Scan barcode
glendonrfrank's review against another edition
4.0
"Hurts to know we're on our own... Sad to know we're in control..."
I don't know why I keep being drawn to 20th century theory and philosophy - maybe there's something about a people struggling to conceptualize their place in the world within two global wars. Maybe it's some solidarity with the modernists working to figure out what to do with the Enlightenment and the Romantics, and what that means for humanity and the divine. But something about it always feels very timely. The editors allude to it in their introductions, but it's fascinating how Sartre goes to lengths to talk about existentialism as a philosophic concept and not a populist one, but how - in a way - existentialism has seeped into the public consciousness anyways.
The existentialist anxiety that Sartre writes about feels no truer than in today. There's a quote from C.S. Lewis I'm always thinking about that mentions how much human empathy was being stretched, and that was at the dawn of the information age. Now, more than ever, we are hyper-aware of the totality of human pain and suffering. Sartre's existentialism sees the singular action of the individual as having ramification on the entire human network, and sure enough this is exactly how people perceive of action on the internet. Every action has an implication for all of humanity, and so it is up to the individual to do the best possible thing. For Sartre, this was a freedom - finally, there is no higher dictation on what is or isn't good. But while he sees the anxiety intrinsic to such freedom of choice, I'm not sure he could have predicted just how wide that freedom would become. And with it, just how anxious.
The interruption of Sartre's critic at the end of his lecture feels like an important balance; Sartre's individualist humanism misses the sweeps of history, the fact that people are buffeted by the contexts of their surroundings. How do we balance all of these things? There's a lot in this that felt like a relieving summation, "at last, someone has consolidated this stress and these feelings into a clear framework!" but with that comes yet more questions. What does it mean to be human, and to have the freedom of action that the post-modern world provides? If God is dead, how do we continue? What does it mean to be ethical, if that is truly up to individual will?
I think I want some middle point between Sartre's existentialism and some version of the worldview I grew up in - I'm not sure if that's possible, or really sustainable. Maybe it's just something Dostoevskian. I don't know. Or maybe it's wishful thinking.
I don't know why I keep being drawn to 20th century theory and philosophy - maybe there's something about a people struggling to conceptualize their place in the world within two global wars. Maybe it's some solidarity with the modernists working to figure out what to do with the Enlightenment and the Romantics, and what that means for humanity and the divine. But something about it always feels very timely. The editors allude to it in their introductions, but it's fascinating how Sartre goes to lengths to talk about existentialism as a philosophic concept and not a populist one, but how - in a way - existentialism has seeped into the public consciousness anyways.
The existentialist anxiety that Sartre writes about feels no truer than in today. There's a quote from C.S. Lewis I'm always thinking about that mentions how much human empathy was being stretched, and that was at the dawn of the information age. Now, more than ever, we are hyper-aware of the totality of human pain and suffering. Sartre's existentialism sees the singular action of the individual as having ramification on the entire human network, and sure enough this is exactly how people perceive of action on the internet. Every action has an implication for all of humanity, and so it is up to the individual to do the best possible thing. For Sartre, this was a freedom - finally, there is no higher dictation on what is or isn't good. But while he sees the anxiety intrinsic to such freedom of choice, I'm not sure he could have predicted just how wide that freedom would become. And with it, just how anxious.
The interruption of Sartre's critic at the end of his lecture feels like an important balance; Sartre's individualist humanism misses the sweeps of history, the fact that people are buffeted by the contexts of their surroundings. How do we balance all of these things? There's a lot in this that felt like a relieving summation, "at last, someone has consolidated this stress and these feelings into a clear framework!" but with that comes yet more questions. What does it mean to be human, and to have the freedom of action that the post-modern world provides? If God is dead, how do we continue? What does it mean to be ethical, if that is truly up to individual will?
I think I want some middle point between Sartre's existentialism and some version of the worldview I grew up in - I'm not sure if that's possible, or really sustainable. Maybe it's just something Dostoevskian. I don't know. Or maybe it's wishful thinking.
blueyorkie's review against another edition
5.0
In this work by Vergílio Ferreira, an essay From Phenomenology to Sartre is published: in the form of a long preface to Existentialism is a Humanism, his translation of Sartre's work.
This work is an essential book to understand Existentialism in France and the world through the eyes of Virgilio Ferreira and Jean-Paul Sartre.
This work is an essential book to understand Existentialism in France and the world through the eyes of Virgilio Ferreira and Jean-Paul Sartre.
bunnygirl77's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
ethanhkelly's review against another edition
4.0
It’s hailed as the best entryway to existentialism and that title is fitting; if not just for the lecture but for the review of The Stranger attached.
pascalibrary's review against another edition
4.0
Now that I have a better grasp on Existentialism, and Philosophy, this was a much easier read. I also enjoyed the review of the Stranger at the end. It deepened my enjoyment of that already great book. This is definitely a decent introduction to his philosophy, but maybe after you have read some things online, or if you are already a fan of philosophy.