Scan barcode
A review by sssummer
Existentialism Is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre
3.0
Reread
It's still an interesting read. A little bit of Kant lite and also psychology lite. Taking away a star because upon further rereading it's easier to notice some contradictions, particularly in regard to existentialism and ethics. It's a really slippery text and I wouldn't be surprised if I one day read it again. I like the Camus and Beauvoir readings on existentialism a lot more.
----
10x more motivated to finish reading for class if I can mark it as read on GoodReads.
This was hypothetically a short read (my edition was a pdf with 72 pages), and yet it took me a scary amount of time to get through. This was largely due to the complicated nature of what Sartre is trying to say, although I also blame his style. I understand that this book is a transcript of a lecture, so that's probably why it was easier to read than the chapter from Being and Nothingness that I had to read for class (The Look -which had me crying and screaming btw because oh my God it was so difficult to understand. And with that chapter I blame him and his writing style. B&N was written in the 60s but there is written philosophy from the nineteenth century or earlier that were on issues just as, if not more, complicated and are actually legible.))
Anyways, this read was getting dry, until the question and answer period of the lecture when Pierre Naville showed up. Damn, he popped off on Sartre and it was so good. Suddenly this was a debate with them going back and forth and it got 10x more entertaining. I think someone should do a recreation of this lecture or something because I would have killed to be able to watch this interaction. But Pierre Naville is my hero.
Other thoughts:
-was proud tbh for getting the Marxism ties they were making and understanding why they were referencing it.
-will def have to reread this to understand it better. In which case I might make this review more substantial or erudite (or save that for my essay? Still undecided if GR is the place for that type of analysis, not sure yet.) I will definitely later include some of the quotes that stood out to me though.
- why this has a high rating in spite of the fact that at least on the initial read I disagree with most of it, is because it's still actually a pretty engaging work. "It is also true in the sense that we do not
believe in the idea of progress. Progress implies improvement, but man[kind] is always the same, confronting a situation that is forever changing, while choice always remains a choice in any situation". Regardless if you agree or disagree, his thoughts are interesting. Oh, also his solider/student case is a really really great moral dilemma type of situation, which he also uses really well to illustrate his points.
- I am more confused about existentialism actually is than ever. It seems to entail a lot.
-WHOA Sartre comes off as a pretentious prick. So dismissive and uncharitable to his opponents. I was kinda shook by that. It could be harsher in writing than it was verbally though, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
It's still an interesting read. A little bit of Kant lite and also psychology lite. Taking away a star because upon further rereading it's easier to notice some contradictions, particularly in regard to existentialism and ethics. It's a really slippery text and I wouldn't be surprised if I one day read it again. I like the Camus and Beauvoir readings on existentialism a lot more.
----
10x more motivated to finish reading for class if I can mark it as read on GoodReads.
This was hypothetically a short read (my edition was a pdf with 72 pages), and yet it took me a scary amount of time to get through. This was largely due to the complicated nature of what Sartre is trying to say, although I also blame his style. I understand that this book is a transcript of a lecture, so that's probably why it was easier to read than the chapter from Being and Nothingness that I had to read for class (The Look -which had me crying and screaming btw because oh my God it was so difficult to understand. And with that chapter I blame him and his writing style. B&N was written in the 60s but there is written philosophy from the nineteenth century or earlier that were on issues just as, if not more, complicated and are actually legible.))
Anyways, this read was getting dry, until the question and answer period of the lecture when Pierre Naville showed up. Damn, he popped off on Sartre and it was so good. Suddenly this was a debate with them going back and forth and it got 10x more entertaining. I think someone should do a recreation of this lecture or something because I would have killed to be able to watch this interaction. But Pierre Naville is my hero.
Other thoughts:
-was proud tbh for getting the Marxism ties they were making and understanding why they were referencing it.
-will def have to reread this to understand it better. In which case I might make this review more substantial or erudite (or save that for my essay? Still undecided if GR is the place for that type of analysis, not sure yet.) I will definitely later include some of the quotes that stood out to me though.
- why this has a high rating in spite of the fact that at least on the initial read I disagree with most of it, is because it's still actually a pretty engaging work. "It is also true in the sense that we do not
believe in the idea of progress. Progress implies improvement, but man[kind] is always the same, confronting a situation that is forever changing, while choice always remains a choice in any situation". Regardless if you agree or disagree, his thoughts are interesting. Oh, also his solider/student case is a really really great moral dilemma type of situation, which he also uses really well to illustrate his points.
- I am more confused about existentialism actually is than ever. It seems to entail a lot.
-WHOA Sartre comes off as a pretentious prick. So dismissive and uncharitable to his opponents. I was kinda shook by that. It could be harsher in writing than it was verbally though, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt.