Talk:Jean-Paul Sartre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rife with errors

This article is incredibly shoddy, I think it would damage WP's reputation if it were not immediately put under some sort of "This article is crap" template - if someone seconds this opinion, please do the deed. E.g.: Sartre did not first read Heidegger in prison, rather, he spent a long time in Berlin studying contemporary German philosophy. Further, he was not released from internment due to bad eyesight but (quite famously) escaped from the prison, although (equally famously) the Germans were aware that he was escaping and decided to allow it. And so on. I don't event want to read the section on his philosophical position, I fear what I might find there. 128.135.200.21 (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've cut the introductory paragraph in half and deleted the junk pile of an "In Popular Culture" section. This should only be the beginning.

Communism: doctrine or party?

Did Sartre embrace 'communism' or 'Communism'? I would tend to think that the sentence should read something like: "Sartre embraced the philosophy of communism, but never joined any Communist Party." --Jizzbug

Sartre does have a conception of self-consciousness. In fact, he wrote a whole book on it (The Transcendence of the Ego). Here is a quote, "“a consciousness has no need of a reflecting consciousness in order to be conscious of itself” (11). The for-itself does not have a reflective consciousness of itself, but it does have a pre-reflective consciousness of itself. Other than that, all other points are correct.

In Being and Nothingness he wrote of consciousness that its being is only in question when that being implies being other than itself. Reflective consciousness is "thetic consciousness" or "positional self-consciousness". In the French there are two uses of the term reflection. There is self-consciousness, but there is no unity of consciousness, and the two concepts can be confused. Amerindianarts 03:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The big "wow point" if you will in Sartre is that he dissolves consciousness and the ego (TRANSCENDENCE of the ego). You are quoting out of context, I'm not sure if its a translational problem but what he means by consciousness has no need of a reflection consciousness is that, each and every thought is automatically aware of itself by reciprocity. Every thought/sensory experience is self-aware. Moomoo2u 07:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a contradictory statement in the discussion of the other, "However, there is an implication of solipsism here that Sartre considers fundamental to any coherent description of the human condition.[2] Sartre overcomes this solipsism by a kind of ritual." Is Sartre not defining the human condition? Why would he need to overcome a fundamental descirption? I also recall a discussion about a man in a park and the space he occupies as well as looking through a keyhole as analogies/explanations for the other (it's been a year since I've taken phenomenology/existentialism but i will refresh myself) maybe these should be mentioned? Or perhaps they are too in depth. Regardless the contradiction makes Sartre's already confusing phenomenology even more difficult. Moomoo2u 06:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Sartre and Communism. - Shouldn't this section rather be titled Sartre and Politics? What do Algerian liberation or the Russel tribunal have to do with communism? If you are talking about a French intellectual, leftism is always already implied, anyway... (Golioder 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

"No center"

Ian Hacking writes

Readers of Camus or the early Sartre can form a picture of a self with absolutely no center, a self that constructs itself by free acts of will.

I assume that "center" is Satre's or Camus' term, and not Hacking's. If so, can someone explain what it means to have no "center"? Does it just mean that there are no fundamental limitations on what the self can choose? Or does it say something more, perhaps that there is no conscious "self" at all, or that there are multiple selves, none or which are at the center? Is "center" a profound idea? --Ryguasu 04:05 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

What he means is that to Sartre/Camus, the self is purely contingent on the acts of the person, and not on any inherent traits (of the personality, etc.). Hacking is correct, but his choice of words ("center") is his own. Furthermore, It should be noted that Sarte's view of consciousness is also one of contingency; To be conscious, to Sartre, is to be conscious of something other than the self. To be self-conscious then, is an odd and ultimately detached phenomenon (Hence Sartre's views on the self as "being for others") 216.26.202.22

--I would add: the lack of "center" is the result of Sartre's conception of the universe as infinite and overflowing Being - what some other traditions would call the really real - this might be traced back to the Kantian "copernican" example. No center to the self is connected to "no center to the universe". These are just musings.Looking in from the outside (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Foreign titles

Is there a WP guideline on the format of foreign book titles? This article contains a mix of English and French titles, sometimes with the translation together (sometimes French first, sometimes English first.) If there's no official policy, I'd suggest that all titles be listed French first, English in parens, i.e.: Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience (Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness). It will give a more polished look to the article. Any thoughts? Ocon 17:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Consistency is king, always. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 17:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Change the order of sections 3 and 4

Resolved

We need to swap Sartre and WW2 to section 3 and Sartre and communism to section 4. Someone? I don't know how. --Xjy

done. Bmills 09:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Beatniks" vs. "Academics"?

The reason for using "a philosophy of choice for the beatnik" generation is that the beatniks weren't the academics. Academics fell for existentialism. Beatniks like Kerouac, Ginsburg etc went for Zen by preference. Academics read Camus, Sartre (the easy stuff) and Kierkegaard, but beatniks went round trying to be boddhisattvas. Maybe if the word "beatnik" was removed, and replaced by "Modernist students" it would be right to say "the". The Left Bank and its epigones were Existentialists rather than Beatniks. So, without getting into a war over it, I think ' "a" popular philosophy among rebellious students' might do the trick. --Xjy

That is an extreme simplifictation and wrong. --B. Phillips 2 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)

Reference to the absurd needed

We ought to have a sentence mentioning the absurd, perhaps best in connection with Le mur. -Xjy

diacriticals mess up

Letters with diacriticals are messed up on my screen. If they are not messed up in your browser, it's because your nonstandard browser is compensating. Need use diacritical insertion bar at the bottem of edit page, for universal operationality. I'd fix them, but I'm not sure what they are intended to be.67.118.119.165 20:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

International Warcrimes Tribunal

Resolved

I'm quite suprised this article doesn't mention the International Warcrimes Tribunal, which he set up.

This has been taken care of under "Sartre and Communism".

Sartre's anarchism?

Please consider this link.

That Link is dead --Harpakhrad11 18:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Munich 1972

I've added a section on this polemic after the repeated edition attempts by anonymous 62.2.204.234. Althogh anonymous was wrongly masking his critique as neutral commentary, it is indeed a well known argument and should be mentioned. cesarsorm August 10, 2005

What are Levy's references? If Sartre said it, surely one can find a book or newspaper quote or somewhere in which Sartre wrote or was quoted as having said it somewhat more directly than in writings written rather later about him. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sartre declining the Nobel Prize

The bit about Sartre declining the prize implies that he did so because of his personal feelings regarding literature. However, Sartre gave a more comprehensive statement detailing his reasons for declining the prize; this statement by the Swedish Academy references Sartre's writing from Le Figaro wherein it was originally published. The statement says, in part:

"Mr. Sartre expressed his regret that his refusal of the prize had given rise to scandal, and wished it to be known that, unaware of the irrevocability of the Swedish Academy's decisions, he had sought by letter to prevent their choice falling upon him. [...] Mr. Sartre pointed out that due to his conception of the writer's task he had always declined official honours and thus his present act was not unprecedented. [...] He stated that a writer's accepting such an honour would be to associate his personal commitments with the awarding institution, and that, above all, a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution. [...] Mr. Sartre listed his belief that interchange between East and West must take place between men and between cultures without the intervention of institutions. Furthermore, since the conferment of past prizes did not, in his opinion, represent equally writers of all ideologies and nations, he felt that his acceptance might be undesirably and unjustly interpreted."

I believe that an explanation of why he refused the prize is important, as the entire event is one of the things for which he's commonly known. The current article could give people the idea that he was capricious and openly inciting controversy. I think it would be best to cite his official statement from Le Figaro, but I've done a little scouring and can't seem to find it.

I've edited the part about him refusing the prize to say, "In the same year he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, but he resoundingly declined it, stating that he had always refused official honors and didn't wish to align himself with institutions," but it may also be important to note that he had attempted to avoid having the prize bestowed on him in the first place. --Small Profit 10:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this could fool people into thinking the man had a shred of dignity. Please see the below discussion of how he later asked if he could have the prize money.Worldbeater2002 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Worldbeater2002

I've added the link to the Nobel announcement, and also mentioned that he had previously refused the Légion d'honneur.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Trix: last word?

Anyone have any more information about this? There should be at least one sentence explaining this, or a link to Trix the cereal if that was what he was referring to.

It shouldn't be in the article without more explanation. Very questionable. What is the source, anyway? Amerindianarts 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this may be referring to the The Jean Paul Sartre Cookbook[1], which would make it a joke. This is by far the main result for a Google search on Sartre and trix, so accordingly I'm removing it from the article. One site[2] claims his last words were "I failed." Hallmark 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Political views

There needs to be a lot more information in the article about Sartre's political views. There needs to be a sub-section about his love-hate relationship to the French Communist Party. His positive opinion of Israel (citing the exception of his tolerance of the attacks in Munich) and his phil-semetism also need more attention.

I propose creating a section on titled Sartre's political views' in which these two main aspects (his communist and philo-semitic views) of his political ideology are explained.--Carabinieri 14:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sartre after literature - Nobel Prize

The 08:38, 23 June 2005 revision by Allanidalen added the following text to Sartre after literature:

"However, in an embarrasing display of lacking integrity, Sartre tried to get the prize money later on, but his plea was refused by the Nobel institution."

This developed into the current revision:

"However, Sartre later tried to claim the prize money but the Nobel committee turned him down. This fact was revealed in the auto-biography of Lars Gyllensten, long time member of the Nobel Prize committee. The French philosopher in 1975 wrote a letter to the Nobel Prize committee, saying that he had changed his mind about the prize, at least when it came to the money (approx $1M). Would it be possible to receive the prize, or the money, after 11 years? The answer was "No"."

I cannot find a source for this, and am proceeding to remove the claim until a verifiable source can be provided. Then, once a source appears, the text should be changed to read:

"However, Lars Gyllensten, long time member of the Nobel prize committee has claimed in his autobiograhy that Sartre later tried to access the prize money, but was subsequently turned down. Allegedly, the French philosopher in 1975 wrote a letter to the Nobel Prize committee saying that he had changed his mind about the prize, at least when it came to the money (approx $1M). At which point the prize committee is said to have declined the request."

--Sycron 04:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Or something to that effect.

The monetary value of the Nobel Prize (at least, assuming the Prizes were of equal value) in 1964 was about $50,000 U.S., about $75,000 in 1969, $200,000 in 1980 and rose in rapid steps to about $1M in the early nineties. (This, from knowing the value of the Physics Prize.) The relative value of the Prize (twenty years salary or so for the average professor ca. 1900) fell after WWII because professors became much better paid. E.g. Feynman's one-third (taxfree, at the time) share of the 1965 Nobel Prize was less than his annual salary at Caltech. 137.82.188.68 03:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of the above snippet?! 50,000 dollars in 1964 has the same buying power as 341,440 dollars today, by all measures a considerable amount.Worldbeater2002 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Worldbeater2002

The point of the above snippet (a belated reply, to be sure) was that if someone claimed the monetary value of the Nobel Prize was $1 million dollars in 1975 then they are wrong by at least a factor of five, and hence more likely to be making up a story in order to malign Sartre -- because it makes the story sound "better" (more plausible) that one should want a million dollars. Feynman said that he considered declining the Nobel Prize because he didn't want all the fuss the Prize implied (but the TIME reporter he talked to told him that he'd create more fuss for himself by declining the Prize), and this is plausible because the (one-third) money value of the prize at the time was less than his annual salary -- if the prize money had been twenty times his annual salary then I don't think he would have thought twice about accepting the Prize. 137.82.188.68 (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference in question is presumably Lars Gyllensten, Minnen, bara minnen (Stockholm 2000) (Memories, only memories), presumably page 282.

Unfortunately, I neither have a copy of the book to hand, nor can I read Swedish. Some googling reveals History of the Nobel Prize (Swedish):

Lars Gyllensten berättar i sina memoarer "Minnen, bara minnen" att Sartre "eller honom närstående" (s. 282) hörde av sig 1975 med en förfrågan att lyfta prispengarna, som även de avsagts. Detta var enligt sekreterare Gyllensten inte möjligt, eftersom pengarna fonderats inom Nobelstiftelsen.

Rough translation, AFAICT:

In 1975 Sartre asked for the prize money, and according to the secretary Gyllensten, this was not possible, because the money was funding the Nobel institute.

Hopefully a Swedish reader may be possessed of said book and help resolve this!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it: here are Swedish libraries with Minnen, bara minnen; here's the Swedish section on Sartre and the Nobel institute: sv:Sartre#Sartres_intellektuella_arv.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

From a Swedish language home page, supposedly quoting from Gyllensten's memoirs:

"Sartre sa först ja, sen att han skulle donera prispengarna till ANC och Sydafrika, sen under press från vänner och anhängare förklarade han att han ej kunde ta emot ett kapitalistpris. Varvid pengarna fonderades till kommandes fromma. Sedan ångrade han sig, dvs familjen pressade honom, så han bad att få det - ett eller ett par år senare. Då var det för sent."

This literally translates to "Sartre first accepted the prize, then that he would donate the money to ANC, then under pressure from friends and supporters he declared that he couldn't accept a capitalist prize, whereby the money was reinvested into the Nobel prize fund. Later he changed his mind (this time under pressure from his friends) so he asked to have the money, one or a couple of years later. By then it was too late". Looking closer at the grammar of the Swedish text, I highly doubt it's from the memoirs. Even if it were, can that text be considered a reliable source? Worldbeater2002 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Worldbeater2002

As this is referenced, I've incorporated the above text (with some modification), together with the citation; I've no strong feelings about the particular wording.

Whether the claim is true or not (and there appears to be only Lars Gyllensten's word), it is certainly relevant to the issue at hand.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sartre's Judaism

I found and listed a source claiming that Sartre converted to Judaism shortly before his life ended. Any discreditation/clarification in the name of furthering education would be greatly appreciated.

• After having checked several other sources, I am quite confident that this is incorrect. "Hope Now," which contains the controversial interview of Sartre by Benny Levy, offers no suggestion of a "conversation." Rather Sartre finds Jewish Messianic and related ethical concepts "interesting," which is something far less dramatic. He also explictly says that he is not a Jew, and has no interest in the Jewish concept of the "Name" (i.e. "God"), which "means nothing to me," but rather in the implications for ethical practice and "metaphysical character" of Judaic Messianism. I have corrected the page accordingly, and urged NNDB to correct their biography as well. The internet has a plethora of sites with a quotation from Sartre indicating that he now believed he was the creation of a God, apparently traceable to a National Review article by Thomas Molner (1980, p677), which gives no citation, but which in turn comes from a 1974 interview with de Beauvoir (found in Adieux and Harper's February 1984, p39). The context makes it clear that Sartre remains a staunch atheist and that the oft-quoted passage is referring to a psychological tendency which might explain, in others, the tendency towards spiritualism, but which Sartre considers erroneous. --ScottForschler 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How does one pronounce "Sartre"?

Sartre is pronounced sar-tra. The "a" in the second syllable is pronounced like the "a" in sofa.

To be (in my opinion) slightly more accurate, it's pronounced more like "sar-truh" (if you're using an American accent, that is).

I've heard a number of professors and scholar pronounce sartre as "saart" -- is this closer to the french pronunciation of the name?

sar-truh (with a short second syllable) is the one I agree with, but I am not fluent in French, but an explanation is that in French you do not speak out the last letter (normally).

SAR'treh with a very short second syllable. The second syllable's pronunciation is started with the tongue and lips, and ended in the throat. The t is very strong, followed by the slightly muted "gutteral" r, and the e is sort of like exhaling "eh" after you pronounce the first two letters.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.56.124 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither a french communist nor a member of resistance

I have suppressed both categories french communist and member of resistance, jan 19th 2006 french user EdC

Could you explain why there seems to be so much reference to his resistence activites? John (Jwy) 18:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who can read french, see, for example Michel Winock. Michel Winock is a quite respected historian of the period. Coarsely, the group Socialism and Liberté is never mentionned by any historian of the french resistance. The group had a very short life (as a matter of fact, not because some dismantlement by french or german policy). have you ever read a book about french resistance which would mention Sartre as a resistant ? According to the philosoph Vladimir Jankélévitch (actual resistant), Sartre insistence upon the idea of liberty targetted to compensate partially a lack of political involvment with the resistance during german occupation. EdC

Thanks. Perhaps the text of the article should reflect some of this. I added the category based on what I read there. John (Jwy) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The following text seems to me historically correct

…Sartre was released in April 1941. Given civilian status, he recovered his position as a teacher of Lycée Pasteur near Paris, settled at the "Hotel Mistral" near Montparnasse at Paris and was given a new position at Lycée Condorcet for replacing a jew teacher, forbidden to teach by Vichy law. After coming back to Paris in May 1941, he participated in the founding of the an underground group Socialisme et Liberté with other writers Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Toussaint and Dominique Desanti, Jean Kanapa and École Normale students. In August, Sartre et Beauvoir went to french Riviera for asking André Gide and André Malraux some support. Both André were still undecided, and this might be the cause of Sartre desappointment and discouragement. Socialisme et liberté disappeared soon and Sartre decided to write instead of being involved in active resistance. He then wrote Being and Nothingless, The Flies and No exit, none of them being censored by the German. He also contributed to both legal and illegal literary magazines. After August 1944 and the Paris Liberation, he is a very active contributor of Combat, a newspaper created during the clandestinity period by Albert Camus, a philosopher and author who held similar beliefs. Sartre and and remained friends with him until Camus turned away from communism, a schism between them that eventually divided them in 1951.

Later while Sartre was labelled by some authors as a resistant, at the contrary, french philosopher Vladimir Jankelevitch, an actual resistant, has criticized his lack of political commitment during the German Occupation, and interpreted his further struggles for Liberty as an attempt for redeeming himself.

But I am not sure at all the english is correct. EdC

Inventor of the Absurd

"A whole school of absurd literature subsequently developed."

Umm... no. An interest in the absurd was around a long time before Sartre. Take Kafka, for instance. Although no doubt Sartre would argue otherwise, he's as much a reflection of the ideas of his time as he was originator.

Education

Can a source be provided showing that Sartre received a doctorate from Ecole Normale Sup. in philosophy? If yes, what is the title of the thesis?

Sartre's Mescaline use removed from text

Why was it? I´m adding it again

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Probably because it was unsourced. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:NOR, and Wikipedia:Common knowledge. -Smahoney 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's one source http://books.google.fi/books?id=yuL98MtZ5poC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=jean+paul+sartre+mescaline&source=bl&ots=dSYHOOAezX&sig=PzmPXmdM0ZVd0CLMfRiPzdP_S9A&hl=fi&ei=T8ASStiSJJGxsAb9-umPDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 --Custoo (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Metaphysics

I will be adding a section on Sartre's metaphysics unless there are any objections.Joseane 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was bold. If there are any objections to whatever please let me know.Joseane 09:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Too bold. I believe the statement "The basis of Sartre's Existentialism (and Simone de Beauvoir's) " is too presumptive, and generally an overstatement. I can't cite anything off-hand, but they had their conceptual differences, which is enough to make the statement non-NPOV. You could do a better job at inline citation also, but this entire article needs that anyway. I am a member of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography and before long articles such as these are going to be tagged as "B" quality because of the lack of sourcing WP:CITE. I think Wikipedia:Academic_and_artistic_biographies is worth a look. Amerindianarts 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the "opinion" character of the assertion. It is, however, hard to argure that Sartre's Metaphysics is not the basis of de Beauvoir's work. (I added "possibly") "The Other" as a derivitive of the reflective consciousness forms the basis for expalnation of Racism and Sexism in all of their work. Their differences were not on the Metaphysics, though they disagreed on other things, of that I am certain. Nonetheless, I will try to improve the sourcing in general. Please change anything you feel is too bold. If we paraphrase, we should cite. So I've added one. ps. Paraphrase is NPOV, correct?Joseane 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, paraphrasing can be NPOV. However, it is my interpretation of Wiki policy at WP:CITE that if an original work is cited, and then a paraphrase added which includes quotes which refer to the text, that a more specific notation may be required. I still think the reference to de Beauvoir's work should be cited by a secondary source rather than your observations. I say a secondary source because an examination of her work and examples would be lengthy and more appropriate to her article. I could do the citation for Transcendence myself, but I'm busy doing the same thing to the article on Immanuel Kant. Oops. I checked your changes and I think what you did works, except for the notation on de Beauvoir, which I still think needs verification. It may be true, but it has to be verifiable.Amerindianarts 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the notation on de Beauvoir and will add something of that form in her Bio when I find a source. I made a couple more changes which I hope are supported sufficiently. Well, no one said it was going to be easy! Joseane 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just another point. I would like to suggest that where Philosophy Bios are concerned we may wish to find a separate rating to the B rating. In an ordinary Encyclopedia, the entry is made by an expert in the field - chosen through rigourous discussions by the board. The difference here is that entries are made by anyone. Facts need a citation. When did Sartre do Mescaline? Refuse the Nobel Prize then ask for the cash. Interpretations of the work, however, must be carried out with the same boldness that any expert in a "private" Phil. encyclopedia would apply. Sourcing to secondary expert is therefore a little problematic. What we want, I would say, is boldness mediated by the test of time in a free environment. Otherwise, the Phil. Bios will be boring Bios about what so-an-so did rather than what their work "means". If someone disagrees with the interpretation made on Sartre's Metaphysics, they will change it. Hopefully for the better. What do you think?Joseane 14:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to an extent, but "doing philosophy" in the bios is really problematic, and can be worse than POV. Especially when anyone can edit. The points you made about Sartre are rumors I have heard before, but give no credence to. I don't think these can be substantiated which is a good reason for extensive footnoting here at WIki. Inline citation is really not policy at Wiki unless you want to father an "A" quality article. I think what is needed is for someone with some good knowledge of a philosopher to continually monitor an article and be a "dick" about edits. You still need consensus on the talk page about things, but I am doing it at Kant. It was tagged "B". I joined the WIKIbio project and have since tried to maintain a consensus on the talk paage, allowing no new additions or edits without proper citation. If a new, uncited addition is made, I try to either substantiate myself, or get the editor to substantiate, or delete it. I have also went through the article and provided for citation of all of Kant's works and rewriting when needed(still in progress). I know Sartre, and my core is Continental phil., but Kant is my project. Do you know Sartre?? Have at it. This article needs it. If you know Sartre, want to know him better, and want to bring this article to "A" quality, I will try to help/support. Other wise, your questions about quality standards, ratings, etc, are an issue at the appropriate policy talk page. As for a "boring" article, WIKI is an encyclopedia of general knowledge, and is a "tertiary" source, meaning it does rely on secondary source material. Thanks for removing the de Beauvoir thing. It really was not within the scope of the article section. It has been awhile since I read her bio by Bair but it might contain references to her thought. She was definitely her own woman and pinning down her influences may require research. Amerindianarts 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a hunk of a paper that I wrote on Satre. It is on his metaphysics. I feel I did a pretty good job explaining it, however, I do not have time to reword it into wiki-format language. Feel free to borrow concepts, and if you want the original PDF, just send me a message.

Part III – Sartre’s Metaphysics and Freedom

Let us begin by stating what our freedom is not, in terms of what Sartre calls “being-in-itself”. Sartre writes that:

Being-in-itself has no within which is opposed to a without and which is analogous to a judgment, a law, a consciousness of itself. The in-itself has nothing secret; it is solid. In a sense we can designate it as a synthesis. But it is the most indissoluble of all: the synthesis of itself with itself.14

The “being-in-itself” is a solid mass. It also has no within, no ‘mind’ as it were. It is in isolation with what it is; and can never transcend itself or have a connection with that which is not itself. As Sartre goes on to say that “Being is isolated in its being and that it does not enter into any connection with what is not itself.”15 What we can conclude, above all else, is simply this:

Transition, becoming, anything which permits us to say that being is not yet what it will be and that it is already what it is not—all that is forbidden on principle. For being is the being of becoming and due to this fact it is beyond becoming. It is what it is. 16

A stone is a “being-in-itself” because it has to do nothing to be a stone; it is not living a life of making itself anew, redefining itself, or transitioning beyond what it is. A stone simply is. However, it may be objected that living things, unlike rocks, are becoming and so do not fit Sartre’s notion of what exists “in-itself”. It surely seems that the acorn is transitioning beyond what it is by becoming an oak tree. To properly address such a criticism would mean to go beyond the scope of this essay. I will state that Sartre’s central aim is to speak of the ontology of human beings; thus the need to consider the ontology of an acorn is of no importance to us here. There are things in the world that do not have life and are only solid mass, and this is Sartre’s model for the things in the world as they confront our consciousness. A lot more can be said about “being-in-itself”, but for our purpose here let us take this one concept and move on: a “being-in-itself” cannot become anything else. It simply is what it is.

If we consider the “being-in-itself” as what is, we can start to see what a “being-for-itself” implies. Sartre defines the “being-for-itself” “as being what is not and not being what it is.”17 If we consider the notion of negation, we will see that it plays a big role here in defining what human reality is. Negation is simply moving toward that which is not, or, in better words, acting according to the recognition of that which is not. “Action necessarily implies as its condition the recognition of a ‘desideratum’; that is, of an objective lack or again of a négatité.”18 For Sartre the concept of negation is essential to tt t he very actions we perform. He uses the example of Constantine and the construction of Constantinople to illustrate this point:

The intention of providing a rival for Rome can come to Constantine only through the apprehension of an objective lack: Rome lacks a counterweight; to this still profoundly pagan city ought to be opposed a Christian city which at the moment is missing. Creating Constantinople is understood as an act only if first the conception serves as an organizing theme for all later steps. But this conception can not be the pure representation of the city as possible. It apprehends the city in its essential characteristic, which is to be a desirable and not yet realized.19

When we consider this example, we can see what Sartre means by negation; realizing that there is something missing in the world, and then acting to make this realization actual. The Roman Emperor Constantine realized that Rome lacked a counterweight, and in realizing this, he acted to negate this lack. In other words, he made what was not actual, actual. When one acts, one does so in terms of negation. The dynamiter from our example has acted and has done so in terms of negation. This is evident from the desire to destroy the quarry; he wanted to make a void where the quarry once stood and did so through his intended action. As Sartre says “How can anyone fail to see that all these considerations are negative; that is, they aim at what is not, not at what is.”20

An objection might be raised, however, that we are not negating but rather positively creating. For example, I am writing this essay on Sartre and it seems that I am destroying nothing, but rather positively creating something. However, if we consider the intention behind this essay, we can plainly see that I am indeed negating. I am negating the lack of a good understanding of Sartre’s notion of freedom. In other words, by writing this paper, I am destroying the lack of a good essay on Sartre’s conception of freedom.

For a human reality, becoming what is not is “negation”; I deny what I am and strive to become what I am not. For example, if I want to be a philosopher, I must first realize that I am not a philosopher, and then act to become a philosopher. I must negate my human reality as a non-philosopher to become a philosopher. However, if I keep in mind the condition of human reality “as being what is not and not being what it is” I can see that I can never be a philosopher. I can only be becoming a philosopher. Human reality is never what it is, and is never what it is not. The person who wants to become a philosopher cannot be one, as to be a philosopher is to be something in-itself.

To think one is something “in-itself” is to be in “bad faith” according to Sartre; it is to lie to oneself as to what human existence is. To accept ourselves as that which we have become is to deny human reality. We can see that to be a philosopher is to deny our ability to not be a philosopher. Sartre writes, referring to “being-in-itself”, that “It knows no otherness; it never posits itself as other-than-another-being.”21 If I am to say that I am a philosopher “in-myself”, then I must deny the idea that I could not be a philosopher as well; and this, of course, is absurd. I could always close my philosophy books in favor of becoming an elementary schoolteacher or a gardener. In other words, human reality allows us to negate what we are in favor of becoming what we are not. If I can think that I am something, then I am thinking in “bad faith”, according to Sartre.

We can always have intentions, and these intentions are the driving force of negation. This is so because in order to have intentions or desires, I must first recognize a lack in the world and in myself. Once I recognize this lack, I perform actions in order to make my intentions actual. Because human reality can never be anything, as it is always acting by way of negating a lack, we must ask ourselves what then is it. Sartre writes “there is no human reality except in action.”22 However, is this to say that we are our actions? If human reality is its actions, then what is doing the intending? Surely, it does not make sense to say that actions are doing the intending, as that would be circular given what Sartre defines as action. If an action requires intention to be an action, then action cannot be the foundation of whatever it is that does the intending.

What is doing the acting and what is doing the intending? What is negating and perceiving a lack? We have come to see that human reality is the one doing these things, but what then is human reality? Sartre writes:

The for-itself is, in so far as it appears in a condition which it has not chosen; it is in so far as it is thrown into a world and abandoned in a situation…It is in so far as there is in it something of which it is not the foundation—its presence to the world. 23

Consider the words “It is in so far as there is in it something of which it is not the foundation”. Sartre is proclaiming that we may have a foundation but this foundation is not what we are. However, if human reality cannot be its foundation, then it would seem that it is nothing, as all things have a foundation, or an essence. Surely human reality exists as we experience and act within the world. However, if we consider the line “Something of which it is not the foundation—its presence to the world” we are left to ask what this presence to the world is in human reality.

For Sartre, the existence of freedom precedes its foundation, and so defines it. He writes:

Ordinarily, to describe something is a process of making explicit by aiming at the structures of a particular essence. Now freedom has no essence. It is not the subject to any logical necessity; we must say of it what Heidegger said of the Dasein in general: “In it existence precedes and commands essence.”24

Unlike the “being-in-itself”, freedom has no essence for Sartre. It is because freedom has no essence that it is not “Subject to any logical necessity”. However, we must ask what not being “subject to any logical necessity” entails for freedom. If freedom has no foundation could we consider this to be the “something of which it is not the foundation—its presence to the world”25 which Sartre speaks of as human reality? If we consider what Sartre writes about the “for-itself” looking into itself, we can see that we will only find motivations:

The for-itself looking deep into itself as the consciousness of being there will never discover anything in itself but motivations; that is, it will be perpetually referred to itself and to its constant freedom26

However, as we have established, we can act in terms of these motivations, but we can also deny these motivations as well. It is because I can deny my motivations that what I am referred to my constant freedom.

Since, as Sartre writes, “The for-itself is necessary in so far as it provides its own foundation”27 we can conclude that human reality is freedom, as that is what it finds when it looks deep into itself. In order for human reality to be its own foundation, it must first possess no essence before its existence, and its existence must be freedom. It must be freedom because “If negation comes into the world through human reality, the latter must be a being who can realize a nihilating rupture with the world and with himself…The permanent possibility of this rupture is the same as freedom.”28 If I have the possibility of nihilating the world around me and what I am, then this permanent possibility must be freedom.

Let us return to our question of what it means for human reality not to be “Subject to any logical necessity” 29. If human reality, or freedom, is the cause of negation, then human reality must be beyond determining causes; for the very essence of negation is to make what is not factual, factual. For Sartre, the factual cannot alone determine an act, as an act requires freedom in order to make what is not factual, factual. He writes:

No factual state whatever it may be is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine what is not. No factual state can determine consciousness to apprehend it…as a lack.30

If we are to say that human reality acts, then we must allow for freedom; else the act is not an act but rather merely a set of movements. As Sartre writes: “If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or of itself…Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements.” The determinist may reply that there are no actions, given what Sartre has defined them to be, but that would also entail eliminating responsibility for human actions. While explaining responsibly would go beyond the scope of this essay, it would be best to define responsibility for Sartre. He writes, “We are taking the word responsibility in its ordinary sense as consciousness (of) being the incontestable author of an event or of an object.”31 Without action, according to Sartre, there can be no responsibility; only a series of movements. We cannot say that Einstein lectured about special relativity or that David Hume was responsibly for his famous problem of induction. We can only say that everything is a series of movements that bears no responsibility for the great (and not so great) things that have happened throughout the course of history.

(all quotes from Being and Nothingness)

Joshtrimble (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Messianic Jew?

"Jean-Paul Sartre, French Philosopher who abandoned the idea of a God at an Early age. He apparently died a Messianic Jew."

Is it true?

See List of ex-Roman Catholics. Rafael, the Gawain 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Died a Theist?

In a program produced by either the Archdiocese of New York or EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a Franciscan priest, described Sartre's last days before dying. Groeschel indicated that the philosopher came to believe in some type of order and meaning in the universe, though I don't believe Groeschel said it was God that Sartre came to believe in necessarily. Does anyone know anything about this? Is it relevant to his life's story?

Relevant to his life story only insofar as it can be cited and verified by a reputable source. A lot of stories circulate about Sartre's life and lifestyle, and I think most are not credible. Did Sartre die a theist? I think it is a guess. Amerindianarts 16:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

given the length of this article, i think it's pretty silly to have so much talk about sartre's alleged judaism. If you've studied sartre, it's more than clear the overwhelming majority of his life is dedicated to existential, and leftist thought, etc. If he was brainwashed to say he believed in god for about 10 minutes before his death, that might be an interesting bit of trivia, but it's really nothing more than that.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.98 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Use of bold print

Wiki Manuel of Style is consensus and dictates that the Chicago Manuel of style be consulted "when all else fails". Italics are recomended-bold is not. Bold in print is an emphasis that can be POV. Amerindianarts 16:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Place of birth recorded in the column (Paris) not consistent with the one found in the text (Rome).

Place of birth recorded in the column (Paris) not consistent with the one found in the text (Rome).

All references to birthplace should be Paris. Amerindianarts 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved

Just removed an offensive sentence.--189.135.70.129 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was removed as i wrote this.--189.135.70.129 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism (Plagiarism)

This article contains a number of sections containing information copied directly from another source. I'm not sure how to handle that this, so I'll leave it up for discussion.

The following paragraph is one example.

"Besides the obvious impact of Nausea, Sartre's major contribution to literature was the The Roads to Freedom trilogy which charts the progression of how World War II affected Sartre's ideas. In this way, Roads to Freedom presents a less theoretical and more practical approach to existentialism. The first book in the trilogy, L'âge de raison (The Age of Reason) (1945), could easily be said to be the Sartre work with the broadest appeal." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.191.136 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Trivia

Just added the section Trivia to mention Sartre's smoking, since I could find no better place where to mention it. Smoking is one of Sartre's trademarks and it ought to be noted in the article. If anyone finds a better place where to mention it, I ask that they move it and delete the whole Trivia section. The reference is also not perfect, but it does reflect the relevant information, so I stuck with it.

And, I would very much like to apologize for my four consecutive edits. I didn't cite right and I made a grammatical error. I will make sure to use the preview the next time. Promise. :) Have a nice day! Aljoša Avani 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Avani here. I just made a minor adjustement and added a link to article about Gaouloises. Sincerely yours, 193.77.221.4 00:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What did this mean?

The article contains this quote from Sartre "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God." Yet he is also an atheist. So what does this mean?-mattawa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.99.135 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive old talk items

Could someone more familiar with the article please archive talk items that are no longer active or otherwise resolved? Benjiboi 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Simone de Beauvoir

I think the article should have more on Sartre's relationship with de Beauvoir.-Richard Peterson130.86.14.90 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

the old site of mine heyche.org was hacked the new link for ^ HeyChe.org - People about Che Guevara is hey-che.com People about Che Guevara.... so www.heych.org has changed in www.hey-che.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyche (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Strabismus

Sartre had divergent strabismus (wall-eye), in which both eyes are turned away from the nose. He did not have convergent strabismus (cross-eye) in which both eyes are turned toward the nose.Lestrade (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Carole Seymour-Jones

I have just been listening to a programme on Radio 4 with Carole Seymour-Jones, author of the book Dangerous Liasons, which is about the relationship between Sartre and de Beauvoir. I've not added it to the 'further reading' section of this article, but from the talk, it sounds like it would be a useful resource for these articles. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Is it proper to have the Nobel Prize medal at the top of Sartre's infobox? He did refuse to accept the prize. [[User:Kristamaranatha|Kristamaranatha]--79.13.23.43 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)] (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Under Later Life and Death, there is a sentence stating, "He was the first Nobel Laureate to voluntarily decline the Nobel Prize, after Nikola Tesla;". This is not correct. Tesla was never awarded the Nobel Prize, possibly because of his rivalry with Edison. However, I have revised the sentence to state, "He was the first Nobel Laureate to voluntarily decline the Nobel Prize." I also agree with the person above me that there should be no Nobel Laureate medal in his information box because he declined the award. Therefore, he is not a Nobel Laureate and does not have a medal.

Sartre as public intellectual

I've made significant grammar revisions without compromising the references. Any comments?

Sign and date your bulletins. Also Sources and Further Reading are redundant and should be merged in lex order. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)