Does any one know about sartre?

Question

Try and answer this? I wrote about this in a past essay and I am still interested in what people has to say.

Today’s world seems consumed by individualism, Sartre’s existentialism argues that our condition as individuals is ultimately one of despair and hopelessness.

Do you think that diagnosis is correct? If not, why not? Do you reject individualism, and subscribe to a conception of community, or just aspects of how Sartre saw it?

Although the existentialists have often been thought to be aligned with Nietzsche and Sartre in seeing life without a God as a freeing of the individual, this focus on the individual began with the reformation of Martin Luther, and perhaps a bit earlier with William of Ockham’s nominalism. Ockham promoted the idea that the only reality was the concrete particular (universals were simply names), and Martin Luther emphasized the salvation of individual souls standing alone before the God which so terrified Kierkegaard.

Answer 1

no i dont think the dianosis is correct maybe for some people but u cant always just see things 1 way

Answer 2

Ok, Sartre couldn't discern any existence beyond his own (humanness).

Kierkegaard did--God, all of whose ways are just.  

Kierkegaard regarded his distance from God as a real existential condition.  He noted the simulaneous existence of three spheres of being and awareness:  the Aesthetic, or existential now; the Ethic, or reflective valuation; and the Religious, or knowing that God is in one's life.

"Individualism" is as broad as "existentialism," i.e., one may be Christ-Minded, a la Saint Paul, a Son of God a la Saint John, and contribute as a realized individual in the Community of the Holy Spirit, the Communion of Saints.  Or, one may decide one's kantian 5-sense data stream is all that is, and proceed as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, to find Maslowian self-actualization in artistic (Aesthetic and Ethic) endeavor, etc.  Or, one may be an illogical atheist (illogical in that the claim "God is not" is a universal negative, and cannot be proven save by an Omniscient and Omnipresent awareness) and claim a sartrean type of naive Buddhism.

"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov,

"Nihilism," Father Seraphim Rose, and

"The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet, are worthwhile, accessible, contemporary.

Answer 3

In recent years there have been many philosophies based around the premise of the nonexistence of God. One such philosophy, existentialism, which emerged in a shattered France during World War II, maintains that the universe is purposeless and that there is no supreme controller. The existentialists assert that man has free will to struggle against purposelessness, but they give no information as to how the exercise of this will can give life real purpose. Out of a rather bleak and antiquated philosophy synthesized by Jean-Paul Sartre emerged the philosophy of l’absurde popularized by Albert Camus This philosophy appealed to the post-War mentality by dint of its rather simple but unabashed assertion that all life is absurd. As is often the case, Camus was half right, for mundane materialistic life is absurd. It is absurd that man bears his burden of sense gratification like an *** bearing a burden of stones. Camus’ most famous essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” which summarizes the philosophy of l’absurde, utilizes the ancient Greek myth about the shrewd and greedy King of Corinth, Sisyphus, who was forever doomed in Hades to roll uphill a heavy stone which always rolled down again. Camus equates the absurdity of Sisyphus’ position with that of all men. He sees man as condemned to roll the heavy ball of material conditioned life to the top of some unknown hill where it simply rolls down again and forces him to repeat the drudgery. This is a sort of eternal position. Camus concludes from this that, “The only philosophical problem is the problem of suicide.” It is to his credit that he has the insight to perceive the futility of mundane existence, yet he poses no positive solutions outside of encouraging men to recognize the absurdity of their position and seek refuge in a humanistic “solidarity.”

The popularity of this philosophy in America was almost inevitable, and it was picked up about five years later by the Beat movement. And its transformation was also inevitable: if life is absurd, then let us enjoy our gross senses as much as possible. This is also the hedonistic philosophy of Hippyism. Initially, at any rate, this hedonism, which is grounded in aspiritualism and pessimism, grew out of the refuse of the Christian church just as mushrooms grow out of dung.

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were the forerunners of this movement, Sartre and Camus were the popularizers, and the masses were the dupes. Suddenly every major writer from Homer to Chaucer to Shakespeare to Melville to T.S. Eliot was analyzed as an “existentialist.”

Jean-Paul Sartre: Is the Supreme Being Nothingness?

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), was perhaps the most prominent exponent of existentialism in the twentieth century.

Conversation between Srila Prabhupada and his disciple.

Disciple: Descartes and Leibnitz believed that before the creation the concept of man existed in essence in the mind of God, just as a machine exists in the mind of its manufacturer before it is constructed. Sartre takes exception to this. In The Humanism of Existentialism, he writes: "Atheistic existentialism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality."

Srila Prabhupäda: But where does human reality come from? There are also other realities. Why is he stressing human reality?

Disciple: As for man's origin, Sartre would say that man is "thrown into the world."

Srila Prabhupäda: Thrown by whom? The word "throw" implies a thrower.

Disciple: Sartre isn't really interested in a thrower. "Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing God doesn't exist," he writes. "Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but that we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue."

Srila Prabhupäda:  But if you and others exist, why doesn't God exist? Why deny God and His existence? Let them all exist.

Disciple: Since Sartre sees man as having been thrown into the world and abandoned, for him, God is dead.

Srila Prabhupäda: Abandoned by God does not mean that God is dead. You have to admit that you are condemned to the material world, but just because you are condemned, you should not think that God is also condemned. God is always in Vaikuntha(the spiritual world). He is not dead.

Disciple: Sartre believes that because we have been abandoned, we must rely on ourselves alone.

Srila Prabhupäda: But God has not abandoned us. God is not partial. He does not accept one person and abandon another. If you feel abandoned, it is because you have done something that has brought this condition about. If you rectify your position, you will be accepted again.

Disciple: But Sartre would deny God's existence, particularly that of a personal God.

srila Prabhupäda: But his denial should be based on some logic or reason. Why mention the word "God" if God does not exist? God is there, but Sartre denies God's existence. This is inconsistent. If God does not exist, why even mention the word? His proposal is that he does not want God to exist.

Disciple: He wants to set the whole question aside in order to place emphasis on man, on human reality.

Srila Prabhupäda: If you believe in your existence, why not believe in the existence of another? There are 8,400,000 different species existing in multifarious forms. Why shouldn't God exist? According to the Vedic understanding, God is also a living being, but He is different in that He is the chief, supreme living being. According to the Bhagavad-gétä, mattaù parataraà nänyat [Bg. 7.7]. There is no living being superior to God. We all experience the fact that there are beings more intelligent than we. God is the ultimate intelligence. Why can't a person who exceeds all others in intelligence exist? There is no question of "if God exists." God must exist. In the çästras He is described as the superlative personality, as the super-powerful, super-intelligent being. We can see in this world that everyone is not on an equal level, that there are varying degrees of perfection. This indicates that there is a superlative, and if we go on searching—either for wealth, intelligence, power, beauty, or whatever—we will find that God possesses all qualities to the superlative degree, and that every other living entity possesses His qualities partially. How, then, can we rationally deny His existence?

Disciple: According to Sartre, the first principle of existentialism is that "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself." This can be true only if there is no God to conceive of human nature.

Srila Prabhupäda: If man is what he makes of himself, why doesn't man exist as a superman? If his capacities are completely independent of anyone else, why is he in his present situation?

Disciple: That is also Sartre's question. He therefore emphasizes man's responsibility. "But if existence really does precede essence," he writes, "man is responsible for what he is. Thus existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him."

Srila Prabhupäda: If man is responsible, who gave him this responsibility? What does he mean by responsibility? You feel responsible to someone when someone gives you duties to discharge. If there is no duty, or overseer, where is your responsibility?

Disciple: Sartre sees man as being overwhelmed by his very responsibility. He is in anguish and anxiety because he has the freedom to change himself and the world.

Srila Prabhupäda: This means that man is in an awkward position. He wants peace, but he does not know how to attain it. But this does not mean that peace is not possible. Peace is not possible for a man in ignorance.

Answer 4

Try answering this question: \you would find answer to your question;

Could you improve the thinking ability of your fellow human beings through your research, writings, speech, or intelligence?