What do you think?
Rate this book
Existentialism and Humanism
Varoluşçuluk nedir?
Bugüne değin çeşitli yanıtlar verilmiş bir sorudur bu. Sözgelişi, Weil’e göre varoluşçuluk bir bunalım, Mounier’ye göre umutsuzluk, Hamelin’e göre bunaltı, Banfi’ye göre kötümserlik, Wahl’e göre başkaldırış, Marcel’e göre özgürlük, Lukács’a göre idealizm, Benda’ya göre usdışılık, Foulqué’ye göre saçmalık felsefesidir.
Bir dönem, slogancı gençliğin peygamberi ve ‘varoluşçu papası’ sayılan J.-P. Sartre’a göreyse, varoluş, insanda, ama yalnız insanda, özden önce gelir. Bu demektir ki insan önce vardır; sonra şöyle ya da böyle olur. Çünkü o, özünü kendisi yaratır. Nasıl mı? Şöyle: “Dünyaya atılarak, orada acı çekerek, savaşarak yavaş yavaş kendini belirler. Bu belirleme yolu hiç kapanmaz…”
Asım Bezirci’nin çevirip yayıma hazırladığı bu eser her kuramda, her inanda farklı karşılıklar bulan bir felsefenin temel metnini (Varoluşçuluk Bir İnsancılıktır / Sartre) ve bunun yanı sıra Gaéton Picon ve Laffont Bompiani’ nin Varoluşçuluk’a ilişkin incelemeleriyle P. Naville’in Sartre’la yaptığı konuşmayı içeriyor.
Bugüne değin çeşitli yanıtlar verilmiş bir sorudur bu. Sözgelişi, Weil’e göre varoluşçuluk bir bunalım, Mounier’ye göre umutsuzluk, Hamelin’e göre bunaltı, Banfi’ye göre kötümserlik, Wahl’e göre başkaldırış, Marcel’e göre özgürlük, Lukács’a göre idealizm, Benda’ya göre usdışılık, Foulqué’ye göre saçmalık felsefesidir.
Bir dönem, slogancı gençliğin peygamberi ve ‘varoluşçu papası’ sayılan J.-P. Sartre’a göreyse, varoluş, insanda, ama yalnız insanda, özden önce gelir. Bu demektir ki insan önce vardır; sonra şöyle ya da böyle olur. Çünkü o, özünü kendisi yaratır. Nasıl mı? Şöyle: “Dünyaya atılarak, orada acı çekerek, savaşarak yavaş yavaş kendini belirler. Bu belirleme yolu hiç kapanmaz…”
Asım Bezirci’nin çevirip yayıma hazırladığı bu eser her kuramda, her inanda farklı karşılıklar bulan bir felsefenin temel metnini (Varoluşçuluk Bir İnsancılıktır / Sartre) ve bunun yanı sıra Gaéton Picon ve Laffont Bompiani’ nin Varoluşçuluk’a ilişkin incelemeleriyle P. Naville’in Sartre’la yaptığı konuşmayı içeriyor.
80 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1946
About the author
Jean-Paul Sartre
690 books11.3k followersJean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre, normally known simply as Jean-Paul Sartre, was a French existentialist philosopher and pioneer, dramatist and screenwriter, novelist and critic. He was a leading figure in 20th century French philosophy.
He declined the award of the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature "for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age."
In the years around the time of his death, however, existentialism declined in French philosophy and was overtaken by structuralism, represented by Levi-Strauss and, one of Sartre's detractors, Michel Foucault.
He declined the award of the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature "for his work which, rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age."
In the years around the time of his death, however, existentialism declined in French philosophy and was overtaken by structuralism, represented by Levi-Strauss and, one of Sartre's detractors, Michel Foucault.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,006 reviews
January 15, 2021
Man is nothing other than what he makes of himself.
— Jean-Paul Sartre
If you're interested in Existentialism, this is the book you should dive into. You will find an energetic Sartre defending his views on many subjects. I was immediately drawn to one opinion in particular: existentialism emphasizes what is despicable about the world. I have read that before. Most people apparently want to read about beauty and bliss and puppies and all those things that are part of one side of our reality. Denying the ugliness of the world doesn't vanish it at all. It is there in all its glory regardless of how fast you close your eyes. Some authors have been labeled as violent freaks, racists or misogynists because they wrote about those particulas issues—the cruelty and selfishness that also characterize human beings—as if they were more than mere narrators. Some people mistake honesty with a defense of whatever the awful subject the book deals with. Speaking about it doesn't justify it.
I have already wrote about Sartre's beautiful and accessible writing while reviewing Nausea. This book is no exception. I also found a subtle humor that made the reading experience even more enjoyable.
Those who easily stomach a Zola novel like "The Earth" are sickened when they open an existentialist novel. (19)
I am quite intrigued by that, now.
Sartre felt the need to make a statement in favor of this doctrine. Why do people criticize it? Perhaps because they have read about it and know what it is all about. Others because they have heard about it... And that is much more common than most of us think. We tend to judge what we don't know. And in most cases we don't even bother in getting to know it. We judge and we fear. And we talk. That is why Sartre asked and answered the following question: "What, then, is 'existentialism'?" He then started by explaining one of the most important principles of the doctrine: existence precedes essence. That alone might sound confusing, however, Sartre's masterful use of metaphors and engaging prose made it all possible.
In a universe where there is not a god, man is born empty without a specific purpose. He creates his own essence while making decisions based on the well-known concept of freedom. A thing every man and woman pursuits but few would be able to handle.
Freedom without God. Without that sense of protection. Because we do feel safe if we are only acting according to something that has been decided before we were born. Every awful consequence would not be our fault. Nevertheless, in a world sans God, we become a little lonely dot with nothing above us but stars. And that's a horrifying thought. Liberating, terrifying.
The author later affirmed that when man makes a choice, he doesn't make it just for himself but for all humanity. Those choices reflect what we think a man should be. Try not to feel pressured for the great responsibility that represents making choices that concerns all people in the planet.
Choosing to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can he good for any of us unless it is good for all. (24)
Debatable.
There are certain words that people use to reach the conclusion that existentialism is a depressing way to look at the world: anguish, abandonment, despair. They are all related to what the author explained about man's existence in a godless world. A man who is aware of the fact that he is responsible for himself and for the rest of humanity. That kind of responsibility surely creates anguish, but it does not prevent men from acting. As for the abandonment issue, it's not as negative as it sounds. He simply meant that if God doesn't exist, then we are alone without excuses. We are alone and free. That thought led him to one of the most memorable lines of the book:
That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. (29)
Freedom has been defined as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. From a certain perspective, Sartre made his point. Without God, everything is permissible. However, the freedom (or lack of it) we have to deal with every day, the freedom that is far away from the abstraction of a concept, that entails earthly matters such as work, people, love, well... that is another issue. The absence of necessity is too rare.
Can a person be happy while knowing that he is free because there is no God but, at the same time, not so free because he is a victim of some system? Just like there are several concepts of freedom, there are many factors that restrict them, making the man feel like a powerless individual immersed in a situation he cannot complain about without being replaced in a heartbeat.
On one hand, we are condemned to be free; on the other, freedom is apparently nothing more than theory, something we experience by convincing ourselves that we are free while being constrained by political or economical factors (Locke explained it with much more precise words).
Yes. There is an answer for every aspect of the term. We can be free or we can convince ourselves that we are. Birds still sing while they spend their lives in a cage—whether it is because of joy or plea, that is another matter.
There is another interesting passage about signs. We often look for them while going through a difficult situation. Sartre skillfully explained that we are the ones who find a particular meaning in those signs. They may mean something different for everybody; in any case, said meaning is determined by us.
This is what "abandonment" implies: it is we, ourselves, who decide who we are to he. (34)
The last word used to describe existentialism was “despair”. That alone, yes, it doesn't sound so pleasant. Even so, by adding some context to it... still, it doesn't sound good. I had some trouble trying to digest this idea.
It means that we must limit ourselves to reckoning only with those things that depend on our will, or on the set of probabilities that enable action... From the moment that the possibilities I am considering cease to be rigorously engaged by my action, I must no longer take interest in them, for no God or greater design can bend the world and its possibilities to my will. In the final analysis, when Descartes said "Conquer yourself rather than the world," he actually meant the same thing: we should act without hope. (35)
From a practical point of view, the time we spend hoping for a result is time wasted. Sartre encourages us to act. To do something in order to achieve what we want and not to wait for others to do it for us; people or a superior being, whichever the case may be. Reality exists only in action.
By the end of the book, there is a commentary on The Stranger. Do not miss it.
If you are new to Sartre's philosophy, then this remarkable essay would be a perfect introduction.
It's not only a book that sheds some light on the matter and rectifies many misconceptions, but also a book which gently encourages you to do some serious introspection. Shall we?
Stop for a minute. Breathe. Take a look around. Look back; contemplate your present. Where are you right now? Are you the person you have always wanted to be?
"Get up, take subway, work four hours at the office or plant, eat, take subway, work four hours, eat, sleep—Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday-Friday-Saturday—always the same routine..." (77)
Now tell me, I'm dying to know. Do you feel free?
April '14
* Also on my blog.
October 9, 2021
L'Existentialisme est un Humanisme = Existentialism Is a Humanism = Existentialism, by Jean-Paul Sartre
Existentialism Is a Humanism is a 1946 work by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, based on a lecture by the same name he gave at Club Maintenant in Paris, on 29 October 1945.
In early translations, Existentialism and Humanism was the title used in the United Kingdom; the work was originally published in the United States as Existentialism, and a later translation employs the original title.
The work, once influential and a popular starting-point in discussions of Existentialist thought, has been criticized by several philosophers. Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: در ماه آگوست سال 1992میلادی
عنوان: اگزیستانسیالیسم و اصالت بشر؛ نویسنده: ژان پل سارتر؛ مترجم: مصطفی رحیمی؛ تهران، مروارید، 1354؛ در 109 ص؛ چاپ هشتم 1361؛ چاپ دهم 1380؛ شابک 9644480236؛ چاپ سیزدهم 1389؛ شابک: 978964480232؛ موضوع: اگزیستانسیالیسم از نویسندگان فرانسه - سده 20م
سارتر میگویند: (آنچه در میان آدمیان تفاوت میپذیرد، «ضرورت در جهان بودن»، «در جهان کار کردن»، «در جهان در میان دیگران زیستن»، و در آن فانی شدن است، اینها هم جنبه ی عینی، و هم ذهنی دارند؛ از این نظر جنبه ی عینی دارند، که همه جا هستند، و در همه جا باز شناخته میشوند؛ از این لحاظ جنبه ی ذهنی دارند، که با بشر زنده اند، و اگر بشر آنها را زنده ندارد - یعنی در جهان وجود، رابطه ی خود را آزادانه نسبت به آنها تعیین نکند - هیچ نیستند)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 08/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 16/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
Existentialism Is a Humanism is a 1946 work by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, based on a lecture by the same name he gave at Club Maintenant in Paris, on 29 October 1945.
In early translations, Existentialism and Humanism was the title used in the United Kingdom; the work was originally published in the United States as Existentialism, and a later translation employs the original title.
The work, once influential and a popular starting-point in discussions of Existentialist thought, has been criticized by several philosophers. Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: در ماه آگوست سال 1992میلادی
عنوان: اگزیستانسیالیسم و اصالت بشر؛ نویسنده: ژان پل سارتر؛ مترجم: مصطفی رحیمی؛ تهران، مروارید، 1354؛ در 109 ص؛ چاپ هشتم 1361؛ چاپ دهم 1380؛ شابک 9644480236؛ چاپ سیزدهم 1389؛ شابک: 978964480232؛ موضوع: اگزیستانسیالیسم از نویسندگان فرانسه - سده 20م
سارتر میگویند: (آنچه در میان آدمیان تفاوت میپذیرد، «ضرورت در جهان بودن»، «در جهان کار کردن»، «در جهان در میان دیگران زیستن»، و در آن فانی شدن است، اینها هم جنبه ی عینی، و هم ذهنی دارند؛ از این نظر جنبه ی عینی دارند، که همه جا هستند، و در همه جا باز شناخته میشوند؛ از این لحاظ جنبه ی ذهنی دارند، که با بشر زنده اند، و اگر بشر آنها را زنده ندارد - یعنی در جهان وجود، رابطه ی خود را آزادانه نسبت به آنها تعیین نکند - هیچ نیستند)؛ پایان نقل
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 08/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 16/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
May 2, 2023
‘There is no reality except in action’
Speaking of action, I’ve got some happening book action for you. Check this: taken from his lecture at Club Maintenant in Paris, in 1945, Existentialism is a Humanism is Jean-Paul Sartre’s rather succinct expressions of existentialism through a rebuttal of criticisms and an effort to examine key notions of his work such as ‘existence precedes essence.’ Sounds great, right? To tell the truth, I can’t help but imagine Sartre’s lectures as how he was satirically portrayed in Mood Indigo (Michel Gondry’s film adaptation of Boris Vian’s Froth on the Daydream):
Jean-Sol Partre, as he is named in the film, delivers his lecture above adoring fans standing in a smoker’s pipe that moves about the room, everyone hollering like are attending a rock concert as another character scrambles to take notes yelling that the lecture is difficult but worthwhile. I regret to inform you this book is not quite that level of uproarious excitement, but it is still a fascinating and highly intelligent analysis of a rather freeing and optimistic philosophy. ‘[N]o doctrine is more optimistic, since it declares that man’s destiny lies within himself.’ See? If you are looking for great introductory texts to French Existentialism, put this in your pipe and smoke it because it is an apt selection (Simone de Beauvoir’s What is Existentialism? as well). And get your pens ready to underline because I left nary a page unmarked as Sartre has such noteworthy, snappy phrasing (though neurobiologist Steven Rose would argue that Sartre’s writing was ‘more an exercise in political sloganeering than a sustainable philosophical position,’ in his book Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism) and the book is delivered in a rather welcoming and accessible approach (other than when he’s kind of a pompous ass, but in a cool way?). Unpopular book aesthetic opinion but, yes, I underline books and I write in the margins. I also dog ear them. I can hear some of you shrieking but, personally, I like the practice for when I need some quotes to write (like now) and I think it makes books look all edgy and kind of punk. It’s like you are getting your books tattooed. They’re taking a deep drag off a cigarette and saying in a throaty voice “yea I look rough but it’s because I’ve been loved--love hurts but it makes it all worthwhile.” and you are like woah reign it in a little bit, my friend, but I follow ya I think. Sartre would say you’re actions towards love are what you want to see in all humans and the meaning you have ascribed to life, so already we’ve learned a lesson from this book. Good work us, lets see what other treasure troves of knowledge we can discover! [insert bass-heavy show theme and a cartoon dog saying “Brought to you by PBS!”]
‘Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself.’
You didn’t just scroll by that quote did you? Go back, read it again like it’s the first time. Pretty great stuff, and according to Sartre ‘that is the first principle of existentialism.’ We are learning up a storm in here. So what Sartre really wants to impress upon us is that people define meaning for themselves through their actions, which they are fully responsible for, and that through our action we also define the world. This is the idea that ‘existence precedes essence,’ which means that ‘man first exists’ by coming into the world, encountering themself and then thusly defining themself. To help illustrate, Sartre proposes we imagine a paper knife. Cool man, not a dated reference at all (think “letter opener” if you are struggling). He says that when it is built, it is made around with preconceived ideas of how it will be used, or that ‘production precedes essence.’ Humans, he argues, are the opposite. We ‘exist first,’ that we start fresh and blank and define ourselves through actions. Existentialists reject the idea of people being like a paper knife with god as ‘the artisan’, and following Friedrich Nietzsche stating that ‘god is dead,’ we have to consider the idea of an absence of god. Sartre splits existentialists up between two group, Christian existentialists (he cites Karl Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel) and atheist existentialsts, which he says includes Martin Heidegger and himself.
We need to pause a moment because it’s important to note that Heidegger was not into Sartre writing this and did not want to be labeled an existentialist under Sartre’s definition of one. You may have heard about Camus refusing the categorization for his own varied reasons, but Heidegger often not being considered was actually news to me. He didn’t mind Sartre referring to him as an atheist, but rejected the label of existentialist under Sartre’s depiction of it. While both philosophers addressed the concept of Being, a very basic difference is how Heidegger questioned the meaning of Being, whereas Sartre examined different ways of Being in the world. There are many other differences, such as Heidegger argued life exists in a wholeness because of death, which allows for meaning, while Sartre thought this put too much emphasis on death and saw it instead as the endpoint to our ability to give meaning into our lives. About this book, Heidegger said he thinks Sartre ‘stays with metaphysics in oblivion of the truth of Being’ Anyways, where were we? Oh yes, atheist existentialists:
Sartre discusses how existentialism removes any universal code that applies a definite meaning and in its place ‘Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.’ We exist ‘only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life.’ We are what we do, what we become, and there is no external force or invisible eternal being dictating this in Sartre’s eyes. But this isn’t strictly a dismissal of the possibility of god but merely that ‘if God were to exist, it would make no difference,’ and belief in a god or not is irrelevant when the issue is that people must discover themselves and nobody can save them but themselves. So where Jean-Paul would tell us that we are defined by actions, Jean-Luc would tell us to “make it so.”
‘It is a doctrine of action,and it is only in bad faith—in confusing their own despair with ours—that Christians are able to assert that we are “without hope.”’
Sartre dispels the common criticisms levied at existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, arguing that it is the critics who are the true pessimists. He argues that claims existentialism discourages people from actions and only focuses on the darker parts of life is intentionally misunderstanding that ‘only hope resides’ in the actions of an existentialist as it is action creating all meaning. He also refutes that the philosophy rejects responsibility for humanity, saying existentialism is a commitment that each person is ‘responsible for myself and for everyone else,’ that in ‘choosing myself, I choose man’ because when we choose our actions we choose what believe good and believe that reflects what is good for humanity. I see what he’s getting at here, and it’s not my favorite of his points. This will later be important in his discussion on choosing actions that support freedom and freedom for everyone, which I believe Beauvoir does a much better and more detailed discourse on in The Ethics of Ambiguity. More on this in a bit.
‘We seek to base our doctrine on truth, not on comforting theories full of hope but without any real foundation.’
Still with me? Still learning? Because now we get some key terms! Sartre launches into a discussion on three terms and his definitions for them: anguish, abandonment, and despair. I know, I told you this was an optimistic philosophy but hold on, let’s see what he means by them.
Here is his definition for anguish :
We were basically just talking about this, but now with the emphasis on responsibility that what we choose as our actions should be what we believe would be what everyone should also be choosing. He briefly discusses the issue of actions such as Abraham in the Bible via Søren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and that just because Abraham heard a voice, it was his responsibility because he chose to listen when that voice could have also been a demon or hallucination. We have to own up to our actions, basically, and all actions are our interpretations of symbols and events, but ultimately our choice.
Next is abandonment which Sartre explains ‘we merely mean to say that God does not exist, and that we must bear the full consequences of that assertion,’ and that it is ‘we, ourselves, who decide who we are to be.’ Basically everything we’ve been discussing. He cites Fyodor Dostoevsky’s famous line from the The Brothers Karamazov ‘if God is dead, everything is permitted,’ and calls it a starting point of philosophy, though personally I much prefer Beauvoir’s arguments against this asserting life is not a nihilistic free-for-all and existentialism can, in fact, provide an ethic for positive and productive living.
Finally we reach despair. Don’t get too excited. Despair means we have to reckon with only what depends on our will. ‘When Descartes said ‘Conquer yourself rather than the world’, what he meant was, at bottom, the same – that we should act without hope.’ Which sounds bleak but basically he’s saying we cant rely on anything outside our control but that this shouldn’t cause us to abandon action because there is no reality except in action.
‘Life is nothing until it is lived.’
One of my favorite discussions in this book, however, is his metaphor of a person like a painting, or ‘that moral choice is like constructing a work of art.’ We can’t judge a painting before it has begun or even before it is finished, we don’t know what it is yet to be, and the act of painting is like our actions that define us. ‘We are in the same creative situation.’ he says. ‘What are and morality have in common is creation and invention’ I also enjoy his assertions on how we are ‘obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as I will my own. I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal.’ Those who do not will the freedom of others are acting in bad faith (this comes up a lot, and he argues we can judge people who act in bad faith). Though, as I said earlier, this is better addressed in The Ethics of Ambiguity and I would encourage any of you to read that.
But finally we reach why he believes existentialism is a humanism, a ‘existential humanism.’ Here’s what he means by that:
He argues this is different than a definition that all humankind is inherently valuable, and that this is cultish and that because ‘man is constantly in the making,’ there is no defined ‘humankind.’ His definition is that people act towards goals and values outside themselves in order to make something meaningful out of their existence in relation to the world. He calls this humanism because ‘the only universe that exists is…the universe of human subjectivity.’
This is an interesting book and a really nice primer for both Sartre’s philosophies and existentialism itself, though I would encourage anyone to also read more than just this as each philosopher had different opinions and often disagreed with each other (there is a great Q&A session in this book that offers some discussions and Sartre getting flustered). I like a lot of what he says, I wish he didn’t gender everything as man, but it was the times and translator, thats what it is. I also quite enjoyed his essay on Albert Camus’ The Stranger, which he says is a great representation of the absurd and is a comical book, as well as compares the writing style to Ernest Hemingway. This is a nice volume with a lot of big ideas to grapple with, though it is a rather accessible introductory book and will make for a nice cozy evening of existentialism. Because it’s about to be Hot Existentialist Summer, you’ve been warned.
⅘
‘This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does.’
Speaking of action, I’ve got some happening book action for you. Check this: taken from his lecture at Club Maintenant in Paris, in 1945, Existentialism is a Humanism is Jean-Paul Sartre’s rather succinct expressions of existentialism through a rebuttal of criticisms and an effort to examine key notions of his work such as ‘existence precedes essence.’ Sounds great, right? To tell the truth, I can’t help but imagine Sartre’s lectures as how he was satirically portrayed in Mood Indigo (Michel Gondry’s film adaptation of Boris Vian’s Froth on the Daydream):
Jean-Sol Partre, as he is named in the film, delivers his lecture above adoring fans standing in a smoker’s pipe that moves about the room, everyone hollering like are attending a rock concert as another character scrambles to take notes yelling that the lecture is difficult but worthwhile. I regret to inform you this book is not quite that level of uproarious excitement, but it is still a fascinating and highly intelligent analysis of a rather freeing and optimistic philosophy. ‘[N]o doctrine is more optimistic, since it declares that man’s destiny lies within himself.’ See? If you are looking for great introductory texts to French Existentialism, put this in your pipe and smoke it because it is an apt selection (Simone de Beauvoir’s What is Existentialism? as well). And get your pens ready to underline because I left nary a page unmarked as Sartre has such noteworthy, snappy phrasing (though neurobiologist Steven Rose would argue that Sartre’s writing was ‘more an exercise in political sloganeering than a sustainable philosophical position,’ in his book Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism) and the book is delivered in a rather welcoming and accessible approach (other than when he’s kind of a pompous ass, but in a cool way?). Unpopular book aesthetic opinion but, yes, I underline books and I write in the margins. I also dog ear them. I can hear some of you shrieking but, personally, I like the practice for when I need some quotes to write (like now) and I think it makes books look all edgy and kind of punk. It’s like you are getting your books tattooed. They’re taking a deep drag off a cigarette and saying in a throaty voice “yea I look rough but it’s because I’ve been loved--love hurts but it makes it all worthwhile.” and you are like woah reign it in a little bit, my friend, but I follow ya I think. Sartre would say you’re actions towards love are what you want to see in all humans and the meaning you have ascribed to life, so already we’ve learned a lesson from this book. Good work us, lets see what other treasure troves of knowledge we can discover! [insert bass-heavy show theme and a cartoon dog saying “Brought to you by PBS!”]
‘Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself.’
You didn’t just scroll by that quote did you? Go back, read it again like it’s the first time. Pretty great stuff, and according to Sartre ‘that is the first principle of existentialism.’ We are learning up a storm in here. So what Sartre really wants to impress upon us is that people define meaning for themselves through their actions, which they are fully responsible for, and that through our action we also define the world. This is the idea that ‘existence precedes essence,’ which means that ‘man first exists’ by coming into the world, encountering themself and then thusly defining themself. To help illustrate, Sartre proposes we imagine a paper knife. Cool man, not a dated reference at all (think “letter opener” if you are struggling). He says that when it is built, it is made around with preconceived ideas of how it will be used, or that ‘production precedes essence.’ Humans, he argues, are the opposite. We ‘exist first,’ that we start fresh and blank and define ourselves through actions. Existentialists reject the idea of people being like a paper knife with god as ‘the artisan’, and following Friedrich Nietzsche stating that ‘god is dead,’ we have to consider the idea of an absence of god. Sartre splits existentialists up between two group, Christian existentialists (he cites Karl Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel) and atheist existentialsts, which he says includes Martin Heidegger and himself.
We need to pause a moment because it’s important to note that Heidegger was not into Sartre writing this and did not want to be labeled an existentialist under Sartre’s definition of one. You may have heard about Camus refusing the categorization for his own varied reasons, but Heidegger often not being considered was actually news to me. He didn’t mind Sartre referring to him as an atheist, but rejected the label of existentialist under Sartre’s depiction of it. While both philosophers addressed the concept of Being, a very basic difference is how Heidegger questioned the meaning of Being, whereas Sartre examined different ways of Being in the world. There are many other differences, such as Heidegger argued life exists in a wholeness because of death, which allows for meaning, while Sartre thought this put too much emphasis on death and saw it instead as the endpoint to our ability to give meaning into our lives. About this book, Heidegger said he thinks Sartre ‘stays with metaphysics in oblivion of the truth of Being’ Anyways, where were we? Oh yes, atheist existentialists:
‘Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself…If God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior.’
Sartre discusses how existentialism removes any universal code that applies a definite meaning and in its place ‘Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.’ We exist ‘only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life.’ We are what we do, what we become, and there is no external force or invisible eternal being dictating this in Sartre’s eyes. But this isn’t strictly a dismissal of the possibility of god but merely that ‘if God were to exist, it would make no difference,’ and belief in a god or not is irrelevant when the issue is that people must discover themselves and nobody can save them but themselves. So where Jean-Paul would tell us that we are defined by actions, Jean-Luc would tell us to “make it so.”
‘It is a doctrine of action,and it is only in bad faith—in confusing their own despair with ours—that Christians are able to assert that we are “without hope.”’
Sartre dispels the common criticisms levied at existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, arguing that it is the critics who are the true pessimists. He argues that claims existentialism discourages people from actions and only focuses on the darker parts of life is intentionally misunderstanding that ‘only hope resides’ in the actions of an existentialist as it is action creating all meaning. He also refutes that the philosophy rejects responsibility for humanity, saying existentialism is a commitment that each person is ‘responsible for myself and for everyone else,’ that in ‘choosing myself, I choose man’ because when we choose our actions we choose what believe good and believe that reflects what is good for humanity. I see what he’s getting at here, and it’s not my favorite of his points. This will later be important in his discussion on choosing actions that support freedom and freedom for everyone, which I believe Beauvoir does a much better and more detailed discourse on in The Ethics of Ambiguity. More on this in a bit.
‘We seek to base our doctrine on truth, not on comforting theories full of hope but without any real foundation.’
Still with me? Still learning? Because now we get some key terms! Sartre launches into a discussion on three terms and his definitions for them: anguish, abandonment, and despair. I know, I told you this was an optimistic philosophy but hold on, let’s see what he means by them.
Here is his definition for anguish :
‘a man who commits himself, and who realizes that he is not only the individual that he chooses to be, but also a legislator choosing at the same time what humanity as a whole should be, cannot help but be aware of his own full and profound responsibility’
We were basically just talking about this, but now with the emphasis on responsibility that what we choose as our actions should be what we believe would be what everyone should also be choosing. He briefly discusses the issue of actions such as Abraham in the Bible via Søren Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and that just because Abraham heard a voice, it was his responsibility because he chose to listen when that voice could have also been a demon or hallucination. We have to own up to our actions, basically, and all actions are our interpretations of symbols and events, but ultimately our choice.
Next is abandonment which Sartre explains ‘we merely mean to say that God does not exist, and that we must bear the full consequences of that assertion,’ and that it is ‘we, ourselves, who decide who we are to be.’ Basically everything we’ve been discussing. He cites Fyodor Dostoevsky’s famous line from the The Brothers Karamazov ‘if God is dead, everything is permitted,’ and calls it a starting point of philosophy, though personally I much prefer Beauvoir’s arguments against this asserting life is not a nihilistic free-for-all and existentialism can, in fact, provide an ethic for positive and productive living.
Finally we reach despair. Don’t get too excited. Despair means we have to reckon with only what depends on our will. ‘When Descartes said ‘Conquer yourself rather than the world’, what he meant was, at bottom, the same – that we should act without hope.’ Which sounds bleak but basically he’s saying we cant rely on anything outside our control but that this shouldn’t cause us to abandon action because there is no reality except in action.
‘Life is nothing until it is lived.’
One of my favorite discussions in this book, however, is his metaphor of a person like a painting, or ‘that moral choice is like constructing a work of art.’ We can’t judge a painting before it has begun or even before it is finished, we don’t know what it is yet to be, and the act of painting is like our actions that define us. ‘We are in the same creative situation.’ he says. ‘What are and morality have in common is creation and invention’ I also enjoy his assertions on how we are ‘obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as I will my own. I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal.’ Those who do not will the freedom of others are acting in bad faith (this comes up a lot, and he argues we can judge people who act in bad faith). Though, as I said earlier, this is better addressed in The Ethics of Ambiguity and I would encourage any of you to read that.
But finally we reach why he believes existentialism is a humanism, a ‘existential humanism.’ Here’s what he means by that:
‘This is humanism because we remind man that there is no legislator other than himself and that he must, in his abandoned state, make his own choices, and also because we show that it is not by turning inward, but by constantly seeking a goal outside of himself in the form of liberation, or of some special achievement, that man will realize himself as truly human.
He argues this is different than a definition that all humankind is inherently valuable, and that this is cultish and that because ‘man is constantly in the making,’ there is no defined ‘humankind.’ His definition is that people act towards goals and values outside themselves in order to make something meaningful out of their existence in relation to the world. He calls this humanism because ‘the only universe that exists is…the universe of human subjectivity.’
This is an interesting book and a really nice primer for both Sartre’s philosophies and existentialism itself, though I would encourage anyone to also read more than just this as each philosopher had different opinions and often disagreed with each other (there is a great Q&A session in this book that offers some discussions and Sartre getting flustered). I like a lot of what he says, I wish he didn’t gender everything as man, but it was the times and translator, thats what it is. I also quite enjoyed his essay on Albert Camus’ The Stranger, which he says is a great representation of the absurd and is a comical book, as well as compares the writing style to Ernest Hemingway. This is a nice volume with a lot of big ideas to grapple with, though it is a rather accessible introductory book and will make for a nice cozy evening of existentialism. Because it’s about to be Hot Existentialist Summer, you’ve been warned.
⅘
‘This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does.’
February 1, 2012
have you ever noticed that when you are at rock bottom nothing makes you feel better quite as much as Sartre telling you that if your life is screwed up it's your own damn fault.
October 3, 2020
أنا أفكّر إذًا أنا موجود
هكذا راح سارتر وجاء يعرض ويفند ويناقش
وهذه اللافتة لا تفارق يده
الكتاب في الأساس ترجمة لمحاضرة من محاضرات سارتر
وقد اهتم كثيرا فيها بالتأكيد على نقطة أن حرية الفرد مسئولية
وأن الوجودية ليست فلسفة تأملية فقط
بل هي التي تحث الإنسان على أن يصنع ويفعل
والوجودية لا تحرص على الأمل كثيرا
وليست ذلك سوداوية فيها
ولكن لأن الأمل يؤدي بالفرد إلى التراخي وعدم إنجاز عمله بالجهد والمهارة الكافيين
فرق سارتر بين الوجودية عند المؤمن
الذي يؤ��ن بأن الماهية سبقت الوجود
"و الوجودية عند الملحد الذي لا يؤمن ب"فكرة الله
وعنده الوجود هنا يسبق الماهية
وشرح ذلك بقوله
هكذا راح سارتر وجاء يعرض ويفند ويناقش
وهذه اللافتة لا تفارق يده
الكتاب في الأساس ترجمة لمحاضرة من محاضرات سارتر
وقد اهتم كثيرا فيها بالتأكيد على نقطة أن حرية الفرد مسئولية
وأن الوجودية ليست فلسفة تأملية فقط
بل هي التي تحث الإنسان على أن يصنع ويفعل
والوجودية لا تحرص على الأمل كثيرا
وليست ذلك سوداوية فيها
ولكن لأن الأمل يؤدي بالفرد إلى التراخي وعدم إنجاز عمله بالجهد والمهارة الكافيين
إن هدفي هنا هو الدفاع عن الوجودية ضد كل ما يوجه إليها من انتقادات
فهم يتهمونها أولا بأنها دعوة للأستسلام لليأس
لأنه ما دامت كل الحلول مستحيلة
فإن العمل في هذا العالم مستحيل كذلك ولا جدوي منه
وحينئذ تكون الوجودية فلسفة تأملية
ومادام التأمل رفاهيه ومن كماليات الحياة
فهي لن تكون سوي فلسفة برجوازية تضاف الي الفلسفات البرجوازية الأخري.
إنّ الوجوديّة فلسفة متفائلة
لأنها في صميمها تضع الإنسان مواجهـًا لذاته
حرًا
يختار لتفسه مايشاء
فرق سارتر بين الوجودية عند المؤمن
الذي يؤ��ن بأن الماهية سبقت الوجود
"و الوجودية عند الملحد الذي لا يؤمن ب"فكرة الله
وعنده الوجود هنا يسبق الماهية
وشرح ذلك بقوله
ونحن عندما نفكر في الله كخالق
نفكر فيه طوال الوقت علي أنه صانع أعظم
ومهما كان اعتقادنا
سواء كنا من اشياع ديكارت أو من أنصار ليبنز
فإننا لا بد أن نؤمن بأن إرادة الله تولد اساسا
أو علي الأقل تسير جنبا الي جنب مع عملية الخلق
بمعني أنه عندما يخلق فهو يعرف تمام المعرفة ما يخلقة
فإذا فكر في خلق الإنسان
فإن فكرة الإنسان تترسب لدي الله
كما تترسب فكرة السكين في عقل الصانع الذي يصنعه
بحيث يأتي خلقها طبقا لمواصفات خاصة وشكل معين
هكذا الله فإنه يخلق كل فرد طبقا لفكرة مسبقة عن هذا الفر
في البدء كان الإنسان وبعده جاءت جميع الأشياء
بما فيها فكرة وجود الله
وبذلك يكون الإنسان قد صنع نفسه أي أنه يصبح هو الحرية المطلقة
إنّ الإنسان يوجد ثم يريد أن يكون
ويكون ما يريد أن يكونه بعد القفزة التي يقفزها إلى الوجود
إنّ الإنسان لن يحقق لنفسه الوجود
ولن يناله
إلا بعد أن يكون ما يهدف إليه ما يكونه
وليس ما يرغب أن يكونه
لأنه ما نفهمه عادة من الرغبة أو الإرادة
هو أنها قرار واع نتخذه غالبا بعد أن نكون قد صنعنا أنفسنا على ما نحن عليه فقد أرغب أن أ��ضم إلى حزب من الأحزاب أو أن أكتب كتاباً
أو أن أتزوج
لكن في حالة كهذه فإن ما يسمى عادة باسم إرادتي
إن هو إلا الممارسة الطبيعية لقرار مسبق اتّخذته عفوًا
فإذا كان الوجود حقيقة أسبق على الماهية فالإنسان مسؤول عما هو عليه
وإذن تكون أوّل آثار الوجودية المترتبة على ذلك هي وضعها
كل فرد وصي على نفسه مسئولا عما هي عليه مسئولية كاملة
إذن الإنسان عند سارتر مسئول عن كل مايصدر عنه عن عاطفة
"لا يمكنه أن يرد ما يفعله إلى غيبيات "توحى إليه
ولكنه يؤول هذه الغيبيات الموحاة كما يروق له
"والإنسان كذلك ليس سوى "سلسلة مشاريع
إنّ الإنسان ليس إلا مشروع الوجود الذي يتصوره
ووجوده هو مجموع ما حققه
وهو نفسه ليس إلا مجموع أفعاله وهو حياته
في نهاية الكتاب عرض سارتر لمحاورةفلسفية بينه وبين نافيل
للفكر الماركسي VS الفكر الوجودي
والحقيقة أنني استمتعت بها كثيرا
August 4, 2015
سارتر مش عاجبني يا أم سارتر :DD
حسنًا الكتاب عبارة عن تفريغ لمحاضرة كان سارتر قد ألقاها
للرد على الانتقاضات الموجهة للفلسفة الوجودية
فتحدث في الجزء الأول من الكتاب عن الخطوط العريضة للوجودية
الاعتقاد بالوجود قبل الماهية
وأن الإنسان ما هو إلا حصيلة عمله
عمل الشخص هو الذي يحدد ماهيته ووجوده
بل ويحدد وجود الآخرين أيضًا
وكذا اختياراته التي ستشكل وجوده ووجود من حوله
وضرب مثال الشاب الذي جاء يطلبه النصح في قضيته
هذا المثل الذي استعان به في كل سطر يكتبه
والذي المح نافيل إلى كثرة استعمال سارتر له
والحقيقة أنه ليس الشيء الوحيد الذي كان سارتر يقوم بتكراره
فهو على صغر مساحة حديثه لم ينفك يردد ثلاثة أشياء بمزيد من التكرار
1-الوجود قبل الماهية
2-العمل هو الوجود
3-الوجودية مذهب إنساني
وتلك الأخيرة صدقًا لم أفهمها، حاول شرحها لكني شعرت بالتيه
كان سارتر هنا رجل ضعيف الحجة، مضطرب
يبدأ حديثه بهكذا يهاجمون الوجودية، ويقول بعض ناقدي الوجودية إلخ
ربما كثرة الانتقادات حوله ومحاولته الرد عليها اقحمه في جو مشحون مضطرب
ساهم في غياب حجته
وهذا ما سيبدو ليّ صحته من خطأه
حين اقرأ أحد أعماله الأخرى
الجزء الثاني من الكتاب محاورة بينه وبين الماركسي نافيل
الأخير ينقد، وسارتر يرد
ورغم أن الماركسية أيضًا فلسفة بها ما بها من الأخطاء
ويوجه لها البعض الكثير والكثير من الانتقادات
إلا أنني شعرت أن موقف نافيل وردوده أكثر قوة وإقناعًا من سارتر
الكتاب نصفه لن تفهمه
والنصف الآخر مكرر أكثر من مرة
ولا اعتبره حتى يصلح كمدخل للوجودية
تمّت
August 4, 2014
Reading Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism has been as arduous as it has been stimulating, for while I did try to understand his philosophy, I could also acutely discern what challenged my understanding of his work.
To begin with Sartre explains Atheistic Existentialism. He says:
Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world –and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.
The first principle of Existentialism according to him is: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.
By this he places the entire responsibility of a human self on himself. In this World where “God is Dead”, we humans are condemned to be free. Condemned because we do not exist out of our choice but our existence is, to begin with, imposed upon us i.e. we are here first and then once we become aware of this existence, are only we free to make out whatever we wish to from it, any action that we will to, in a world which doesn’t offer any objective, guidance or consolation.
Sartre speaks of abandonment. The ‘abandonment’ implies that since there is no God to lead the humanity, we are on our own. This abandonment may result in anguish or despair. Anguish, for being aware of the weight of responsibility of our freedom, for if God does not exist we are left without excuses. Despair, for being unable to accept things as they happen outside our control.
While explaining existentialism, he strongly opines that there is no human nature because there is no God. By this he means, there is no conception prior to the existence of man, but that man simply is. So, he is responsible for what he is and what he makes of himself. Hence, man is defined by the sum total of actions that he takes and his relation with the world.
Answering his critics, he further says:
And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower.
Also:
Quietism is the attitude of people who say, “let others do what I cannot do.” The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, “Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.”
It is here that the question arises: what about the people who cannot take actions according to their will? First, because they may not be free to do so. Second, even if we argue that this cannot be the case, [Sartre gives the example of a coward whose actions determine the way he live his life (cowardly)] still what can be said of people who are not even remotely aware of their freedom i.e. even the freedom to think, let alone to choose or act. In other words, who are not conscious of their will but accede to their circumstances mechanically. Why, aren’t we aware of the oppression of certain classes/ races in the form of slavery? Can we say for sure that when they didn’t oppose, it was because of only cowardliness, a fear of things falling apart from even the tolerable? Couldn’t it be that they were so numbed of the continuous oppression/ exploitation that they were not even conscious of their own will?
Also, what can be said of the people whose minds are not as evolved as those of their fellow beings? Those who depend entirely upon a help to even go through their daily routines because they are not conscious of their surroundings or even of their body? What can be said of their life since it is not a life which is a sum total of their actions, because strictly speaking they do not act themselves for they cannot even think. Can we then conclude that their life is not a subjective life but is equivalent to that of a moss or a cauliflower? Surely, we cannot say this because it is not humane and lacks the virtue of kindness or empathy.
The humanism that he(Sartre) endorses emphasises the dignity of human beings; it also stresses the centrality of human choice to the creation of all values.[1]
But for Existentialism to be truly Humanism, shouldn’t there be an emphasis on right action, rather than just action? How one can justify the individual choices / action which can bring upon wars / anarchies in this world? How can then such individual choices be responsible for whole human kind? And the question which may still arise is who can justify what “right action” is?
I think it is time for me to read Kant.
Sartre, while publishing this work in translation, had changed the title from “Existentialism is a Humanism” (French) to “Existentialism and Humanism”. I wonder what his reasons were for doing so.
Of course I, in no way, possess wisdom or knowledge adequate to justify my thoughts on the subject of Existentialism. Further, it cannot be ignored that Sartre was an eminent philosopher who influenced, and still influences, the views held on this subject by not only literati but also common readers like me. And I do believe that this work is quite important in understanding the philosophy of existence.
Should definitely be read.
-----------------------------------------------------
[1] Source: http://philosophynow.org/
To begin with Sartre explains Atheistic Existentialism. He says:
Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world –and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.
The first principle of Existentialism according to him is: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.
By this he places the entire responsibility of a human self on himself. In this World where “God is Dead”, we humans are condemned to be free. Condemned because we do not exist out of our choice but our existence is, to begin with, imposed upon us i.e. we are here first and then once we become aware of this existence, are only we free to make out whatever we wish to from it, any action that we will to, in a world which doesn’t offer any objective, guidance or consolation.
Sartre speaks of abandonment. The ‘abandonment’ implies that since there is no God to lead the humanity, we are on our own. This abandonment may result in anguish or despair. Anguish, for being aware of the weight of responsibility of our freedom, for if God does not exist we are left without excuses. Despair, for being unable to accept things as they happen outside our control.
While explaining existentialism, he strongly opines that there is no human nature because there is no God. By this he means, there is no conception prior to the existence of man, but that man simply is. So, he is responsible for what he is and what he makes of himself. Hence, man is defined by the sum total of actions that he takes and his relation with the world.
Answering his critics, he further says:
And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower.
Also:
Quietism is the attitude of people who say, “let others do what I cannot do.” The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, “Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.”
It is here that the question arises: what about the people who cannot take actions according to their will? First, because they may not be free to do so. Second, even if we argue that this cannot be the case, [Sartre gives the example of a coward whose actions determine the way he live his life (cowardly)] still what can be said of people who are not even remotely aware of their freedom i.e. even the freedom to think, let alone to choose or act. In other words, who are not conscious of their will but accede to their circumstances mechanically. Why, aren’t we aware of the oppression of certain classes/ races in the form of slavery? Can we say for sure that when they didn’t oppose, it was because of only cowardliness, a fear of things falling apart from even the tolerable? Couldn’t it be that they were so numbed of the continuous oppression/ exploitation that they were not even conscious of their own will?
Also, what can be said of the people whose minds are not as evolved as those of their fellow beings? Those who depend entirely upon a help to even go through their daily routines because they are not conscious of their surroundings or even of their body? What can be said of their life since it is not a life which is a sum total of their actions, because strictly speaking they do not act themselves for they cannot even think. Can we then conclude that their life is not a subjective life but is equivalent to that of a moss or a cauliflower? Surely, we cannot say this because it is not humane and lacks the virtue of kindness or empathy.
The humanism that he(Sartre) endorses emphasises the dignity of human beings; it also stresses the centrality of human choice to the creation of all values.[1]
But for Existentialism to be truly Humanism, shouldn’t there be an emphasis on right action, rather than just action? How one can justify the individual choices / action which can bring upon wars / anarchies in this world? How can then such individual choices be responsible for whole human kind? And the question which may still arise is who can justify what “right action” is?
I think it is time for me to read Kant.
Sartre, while publishing this work in translation, had changed the title from “Existentialism is a Humanism” (French) to “Existentialism and Humanism”. I wonder what his reasons were for doing so.
Of course I, in no way, possess wisdom or knowledge adequate to justify my thoughts on the subject of Existentialism. Further, it cannot be ignored that Sartre was an eminent philosopher who influenced, and still influences, the views held on this subject by not only literati but also common readers like me. And I do believe that this work is quite important in understanding the philosophy of existence.
Should definitely be read.
-----------------------------------------------------
[1] Source: http://philosophynow.org/
February 19, 2015
Existentialism is an Essentialism
This is supposed to be the only one of his lectures that Sartre regretted seeing in print. This was primarily because it became accepted as a sort of manifesto piece and thus tended to reduce the original themes. Sartre repeatedly implies that he will not admit to this essay/lecture being considered as an introduction to his philosophy. Again, this is because treating an 'explanation' as an essential component (or worse a summary) of his complex system of philosophy did not sit well with him.
However, by framing the core of the philosophy of existentialism as it applies to the most urgent walk of life - human freedom - he does clarify the core purpose of his philosophy: How mankind can live "as if there were no God." And this is extremely valuable for any student of his work.
It also redefines Humanism in a very basic way and makes it primarily about human freedom, choice and the dignity therein. So the freedom that attacks the reader as an Anguish in Nausea is reframed here as a great and true liberator of the individuals' truest tendencies. This is absolutely in keeping with the core themes of B&N.
He puts your future, your potential and the entire future of humanity in your limitlessly capable hands. That is the freedom we have to deal with. That is the responsibility of this humanism. It is central. It is unbearable. It is glorious. It is the only attribute of a human being. It is an essentialism
And even if only for this glorious vision of Humanism, this small lecture should stand as an important monument. Any insights into Sartre's philosophy it might provide is only an added bonus.
February 6, 2016
اگر بخواهم این کتاب را در یک جمله خلاصه کنم از نظرم هیچ جمله ای رساتر از "بشر محکوم به آزادی است" نمی تواند باشد
این کتاب به سه بخش اصلی تقسیم شده است. در بخش اول که مهمترین و جذاب ترین بخش کتاب نیز هست "سارتر" سعی بر این دارد که خلاصه ای جامع و کامل از این فلسفه ارایه دهد همچنین پاسخی دهد به ایراداتی که به آن وارد می کنند و در خصوص انحرافاتی که بر اثر کج فهمی آن ایجاد شده شفاف سازی نماید.در این فلسفه "وجود" انسان مقدم بر "ماهیت" اوست، بدین منظور که در آن پیش از اینکه انسان زندگی کند، زندگی به خودی خود برای او هیچ است; اما به عهده انسان است که به زندگی معنایی ببخشد و "ارزش" چیزی نیست جز معنایی که او برای آن بر می گزینید و در این راه بشر محکوم است به آزادی، محکوم است زیرا خود را نیافریده و در عین حال آزاد است، زیرا همین که پا به جهان گذاشت مسئول همه ی کارهایی است که انجام می دهد. بخش اول به لطف پانویس های مترجم تا حدود زیادی برای من که چندان با مباحث فلسفی آشنایی ندارم قابل فهم بود .مفاهیم این فلسفه در عین سختگیرانه بودن برایم بسیار زیبا و منطقی و ملموس بود و باعث شد به خودم، موقعیتم در زندگی، انتخاب ها وارزش هایم نگاهی دوباره و عمیق تری داشته باشم
بخش دوم کتاب شامل پرسش و پاسخ هایی انتقادی با "سارتر" در خصوص اصول اگزیستانسیالیسم است که تا حدود زیادی برای من گنگ و نافهوم بود و بخش سوم که "آنچه من هستم" نام دارد گفتگویی است خواندنی با سارتر به مناسبت هفتاد سالگی او که در آن از وضعیت فعلی زندگی، اندیشه ها، برنامه ها، علایق و سبک و سیاق زندگی خود سخن می گوید
در آخر با توجه به اینکه اگزیستانسیالیست ها به دو دسته "مسیحی" و "غیر مذهبی" تقسیم می شوند و در این کتاب به اندیشه "سارتر" که در دسته دوم قرار می گیرد پرداخته شده است،درخصوص جمع مفاهیم این فلسفه با "مذهب" علامت سوال بزرگی برایم ایجاد شده است که حتما به دنبال پاسخ آن خواهم بود
این کتاب به سه بخش اصلی تقسیم شده است. در بخش اول که مهمترین و جذاب ترین بخش کتاب نیز هست "سارتر" سعی بر این دارد که خلاصه ای جامع و کامل از این فلسفه ارایه دهد همچنین پاسخی دهد به ایراداتی که به آن وارد می کنند و در خصوص انحرافاتی که بر اثر کج فهمی آن ایجاد شده شفاف سازی نماید.در این فلسفه "وجود" انسان مقدم بر "ماهیت" اوست، بدین منظور که در آن پیش از اینکه انسان زندگی کند، زندگی به خودی خود برای او هیچ است; اما به عهده انسان است که به زندگی معنایی ببخشد و "ارزش" چیزی نیست جز معنایی که او برای آن بر می گزینید و در این راه بشر محکوم است به آزادی، محکوم است زیرا خود را نیافریده و در عین حال آزاد است، زیرا همین که پا به جهان گذاشت مسئول همه ی کارهایی است که انجام می دهد. بخش اول به لطف پانویس های مترجم تا حدود زیادی برای من که چندان با مباحث فلسفی آشنایی ندارم قابل فهم بود .مفاهیم این فلسفه در عین سختگیرانه بودن برایم بسیار زیبا و منطقی و ملموس بود و باعث شد به خودم، موقعیتم در زندگی، انتخاب ها وارزش هایم نگاهی دوباره و عمیق تری داشته باشم
بخش دوم کتاب شامل پرسش و پاسخ هایی انتقادی با "سارتر" در خصوص اصول اگزیستانسیالیسم است که تا حدود زیادی برای من گنگ و نافهوم بود و بخش سوم که "آنچه من هستم" نام دارد گفتگویی است خواندنی با سارتر به مناسبت هفتاد سالگی او که در آن از وضعیت فعلی زندگی، اندیشه ها، برنامه ها، علایق و سبک و سیاق زندگی خود سخن می گوید
در آخر با توجه به اینکه اگزیستانسیالیست ها به دو دسته "مسیحی" و "غیر مذهبی" تقسیم می شوند و در این کتاب به اندیشه "سارتر" که در دسته دوم قرار می گیرد پرداخته شده است،درخصوص جمع مفاهیم این فلسفه با "مذهب" علامت سوال بزرگی برایم ایجاد شده است که حتما به دنبال پاسخ آن خواهم بود
April 25, 2017
تصویر جالبیه. اسمش رو گذاشتم: اگزیستانسیالیسم در یک دقیقه.
نوشته های ریزش واضح نیست، گفتم با کیفیت بالاتر بذارم، حجمش بالا میره، ممکنه بعضیا راضی نباشن.
تنها چیزی که میتونم بگم، اینه که ترجمه افتضاح بود. فکر کنم سواد فرانسوی مترجم، در حد سواد فرانسوی من بوده. شاید هم سواد فارسیش کم بوده. نمیدونم، خلاصه به قدری جملات رو بد ترجمه کرده بود که با چهار پنج بار خوندن هم نمیشد حدس زد که سارتر چی میخاسته بگه. راجع به نقطه گذاری هم که بگذریم. وسط جمله یه دفعه نقطه میذاشت، آخر جمله نقطه نمیذاشت و خلاصه هر جا علاقه داشت، از علائم استفاده میکرد.
این تنها چیزی بود که راجع به این کتاب میتونستم بگم چون به خاطر ترجمه ی بد، نتونستم زیاد متن سارتر رو بفهمم.
بعداً که یه ترجمه ی بهتر گیرم اومد و خوندم، این ریویو رو تغییر میدم.
نوشته های ریزش واضح نیست، گفتم با کیفیت بالاتر بذارم، حجمش بالا میره، ممکنه بعضیا راضی نباشن.
تنها چیزی که میتونم بگم، اینه که ترجمه افتضاح بود. فکر کنم سواد فرانسوی مترجم، در حد سواد فرانسوی من بوده. شاید هم سواد فارسیش کم بوده. نمیدونم، خلاصه به قدری جملات رو بد ترجمه کرده بود که با چهار پنج بار خوندن هم نمیشد حدس زد که سارتر چی میخاسته بگه. راجع به نقطه گذاری هم که بگذریم. وسط جمله یه دفعه نقطه میذاشت، آخر جمله نقطه نمیذاشت و خلاصه هر جا علاقه داشت، از علائم استفاده میکرد.
این تنها چیزی بود که راجع به این کتاب میتونستم بگم چون به خاطر ترجمه ی بد، نتونستم زیاد متن سارتر رو بفهمم.
بعداً که یه ترجمه ی بهتر گیرم اومد و خوندم، این ریویو رو تغییر میدم.
May 4, 2015
[Please note that the reviewer is a new entrant in the school of existentialism and is attempting to grasp the building blocks. Hence, her inferences can be basic and occasionally, vague too. Those who have spent considerable time in this school can choose to overlook this little account if so deemed fit (although I would love to have them here to elevate my understanding level). For the more tolerant and sagaciously curious, I will go about my way.]
Essentially, “Existentialism Is a Humanism” is a lecture that Sartre gave in Paris during 1945. By this time, many of his notable works like The Transcendence of the Ego, Nausea, Being and Nothingness, No Exit, The Roads to Freedom series, etc. had won him a fair amount of loyalists but had also ushered in a frenzied group of detractors. The major bone of contention of the latter was the repugnance, this doctrine created by perennially pushing the Man or the Individual, into wells of anguish, abandonment and despair. They saw this philosophy seeped in negativism, even romanticizing hopelessness.
This essay was one of those communiques through which Sartre chose to dispel some of these misconceptions.
To begin with, he describes the principle tenet of Existentialism as valuing human life by empowering the individual to make his choices and take actions and holding him accountable for the environment his action creates for himself as well as the human community.
He states that there are two types on existentialism: Theistic Existentialism (TE) and Atheistic Existentialism (AE). And he champions for the latter. His mantra: ”existence precedes essence”. . Since AE doesn’t acknowledge the presence of God, there is no divine intelligence from which the essence of the Man (who is to be created), can be drawn. Hence, the Man has to essentially exist first and then, go about finding/ creating his essence in life.
Sartre, then, tries to tackle the three primary accusations that bog down heavily AE’s neck.
Anguish – He maintains that every action of the individual is not restricted to individual ramification alone but extends to human community as well.He gives this example: ”By undertaking to marry, I am committing not only myself but to all of humanity, the practice of monogamy.” Hence, this enormous sense of collective responsibility is bound to reign in a certain amount of anguish in him. This anguish is not palpable to any other person but is a battle of intrinsic nature.
Abandonment – There is no God, no past point of beginning and no future line of reference. In such a scenario, the individual feels abandoned by good measure and is left with the only support of his own choices and interpretations for which he is, solely and completely, responsible. That he is condemned to be free. The tendency of blaming circumstances or making excuses of external forces is non-existent in AE.
Despair – Since we are nothing more or less than what our will can afford, there is a sense of despair to limitations of such probability cloud. So, essentially, the individual has to act without hope of a certain outcome but act nonetheless in the best of his minds.
Having soothed the frayed veins of the naysayers with his above constructs, he goes on to say that Existentialism is, in fact, akin to Humanism since this school of philosophy never objectifies human, always places the power in his hands and doesn’t treat him as an end. In being constantly in making, having the control of his life, making choices, seeking out an outside goal to project himself onto the canvas of liberation, he can realize what it means to be truly human.
While, for a beginner like me, this essay has proven to be an effective harbinger to better understanding of this doctrine, I can’t help but have some questions pop in my head.
Firstly, what merits the choice of Atheistic Existentialism (AE) over Theistic Existentialism (TE)? How is the fundamental of essence precedes existence (which is the manifested principle of TE) a bad thing? Isn’t the presence of an objective a trigger to action which is the main point of deliberation in AE?
Also, if my decision is a collective commitment to the human community, then is my renouncement (or the choice of “not choosing”), a renouncement by the community too? Is there a concept of anguish and “larger” anguish here?
At some point in the essay, Sartre says, ’The only way I can measure the strength of this affection is precisely by performing an action that confirms and defines it.
Where does AE accommodate recurring acts then? There are many emotions or even events that have a streak of commonality. While taking a fresh call on an existing event, doesn’t the past experience form part of the set of probable choices upon which the subsequent action will be based?
This one statement, which finds place in the later part of the essay, really baffled me:
”I cannot discover any truth whatsoever about myself except through the mediation of another. The other is essential to my existence, as well as to the knowledge I have of myself.”
Now, if knowing myself mandates the presence of another individual, then there is a reference point, a yardstick; which is against the fundamentals of AE doctrine, right? How is this dichotomy addressed then?
Alright, I am babbling in either my ignorance or half knowledge. But this essay had been handy in encapsulating the highlights of Existentialism in terse narrative, giving examples from routine life to simplify its heavy garb. There is a lot of reference to past and fellow philosophers like Descartes, Voltaire, Kant, Kierkegaard and Heidegger and reading them in parallel might bring about wider perspectives and clarity.
[Thank you. The class is over. For those who are still with me, you love philosophy. Really.]
Essentially, “Existentialism Is a Humanism” is a lecture that Sartre gave in Paris during 1945. By this time, many of his notable works like The Transcendence of the Ego, Nausea, Being and Nothingness, No Exit, The Roads to Freedom series, etc. had won him a fair amount of loyalists but had also ushered in a frenzied group of detractors. The major bone of contention of the latter was the repugnance, this doctrine created by perennially pushing the Man or the Individual, into wells of anguish, abandonment and despair. They saw this philosophy seeped in negativism, even romanticizing hopelessness.
This essay was one of those communiques through which Sartre chose to dispel some of these misconceptions.
To begin with, he describes the principle tenet of Existentialism as valuing human life by empowering the individual to make his choices and take actions and holding him accountable for the environment his action creates for himself as well as the human community.
He states that there are two types on existentialism: Theistic Existentialism (TE) and Atheistic Existentialism (AE). And he champions for the latter. His mantra: ”existence precedes essence”. . Since AE doesn’t acknowledge the presence of God, there is no divine intelligence from which the essence of the Man (who is to be created), can be drawn. Hence, the Man has to essentially exist first and then, go about finding/ creating his essence in life.
Sartre, then, tries to tackle the three primary accusations that bog down heavily AE’s neck.
Anguish – He maintains that every action of the individual is not restricted to individual ramification alone but extends to human community as well.He gives this example: ”By undertaking to marry, I am committing not only myself but to all of humanity, the practice of monogamy.” Hence, this enormous sense of collective responsibility is bound to reign in a certain amount of anguish in him. This anguish is not palpable to any other person but is a battle of intrinsic nature.
Abandonment – There is no God, no past point of beginning and no future line of reference. In such a scenario, the individual feels abandoned by good measure and is left with the only support of his own choices and interpretations for which he is, solely and completely, responsible. That he is condemned to be free. The tendency of blaming circumstances or making excuses of external forces is non-existent in AE.
Despair – Since we are nothing more or less than what our will can afford, there is a sense of despair to limitations of such probability cloud. So, essentially, the individual has to act without hope of a certain outcome but act nonetheless in the best of his minds.
Having soothed the frayed veins of the naysayers with his above constructs, he goes on to say that Existentialism is, in fact, akin to Humanism since this school of philosophy never objectifies human, always places the power in his hands and doesn’t treat him as an end. In being constantly in making, having the control of his life, making choices, seeking out an outside goal to project himself onto the canvas of liberation, he can realize what it means to be truly human.
While, for a beginner like me, this essay has proven to be an effective harbinger to better understanding of this doctrine, I can’t help but have some questions pop in my head.
Firstly, what merits the choice of Atheistic Existentialism (AE) over Theistic Existentialism (TE)? How is the fundamental of essence precedes existence (which is the manifested principle of TE) a bad thing? Isn’t the presence of an objective a trigger to action which is the main point of deliberation in AE?
Also, if my decision is a collective commitment to the human community, then is my renouncement (or the choice of “not choosing”), a renouncement by the community too? Is there a concept of anguish and “larger” anguish here?
At some point in the essay, Sartre says, ’The only way I can measure the strength of this affection is precisely by performing an action that confirms and defines it.
Where does AE accommodate recurring acts then? There are many emotions or even events that have a streak of commonality. While taking a fresh call on an existing event, doesn’t the past experience form part of the set of probable choices upon which the subsequent action will be based?
This one statement, which finds place in the later part of the essay, really baffled me:
”I cannot discover any truth whatsoever about myself except through the mediation of another. The other is essential to my existence, as well as to the knowledge I have of myself.”
Now, if knowing myself mandates the presence of another individual, then there is a reference point, a yardstick; which is against the fundamentals of AE doctrine, right? How is this dichotomy addressed then?
Alright, I am babbling in either my ignorance or half knowledge. But this essay had been handy in encapsulating the highlights of Existentialism in terse narrative, giving examples from routine life to simplify its heavy garb. There is a lot of reference to past and fellow philosophers like Descartes, Voltaire, Kant, Kierkegaard and Heidegger and reading them in parallel might bring about wider perspectives and clarity.
[Thank you. The class is over. For those who are still with me, you love philosophy. Really.]
August 18, 2019
خیلی عالی بود و لذت بردم. در صورتی که به موضوع کتاب و نویسنده علاقه دارید حتماً بخوانید، در غیر این صورت نخوانید. ترجمه بسیار خوب بود و پانویسهای عالی مترجم بسیار کمک کننده بودند.
********************************************************************************
آدمی در زندگی خود به نحوی ملتزم و درگیر میشود و بدین گونه تصویری از خود به دست میدهد. خارج از این تصویر هیچ نیست. ص 52 کتاب
اگزیستانسیالیسم را نمیتوان فلسفهای مبنی بر انزواطلبی و گوشهگیری دانست، زیرا آدمی را با مقیاس عمل میسنجد و تعریف میکند. اگزیستانسیالیسم توصیفی بدبینانه از بشر به دست نمیدهد. بدین سان، فلسفهای خوش بین تر از آن نمیتوان یافت، زیرا عقیده دارد که سرنوشت بشر در دست خود اوست. همچنین اگزیستانسیالیسم کوششی برای انصراف بشر از عمل نیست، زیرا به آدمیان اعلام میکند که امیدی جز به عمل نباید داشت و آنچه به بشر امکان زندگی میدهد فقط عمل است. ص 55 کتاب
********************************************************************************
آدمی در زندگی خود به نحوی ملتزم و درگیر میشود و بدین گونه تصویری از خود به دست میدهد. خارج از این تصویر هیچ نیست. ص 52 کتاب
اگزیستانسیالیسم را نمیتوان فلسفهای مبنی بر انزواطلبی و گوشهگیری دانست، زیرا آدمی را با مقیاس عمل میسنجد و تعریف میکند. اگزیستانسیالیسم توصیفی بدبینانه از بشر به دست نمیدهد. بدین سان، فلسفهای خوش بین تر از آن نمیتوان یافت، زیرا عقیده دارد که سرنوشت بشر در دست خود اوست. همچنین اگزیستانسیالیسم کوششی برای انصراف بشر از عمل نیست، زیرا به آدمیان اعلام میکند که امیدی جز به عمل نباید داشت و آنچه به بشر امکان زندگی میدهد فقط عمل است. ص 55 کتاب
July 15, 2019
اعتراف میکنم که تا قبل از خواندن این کتاب هیچ شناخت درستی از مکتب اگزیستانسیالیسم نداشتم و آنچه در اینترنت و این طرف و آن طرف خوانده بودم تقریبا ربطی به مفهوم واقعی آن نداشت.
کتاب حاضر از سه نوشته مجزا تشکیل شده: نخست متنی حدودا شصت صفحه ای است که سارتر آن را بر اساس یکی از سخنرانی هایش تنظیم کرده. در این نوشته، سارتر با توضیحاتی ساده و قابل فهم، اصول فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسمی که بدان باور داشته را شرح داده است. توضیحات مترجم کتاب در این بخش (با وجود قدیمی بودن ترجمه) کمک زیادی به فهم متن می کند. دو نوشته بعدی شامل دو مصاحبه سارتر است که به نظرم با توجه به مطالبشان، تاریخ مصرف شان گذشته و حداقل برای من کاربردی نداشتند. به نظرم اگر همان شصت صفحه ابتدایی کتاب با طمانینه و دقت خوانده و حتی دوباره خوانی شود، حظ کافی از این کتاب برده شده است.
اگزیستانسیالیسم سارتر برای من فوق العاده جذاب بود؛ مکتبی بر اساس حس مسئولیت پذیری اجتماعی، اتکای به خود (نه دیگران و نه عالم بالا)، تلاش و تحرک فردی و خوش بینی به قدرت بشر در ایجاد تغییر. اگزیستانسیالیسم مخالف "گوشه گیری" و "راحت طلبی" و "ناامیدی" ��ست (ویژگی هایی که بین فرهیختگان ما به وفور دیده می شود). سارتر معتقد است که پیش از هر کاری باید دست به کاری زد!
تصویری که سارتر از انسان ارائه می کند دارای سه ویژگی اصلی است:
1. آزاد است. یعنی در این جهان خودش تصمیم می گیرد که چه کسی باشد. هیچ قالب از پیش تعیین شده ای (مثل طبیعت بشری یا اخلاق یا ...) وجود ندارد. البته این متفاوت با انتخاب بر اساس هوس است. هر انسان با انتخاب خود تعیین می کند که علاوه بر خودش، دیگر انسانها نیز چگونه باشند (مثل یک الگو).
2. تنهاست. یعنی کسی قرار نیست او را یاری کند. هر کس بر اساس مسئولیت ذاتی ای که دارد باید برخیزد و تلاش کند.
3. خوش بین است. بدین معنا که در ساخت آینده ای روشن، همه چیز در دست خودش است و عامل خارجی ای دخالت ندارد و در صورت تلاشی درخور، قطعا نتیجه می بیند.
سارتر به گفته خودش مسیحی نیست. یعنی به خدا باور ندارد. اما هیچ تلاشی هم نمی کند که ثابت کند خدا نیست. چون به اعتقاد او به فرض بودن واجب الوجود (یا خدا) چیزی تغییر نمی کند. درواقع از نظر سارتر "مساله اساسی بودن واجب الوجود نیست؛ مهم آن است که بشر باید خود شخصا خویشتن را بازیابد و یقین کند که هیچ چیز نمی تواند او را از خود رهایی دهد، حتی اگر دلیلی بیابد که بودن واجب الوجود بر او ثابت شود".
کتاب حاضر از سه نوشته مجزا تشکیل شده: نخست متنی حدودا شصت صفحه ای است که سارتر آن را بر اساس یکی از سخنرانی هایش تنظیم کرده. در این نوشته، سارتر با توضیحاتی ساده و قابل فهم، اصول فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسمی که بدان باور داشته را شرح داده است. توضیحات مترجم کتاب در این بخش (با وجود قدیمی بودن ترجمه) کمک زیادی به فهم متن می کند. دو نوشته بعدی شامل دو مصاحبه سارتر است که به نظرم با توجه به مطالبشان، تاریخ مصرف شان گذشته و حداقل برای من کاربردی نداشتند. به نظرم اگر همان شصت صفحه ابتدایی کتاب با طمانینه و دقت خوانده و حتی دوباره خوانی شود، حظ کافی از این کتاب برده شده است.
اگزیستانسیالیسم سارتر برای من فوق العاده جذاب بود؛ مکتبی بر اساس حس مسئولیت پذیری اجتماعی، اتکای به خود (نه دیگران و نه عالم بالا)، تلاش و تحرک فردی و خوش بینی به قدرت بشر در ایجاد تغییر. اگزیستانسیالیسم مخالف "گوشه گیری" و "راحت طلبی" و "ناامیدی" ��ست (ویژگی هایی که بین فرهیختگان ما به وفور دیده می شود). سارتر معتقد است که پیش از هر کاری باید دست به کاری زد!
تصویری که سارتر از انسان ارائه می کند دارای سه ویژگی اصلی است:
1. آزاد است. یعنی در این جهان خودش تصمیم می گیرد که چه کسی باشد. هیچ قالب از پیش تعیین شده ای (مثل طبیعت بشری یا اخلاق یا ...) وجود ندارد. البته این متفاوت با انتخاب بر اساس هوس است. هر انسان با انتخاب خود تعیین می کند که علاوه بر خودش، دیگر انسانها نیز چگونه باشند (مثل یک الگو).
2. تنهاست. یعنی کسی قرار نیست او را یاری کند. هر کس بر اساس مسئولیت ذاتی ای که دارد باید برخیزد و تلاش کند.
3. خوش بین است. بدین معنا که در ساخت آینده ای روشن، همه چیز در دست خودش است و عامل خارجی ای دخالت ندارد و در صورت تلاشی درخور، قطعا نتیجه می بیند.
سارتر به گفته خودش مسیحی نیست. یعنی به خدا باور ندارد. اما هیچ تلاشی هم نمی کند که ثابت کند خدا نیست. چون به اعتقاد او به فرض بودن واجب الوجود (یا خدا) چیزی تغییر نمی کند. درواقع از نظر سارتر "مساله اساسی بودن واجب الوجود نیست؛ مهم آن است که بشر باید خود شخصا خویشتن را بازیابد و یقین کند که هیچ چیز نمی تواند او را از خود رهایی دهد، حتی اگر دلیلی بیابد که بودن واجب الوجود بر او ثابت شود".
June 16, 2017
هنگامی که دکارت می گوید: "به جای تسلط بر جهان، باید بر خویشتن مسلط شد" در واقع میخواهد بگوید: عمل کنیم بی آنکه به امید متکی باشیم.
اون روز که این کتاب رو خریدم، به خاطر این بود که با مفهوم اگزیستانسیالیسم در روان درمانی مشکل داشتم و امید داشتم رسیدن به یه درک مستقل از اگزیستانسیالیسم، کمکی باشه برای درک بهترش در روان درمانی. حالا که تونستم بخونمش؛ دیگه با این مفهوم در روان درمانی مشکلی نداشتم و بالاخره تقریبا برام جا افتاده بود، اما مشکل اینجاست این کتاب رو خوب نفهمیدم.
حتی حس میکنم اینکه بگم خوندمش فعل درستی نباشه، چون خوندن چندباره ی بعضی جملات هم گاهی برای فهمیدنشون کافی نبود. درنهایت اینکه ترجمه ی عجیب و دوری داشت و نتونستم با ریتم کلمات به خوبی ارتباط برقرار کنم. همین.
April 28, 2014
“Existentialism Is a Humanism” is the result of a transcribed lecture Sartre delivered in 1945 responding to several critiques to existentialist theories. Communist detractors accused Existentialism of being a contemplative and bourgeois philosophy that led to quietism while Catholics condemned it for emphasizing what was despicable about humanity, which induced to a hopeless and pessimistic notion of human nature.
Sartre presents his defense dissecting the concept of Existentialism in a very didactic fashion, avoiding technical jargon or abstract content and using illustrative examples to make his points clear to reply one by one to all the attacks with a well argued discourse in spite of the ongoing contradictions he was struggling with at the time.
He proclaims: “Man is nothing other than his own project. He exists only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions…responsible for what he is… free… condemned to be free… committing himself to life.”
According to Sartre, the leitmotif existence precedes essence denotes the often misunderstood optimism of the existentialist doctrine, for it places the responsibility of “being” upon mankind, stressing the impossibility of a predefined “human nature” a priori and therefore allowing man to be nothing other than what he makes of himself. Man materializes in the world through his own actions but at the same time he is overburdened with his choices because he commits not only himself but all of humanity.
Sentiments of “anguish”, “abandonment” and “despair” might ensue. “Anguish” appears when the individual realizes the profound responsibility and the consequence of his actions on a collective level. Sartre quotes Dostoevsky’s words “If God does not exist, everything is permissible” to address the concept of abandonment. As there is no human nature or moral values to ascribe to a priori, man is condemned to freedom because once cast into the world he is responsible for everything he does without having any values or code of ethics that can legitimate his conduct. Consequently, he is “abandoned” in his present to create a virgin future defined only through his own actions. As the realm of possibilities yet to be transformed into realities and the intersubjectivity of man’s existence can’t be controlled, they can generate hope, expectations and dreams which eventually end up in “despair” and disappointment.
In analyzing the cornerstones of Existentialism, Sartre stresses the underlying contradictions in the accusations of its detractors pointing out that a philosophy based on action can’t be accused of quietism the same way that an unequivocal declaration of man as the only actor to dictate his own destiny can’t be labeled as a pessimistic view on existence, rather the opposite.
This short essay is a very accessible introduction to Sartre because it is addressed to the general public making use of an instructive tone and a simple yet eloquent language, very appropriate for neophytes on Existentialism like myself.
Although I can’t proclaim I fully comprehend the intricate web of reasoning behind Sartre’s viewpoint, the proposition of “freedom” as the foundation of all value, the transcendental belief that true essence lies in man discovering himself and the idea of a morality based on human beings taking responsibility of their own actions resonate within me.
At the same time I find comfort in recalling Whitman’s saying “I am large, I contain multitudes”, so I don’t even bat an eye when my quixotic self rebels against a doctrine which discards ideals and dreams for not being based on real foundations or when the romantic in me cringes at art being defined as a mere aesthetic invention in continuous progress instead of the passionate expression of an artist’s understanding of the world.
I have to keep reminding myself that Sartre’s world was falling apart in 1945 when he declared his critical defiance against all forms of authority in freeing himself from the weight of history and in urging a new generation to ponder and to reject dogma. I am made myself of many doubts and just one certainty: "the only way to learn is to question”. And that is precisely what I aim to do. Keep questioning.
Sartre presents his defense dissecting the concept of Existentialism in a very didactic fashion, avoiding technical jargon or abstract content and using illustrative examples to make his points clear to reply one by one to all the attacks with a well argued discourse in spite of the ongoing contradictions he was struggling with at the time.
He proclaims: “Man is nothing other than his own project. He exists only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions…responsible for what he is… free… condemned to be free… committing himself to life.”
According to Sartre, the leitmotif existence precedes essence denotes the often misunderstood optimism of the existentialist doctrine, for it places the responsibility of “being” upon mankind, stressing the impossibility of a predefined “human nature” a priori and therefore allowing man to be nothing other than what he makes of himself. Man materializes in the world through his own actions but at the same time he is overburdened with his choices because he commits not only himself but all of humanity.
Sentiments of “anguish”, “abandonment” and “despair” might ensue. “Anguish” appears when the individual realizes the profound responsibility and the consequence of his actions on a collective level. Sartre quotes Dostoevsky’s words “If God does not exist, everything is permissible” to address the concept of abandonment. As there is no human nature or moral values to ascribe to a priori, man is condemned to freedom because once cast into the world he is responsible for everything he does without having any values or code of ethics that can legitimate his conduct. Consequently, he is “abandoned” in his present to create a virgin future defined only through his own actions. As the realm of possibilities yet to be transformed into realities and the intersubjectivity of man’s existence can’t be controlled, they can generate hope, expectations and dreams which eventually end up in “despair” and disappointment.
In analyzing the cornerstones of Existentialism, Sartre stresses the underlying contradictions in the accusations of its detractors pointing out that a philosophy based on action can’t be accused of quietism the same way that an unequivocal declaration of man as the only actor to dictate his own destiny can’t be labeled as a pessimistic view on existence, rather the opposite.
This short essay is a very accessible introduction to Sartre because it is addressed to the general public making use of an instructive tone and a simple yet eloquent language, very appropriate for neophytes on Existentialism like myself.
Although I can’t proclaim I fully comprehend the intricate web of reasoning behind Sartre’s viewpoint, the proposition of “freedom” as the foundation of all value, the transcendental belief that true essence lies in man discovering himself and the idea of a morality based on human beings taking responsibility of their own actions resonate within me.
At the same time I find comfort in recalling Whitman’s saying “I am large, I contain multitudes”, so I don’t even bat an eye when my quixotic self rebels against a doctrine which discards ideals and dreams for not being based on real foundations or when the romantic in me cringes at art being defined as a mere aesthetic invention in continuous progress instead of the passionate expression of an artist’s understanding of the world.
I have to keep reminding myself that Sartre’s world was falling apart in 1945 when he declared his critical defiance against all forms of authority in freeing himself from the weight of history and in urging a new generation to ponder and to reject dogma. I am made myself of many doubts and just one certainty: "the only way to learn is to question”. And that is precisely what I aim to do. Keep questioning.
September 10, 2023
ارزش چیزی نیست جز معنایی که شما برای آن بر میگزینید.انسان هیچ است به جز آنچه خود می سازد.
فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسم ، فلسفه یاس و بدبینی و جدایی و تنهایی است بلکه به کلام سارتر به یک نوع "خشونت خوش بینانه " اعتقاد دارد و بر این باور است که وظیفه یک نویسنده یا یک هنرمند "نشان دادن" بدی ها و زشتی هاست برای ریشه کن کردن آنها .
جدای توضیح عالی درباره این فلسفه در بخش آخر کتاب با سارتر هفتاد ساله مواجه هستیم کسی که تا حدودی از دست و پا افتاده و دیگر نوشتن برایش مقدور نیست و با یک زندگی ، با یک تاریخ زندگی بشری مواجه ایم.
بنظر من از موفقیت ها ، دشمنی ها ، رشد فکری و توقف رشد فکری یک شخص (یک انسان) و نظر خودش نسبت به زندگی خودش خیلی درس ها میشه گرفت.
کتابی به شدت زیبا
فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسم ، فلسفه یاس و بدبینی و جدایی و تنهایی است بلکه به کلام سارتر به یک نوع "خشونت خوش بینانه " اعتقاد دارد و بر این باور است که وظیفه یک نویسنده یا یک هنرمند "نشان دادن" بدی ها و زشتی هاست برای ریشه کن کردن آنها .
جدای توضیح عالی درباره این فلسفه در بخش آخر کتاب با سارتر هفتاد ساله مواجه هستیم کسی که تا حدودی از دست و پا افتاده و دیگر نوشتن برایش مقدور نیست و با یک زندگی ، با یک تاریخ زندگی بشری مواجه ایم.
بنظر من از موفقیت ها ، دشمنی ها ، رشد فکری و توقف رشد فکری یک شخص (یک انسان) و نظر خودش نسبت به زندگی خودش خیلی درس ها میشه گرفت.
کتابی به شدت زیبا
June 15, 2021
O conferință de popularizare, care cuprinde toate locurile comune ale existențialismului sartrian. Transport aici un pasaj bine cunoscut din această prelegere ținută în 1945, cînd toată lumea s-a trezit brusc condamnată la libertate:
„Existenţialismul ateu, printre ai cărui reprezentanţi mă număr, declară cu multă claritate că dacă Dumnezeu nu există, atunci există cel puţin o fiinţă la care existenţa precede esenţa, o fiinţă care există înainte de a putea fi definită de orice concepţie asupra ei. Acea fiinţă este omul... Ce vrem să spunem atunci cînd afirmăm că existenţa precede esenţa? Vrem să spunem că omul mai întîi există, ia cunoştinţă de el, survine în lume - şi abia după aceea se defineşte. Dacă omul aşa cum îl vede un existenţialist nu este definibil, e pentru că de la început nu este nimic. El nu va fi ceva decît mai tîrziu, şi anume, va fi ceea ce va face din el. Astfel, nu există natură umană, pentru că nu există un Dumnezeu care să aibă o concepţie asupra ei. Omul este pur şi simplu. Nu în sensul că este ceea ce se concepe el a fi, ci că este ceea ce se vrea şi ceea ce se concepe el însuşi după ce există deja - aşa cum îşi proiectează el să fie după acel salt către existenţă”.
„Existenţialismul ateu, printre ai cărui reprezentanţi mă număr, declară cu multă claritate că dacă Dumnezeu nu există, atunci există cel puţin o fiinţă la care existenţa precede esenţa, o fiinţă care există înainte de a putea fi definită de orice concepţie asupra ei. Acea fiinţă este omul... Ce vrem să spunem atunci cînd afirmăm că existenţa precede esenţa? Vrem să spunem că omul mai întîi există, ia cunoştinţă de el, survine în lume - şi abia după aceea se defineşte. Dacă omul aşa cum îl vede un existenţialist nu este definibil, e pentru că de la început nu este nimic. El nu va fi ceva decît mai tîrziu, şi anume, va fi ceea ce va face din el. Astfel, nu există natură umană, pentru că nu există un Dumnezeu care să aibă o concepţie asupra ei. Omul este pur şi simplu. Nu în sensul că este ceea ce se concepe el a fi, ci că este ceea ce se vrea şi ceea ce se concepe el însuşi după ce există deja - aşa cum îşi proiectează el să fie după acel salt către existenţă”.
April 23, 2021
Uzun zamandır hakkında okuma yapmadığım bazı konuları gözden geçirme ihtiyacı duyuyorum. Bunu Nietzsche için yakın zamanda yapmış ve görüşlerimin bazı yerlerde eskisine göre farklılıklar gösterdiğini farketmiştim. Şimdi de bu okumayı “varoluşçuluk” için yaptım, hem de bu konuda en temel metin olan ve özgün ismi “Varoluşçuluk bir İnsancıllıktır” olan J. P. Sartre’ın kitabından.
Herşeyden önce varoluşçuluk bir ideoloji değil, felsefik farklı düşünme sonunda oluşan bir felsefe çeşididir. Tek bir varoluşçu görüş yoktur, temelde “insan önce vardır ve özünü kendisi yaratır” gibi basit bir tanım varoluşçuları birbirine bağlar, bu bağlar içinde ise insan özgürlüğü, seçme özgürlüğü, bireyciliğin ön plana çıkması, bunalım, korku ve kaygı gibi duyguların tecrübeleri yer alır. Özgürlük konusu varoluşçular arasında öne çıkmaktadır çünkü bu konuda eylemleriyle uygulama içinde bulunmuşlardır.
Bu kısa gözden geçirme okumamda esasen “varoluşçuluk” felsefesi ya da düşünce sistemine inancımın aynı olduğunu, sadece “başkalarını kendi varoluş nedeni hatta koşulu sayma” konusunda yani “kendisi ile ilgili bir gerçeğe varma konusunda başkalarından geçmesi gerektiği koşulunda” takıldığımı belirtmemde yarar var.
Varoşçuluğun anlamlandırılmasındaki temel sorunun kavram ve tanımlara Sartre’ın romanlar yoluyla (Bulantı, Sinekler, Özgürlük Yolları vb...) girmiş olmasını, saf felsefik metinleri sonra bu romanları tamamlamak için yazmış olduğunu da bu okumamda farkettim. Tüm eleştirilere rağmen “varoluşçuluk” benim düşüncelerimde karşılığını buluyor.
Kitaba gelirsek derli toplu bir kaynak kitap niteliğinde, bir söyleşi ve J.P. Sartre’nin hayat hikayesi kitaba eklenmiş. Sonunda da geniş bir kaynakça var.
Herşeyden önce varoluşçuluk bir ideoloji değil, felsefik farklı düşünme sonunda oluşan bir felsefe çeşididir. Tek bir varoluşçu görüş yoktur, temelde “insan önce vardır ve özünü kendisi yaratır” gibi basit bir tanım varoluşçuları birbirine bağlar, bu bağlar içinde ise insan özgürlüğü, seçme özgürlüğü, bireyciliğin ön plana çıkması, bunalım, korku ve kaygı gibi duyguların tecrübeleri yer alır. Özgürlük konusu varoluşçular arasında öne çıkmaktadır çünkü bu konuda eylemleriyle uygulama içinde bulunmuşlardır.
Bu kısa gözden geçirme okumamda esasen “varoluşçuluk” felsefesi ya da düşünce sistemine inancımın aynı olduğunu, sadece “başkalarını kendi varoluş nedeni hatta koşulu sayma” konusunda yani “kendisi ile ilgili bir gerçeğe varma konusunda başkalarından geçmesi gerektiği koşulunda” takıldığımı belirtmemde yarar var.
Varoşçuluğun anlamlandırılmasındaki temel sorunun kavram ve tanımlara Sartre’ın romanlar yoluyla (Bulantı, Sinekler, Özgürlük Yolları vb...) girmiş olmasını, saf felsefik metinleri sonra bu romanları tamamlamak için yazmış olduğunu da bu okumamda farkettim. Tüm eleştirilere rağmen “varoluşçuluk” benim düşüncelerimde karşılığını buluyor.
Kitaba gelirsek derli toplu bir kaynak kitap niteliğinde, bir söyleşi ve J.P. Sartre’nin hayat hikayesi kitaba eklenmiş. Sonunda da geniş bir kaynakça var.
February 5, 2023
It is difficult to overstate the effect of Sartre’s L’Être et le Néant (1943) on postwar French culture. Although the book was, by Sartre’s own account, a technical work intended only for professional philosophers, it captured the imagination of a generation of disaffected youth, catapulting the author into superstardom and putting him at the centre of public controversy. Catholic conservatives accused him of corrupting the youth; Marxist revolutionaries of lulling them into an apolitical slumber, and just about everyone else of glorifying ugliness, negativity, and nihilism.
L’Existentialisme est un humanisme (1946) is a popularization of L’Être et le Néant intended to clear it of these accusations. The Existentialism developed therein, Sartre tells us, does nothing more than to draw the logical consequences of atheism. Its central thesis is that “existence precedes essence.” There being no God, human beings have no intrinsic nature (ousia) or objective purpose (telos) to give their lives meaning. They must rather make themselves what they are and set their own purpose by their actions. In this sense, “man is nothing else than what he makes himself.”
Sartre’s ontological views have important ethical implications. The non-existence of God, he maintains, entails the unreality of mind-independent moral values. Values are instead strictly subjective: To say that one values some object is to say no more than that one chooses it or is disposed to choose it on the appropriate occasion, and there is no criterion to decide what one ought to choose. Human beings therefore find themselves alone in the midst of infinite possibilities with nothing to guide them through an objectively meaningless existence. As Sartre puts it, “Man is condemned to be free.”
Existentialism is unmistakably a product of its time. Sartre wrote in the mid-twentieth century when scientific advances, social upheavals, and armed conflicts had destabilized the traditional order of things and shattered narratives of human progress. Reading his work, one can practically see him struggling to build a coherent philosophical system from the rubble around him. As evidenced by his own awkward and unconvincing attempts to get ethics back off the ground, however, the project was doomed from the start. Try as Sartre may to convince otherwise, his doctrine is ultimately a philosophy of irrationalism and arbitrariness.
L’Existentialisme est un humanisme (1946) is a popularization of L’Être et le Néant intended to clear it of these accusations. The Existentialism developed therein, Sartre tells us, does nothing more than to draw the logical consequences of atheism. Its central thesis is that “existence precedes essence.” There being no God, human beings have no intrinsic nature (ousia) or objective purpose (telos) to give their lives meaning. They must rather make themselves what they are and set their own purpose by their actions. In this sense, “man is nothing else than what he makes himself.”
Sartre’s ontological views have important ethical implications. The non-existence of God, he maintains, entails the unreality of mind-independent moral values. Values are instead strictly subjective: To say that one values some object is to say no more than that one chooses it or is disposed to choose it on the appropriate occasion, and there is no criterion to decide what one ought to choose. Human beings therefore find themselves alone in the midst of infinite possibilities with nothing to guide them through an objectively meaningless existence. As Sartre puts it, “Man is condemned to be free.”
Existentialism is unmistakably a product of its time. Sartre wrote in the mid-twentieth century when scientific advances, social upheavals, and armed conflicts had destabilized the traditional order of things and shattered narratives of human progress. Reading his work, one can practically see him struggling to build a coherent philosophical system from the rubble around him. As evidenced by his own awkward and unconvincing attempts to get ethics back off the ground, however, the project was doomed from the start. Try as Sartre may to convince otherwise, his doctrine is ultimately a philosophy of irrationalism and arbitrariness.
September 3, 2018
Ένα βιβλίο που ξεπερνάει το "πρέπει να διαβαστεί" και πετυχαίνει το "μπορεί να διαβαστεί" από όλους. Αυτό και μόνο αποδεικνύει την αξία του.
Τι πιο αξιοθαύμαστο από την επιλογή ενός φιλοσόφου να εκλαϊκεύσει τη θεωρία του για να μπορέσει να απευθυνθεί στο ευρύ κοινό κι όχι μόνο σε μία περιορισμένη ελιτίστικη μειοψηφία.
Το βιβλίο αυτό καταρχάς δεν είναι ογκώδες κι αυτό αναμφίβολα αποτελεί ένα ισχυρό πλεονέκτημα για άτομα που κάνουν τα πρώτα τους βήματα σε τέτοιου είδους αναγνώσματα. Ασφαλώς απαιτεί συγκέντρωση, στοχασμό, ξεκούραστο μυαλό, προϋποθέσεις που θεωρώ πως ο μέσος άνθρωπος εξασφαλίζοντάς τες θα μπορέσει να κατανοήσει τουλάχιστον σε ικανοποιητικό βαθμό τις βασικές πτυχές που συνθέτουν την θεωρία του υπαρξισμού. Έτσι, ολοκληρώνοντας την ανάγνωση αυτού του βιβλίου, ο αναγνώστης είναι σε θέση να αποφασίσει κατά πόσο τον ενδιαφέρει να εντρυφήσει στον Σαρτρ και να συνεχίσει διαβάζοντας δυσκολότερα βιβλία του. Ωστόσο, ακόμα και στην περίπτωση που το βιβλίο αυτό δεν δημιούργησε στον αναγνώστη το ενδιαφέρον περαιτέρω μελέτης του υπαρξισμού, και πάλι έχει κερδίσει έχοντας μάθει και κατανοήσει τα κυριότερα σημεία αυτού του φιλοσοφικού ρεύματος. Επομένως, ο άνθρωπος που θα επιλέξει αυτό το βιβλίο, μόνο κερδισμένος μπορεί να βγει.
Πέραν τούτου, το σημαντικότερο ατού του βιβλίου αποτελεί το γεγονός της συμπερίληψης αντιλόγου. Ο αναγνώστης δεν περιορίζεται στις βασικές έννοιες του υπαρξισμού, αλλά έρχεται αντιμέτωπος και με την αμφισβήτησή του κι η διαλεκτική αυτή προσφέρει την ικανοποίηση μιας κριτικής κι επομένως εν ολίγοις ολοκληρωμένης πρώτης επαφής με την φιλοσοφία του Σαρτρ.
Τι πιο αξιοθαύμαστο από την επιλογή ενός φιλοσόφου να εκλαϊκεύσει τη θεωρία του για να μπορέσει να απευθυνθεί στο ευρύ κοινό κι όχι μόνο σε μία περιορισμένη ελιτίστικη μειοψηφία.
Το βιβλίο αυτό καταρχάς δεν είναι ογκώδες κι αυτό αναμφίβολα αποτελεί ένα ισχυρό πλεονέκτημα για άτομα που κάνουν τα πρώτα τους βήματα σε τέτοιου είδους αναγνώσματα. Ασφαλώς απαιτεί συγκέντρωση, στοχασμό, ξεκούραστο μυαλό, προϋποθέσεις που θεωρώ πως ο μέσος άνθρωπος εξασφαλίζοντάς τες θα μπορέσει να κατανοήσει τουλάχιστον σε ικανοποιητικό βαθμό τις βασικές πτυχές που συνθέτουν την θεωρία του υπαρξισμού. Έτσι, ολοκληρώνοντας την ανάγνωση αυτού του βιβλίου, ο αναγνώστης είναι σε θέση να αποφασίσει κατά πόσο τον ενδιαφέρει να εντρυφήσει στον Σαρτρ και να συνεχίσει διαβάζοντας δυσκολότερα βιβλία του. Ωστόσο, ακόμα και στην περίπτωση που το βιβλίο αυτό δεν δημιούργησε στον αναγνώστη το ενδιαφέρον περαιτέρω μελέτης του υπαρξισμού, και πάλι έχει κερδίσει έχοντας μάθει και κατανοήσει τα κυριότερα σημεία αυτού του φιλοσοφικού ρεύματος. Επομένως, ο άνθρωπος που θα επιλέξει αυτό το βιβλίο, μόνο κερδισμένος μπορεί να βγει.
Πέραν τούτου, το σημαντικότερο ατού του βιβλίου αποτελεί το γεγονός της συμπερίληψης αντιλόγου. Ο αναγνώστης δεν περιορίζεται στις βασικές έννοιες του υπαρξισμού, αλλά έρχεται αντιμέτωπος και με την αμφισβήτησή του κι η διαλεκτική αυτή προσφέρει την ικανοποίηση μιας κριτικής κι επομένως εν ολίγοις ολοκληρωμένης πρώτης επαφής με την φιλοσοφία του Σαρτρ.
December 29, 2017
من از وقتی که با این فلسفه آشنا شدم و��قعا راحت تر زندگی میکنم، پذیرش مطالب اگزیستانسیالسم به من حس استقلال بیشتری میده و به فردیت من کمک میکنه و علاوه بر این در تعاملات اجتماعی هم باعث میشه طوری که دیگران هستن رو خیلی راحت تر بپذیرم.
به نظر من این کتاب خیلی خوب ترجمه شده بود و سعی شده مفاهیم این فلسفه به صورت مختصر و مفید به خواننده منتقل بشه.
'' بشر هیچ نیست مگر آنچه از خود میسازد ''
به نظر من این کتاب خیلی خوب ترجمه شده بود و سعی شده مفاهیم این فلسفه به صورت مختصر و مفید به خواننده منتقل بشه.
'' بشر هیچ نیست مگر آنچه از خود میسازد ''
January 16, 2020
L’existentialisme est un humanisme est la transcription d’une conférence de Jean-Paul Sartre, prononcée quelques mois après la Libération. L’objet de cette conférence est, principalement, de dissiper certains malentendus au sujet de la doctrine philosophique défendue par Sartre. Autrement dit, il s’agit d’une apologétique de Sartre par lui-même, en réponse aux différentes critiques que lui avaient adressé les philosophes communistes d’un côté, chrétiens de l’autre. Les principaux points défendus par Sartre sont l’affirmation d’un non-déterminisme absolu de l’homme et donc d’une morale de la liberté totale et de la responsabilité absolue. En résumé : on ne peut pas ne pas choisir et on choisit toujours seul (voir exemple du jeune résistant) ; par conséquent aussi, on est responsable de tout ce que l’on fait (et de tout ce qui nous arrive !).
L’impression générale que j’en tire est celle d’un texte simple, accessible, où Sartre s’exprime sur le ton de la conversation. Cependant, pour être clair, il n’est pas pour autant très éclairant quant aux positions existentialistes. Et, à lire la discussion qui suivit la conférence, il est assez évident que l’objectif de réconciliation avec le camp adverse (communistes en particulier) est manqué. Quant à la doctrine de la liberté totale, les mots de Spinoza n’ont cessé de revenir à mon esprit :
L’impression générale que j’en tire est celle d’un texte simple, accessible, où Sartre s’exprime sur le ton de la conversation. Cependant, pour être clair, il n’est pas pour autant très éclairant quant aux positions existentialistes. Et, à lire la discussion qui suivit la conférence, il est assez évident que l’objectif de réconciliation avec le camp adverse (communistes en particulier) est manqué. Quant à la doctrine de la liberté totale, les mots de Spinoza n’ont cessé de revenir à mon esprit :
Concevez maintenant, si vous voulez bien, que la pierre, tandis qu'elle continue de se mouvoir, sache et pense qu'elle fait tout l'effort possible pour continuer de se mouvoir, Cette pierre, assurément, puisqu'elle n'est consciente que de son effort, et qu'elle n'est pas indifférente, croira être libre et ne persévérer dans son mouvement que par la seule raison qu'elle le désire. Telle est cette liberté humaine que tous les hommes se vantent d'avoir et qui consiste en cela seul que les hommes sont conscients de leurs désirs et ignorants des causes qui les déterminent. (Lettre à Schuller, 1674).
October 18, 2018
In this short book Sartre provides a clear overview of the varying aspects of existentialism, clarifying each while refuting arguments against the philosophy throughout, which leaves us with a well rounded understanding of the tenets of the philosophy. It's more educational that it is enjoyable, but then one doesn't read Sartre for the thrill of it. He composes his theory, shrinks it down from the massive and better in-depth Being and Nothingness really, so it's not a bad place to start for the Sartre novice looking for nothing too expansive.
In short, in the eyes of Sartre, there is no God, we have simply been abandoned to our fate. That point however should not be misconstrued as that Existentialism is only about Atheism. It simply affirms that even if a holy being like God existed, it would make no difference to humanities existence. Human nature is not a self-congratulatory condition, but rather a fearful, uncertain, anguished and forlorn condition. Thus the real problem with our humanity is not with God's existence, but with man's own. Existentialism argues that man does not need a God so much as he needs to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself. The view is understanding alone makes Existentialism, not only profoundly human, but also optimistic about human nature and the human condition.
In short, in the eyes of Sartre, there is no God, we have simply been abandoned to our fate. That point however should not be misconstrued as that Existentialism is only about Atheism. It simply affirms that even if a holy being like God existed, it would make no difference to humanities existence. Human nature is not a self-congratulatory condition, but rather a fearful, uncertain, anguished and forlorn condition. Thus the real problem with our humanity is not with God's existence, but with man's own. Existentialism argues that man does not need a God so much as he needs to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself. The view is understanding alone makes Existentialism, not only profoundly human, but also optimistic about human nature and the human condition.
October 8, 2021
"Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower."
"Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose."
"Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose."
June 2, 2016
A friend of mine once said something that I found very insightful: “Western people are bad at navigating the difference between nihilism and despair.” I think this comment is right on the money. For example, in Schopenhauer’s hands, Hinduism and Buddhism are transformed into an extraordinarily pessimistic and tortured philosophy. This also reminds me of Sartre.
I am hesitant to judge Sartre’s philosophy from this book. For one, it’s so short. And besides, it’s a popularization. Nevertheless, I want to offer some critiques.
The existentialism in this book is essentially Dostoyevsky stripped of God. Sartre says so much himself: “Dostoyevsky once wrote: ‘If God does not exist, than everything is permissible.’ This is the starting point of existentialism.” That quote of Dostoyevsky's (from The Brothers Karamazov ) has always struck me as strange. This means that Christianity was so central Dostoyevsky’s worldview that the absence of God entailed the entire collapse of all morality—even civilization itself. Apparently Christianity was still so central to the European worldview that in 1945 Sartre uses words like “anxiety” and “despair” to describe the human condition when God is removed.
Sartre goes on to echo Dostoyevsky again when he says “Thus, the first effect of existentialism is to make every man conscious of what he is, and to make him solely responsible for his own existence. And when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.”
Quoth Dostoyevsky:
Again, I find statements like these puzzling. In the absence of a universal, eternal law-giving God, Sartre proclaims that it is now we who must take up the mantle. Each individual must play God, and set the values for the entire human race. Not only do I fail to understand the logic behind this idea, but it strikes me as absurd on its face, since every person would individually be setting the standard for every other person. What’s that add up to? Nobody is listening to anyone else in this scheme.
The existence precedes essence argument is a bit of Aristotelian rubbish. The idea, as I understand it, goes like this. You can explain an object like a chair by pointing to the design that the chairmaker had in mind, which you can call the essence. Thus, the chair’s ‘essence’ precedes its existence. But without God, humans have no designer, and therefore exist before they have any definition. They must give themselves their own ‘essence’. So, unlike chairs, we’re not cast in any particular mold, but mold ourselves through our actions.
I suppose if this argument is meant metaphorically then I have no problem with it. Still, I do not see how essences could apply to inanimate objects that were not designed, like rocks. Moreover, to return to the chair example, I don’t think there is any such thing as an ‘essence’ of a chair—or any other object for that matter.
Let’s say I sit down too hard and accidentally break the back off of a chair. I ask you if you’d still call it a chair, and you say “no, it’s a stool.” So what happened to its essence? Did I break it? Also, I had no design or purpose when I broke the back off—it was an accident. Yet now we’re calling it a stool. Did this stool’s existence, in chair form, precede its essence?
Clearly, all this talk of essences is silly. In fact, ‘essences’ are not properties of objects, they are properties of language. Words have set definitions. We can call a certain object a certain word if the object has the right qualities. But this definition is external to the object, not something that inheres in it like an ‘essence’. To twist Sartre’s example, what if I used a paper knife to slit someone’s throat—something it clearly wasn’t designed for. Am I betraying its essence?
People don’t have these core ���essences’ either. Let’s go back to one of Aristotle’s examples. If Socrates was wearing a hat, we’d still call him Socrates. That’s because the presence or absence of headgear has almost nothing to do with our idea of Socrates. But if Socrates got in a terrible chariot accident and became a vegetable, some of us might say “that’s Socrates’ body, but not Socrates.” Part of Socrates’ ‘definition’ (i.e. 'essence') is his habit of going around asking annoying questions.
Let’s move on to Sartre's ideas on responsibility and freedom. Sartre believes that, since we are all absolutely free, we are all absolutely responsible for our actions. Those who point to outside sources as explanations are acting in ‘bad faith’, since they aren’t owning up to the reality of their condition.
On the one hand, I’m all for personal responsibility. But on the other hand, this clearly takes things too far. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that crime rates are higher in poorer neighborhoods, that corruption rates are higher in Third World countries, and that divorce rates are higher now than they were 60 years ago. Of course, if you get divorced, you are responsible. But if a divorcee pointed to the increased acceptance and prevalence of divorce as a partial explanation, I wouldn’t say they were operating in ‘bad faith’. That’d be true.
In fact, I sense a bit of ‘bad faith’ in Sartre’s single-minded insistence that we are the sole determinants of our actions. His argument feels like it’s a retrospective justification for his beliefs rather than something he arrived at through dispassionate thinking—always a no-no for a philosopher. Plus, every shred of empirical evidence is against the claim that human beings are capable of absolutely free decisions. For example, I have political views broadly similar to my parents and my friends, and I don’t think that’s because I independently came to the same conclusion. To refuse to admit that wouldn’t be ‘good faith’, it would be childish.
And, as I hoped to have shown above, Sartre’s thinking is deeply rooted in a Christian worldview—a worldview that was collapsing, but Christian nonetheless. Is he ‘responsible’ for the effect that this had on his philosophy? Or are we acting in 'bad faith' if we partially attribute these thoughts to the time and place that he lived?
So, in summary, I found the arguments in this book rather weak. I’m sure Being and Nothingness is more convincing.
If you’ve managed to make it to the bottom of this review, you’ll now be wondering why I’m giving this book so high a rating. Well, for one, Sartre’s a great writer. You can’t argue with style.
What’s more, I think the kinds of issues he is dealing with are profoundly relevant to our current time. It is all too easy to do as I have done and point to cultural, historical, biological, and psychological explanations for human behavior. The world seems full of biological, cultural, economic, and geographic determinists. (For example, subjective thoughts and decisions play absolutely no role in Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel .) I absolutely agree with Sartre, that there’s something of bad faith in all this. We may not be absolutely free and absolutely responsible, but we’re certainly free enough to have to take responsibility.
I am hesitant to judge Sartre’s philosophy from this book. For one, it’s so short. And besides, it’s a popularization. Nevertheless, I want to offer some critiques.
The existentialism in this book is essentially Dostoyevsky stripped of God. Sartre says so much himself: “Dostoyevsky once wrote: ‘If God does not exist, than everything is permissible.’ This is the starting point of existentialism.” That quote of Dostoyevsky's (from The Brothers Karamazov ) has always struck me as strange. This means that Christianity was so central Dostoyevsky’s worldview that the absence of God entailed the entire collapse of all morality—even civilization itself. Apparently Christianity was still so central to the European worldview that in 1945 Sartre uses words like “anxiety” and “despair” to describe the human condition when God is removed.
Sartre goes on to echo Dostoyevsky again when he says “Thus, the first effect of existentialism is to make every man conscious of what he is, and to make him solely responsible for his own existence. And when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.”
Quoth Dostoyevsky:
For I want you to know, my beloved ones, that every one of us is responsible for all men and for everything on earth, not only responsible through the universal responsibility of mankind, but responsible personally—every man for all people and for each individual man who lives on earth.
Again, I find statements like these puzzling. In the absence of a universal, eternal law-giving God, Sartre proclaims that it is now we who must take up the mantle. Each individual must play God, and set the values for the entire human race. Not only do I fail to understand the logic behind this idea, but it strikes me as absurd on its face, since every person would individually be setting the standard for every other person. What’s that add up to? Nobody is listening to anyone else in this scheme.
The existence precedes essence argument is a bit of Aristotelian rubbish. The idea, as I understand it, goes like this. You can explain an object like a chair by pointing to the design that the chairmaker had in mind, which you can call the essence. Thus, the chair’s ‘essence’ precedes its existence. But without God, humans have no designer, and therefore exist before they have any definition. They must give themselves their own ‘essence’. So, unlike chairs, we’re not cast in any particular mold, but mold ourselves through our actions.
I suppose if this argument is meant metaphorically then I have no problem with it. Still, I do not see how essences could apply to inanimate objects that were not designed, like rocks. Moreover, to return to the chair example, I don’t think there is any such thing as an ‘essence’ of a chair—or any other object for that matter.
Let’s say I sit down too hard and accidentally break the back off of a chair. I ask you if you’d still call it a chair, and you say “no, it’s a stool.” So what happened to its essence? Did I break it? Also, I had no design or purpose when I broke the back off—it was an accident. Yet now we’re calling it a stool. Did this stool’s existence, in chair form, precede its essence?
Clearly, all this talk of essences is silly. In fact, ‘essences’ are not properties of objects, they are properties of language. Words have set definitions. We can call a certain object a certain word if the object has the right qualities. But this definition is external to the object, not something that inheres in it like an ‘essence’. To twist Sartre’s example, what if I used a paper knife to slit someone’s throat—something it clearly wasn’t designed for. Am I betraying its essence?
People don’t have these core ���essences’ either. Let’s go back to one of Aristotle’s examples. If Socrates was wearing a hat, we’d still call him Socrates. That’s because the presence or absence of headgear has almost nothing to do with our idea of Socrates. But if Socrates got in a terrible chariot accident and became a vegetable, some of us might say “that’s Socrates’ body, but not Socrates.” Part of Socrates’ ‘definition’ (i.e. 'essence') is his habit of going around asking annoying questions.
Let’s move on to Sartre's ideas on responsibility and freedom. Sartre believes that, since we are all absolutely free, we are all absolutely responsible for our actions. Those who point to outside sources as explanations are acting in ‘bad faith’, since they aren’t owning up to the reality of their condition.
On the one hand, I’m all for personal responsibility. But on the other hand, this clearly takes things too far. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that crime rates are higher in poorer neighborhoods, that corruption rates are higher in Third World countries, and that divorce rates are higher now than they were 60 years ago. Of course, if you get divorced, you are responsible. But if a divorcee pointed to the increased acceptance and prevalence of divorce as a partial explanation, I wouldn’t say they were operating in ‘bad faith’. That’d be true.
In fact, I sense a bit of ‘bad faith’ in Sartre’s single-minded insistence that we are the sole determinants of our actions. His argument feels like it’s a retrospective justification for his beliefs rather than something he arrived at through dispassionate thinking—always a no-no for a philosopher. Plus, every shred of empirical evidence is against the claim that human beings are capable of absolutely free decisions. For example, I have political views broadly similar to my parents and my friends, and I don’t think that’s because I independently came to the same conclusion. To refuse to admit that wouldn’t be ‘good faith’, it would be childish.
And, as I hoped to have shown above, Sartre’s thinking is deeply rooted in a Christian worldview—a worldview that was collapsing, but Christian nonetheless. Is he ‘responsible’ for the effect that this had on his philosophy? Or are we acting in 'bad faith' if we partially attribute these thoughts to the time and place that he lived?
So, in summary, I found the arguments in this book rather weak. I’m sure Being and Nothingness is more convincing.
If you’ve managed to make it to the bottom of this review, you’ll now be wondering why I’m giving this book so high a rating. Well, for one, Sartre’s a great writer. You can’t argue with style.
What’s more, I think the kinds of issues he is dealing with are profoundly relevant to our current time. It is all too easy to do as I have done and point to cultural, historical, biological, and psychological explanations for human behavior. The world seems full of biological, cultural, economic, and geographic determinists. (For example, subjective thoughts and decisions play absolutely no role in Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel .) I absolutely agree with Sartre, that there’s something of bad faith in all this. We may not be absolutely free and absolutely responsible, but we’re certainly free enough to have to take responsibility.
October 14, 2015
My first exposure to Existentialism is a Humanism was in our faculty book fair when I was the second year student of engineering. I bought this book and another book Hajj written by Ali Shariati. I was totally a blockhead. I knew almost nothing about literature, philosophy, theology, God and whatever else which wasn't science. All I knew was that I was a Muslim, growing up in a religious family and society, but I always wished to choose my beliefs by myself, I mean I wish to have some well thought and examined ideas based on good books that I needed to read. The very first step for a journey of self discovery was to find someone to help me understand at least from which way I had to start. I needed a motive force; an initial velocity or initial condition. But actually the most difficult part was that. To read an atheistic philosophy or a religious book in order to reinforce the basis of your beliefs. The latter was the one that I used to hear from people around myself. You should first read books about your own religion then read other kind of philosophies in order to critic them by your own reasons. Obviously, that way wasn't correct. If my religious thoughts were correct they shouldn't be changed after reading other kind of books. And now that I think about it, my situation was just like the man in that example of Sartre in this book who wasn't sure about which way he had to choose. And Sartre's suggestion was: "You are free, so choose; in other words, invent. No general code of ethics can tell you what you ought to do; there are no signs in the world". Even, I was free in choosing my guidance. Reading Existentialism is a Humanism or Hajj?! That was the question. It was not actually that simple. For a long time I felt I was a suspended particle, with no special orientation. A point in the Cartesian system with no coordinates with a very random and accidental motion.
I chose Sartre.
I chose him not that I knew him or the impression of a friend or someone else encouraged me to read him. All I knew about him was that he was a great philosopher of 20th century. His philosophy affected many things in many countries and my own region of world was not an exception. I needed to feel that I was "Free" . My friends kept saying "Do not engage yourself with Sartre, it will plunge you into despair." Indeed it did. It was officially the first time in my life that I was reading a book saying there was no need to consider God in life, it was extremely different from what we had "proudly" been taught at schools.
Existentialism is a Humanism was indeed among one of top ten books which change my life. A new window. A new way of thinking. A new way of living.
This is the third time that I read it and if I get any time I will read it again. Not that this is too difficult to understand, I think this book needs a general background of philosophy. Surely, I now understand it better that 8 years ago, but still I can't totally connect all the parts and come to one conclusion, for instance I do not know anything about phenomenology, materialism or philosophy of Marx.
The first part of the book is a speech about Existentialism, then two Q&As that the first one still very philosophical and the second one is more about Sartre himself in his 70.
I have already highlighted every sentence of this book. I think this is a precise explanation of Existentialism, a good start in order to read his other work "Being and Nothingness".
I chose Sartre.
I chose him not that I knew him or the impression of a friend or someone else encouraged me to read him. All I knew about him was that he was a great philosopher of 20th century. His philosophy affected many things in many countries and my own region of world was not an exception. I needed to feel that I was "Free" . My friends kept saying "Do not engage yourself with Sartre, it will plunge you into despair." Indeed it did. It was officially the first time in my life that I was reading a book saying there was no need to consider God in life, it was extremely different from what we had "proudly" been taught at schools.
Existentialism is a Humanism was indeed among one of top ten books which change my life. A new window. A new way of thinking. A new way of living.
This is the third time that I read it and if I get any time I will read it again. Not that this is too difficult to understand, I think this book needs a general background of philosophy. Surely, I now understand it better that 8 years ago, but still I can't totally connect all the parts and come to one conclusion, for instance I do not know anything about phenomenology, materialism or philosophy of Marx.
The first part of the book is a speech about Existentialism, then two Q&As that the first one still very philosophical and the second one is more about Sartre himself in his 70.
I have already highlighted every sentence of this book. I think this is a precise explanation of Existentialism, a good start in order to read his other work "Being and Nothingness".
August 9, 2015
مطالب این کتاب برگرفته از مصاحبه و پرسش و پاسخی با آقای سارتر در زمینه رفع ابهام و روشن سازی فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسم می باشد. چرا که عده ای به اشکال گوناگون، برداشت هایی نادرست از مفاهیم این فلسفه داشته اند.
عده ای آن را سراسر آمیخته با عزلت و گوشه گیری می دانند، که برای آنان نتیجه ای جز ناامیدی و گریز از زندگی ندارد.
و دسته ای دیگر، این مکتب را بدلیل بیان اینکه "بشر آزاد است"، سراسر بی قیدی و عبث می نامند. یعنی به دلیل آزادی تام بشریت، تنبیه و جزایی شامل اعمال انسانها نمی شود.
سارتر به صراحت بیان میکند که "این مکتب بدی ها را نشان میدهد تا آنها را دگرگون سازد". و این عمل صورت نمی پذیرد مگر با شناختی که بشر از خود به عمل می آورد.
بنا به گفته ی او "بشر هیچ نیست مگر آنچه از خود می سازد". به عبارت دیگر، "بشر جز مجموعه ای از رفتار و کردار مفهوم دیگری ندارد."
اگزیستانسیالیسمِ سارتر معتقد به "تقدم وجود بر ماهیت" و منکر وجود طبیعت بشری و واجب الوجود است.
او بشر را وانهاده معرفی میکند. یعنی یار و یاوری در آسمانها ندارد و تنها خود اوست که راهنمای خویش می باشد. ولی ناگفته نماند که از دیدگاه این مکتب، عدم وجود واجب الوجود به منزله ی بی بند و باری بشر نیست. برعکس، اگزیستانسیالیسم بشر را مسئول وجود خود و بشریت می داند و بنابرِ این مسئولیت کلی، انتظار انتخاب های صحیح در زندگی را از تک تک افراد دارد.
در ادامه، سارتر معانی و مفاهیم متفاوتی از "دلهره"، "ناامیدی"، "اصالت بشر" و "موقعیت" ارائه میدهد. و از وجود محدودیتهایی سخن می گوید که همیشه و در همه ی اعصار پا برجا خواهند ماند.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
جالب توجه بود که سارتر تلاشی برای بیان مفاهیم فلسفی خود از طریق ایجاد لغات جدید نداشت. تمامی لغات موجود در فلسفه های پیشین را با مفهومی تازه بیان میکرد که این خود یکی از ایرادهای گرفته شده بر این فلسفه بود.
عده ای آن را سراسر آمیخته با عزلت و گوشه گیری می دانند، که برای آنان نتیجه ای جز ناامیدی و گریز از زندگی ندارد.
و دسته ای دیگر، این مکتب را بدلیل بیان اینکه "بشر آزاد است"، سراسر بی قیدی و عبث می نامند. یعنی به دلیل آزادی تام بشریت، تنبیه و جزایی شامل اعمال انسانها نمی شود.
سارتر به صراحت بیان میکند که "این مکتب بدی ها را نشان میدهد تا آنها را دگرگون سازد". و این عمل صورت نمی پذیرد مگر با شناختی که بشر از خود به عمل می آورد.
بنا به گفته ی او "بشر هیچ نیست مگر آنچه از خود می سازد". به عبارت دیگر، "بشر جز مجموعه ای از رفتار و کردار مفهوم دیگری ندارد."
اگزیستانسیالیسمِ سارتر معتقد به "تقدم وجود بر ماهیت" و منکر وجود طبیعت بشری و واجب الوجود است.
او بشر را وانهاده معرفی میکند. یعنی یار و یاوری در آسمانها ندارد و تنها خود اوست که راهنمای خویش می باشد. ولی ناگفته نماند که از دیدگاه این مکتب، عدم وجود واجب الوجود به منزله ی بی بند و باری بشر نیست. برعکس، اگزیستانسیالیسم بشر را مسئول وجود خود و بشریت می داند و بنابرِ این مسئولیت کلی، انتظار انتخاب های صحیح در زندگی را از تک تک افراد دارد.
در ادامه، سارتر معانی و مفاهیم متفاوتی از "دلهره"، "ناامیدی"، "اصالت بشر" و "موقعیت" ارائه میدهد. و از وجود محدودیتهایی سخن می گوید که همیشه و در همه ی اعصار پا برجا خواهند ماند.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
جالب توجه بود که سارتر تلاشی برای بیان مفاهیم فلسفی خود از طریق ایجاد لغات جدید نداشت. تمامی لغات موجود در فلسفه های پیشین را با مفهومی تازه بیان میکرد که این خود یکی از ایرادهای گرفته شده بر این فلسفه بود.
July 2, 2020
Μία φιλοσοφία που βάζει αντίρροπες τάσεις μέσα μας να κοιτιούνται κατάματα, είναι μια φιλοσοφία στην οποία, αν μη τι άλλο, αξίζει να αφεθούμε παραπάνω.
Καταπληκτική η μετάφραση του Αντώνη Χατζημωυσή όπως κι η έκδοση συνολικά, νομίζω ότι συνεχίζει ωραία την προσπάθεια της σειράς «Τα Στοιχειώδη» που βγάζει το Δώμα και που μοιάζει να συμπληρώνει αναγνώσεις και προσεγγίσεις γύρω από το πώς να ζει κανείς στο εδώ και στο τώρα.
Καταπληκτική η μετάφραση του Αντώνη Χατζημωυσή όπως κι η έκδοση συνολικά, νομίζω ότι συνεχίζει ωραία την προσπάθεια της σειράς «Τα Στοιχειώδη» που βγάζει το Δώμα και που μοιάζει να συμπληρώνει αναγνώσεις και προσεγγίσεις γύρω από το πώς να ζει κανείς στο εδώ και στο τώρα.
November 30, 2016
الخمس نجوم لأول 70 صفحة (كانوا 70 باين) من الكتاب، بغض النظر عن لعب العيال اللي حصل بعد كده :D
August 1, 2023
سيشكل هذا الكتاب بجزئه الأول مدخلًا لابأس به الى فلسفة سارتر الوجودية. مشكلة المدخل دومًا انه يبسّط المفاهيم ويحاول ايصالها الى الجميع بغضّ النظر عن مستواهم الثقافي او العملي، ومن هنا يمكننا ان نفهم الأمثلة التي اخذها سارتر لمحاولة شرح ما يرمي اليه.
الكتاب هو تفريغ لمحاضرة جامعية، بإختصار، وأيضًا هذا يؤثر على النص (رغم مراجعة سارتر له وموافقته عليه).
لكن..
الكتاب عمل على مبدأ "يقولون عنا كذا" ونحن نردّ عليهم بكذا وكذا، وهذا (رغم الإختصار) يبيّن بعض جوانب الوجودية بالإضافة الى انه يردّ التهم على اصحابها (عمومًا).
سأكتفي بأربعة مقاطع اعتبرها مهمّة حين تربط ببعضها البعض:
"إننا لا نجد خلفنا ولا أمامنا في الميدان الإنساني قيمًا ولا تبريرات او اعذارًا. نوجد وحدنا من دون أعذار. وهذا ما أعبّر عنه بالقول "الإنسان محكوم عليه بالحرية". محكوم عليه لأنه ليس هو من خلق نفسه، في حين أنه مع ذلك يكون حرًا، لأنه بمجرّد ما يلقى به في العالم يكون مسؤولًا عن كل ما يفعل"
"الوجودية لا يمكن ان تكون فلسفة يأس بما انها لا تعرّف الإنسان إلا من خلال الفعل. فهي ليست توصيفًا متشائمًا للإنسان، فليس هناك منزع أكثر تفاؤلًا منها بما انها تعتبر ان مصير الإنسان موكول إليه هو ذاته، وهي ليست محاولة لإحباط الإنسان عن الفعل، بما انها تعلن أن لا أمل إلا في فعله وأن الشيء الوخيد الذي يسمح للإنسان بالحياة هو الفعل"
"والأكيد ان الحرية بما هي تعريف للإنسان لا ترتبط بالغير، لكن بمجرّد الإلتزام، سأكون مضطرًا ان اريد حريتي في الوقت نفسه الذي أريد فيه حرية الآخرين، إنني لا استطيع ان أتخّذ حريتي هدفًا إلا إذا اتخذت من حرية الآخرين هدفًا أيضًا"
"إن المنزع الوجودي ليس بالضبط إلحادًا بالمعنى الذي يستنزف ذاتيًا للبرهنة على ان الله غير موجود، إنه يعلن على الأرجح: حتى وإن كان الله موجودًا فإن ذلك لن يغيّر شيئًا، هذه هي وجهة نظرنا. وهذا لا يعني أننا نعتقد ان الله موجود، وإنما نعتبر ان المشكل ليس ذلك الذي يخص وجوده، على الإنسان ان يوجد نفسه من جديد ويقنع نفسه أن لا شيء يمكن ان ينقذه من نفسه، وقد يكون ذلك حجّة صالحة على وجود الله"
الجزء الثاني والحوار ما بين سارتر ونافيل كان جيدًا، صورة عن الخلافات ما بين العقائد المختلفة وطرقها في التفسير والتنظير والقراءة، الخلاف في المنطلقات، في الرحلة، وفي الوصول.
الكتاب هو تفريغ لمحاضرة جامعية، بإختصار، وأيضًا هذا يؤثر على النص (رغم مراجعة سارتر له وموافقته عليه).
لكن..
الكتاب عمل على مبدأ "يقولون عنا كذا" ونحن نردّ عليهم بكذا وكذا، وهذا (رغم الإختصار) يبيّن بعض جوانب الوجودية بالإضافة الى انه يردّ التهم على اصحابها (عمومًا).
سأكتفي بأربعة مقاطع اعتبرها مهمّة حين تربط ببعضها البعض:
"إننا لا نجد خلفنا ولا أمامنا في الميدان الإنساني قيمًا ولا تبريرات او اعذارًا. نوجد وحدنا من دون أعذار. وهذا ما أعبّر عنه بالقول "الإنسان محكوم عليه بالحرية". محكوم عليه لأنه ليس هو من خلق نفسه، في حين أنه مع ذلك يكون حرًا، لأنه بمجرّد ما يلقى به في العالم يكون مسؤولًا عن كل ما يفعل"
"الوجودية لا يمكن ان تكون فلسفة يأس بما انها لا تعرّف الإنسان إلا من خلال الفعل. فهي ليست توصيفًا متشائمًا للإنسان، فليس هناك منزع أكثر تفاؤلًا منها بما انها تعتبر ان مصير الإنسان موكول إليه هو ذاته، وهي ليست محاولة لإحباط الإنسان عن الفعل، بما انها تعلن أن لا أمل إلا في فعله وأن الشيء الوخيد الذي يسمح للإنسان بالحياة هو الفعل"
"والأكيد ان الحرية بما هي تعريف للإنسان لا ترتبط بالغير، لكن بمجرّد الإلتزام، سأكون مضطرًا ان اريد حريتي في الوقت نفسه الذي أريد فيه حرية الآخرين، إنني لا استطيع ان أتخّذ حريتي هدفًا إلا إذا اتخذت من حرية الآخرين هدفًا أيضًا"
"إن المنزع الوجودي ليس بالضبط إلحادًا بالمعنى الذي يستنزف ذاتيًا للبرهنة على ان الله غير موجود، إنه يعلن على الأرجح: حتى وإن كان الله موجودًا فإن ذلك لن يغيّر شيئًا، هذه هي وجهة نظرنا. وهذا لا يعني أننا نعتقد ان الله موجود، وإنما نعتبر ان المشكل ليس ذلك الذي يخص وجوده، على الإنسان ان يوجد نفسه من جديد ويقنع نفسه أن لا شيء يمكن ان ينقذه من نفسه، وقد يكون ذلك حجّة صالحة على وجود الله"
الجزء الثاني والحوار ما بين سارتر ونافيل كان جيدًا، صورة عن الخلافات ما بين العقائد المختلفة وطرقها في التفسير والتنظير والقراءة، الخلاف في المنطلقات، في الرحلة، وفي الوصول.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,006 reviews