Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.88 AVERAGE
3.88 AVERAGE
*Read Harder Challenge 2016: Read a book about religion (fiction or non-fiction)*
The lecture took place in the 1940's. So Sartre is only in his 40's, but he seems much older in this transcription. He seems out of touch and speaks with the subjective blindness of being passionately defensive. He seems desperate to defend his point of view rather than explore the opposing paradigms in a truly scholarly fashion.
The end message of the lecture, is very on point. However, the lecture itself seems to have very little substance as it is merely one side of an obviously acute argument.
If you want to save yourself a few hours of reading, skip to the last page:
"Existentialism is not so much an atheism in the sense that it would exhaust itself attempting to demonstrate the nonexistence of God; rather, it affirms that even if God were to exist, it would make no difference--that is our point of view. It is not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the real problem is not one of his existence; what man needs is to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself, not even valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic. 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."
Only a handful of other points are worth getting the context of the entire talk. I appreciate that the talk is archived in history but I don't agree with the publishing and marketing of it as an important moment in Sartre's career.
The lecture took place in the 1940's. So Sartre is only in his 40's, but he seems much older in this transcription. He seems out of touch and speaks with the subjective blindness of being passionately defensive. He seems desperate to defend his point of view rather than explore the opposing paradigms in a truly scholarly fashion.
The end message of the lecture, is very on point. However, the lecture itself seems to have very little substance as it is merely one side of an obviously acute argument.
If you want to save yourself a few hours of reading, skip to the last page:
"Existentialism is not so much an atheism in the sense that it would exhaust itself attempting to demonstrate the nonexistence of God; rather, it affirms that even if God were to exist, it would make no difference--that is our point of view. It is not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the real problem is not one of his existence; what man needs is to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself, not even valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic. 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."
Only a handful of other points are worth getting the context of the entire talk. I appreciate that the talk is archived in history but I don't agree with the publishing and marketing of it as an important moment in Sartre's career.
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
Interesting lecture if a bit annoying in its persistent polemics. Sartre is brilliant and has remarkably clear thought and precise speech. Still, his ravenous desire for a philosophy of "truth" rather "probability" kind of turned him into a dick.
The introduction by Annie Cohen-Solal was quite insightful and helpful.
The introduction by Annie Cohen-Solal was quite insightful and helpful.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
informative
fast-paced
Content Warnings
Minor: Violence, War
informative
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
“In life man commits himself and draws his own portrait, outside of which there is nothing. No doubt this thought may seem harsh to someone who has not made a success of his life. But on the other hand, it helps people to understand that reality alone counts, and that dreams, expectations and hopes only serve to define a man as a broken dream, aborted hopes, and futile expectations.”
I now realise that I had misunderstood existentialism almost entirely. Sartre's lecture here defines the ins-and-outs of his theory in a clear and precise way that made it digestible. Of course, it felt convoluted at times as I have not read much non-fiction on philosophy but when I sat down with patience, I found it very manageable so this is the best place to start with the fundamentals. Despite his explanations on the consequences of Abandonment and Despair, through out I could feel the optimism that can be approached when applying a theory that is purely about act and invention and the solidity of existence before essence. I could also see how it could lead to a certain kind of melancholy. With these sentimental conclusions, I know I have gained a very informative and more broad understanding of the basics which is the place I needed to begin. I relish in knowing these ideas more closely.
(also was very pleased that my philosophy A-Level actually came in very handy which made me feel like all the headaches were for something, at least.)
I now realise that I had misunderstood existentialism almost entirely. Sartre's lecture here defines the ins-and-outs of his theory in a clear and precise way that made it digestible. Of course, it felt convoluted at times as I have not read much non-fiction on philosophy but when I sat down with patience, I found it very manageable so this is the best place to start with the fundamentals. Despite his explanations on the consequences of Abandonment and Despair, through out I could feel the optimism that can be approached when applying a theory that is purely about act and invention and the solidity of existence before essence. I could also see how it could lead to a certain kind of melancholy. With these sentimental conclusions, I know I have gained a very informative and more broad understanding of the basics which is the place I needed to begin. I relish in knowing these ideas more closely.
(also was very pleased that my philosophy A-Level actually came in very handy which made me feel like all the headaches were for something, at least.)