Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Jean Paul Sartre

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jean Paul Sartre

    In my honest opinion Sartre has done more to drive people to christ with his philodophy than Nietzsche.

    Sartre believed that things either existed as objects or as an essence. He denied the idea of humans having a human nature. His philosophy also denied the existance of love, obhective moral value, and gratitude. He is however perhaps the most consistant and honest hypocrite I have ever read about. He knew what atheism logically entailed but instead of being horrified he found it thrilling. Dostoyevsky said that if God didnt exist everything was permissible. He said that to show that since not everything is morally permissible God must exist.

    I must say I am happy that I have a sponge like mind. I desire to learn and you know sometimes the uncomfortable helps you find great truth. Hell is not other people as sartre thought. Hell is loneliness, shame, and the absence of love.

    In many ways Sartre seems to mirror christian thinkers. For instance he and Camus both said mans deepest desire is to understand his purpose. Augistine said something simmiliar. As did Kierkegaard and Solomon who said that rhe aim of mans heart is to take the leap of faith serving God. Sartre however takes meaning to be impossible thus everything is absurd and meaning is subjective.

    I thank Peter Kreeft for his books. I am not a philosopher but I do want to learn.
    sigpic

  • #2
    Originally posted by TheWall View Post
    In my honest opinion Sartre has done more to drive people to christ with his philodophy than Nietzsche.

    Sartre believed that things either existed as objects or as an essence. He denied the idea of humans having a human nature. His philosophy also denied the existance of love, obhective moral value, and gratitude. He is however perhaps the most consistant and honest hypocrite I have ever read about. He knew what atheism logically entailed but instead of being horrified he found it thrilling. Dostoyevsky said that if God didnt exist everything was permissible. He said that to show that since not everything is morally permissible God must exist.

    I must say I am happy that I have a sponge like mind. I desire to learn and you know sometimes the uncomfortable helps you find great truth. Hell is not other people as sartre thought. Hell is loneliness, shame, and the absence of love.

    In many ways Sartre seems to mirror christian thinkers. For instance he and Camus both said mans deepest desire is to understand his purpose. Augistine said something simmiliar. As did Kierkegaard and Solomon who said that rhe aim of mans heart is to take the leap of faith serving God. Sartre however takes meaning to be impossible thus everything is absurd and meaning is subjective.

    I thank Peter Kreeft for his books. I am not a philosopher but I do want to learn.
    I like Peter Kreeft, you can't go wrong with him.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TheWall View Post
      Hell is not other people as sartre thought. Hell is loneliness, shame, and the absence of love.
      This seems to be a demonstration of meaning as subjective.
      I'm not here anymore.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TheWall View Post
        In my honest opinion Sartre has done more to drive people to christ with his philosophy than Nietzsche.
        If the philosophy of Satre or Nietzsche cause people to be Christians than it sad account for any cause to be a Christian.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #5
          Jean Paul Sartre -- Existentialism. In short is a bad philosophy. With my limited understanding of it, it defines a person by what they do instead of what a person does is because of what they are.

          The following link gives a more clear explanation of its issues than I can explain:
          http://www.godswordforyou.com/though...entialism.html
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #6
            He knew what atheism logically entailed but instead of being horrified he found it thrilling.
            I'm not sure if Sartre found atheism to be thrilling, and I'm not sure if led people to Jesus.

            I do think though, that he thought clearly about what atheism implies, and lived with it.

            It's ironic that the guy who wrote "hell is other people" had his funeral attended by about ten thousand of them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Jean Paul Sartre -- Existentialism. In short is a bad philosophy.
              Wait for the other shoe to drop...

              With my limited understanding of it,
              Boom! "This thing is bad, and I don't know anything about it."

              The following link gives a more clear explanation of its issues than I can explain:
              http://www.godswordforyou.com/though...entialism.html
              Read this instead:

              Existentialism is a Humanism

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
                Wait for the other shoe to drop...



                Boom! "This thing is bad, and I don't know anything about it."



                Read this instead:

                Existentialism is a Humanism
                Good reference! The following is a decent summary:

                Source: "http://homepages.wmich.edu/~baldner/existentialism.pdf"Existentialism is a Humanism



                You can see from these few reflections that nothing could be more unjust
                than the objections people raise against us. Existentialism is nothing else but an
                attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its
                intention is not in the least that of plunging men into despair. And if by despair one
                means as the Christians do – any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the
                existentialists is something different. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that
                it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares,
                rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of
                view. Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not
                that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand
                that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of
                God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is
                only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can
                describe us as without hope.

                From a public lecture given in 1946
                Translator: Philip Mairet
                Copyright: Reproduced under “Fair Use” provisions

                © Copyright Original Source

                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
                  Wait for the other shoe to drop...



                  Boom! "This thing is bad, and I don't know anything about it."



                  Read this instead:

                  Existentialism is a Humanism
                  I reject the idea that actions define one's being. I hold the view that one's being (heart) defines the type of actions one does. (see Matthew 15:18)
                  Meaning of words. Essence must have existence, therefore existence precedes essence. Existence is presumed by all.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    I reject the idea that actions define one's being. I hold the view that one's being (heart) defines the type of actions one does. (see Matthew 15:18)
                    Meaning of words.
                    Did you even read a word that Sartre said? I'm not sure if you really understand him. If you did, why would you say something like...

                    Essence must have existence, therefore existence precedes essence.
                    It's one thing to disagree with a person. (I've read a lot of Sartre, and obviously I don't share his metaphysical commitments), the problem I see is a knee-jerk judgment on something you admitted to not understanding, and then citing a bullet point caricature summary of existentialism that didn't even bother to cite or quote the words of a single secular existentialist.

                    You do see the problem there right? It's a bit like some village atheist saying "Christianity is stupid, because why couldn't Jesus have killed the Romans trying to crucify him?... But I've never really read the Gospels... Here's a link!"
                    Last edited by Jin-roh; 06-11-2017, 06:28 PM. Reason: In the tradition of French existentialists, I'm drinking wine. Thus, I need to proofread more closely.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
                      Did you even read a word that Sartre said? I'm not sure if you really understand him. If you did, why would you say something like...



                      It's one thing to disagree with a person. (I've read a lot of Sartre, and obviously I don't share his metaphysical commitments), the problem I see is a knee-jerk judgment on something you admitted to not understanding, and then citing a bullet point caricature summary of existentialism that didn't even bother to cite or quote the words of a single secular existentialist.

                      You do see the problem there right? It's a bit like some village atheist saying "Christianity is stupid, because why couldn't Jesus have killed the Romans trying to crucify him?... But I've never really read the Gospels... Here's a link!"
                      Your criticism likely very valid, while being valid it is not helpful to me. At least not at this time or at this point. I appreciate that you provided the link to Sartre's article. I made it clear, I think, what is called existentialism does not make sense to me. For example he said: ". . . the existential atheists, amongst whom we must place Heidegger as well as the French existentialists and myself. What they have in common is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence – or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective. . . ." From the subjective? To me, that type of thinking makes no good sense at all.

                      Now I believe it is to be understood empirically that existence precedes essence. Without an existence there can be no essence.

                      Now maybe you can see clearly what I do not see at all.
                      Last edited by 37818; 06-12-2017, 08:22 AM. Reason: "he wrote" to "he said"
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 37818 View Post

                        Now I believe it is to be understood empirically that existence precedes essence.
                        This is what an existentialist believes, but I don't think that you are one...

                        Sartre is saying that an object like a pair of scissors, a frying pan, a car etc all have essence before their existence. As in, there is a logically prior plan, purpose, and design for this objects before they are brought into existence.

                        Sartre thinks that humans have existence before essence, which means that that there is no plan, purpose, or design to human life and there is no abstract 'human nature' or anything. Humans make those up as they go along, and only our commitment makes things true. "Subjective" means something like 'thinking being' as opposed to abstract concepts.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                        160 responses
                        507 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post JimL
                        by JimL
                         
                        Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                        88 responses
                        354 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                        21 responses
                        133 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Working...
                        X