kellyxmen's review against another edition
3.0
Bien qu'il y avait quelques points intéressant, pour la plupart du temps j'était pas du tout impressionée.
ilybinaya's review against another edition
4.0
existentialism is a humanism is a book of 2 sections, the first part is of a lecture of the same title, the second is a review on Camus' the outsider (or the stranger). sartre expresses upon clarification of existentialism, in terms of rebuttals agains the common perception people have of it, that it is pessimistic, passive, subjective, even though it pertains a lot of negative liberty for the individual; as well as a reitification of the stranger's essence, and explores on Camus' absurdism.
sartre aims to define existentalism as of which man grants himself all the freedom, therefore even though there is no inherent meaning in life, by action man will give his life meaning, and it is due to this very fact that man is the sole actor on his life, all of his actions are caused by him, as of a minimalised view on humans, in which all are reduced into individuals, and their subjective truths would be the truth of their own as the man is held solely responsible for his own life. with this moral relativist standing, he goes on to explain that existentialism is a humanism, that it adopts a way in which man himself is the sole transcendance he was to surpass or transcend. in this way it is made clear that existentalist nihilism was by negation, coming to the optimistic conclusion of action and choice, as humans are innately free to do so.
as sartre carefully explores around the subject of camus' the outsider, in terms of its central theme, methods, and the character, in which is a seemingly bitter attempt to bite on camus for also sharing the very name of an existentialist with his own absurdism that goes against all reasons. yet, objectively he breaks down the true meaning behind the character, and the essence of absurdism, and he goes on to critique camus' work as one that is neither bona fide nor avant garde, as to which he describes it as a moralistic story which volatire would write. it is a disenchanting review of what this observation of the fact that rationalism might be absurd and that it may not be actually suitable for humans. he classifies camus' standpoint as one in the "neorealist analytical world", leaving off little leverage for the apparent meaning which the novel was supposed to bring.
truth be told, this was not the deepest exploration of existentialism but just an introduction with a very clear definition to which it applies to. sartre's profoundity in critque and debate is so prominent in this book, especially during the section which he and the journalist debate about whether what he talked about whether the scientific truth and anything likewise should be taken in account to his theory, in which he firmly refutes as to say that scientific truths are only abstract, without any causality. this also shines a light on as of which his latter dispute with camus, as for which camus' innate poeticism is very attractive to the newly brought readers of the subfield of existentialism in philosophy. and because his ideas, especially portrayed in the outsider are very relatable to current day's lives of mere routine and fixated schedules, they stand out more than sartre's much more negative nihilism concerning the topic as he wrote in nausea. but the actual predicament is that sartre's system of existentialism nihilism is far more plausible than camus' idea of revolting against absurdity, which laid grounds for further radical uses, as those who wished to be anarchic would readily submit themselves to the theory, even though the "rebel" is about the systematic absurdism, rather than political ideologies. however, as more of a reader of camus, his lyricalism and his humanism, in which is more of taking pride in the entirety of humanity's works, are very appealing and for that reason, sartre's plays and novels are less appealing to reach out to the general reader, despite the fact that he comes up with terms like "man is condemned to be free" and "l'enfer, c'est les autres". in this battle of the two philosophers, it is hard to say whoever was better, yet, as though a narcissist he is, sartre's insight and logical framework is far more complete than camus' irrational attempt to try and reduce the difficult questions in life as of that of suicide.
all in all, in the two short essays, sartre re-examines the idea of existentialism, and offers his very sincere but straight-to-the-point opinions on camus' absurdist work, the stranger. of which both are very eloquent in the flow of the arguments, and sartre seems to have created very little loopholes for himself. and what to make of his central ideas? well, to be an nihilistic existentialist, it is fundamental to embrittle the pre-determined concepts of all, and it is far more useful to think and live as a free agent with no religion to subscribe to, or any dominant ideology, rather than to revolt against the absurdity of life, when modernity has already come so far.
sartre aims to define existentalism as of which man grants himself all the freedom, therefore even though there is no inherent meaning in life, by action man will give his life meaning, and it is due to this very fact that man is the sole actor on his life, all of his actions are caused by him, as of a minimalised view on humans, in which all are reduced into individuals, and their subjective truths would be the truth of their own as the man is held solely responsible for his own life. with this moral relativist standing, he goes on to explain that existentialism is a humanism, that it adopts a way in which man himself is the sole transcendance he was to surpass or transcend. in this way it is made clear that existentalist nihilism was by negation, coming to the optimistic conclusion of action and choice, as humans are innately free to do so.
as sartre carefully explores around the subject of camus' the outsider, in terms of its central theme, methods, and the character, in which is a seemingly bitter attempt to bite on camus for also sharing the very name of an existentialist with his own absurdism that goes against all reasons. yet, objectively he breaks down the true meaning behind the character, and the essence of absurdism, and he goes on to critique camus' work as one that is neither bona fide nor avant garde, as to which he describes it as a moralistic story which volatire would write. it is a disenchanting review of what this observation of the fact that rationalism might be absurd and that it may not be actually suitable for humans. he classifies camus' standpoint as one in the "neorealist analytical world", leaving off little leverage for the apparent meaning which the novel was supposed to bring.
truth be told, this was not the deepest exploration of existentialism but just an introduction with a very clear definition to which it applies to. sartre's profoundity in critque and debate is so prominent in this book, especially during the section which he and the journalist debate about whether what he talked about whether the scientific truth and anything likewise should be taken in account to his theory, in which he firmly refutes as to say that scientific truths are only abstract, without any causality. this also shines a light on as of which his latter dispute with camus, as for which camus' innate poeticism is very attractive to the newly brought readers of the subfield of existentialism in philosophy. and because his ideas, especially portrayed in the outsider are very relatable to current day's lives of mere routine and fixated schedules, they stand out more than sartre's much more negative nihilism concerning the topic as he wrote in nausea. but the actual predicament is that sartre's system of existentialism nihilism is far more plausible than camus' idea of revolting against absurdity, which laid grounds for further radical uses, as those who wished to be anarchic would readily submit themselves to the theory, even though the "rebel" is about the systematic absurdism, rather than political ideologies. however, as more of a reader of camus, his lyricalism and his humanism, in which is more of taking pride in the entirety of humanity's works, are very appealing and for that reason, sartre's plays and novels are less appealing to reach out to the general reader, despite the fact that he comes up with terms like "man is condemned to be free" and "l'enfer, c'est les autres". in this battle of the two philosophers, it is hard to say whoever was better, yet, as though a narcissist he is, sartre's insight and logical framework is far more complete than camus' irrational attempt to try and reduce the difficult questions in life as of that of suicide.
all in all, in the two short essays, sartre re-examines the idea of existentialism, and offers his very sincere but straight-to-the-point opinions on camus' absurdist work, the stranger. of which both are very eloquent in the flow of the arguments, and sartre seems to have created very little loopholes for himself. and what to make of his central ideas? well, to be an nihilistic existentialist, it is fundamental to embrittle the pre-determined concepts of all, and it is far more useful to think and live as a free agent with no religion to subscribe to, or any dominant ideology, rather than to revolt against the absurdity of life, when modernity has already come so far.
plisetskys's review against another edition
3.0
I read this for my Humanities class and I totally forgot to log it in.
It was okay I guess.
It was okay I guess.
raoul_g's review against another edition
4.0
'Existentialism is a Humanism' was originally a lecture given by Jean-Paul Sartre in which he tried to convey his basic understanding of existentialist philosophy. In my opinion he succeeds, and I think that the resulting text is one very well suited as an introduction to existentialist thought.
He starts with the basic affirmation of existentialism, namely that "existence comes before essence". What this basically means is that man exists first, and encounters himself, before he defines himself. This self-encounter is the immediate sense of one's self (something akin to the Cartesian cogito: "I think therefore I am") and forms the grounding truth of existentialism. From this subjectivity, and as a first step towards a self-defining of man, follows the need for mediation of another, what I would call inter-subjectivity. In the words of Sartre: "I cannot obtain any truth whatsoever about myself, except through the mediation of another. The other is indispensable to my existence, and equally so to any knowledge I can have of myself." This echoes Hegel's idea that we only gain self-consciousness through a process of mutual recognition.
After man's self-encounter through his subjectivity and the recognition of others, arises the question of essence. Who will I be? What is my identity? What is the meaning of my life? For Sartre, there is no a priori answer to these questions: "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." From this follows another of Sartre's famous affirmations: "Man is condemned to be free." It is a great freedom that man has: to decide what to do in any given situation, to decide the values by which he wants to live, to decide what is meaningful to him. But at the same time it is also a great responsibility: Man must choose. No one else can choose for him. And by choosing, man affirms the value of the chosen thing and is thus implicitly willing it for all of mankind. Even not choosing anything in any given situation is also a choice. These choices and the actions that arise out of them are what ultimately define us according to Sartre: "a man is no other than a series of undertakings, ... he is the sum, the organisation, the set of relations that constitute these undertakings."
My own conclusion from this is the following: Who I truly am might, in a certain sense, be more obvious for those around me, observing my actions, than it is to myself. Why is this so? Because I rarely am able to see my own actions undistorted by my knowledge of my motivations, intentions and desires. Might this also explain why we are so concerned with how we are perceived by others? As you see (or should I say: as I see you seeing me?) I'm getting too psychoanalytical once again...
He starts with the basic affirmation of existentialism, namely that "existence comes before essence". What this basically means is that man exists first, and encounters himself, before he defines himself. This self-encounter is the immediate sense of one's self (something akin to the Cartesian cogito: "I think therefore I am") and forms the grounding truth of existentialism. From this subjectivity, and as a first step towards a self-defining of man, follows the need for mediation of another, what I would call inter-subjectivity. In the words of Sartre: "I cannot obtain any truth whatsoever about myself, except through the mediation of another. The other is indispensable to my existence, and equally so to any knowledge I can have of myself." This echoes Hegel's idea that we only gain self-consciousness through a process of mutual recognition.
After man's self-encounter through his subjectivity and the recognition of others, arises the question of essence. Who will I be? What is my identity? What is the meaning of my life? For Sartre, there is no a priori answer to these questions: "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." From this follows another of Sartre's famous affirmations: "Man is condemned to be free." It is a great freedom that man has: to decide what to do in any given situation, to decide the values by which he wants to live, to decide what is meaningful to him. But at the same time it is also a great responsibility: Man must choose. No one else can choose for him. And by choosing, man affirms the value of the chosen thing and is thus implicitly willing it for all of mankind. Even not choosing anything in any given situation is also a choice. These choices and the actions that arise out of them are what ultimately define us according to Sartre: "a man is no other than a series of undertakings, ... he is the sum, the organisation, the set of relations that constitute these undertakings."
My own conclusion from this is the following: Who I truly am might, in a certain sense, be more obvious for those around me, observing my actions, than it is to myself. Why is this so? Because I rarely am able to see my own actions undistorted by my knowledge of my motivations, intentions and desires. Might this also explain why we are so concerned with how we are perceived by others? As you see (or should I say: as I see you seeing me?) I'm getting too psychoanalytical once again...
noxaqualis's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced