Scan barcode
A review by antoinedoinel
Existentialism Is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre
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.