophical novel?

I know it's an existential novel but how is it particularly philosophical?|||Read it and decide for yourself|||From wikipedia:

Criticism of Sartre's novels frequently centered on the tension between the philosophical and political on one side versus the novelistic and individual on the other.

Ronald Aronson describes[16] the reaction of Albert Camus, still in Algeria and working on his own first novel, L鈥櫭塼ranger. At the time of the novel's appearance, Camus was a reviewer for an Algiers left-wing daily. Camus told a friend that he "thought a lot about the book" and it was "a very close part of me." In his review, Camus wrote, "the play of the toughest and most lucid mind are at the same time both lavished and squandered." Camus felt that each of the book's chapters, taken by itself, "reaches a kind of perfection in bitterness and truth." However, he also felt that the descriptive and the philosophical aspects of the novel are not balanced, that they "don't add up to a work of art: the passage from one to the other is too rapid, too unmotivated, to evoke in the reader the deep conviction that makes the art of the novel." He likewise felt that Sartre had tipped the balance too far in depicting the repugnant features of mankind "instead of placing the reasons for his despair, at least to a certain degree, if not completely, on the elements of human greatness." Still, Camus's largely positive review led to a friendship between the two authors.

G.J. Mattey, a philosopher rather than a novelist like Camus, flatly describes[17] Nausea and others of Sartre's literary works as "practically philosophical treatises in literary form."

In distinction both from Camus's feeling that Nausea is an uneasy marriage of novel and philosophy and also from Mattey's belief that it is a philosophy text, the philosopher William Barrett, in his book Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy, expresses[18] an opposite judgment. He writes that Nausea "may well be Sartre's best book for the very reason that in it the intellectual and the creative artist come closest to being conjoined." Barrett says that, in other literary works and in his literary criticism, Sartre feels the pull of ideas too strongly to respond to poetry, "which is precisely that form of human expression in which the poet鈥攁nd the reader who would enter the poet's world鈥攎ust let Being be, to use Heidegger's phrase and not attempt to coerce it by the will to action or the will to intellectualization."

The poet Hayden Carruth agrees with Barrett, whom he quotes, about Nausea. He writes firmly[3] that Sartre, "is not content, like some philosophers, to write fable, allegory, or a philosophical tale in the manner of Candide; he is content only with a proper work of art that is at the same time a synthesis of philosophical specifications."

Barrett feels[18] that Sartre as a writer is best when "the idea itself is able to generate artistic passion and life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausea_(nov鈥?/a>

Why did Jean-Paul Sartre declined the 1964 Prize in Literature? He always refused official honors, Why?

"He always refused official honors"

Why was this?|||He declined the 1964 prize in protest of the United States involvement in Vietnam. He didn't believe he should win something from a country that he could not support.|||It was a matter of principle; George C. Scott stood on the same principle when he refused to show up and accept the Academy award.|||Jean-Paul Sartre probably declined his official honors because maybe he feels that people who accept such awards do it to look good rather than do it to feed their own passion.

I am going to assume that his principal was to not boost his ego and try to seem as humble about winning these awards as possible

Philosophy Majors existentialism and jean paul sartre?

Hello guys Im in need of some help I need to have an example and explain these simple terms found in existentialism in the teachings of jean paul sartre the terms are Being In Itself Being For Itself Fundamental Desire Emperical Desire if you guys can please give me some examples and something to explain these with tied to his philosophy i will gradly appreciate it thanks much|||Read your textbook, or wikipedia!

How do you pronounce Erostratus, a short story by Jean-Paul Sartre? And on what syllable is the emphasis?

e-ROS-tratus|||Just a guess, but I think you pronounce it like 'air-oh-STRAT-us'

That's what it looks like to me.

~Tiger

Difference between two Jean Paul Sartre books?

I'm looking to buy Jean Paul Sartre's book on existentialism and humanism, and after checking Amazon.com i found that there are two books with slightly different names but vastly different prices. one is called Existentialism IS Humanism, one is called Existentialism %26amp; Humanism.

what's the difference and which would be good for a beginner's introduction to existentialism?

thanks in advance.

Peace,

Kai|||http://www.amazon.com

I checked on these books at this site too, and read what reviews there were on them both, which you may want to do. Just select the book you want to read about (I double-click, though I may not need to)--

However what I see tells me that the first book you mention, "Existentialism Is A Humanism" is a shorter, more 'accessible' book referring to Sartre's work, with I'm sure, a lot of quotes and such, but not a full picture. It may be all you want.

If you want the full picture (and one review on this second book took patience to read, and another said the book itself takes patience), then you want to get the second book you mention, "Existentialism and Humanism."

Maybe you should follow the link and read these reviews to help you make up your mind.

I would think that for a 'beginner,' the first book would do nicely.

Peace to you, too--

Does anyone agree with Jean-paul Sartre on the idea that every human being is absolutely free?

Do u believe everything in our life is a choice and that it is impossible not to choose and that we are CONDEMNED TO BE FREE?|||No|||Not exactly. We are free in the traditional sense that we're not slaves, however not everything in our life is "free choice." Recently Julian Assange was absolutely criticized for the wikileaks incidence, then he was convicted and thrown into jail for an unrelated assault charge in Switzerland. Coincidence? I don't think so. This is my opinion, they probably bargained with the swiss government to throw him in jail, just so he could have punishment for what he did. That really isn't choice at all.|||It sure feels that way, though doesn't it?

You have to take this in the spirit of existentialism. Read Soren Kierkegaard and then subtract God.

A human life must, after all, be lived going forward and can only be understood (causally) by looking back. This has the feeling of completely choosing at every moment what I will type next. It seems I must choose to say something important or something true. It seems like I am choosing my own words and actions. If I am, am I not morally responsible for what I think and say and do? The law must certainly treat me as though I am the author of my actions. If they blame you for what I do, that can't be right and if I blame the all inclusive particle of wave functions you might think I was trying to escape my responsibility.|||The behaviourist B F Skinner certainly did not agree. His book "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." (the title is an echo of Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil) contains the most provoking thesis I have ever come across. It basically say Man is entirely a product of his genetic inheritance and environment, and has no autonomy at all.

Behaviourism is popular in the US prison service and in juvenile facilities, where it has some success in dealing with people who are poorly socialised. However, in the general population socialisation implies internalisation of values learnt from parents, other adults and peers through identification, which is a very different process.|||Nope. We are controlled by our environment and circumstances and our choices are too easily influenced by things our conscious mind is unaware of.

We are condemned to nothing except death.

My opinion only. i can speak for no one else.|||Not at all. Today, Mr Sartre's writing in that vein is looked upon as archaic considering the current knowledge of the effects of genetics on human behavior.|||FREE? from what???!

Is there a model, promoted by Jean-Paul Sartre, where authenticity is a process ? So might it make sense, in a?

computerization project, for a person to fake authenticity ?|||Please check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_S鈥?/a>

Sartre believed that authenticity is experience. Experience can change individual thought and behavior.

...

Yes, a person can fake authenticity in a computerization project. He can pretend to be someone with similar behavior. Computer can categorize its pattern and find match. Then, he can get through with his fake id.|||This doesn't make any sense. Authenticity is living in good faith, among other things. To fake good faith \, would be to be in bad faith. IT is about external behavior and activity for all to see. Bad faith is a lie to oneself about oneself, so if one was faking good faith, then one would be in bad faith. It is not a process nor is it even normativity, in the sense that he lays down a set of rules to follow. Authenticity is a relating to oneself honestly, how can one fake that?

Can you please explain this quotation by Jean Paul Sartre: Life has no meaning the moment you lose the illusi?

Life has no meaning the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.|||well, sartre was an atheist, so i would focus on the fact that he makes specific reference to the concept of the eternal soul as illusory, and that he is asking his readers to think about meaning. he was a writer much concerned with what it means to be human, to be free (or as he put it 'condemned to be free'), to be responsible and to make choices. we are 'free' to give meaning to life and value is arbitrary. in other words, what S酶ren says is right, once we abandon the notion of a life beyond this earthly existence, we are free to really focus on this life and to create meaning.

from having read some of his works, in my much younger days, i remember being left with the feeling that life, for sartre, was utterly devoid of meaning... almost as if there was some sort of subconscious resentment or bitterness at having arrived at the conclusion that God, to his mind (and a very fine mind it was) was an impossibility.

by the way, if this is for some sort of academic project, you may want to have a look at a couple of these sites, they may be of help:

http://www.sartre.org/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existe鈥?/a>

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/

http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/sart.h鈥?/a>

edit: silly me, i just noticed your avatar (which was showing up blank when i first answered the question) is the atheist bus campaign logo!

well, there's your sartrean answer right there! you could have just looked in the mirror and spared me all this typing :)|||He was saying if you do not believe in an afterlife it really doesn't matter what you do. It's not going to save your soul, so that means all these human constructs we follow do not matter. There is no fate, it's just a lottery of chaos. It could end today, or in 50 years. When it's done, it's done. To some carpe diem, others wallow,it does not matter.|||Well I don't know much about him and I've only read Existentialism is a Humanism but I'll try.

I think it saying that live has meaning once you find out your existence is finite. When you realize you won't live forever in another life you look your meaning in this life.

I don't really agree with it at all but I believe that what he means. Too nihilistic for my tastes.

What is the meaning of Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism?

I have read it over and over and i cant seem to comprehend the whole concept of his essay. i understand some parts such as how humans are responsible for how we act and who we choose to be other than that im lost...

i will really appreciate it if someone answered this...|||What essay are you reading? Sartre wrote many things.

How are the philosophies of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre similar?

Both are existentialists, meaning that they believe that there is no "reason" for us to exist (for example, they wouldn't believe in any God or god-type figure). According to them, we must make our own meaning in life.|||Both were exixtentialists. Existentialism is a philosophical movement. It sees human existence as having a set of underlying themes and characteristics, such as anxiety, dread, freedom, awareness of death, and consciousness of existing. It tries to understadn the meaning of life. However Albert Camus the French author and philosopher and one of the principal visionaries of absurdism. While SAtre wrote the novel La Naus茅e (Nausea) which many consider manifesto of existentialism|||both are irrelevant in any quest for truth or enlightenment|||Both are Europeans!!

I prefer the Aztecan nihilists!|||Albert Camus was a good goalkeeper, Sartre wasn't.|||They were both Atheists first

Why do people leave metro tickets at Jean-Paul Sartre's grave in Paris?

I know they leave tickets at Serge Gainsbourg's grave because of his some "le poinconneur des lilas", but why is it in several pictures of Sartre's grave people have done the same thing for him?|||Probably because they've made a pilgrimage to this grave and want to leave something of themselves there. The Metro ticket might be all they have, so it's left as a votive offering. People also leave flowers, feathers, ribbons, photos, whatever they have at the time.

And a question for you. Why do you think the tickets were left there for Jean-Paul Sartre? They might easily have been left for his partner Simone de Beauvoir who is buried in the same grave.

From what jean-paul Sartre work is the quote" Suffering is justified as soon as it becomes the raw material of

suffering is justified as soon as it becomes the raw material of beauty. Cannot find a source for this quote|||...and I'm afraid that you never will. It's just a quote. Something that he said that is not linked to a body of work.

If you discover otherwise, please let me know.

Touche

How would others define Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialist beliefs?

I've been looking on the Internet for the past 45 minutes and i cant find anything to answer this question! if you find anything PLEASE let me know (and please include the source). THANK YOU SO MUCH!|||Try putting search terms in quotes. It's more effective. Example ["Jean-Paul Sartre" +Existentialist] http://www.google.com/search?q=Jean-Paul鈥?/a>

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.

What important questions should be answered about Jean-Paul Sartre?

*Existentialism -- "Existence precedes essence."

*Human freedom -- "Freedom lies on the other side of despair."

*Socialism (later in life Sartre became closely involved with left-wing politics in France)

*Unique relationship with Simon de Beauvoir, a fellow existentialist thinker and writer

What did Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre have a falling out over?

Did they ever renew their friendship.|||Camus detested and abhorred totalitarianism, to which Sartre apparently espoused in his philosophies, Sartre was all for a more radicalized form of Marxism.|||Camus wanted the toilet paper roll to fall to the front. Sartre was enraged, said it should fall to the back. He accused Camus of being a Humphrey Bogart. Camus called Sartre a wall-eyed Marty Feldman. Words were exchanged, they traded blows, shots rang out and one of them was left bleeding to death at the side of the road. "Like a dog" he thought. It was as if the shame of it would outlive him.|||due to Camus' rejection of Soviet methods, Sartre would state that Camus had forsaken solidarity as a guiding principal.|||You should read the eulogy that JPS delivered on the untimely death of Camus. What they did not patch up in life, JPS put right afterwards.|||i think it was just a difference in ideas and new they never renewed their friendship|||godsmuck|||Sex and its impact.

No they never did.

What were the political contributions of Jean-Paul Sartre?

Where can I find the essay "The Face" by Jean-Paul Sartre?

I just read about this small essay by Sartre, but the author didn't include where he read/found the essay.|||never heard of that essay...

here's a list of some of his works

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archiv鈥?/a>

What did the character in Jean Paul Sartre's book Nausea do about his existential angst?

What was the positive he took from it?|||why don't you read it again genius

How does the play No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre, exhibit existentialist qualities?

I have to figure this out, and I saw the play yesterday, but it's still very vague to me.|||This paper summarizes Jean Paul Sartre's play, "No Exit", and discusses its existentialist theme about human nature and loss of freedoms. The paper describes how the play depicts a loss of freedom on several different levels and looks at how the characters in the play experience these losses. The paper also compares Sartre's notion about human nature and the basic need for freedom to the deterministic position as espoused by Robert Blanchford, which holds that the lives of humans are already predetermined.

"Jean Paul Sartre?s ?No Exit? is an apt description of existential hell. (Sartre, 1958) Existentialism attempts to describe our desire to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. Existentialism requires the active acceptance of our nature. Or, existentialism assumes we are best when we struggle against our nature. In either case, we should want this. Given this brief description of existentialism, what transpires in ?No Exit? is that the players are trapped in their own natures. There is a loss of freedom at several levels. The stage setting reveals that even in writing No Exit, Sartre cannot completely rid himself of his existentialist leanings. He asks for a chandelier in the center of the room. And in the ceiling there is a hole?through which he allows as an escape route."

How did Jean Paul Sartre get so many girls...and how can I learn from him?

Did he use his philosophy or something?

Link me to articles if you have to.|||His administered small, but powerful doses of sleeping gas to girls, through what was cunningly disguised as his pipe, whilst confusing and misdirecting them with philosophy|||in a word, attitude. I wrote an article that gives an oblique philosophical answer to this one - it's in the new york times -

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/the-phenomenology-of-ugly/

it may be of no practical use whatsoever

Report Abuse

|||BS has worked for thousands of years. Sound like you know what you're talking about, and look as if you're deep in thought while doing it.

There's always some young girl looking for a daddy figure. Just makes you kinda creepy though.

Why don't you try being yourself and finding somebody that compliments your existence, instead of looking for a way to "get so many girls"|||You have to wear thick glass spectacles and smoke Gauloise continually to look as cool as him. Only then do you stand a chance.|||That'l happen to any guy that gets himself in the spotlight, even types like Charles Manson.|||good luck

What is the motivation of the character in the novel Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre?

Motivation is the reason or reasons for engaging in a particular behavior, especially human behavior |||He is fundamentally stifled by what he accounts for modern existence. He is disgusted by his own intellectual pretension yet, at the same time he cannot tolerate what he believes to be the hypocrisy of so-called happy society. He is inspired by profound apathy towards suffering and yet suffers himself from such immense self-pity that he is unable to function. If you are looking for single word answers I believe hypocrisy and emptiness should suffice, but he really finds the whole world to be spinning out of control--certainly out of his own control and therefore, being as self-absorbed as he is, he points his finger way beyond himself and imagines his ideas are the rotting root core of the dying human spirit.|||Nausea.|||Disgust.

What are some literary devices in The Wall by Jean-Paul Sartre?

I'm reading this short story and I can't seem to find any literary devices? Will you please help me?|||The Wall itself symbolises the inevitability and unknowing of one's death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_(b鈥?/a>|||In "The Wall," Jean-Paul Sartre uses many literary techniques to convey irony. Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialistic writer, states through his characters and symbolism that life has no value. Through Pablo's decision to "trade' his life, Sartre furthers the irony in the story. Symbolism provides authors with a way to convey an underlying theme or to portray the meaning in an event without explicitly outlining the incident. Sartre employs the symbol of a graveyard to express meaninglessness and nothingness. Emotions can express more than a character's feeling at a particular moment, they can also set a tone for a whole story. The conclusion of laughter brings another example of irony through its contradictory nature to the tone at the end of the story. Pablo's decision to trade his life, Sartre's symbolism of the graveyard, and the laughter that closes the story, fortify the ironic nature of this story.

Pablo begins to have an out of body experience to help him understand what is going on and what may happen to him.

In the state I was in, if someone had come and told me I could go home quietly, that they would leave my life whole, it would have left me cold: several hours or several years of waiting is all the same when you have lost the illusion of being eternal. I clung to nothing, in a way I was calm. But it was a horrible calm 聳 because of my body; my body I saw with its eyes, I heard with its ears, but it was no longer me, it sweated and trembled by itself and I didn't recognize it anymore (239).

This convinces him that no matter what he does, whether he betrays Ramon Gris or not, he will die. He begins to question his behavior. Why would he sacrifice himself for Ramon Gris? Pablo realizes that no life has more value than another. "No life has value" (242). In the end, he concludes that life has no meaning anyway and that it will not make a difference if he lies to the inquisitors or tells them the truth. His trade becomes ironic when his exchange...

http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Ending-Wa鈥?/a>

Also read: http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/2543鈥?/a>

I hope I've helped you,

Angela!!!

What was the conflict between Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre?

I know that it had something to do with Existentialism, but I need a little more information.|||Well, they were both journalists. Sartre gave a critical review of one of Camus' pieces, and that was how it began... their friendship breakup happened mostly through the newspapers. Sartre was also radical and Camus was very anti-communist.

They also got into an argument over Camus' belief in absurdism. Sartre believed human beings have complete control over their actions... Camus believed there was also the possibility for random acts of absurdity.|||They both rejected religion and determinism, but Camus was more of a fan of man (humanist, as they say), and not willing to sacrifice morality as a fundamental concept. Sartre was more focused on notions of choice and metaphysical being.

How does the philosopher Jean- Paul Sartre's Existentialism Is Humanism relate to service and justice today?

Existentialism entails taking responsibility, and doing so finding purpose in it.

Similarities/Differences between Agnes Heller and Jean Paul Sartre?

Would anyone be able to list me some Similarities/Differences between Agnes Heller and Jean Paul Sartre? (in connection with their theories) how are they alike and how are they different...

please help me out thx|||the third paragraph in this paper by Magyar -Hass neatly summarises one key difference

see web site below

What is Jean Paul Sartre' meaning of Existentialist philosphy?

What Does it mean Existence precedes Essence?

I have some ideas of his philosophy but I need to full detailed of his theory and I would appreciated. Serious Answer Please!!!!|||This is Sartre's idea that something (or someone) only has whatever purpose we assign to it. It does not inherently have a purpose (essence) as part of its form (existence). The opposite was argued by Plato and Aristotle, who said that the purpose of an object was contained within its form and are pale reflections of the ultimate form of the object.

For example we might say that the purpose of a knife is to cut, and that by blunting the knife we are depriving it of its purpose (Aristotle argued that to deprive something of purpse was the ultimate form of evil).

However, if someone who had never seen a knife before was unsure of the reason why it was made, they might use it as a perfectly functional doorstop or paperweight. To all intents and purposes the purpose of the knife would cease to be for cutting as no-one would be assigning that purpose to it, so its purpose would be to hold doors open, not to cut.

The fact that we are able to do this shows that the purpose of a object can't be pre-determined by its form as it would then be impossible to not know what something was really for.|||Sartre's thinking begins with his perception that no Thing Is.

This is contradictory to science and logic, in that nothing comes of nothing; hence, some Thing has always Been. Hence, Essence, whether Energy or Creative Mind God, logically precedes existence.

So, Sartre's presumption is basically flawed from the Beginning (pun intended).

As for his perception, he believes his awareness is like a wind from nowhere, to others. His perception of existence preceding essence is this wind of bio data becoming habitual, or pseudo-essential. (Sartre typically debases and equivocates words such as essence, in order to conform them to his materialist awareness.)

Sartre never freed himself from his level of perception, so he was consistent in his ignorance of Being (which Being his teacher Husserl taught to those able and willing; Jean-Paul didn't get it). Sartre was also consistent in that his philosophy is a "useless passion."

"Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose,

"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov,

"The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet.|||By 'existence precedes essence', Sartre means that you become what you are. You 'exist' before you develop your 'essence'. This is existentialist because existentialism leads to either nihilistic doctrine or a come-to-terms philosophy. "Existence precedes essence" embraces the latter, as it implies that one creates the meaning in life, instead of having it devised for them (destiny).

Hey if you're getting into existentialism check out Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus. Hope I helped, it was a rough patch for me when I started thinking about this (it got a bit depressing at times).|||Pretty much that you are free and with that freedom you have the capability to define and create meaning for yourself if you so choose. Freedom can be sort of scary, but at the same time, it's very uplifting and liberating to some degree.|||That you're completely free to do whatever you desire.

But you are smart enough not to do some of those things because you realize that they would have a bad impact on you or it could hurt other people.

How did Jean-Paul Sartre feel about Albert Camus dieing?

is there any source that could lead me to what Sartre had to say about Camus's death? any interviews, articles, essays?|||never heard of it

When did Jean-Paul Sartre say "If God is dead, everything is permitted?"?

I know that Jean-Paul Sartre said this, but in what essay?|||Dunno, probly one of the sad ones.

How does the philosopher Jean- Paul Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism relate to service and justice today?

Service meaning community service

Thank You to any one that can help|||Well this sounds like homework... but it's very complex. On the one hand, Sartre is an extreme individualiston the other he is at the centre of the debate over civic virtue and democratic participation. The commonly-held view is that existentialism champions radical individualism and disparages community, social roles and civic participation.

You could look at the third world and the national health service, amongst other things.

The books he wrote on this include the Ethics of Engagement. It's interesting that he thought up his theories after WW2, but he is still a bit anti-semetic.

Sartrean ethics are thought of as formal, of emptiness and extreme subjectivism, but also authenticity is an important civic virtue, relevant to the social and political institutions of the modern world.|||Sadly, very few have in practice been inspired to community service by the writings of Sartre

How did the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre contribute to Epistemology? What did he say about knowledge and truth?

Does anyone know the answer? If you have a source with these information, please paste it. Thanks|||Imo, next to nothing (pun intended).

A more intellectual appraisal: http://www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-ex

Semi-source: "Nihilism," Eugene Rose. Review at http://www.amazon.com

Is Jean Paul Sartre right about freedom?

In "Being and Nothingness," Sartre argues that nothing can interfere with the choices we make in our lives; each choice is thereby essentially arbitrary. Are we really condemned to be free?|||Of course, whether you like it or not. The problem's that we rarely use our freedom for real. Consider how many times a day you do really 'arbitrary' things. You voluntarily eat chocolate - but isn't it the desire that's making you eat it? You go to work - do you really do it voluntarily? Real, pure freedom means you do things without any sense - because if there's a reason for doing them this very reason is enslaving you and making you do things you wouldn't do otherwise! That's why freedom is so unusual while being the most natural human trait.

Good luck!|||Yes he is 100% right. He has the answer!

Freedom either exists or it does not.

How it exists is beyound control as much as time itself.|||Hello:

Is that what he thinks? Really there are a multitude of influences both physical (from w/in the self) as well as from "the other(s)". Each of these can only have as much influence on our choices as we allow it to and so in this they essentially do not interfere...it is only ourselves that allow them to interfere.

As for the arbitrarily of our choices...we are the one that give meaning to the arbitrary of life with out focus and our choices.

In the end, yes we are free. There is a Rush song called Free Will: "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".

That pretty much says it there.

I hope this helps

Rev Phil

What do Jean Paul Sartre and Charles Darwin have in common?

How can i introduce an essay that's going to compare and contrast these two people?|||well.. they are both writers and theorists... so you could do something like...

"What do a French playwright and a British scientist have in common? Writing!"

and then go into your paper... like...

"John Paul Sartre was a French playwright, who ... blah blah blah"

sorry.. you got me going on the whole asking questions thing!

Good luck!|||um thats a real tough one...

How does Jean-Paul Sartre try to make existentialism a philosophy for the masses?

Citing his "Existentialism Is A Humanism" if possible.|||Through his literary Career.

What political significance did the life of Jean-Paul Sartre have for France?

I am looking for sites mostly (French or English). Also any key words would be nice.

Specifically, I am looking for insight into Sartre's political stances, his motives behind those stances, and (significant) contributions to politics of the 20th century.|||He is commonly considered the father of Existentialist philosophy, whose writings set the tone for intellectual life in the decade immediately following the Second World War.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre鈥?/a>

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/sartre.s鈥?/a>

Using Sartre: An Analytical Introduction to

Early Sartrean Themes

http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/revi鈥?/a>|||He was a fraud like the whole French stance on the world.

After the war, posed as anti-Nazi. What crap!

Various philosophical Oberleutnants helped him live like a lord while other Frenchmen were starving and while Jews were being rounded up and deported.|||Sartre's political stance:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/sartre-p.htm

http://newleftreview.org/?page=article%26amp;v鈥?/a>

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/postmodern_鈥?/a>

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1鈥?/a>

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/鈥?/a>

Where can I find quotes from Jean-Paul Sartre with the original French and English translation?

I would like to find a list of quotes by philosophers (particularly Sartre) that contains both the original language and the English translation all in one place. Can you help me?|||Here are some excellent quotes by Sartre, but only in English though -

“Anything, anything would be better than this agony of mind, this creeping pain that gnaws and fumbles and caresses one and never hurts quite enough” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“We do not judge the people we love” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“If you are lonely when you're alone, you are in bad company” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“Life has no meaning the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“Words are loaded pistols” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“It is only in our decisions that we are important.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“Life has no meaning a priori . Before you come alive, life is nothing; it’s up to you to give it a meaning and value is nothing else but the meaning that you choose” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“When the rich make war it's the poor that die” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“I hate victims who respect their executioners.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“A lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“Only the guy who isn't rowing has time to rock the boat.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“The poor don't know that their function in life is to exercise our generosity” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“Hell is other people.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“One always dies too soon - or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are - your life, and nothing else.” - Jean-Paul Sartre

“That God does not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget” - Jean-Paul Sartre|||Jo W: If only a few would check your record of "Best Answers" gained by vote. Your scheme is obvious: You answer with a "Quotesdaddy" answer (unresponsive here); wait until the question goes to vote; and you get 15-18 "canned" votes. Your answer is not on point. Your ranking is unearned.

-RetroRay

Report Abuse

|||Tyler, certain questions so pique my interest on Y!A that I go on a hunt...this has been one of those. I have searched and searched, and have not yet come up with a site that has the original with English translation (I even looked in French).

Here is part of an answer for you--it has French and English for many philosophers, but alas, no Sartre! I will keep hunting...

http://books.google.com/books?id=3KLz2QE…

If that link does not work, google this:

citations de jean paul sartre avec translation en anglais

and then select The concise dictionary of foreign quotations - Google Books Result

or google

citations de jean paul sartre avec traduction en anglais

Here is another possibility using that google entry, but it appears as though you have to download a dictionary:

http://www.mediadico.com/dictionnaire/ci…

Added:

I just discovered this interesting website--give it a look.

http://www.logosdictionary.org/pls/dicti…

How Did the early Jean Paul Sartre know that we are absolutely free?

What led Sartre to the conclusion that we are absolutely free to make choices?|||Existence precedes essence, or, putting it into his own words, "Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, he is also only what he wills himself to be." Carrying this to its logical conclusion; man, individually and collectively, is responsible for his own choices and actions. No excuses accepted.

|||inasmuch as Sartre stated that man must take responsibility for his behavior AND "existentialism is a humanism" (in his early work, a lecture...actually) it would appear, therefore, that one is bound to make choices appropriate to what we might expect from a 'humanist' (as opposed to an inhumane) point of view.

if we accept this argument it would then be reasonable to state that one is not absolutely free to make choices but is bound by humanist values, if humanism is, indeed, a value system.

ifyouknowhatimean...|||He obviously never met a delusional person.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Blog Archive

About Me

About Me

Followers

Blog Archive