Jump to content

Talk:Jean-Paul Sartre/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Sartre as a public intellectual"

This section has been dropped in from an essay with in line refs to match. I would at least consider splitting it with subheadings and trying to take out the "ernest student" tone.... Spanglej (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Prize for Literature

the article should have something about his declined 1964 nobel prize. and why and such. I'm in no place to write it because I have no idea how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.126.212 (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is there: in the "Late life and death" section. Cheers, Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Ali Shariati

JP Sartre had a relationship with Iranian intellectual writer Ali Shariati. Sartre is noted as once saying, "I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be that of Shariati's".

The two had debates together, and frequently held meetings in a public academic environment where discussions over complex social issues were addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thought- bankrupt god?

Did Sartre really say that humans would become a bankrupt god, or is that just some religious editor's conclusion?Ninahexan (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the reference, which of course said nothing of the sort. Sartre stated that the absence of a creator required man to take full responsibility for his actions- a direct answer to Dostoevsky's line "If god did not exist, everything would be permitted", which Sartre states forms the beginning of existentialist reasoning regarding responsibility. If anyone can explain how this comes close to Sartre suggesting that man becomes a bankrupt god, please have at it.Ninahexan (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Sartre, wanted man (i.e.: man and woman) to act freely in their situation. Meaning that Morality should be not preconceived as in a law, but rather made-up as the situation presents itself. Hence, to evoke this you find these statements. Morality should not be from a preconceived recipe but made as the situation presents itself for action or the lack of it.
He refuted the charge that he was amoral, but clamed to be moral.
So when he made these statements he was calling us to be very responsible. I think it was he who gave the talk: "At the age of 40 a man is responsible for his face." His not accepting the Nobel prize should be seen in this light, also for refusing to enter Oxford.
Sorry for the late reply.
MacOfJesus (talk) 02:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a statement that relates to Sartre's existential psychoanalysis in Being and Nothingness, where Sartre claims that man is always striving for a type of being which IIRC he called "Being-in-itself for-itself" to describe a god-like state wherein the subject is both self-conscious but also pure being (being-in-itself), which he says is impossible. Thus he says that humanity is defined by a striving for a god-like yet unreachable state. This is where the statement "Man is a useless passion" comes from.
I don't know what context you find your statements in, so I can't really answer your question. SSBDelphiki (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This is my memory from my student days and my study of his plays, where I understand he "played-out" his notions. To research the precise cite, I would need to re-study his work, and I'm lazy. (John Paul Sartre would say I am amoral: I can just hear him say it! And if I asked for finances, he would never speak to me again!).
Hence, trying to get a reliable source for: "the Nobel Prize winner tried to get money later on, but was denied..", is going to be extrardinary, for we all have to revive our notion of him if it is so!
MacOfJesus (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Can you add Sartre's signature? Here's the link: http://fadedgiant.net/assets/images/sartre_jean_paul_2.jpg --72.82.8.229 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Date and original title of Sartre’s essay “The Hole”

The closest citation I could find for Sartre’s essay “The Hole” is that it appears on pages 84–90 of Existentialism and Human Emotions (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1957). It might have been been published elsewhere at an earlier date, but I’ve not seen it if it was. Does anyone here know the essay’s original French title? I guessed “Le Trou”, but I’ve had no luck searching for that. Where and when was that essay first published? Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sartre

Subscript text

Can someone add in the intro that he was also a sociologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.121.28 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph about Sarte being a prankster says that he forced Lascon to resign with satirical cartoons. Next it says that Lascon was forced to resign after Sarte's prank involving Lindberg. Maybe a little clarification/cleanup would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.227.15 (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre . . . was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, short story writer, screenwriter, essayist, biographer, memoirist, literary critic, and sociopolitical activist.

He was one of the leading figures in 20th-century Frech philosophy and sociopolitical arena, and his work continues to influence fields such as literary studies, sociology, as well as Marxism after his second major philosophical work, Critique of Dialectical Reason, in wich he attempted to reconcile existentialism with Marxism.

Sartre was also noted for his lifelong relationship with Simone de Beauvoir. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature but refused the honour.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.41.159.19 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Mother a Milliner????

I removed the line about Sartre's mother being a "a respectable hat designer, with clients like Isabelle Carré, Judith Godrèche and Catherine Deneuve", since the three women cited were all born after his mother died. I could find no source anywhere that discusses her vocation. Sesesq (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Category: Freudian

It's incorrect assume Sartre as Freudian. Sartre's existential psychoanalysis is incompatible with Freud's psychoanalysis. (See Betty Cannon, Sartre and Psychoanalysis: An Existentialist Challenge to Clinical Metatheory, Lawrence, University Press of Kansas, 1991.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.41.159.19 (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume someone did this as a joke. A bit like putting Stalin in Category:Anarchists. -Silence (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sartre died a THEIST?

I was just informed, by someone claiming to be a "Sartre expert" (which I certainly am not), that Sartre had a death-bed conversion and that this was reported in the words of Simone De Beavoir among others, in the National Review magazine. Obviously, I thought this would be an ENORMOUSLY significant piece of historical data, if true and should be added to his bio (not that I am convinced about its veracity). If not, I would be interested in hearing where such a claim could have possibly come from. Anyway, what about this claim? Anything to it? What is this fellow talking about with an article in NR magazine?

--Francesco Franco (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

--79.13.23.43 (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sartre did seem to have a change of heart when he seemed to embrace Judaism in the last five years of his life. The question is whether Sartre actually converted to Judaism, as reported by Benny Lévy and Beauvoir, or whether he merely had a great appreciation for it. Personally, I'd dismiss Sartre's conversion to religion as much as Ayer's near-death experience, but some articles go into it. Here's one, J.P. Sartre as Jew: [1] Poor Yorick (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone continues to add a badly referenced and spurious section about "Finding God". This section is pretty much nonsense and should be deleted as soon as it appears. Aryder779 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The "source" that is included for this claims is a 1996 Wired magazine. 1) Wired is hardly a reliable source for work on a philosopher. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. 2) Even this source is not cited correctly. Issue number, month, page numbers -- none of this is provided. 3) For a reliable source on Hope Now, see Judaken's "Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jewish Question," chapter 7. Judaken makes clear that Sartre's interest in Judaism was primarily political and did not entail an embrace of God. He also includes information on the controversy surrounding "Hope Now." No one should restore these claims unless they are willing to engage with "Hope Now" and the sizeable secondary literature surrounding it in a responsible manner. Aryder779 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added a section to "Later life and death" that includes reference to Hope Now and Sartre's interest in messianic Judaism, as well as making mention of the controversy surrounding these interviews. I think that this covers the matter sufficiently. Please note that Sartre did not "find God" in any straightforward sense. Aryder779 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I read Hope Now some years ago, because of the whole conversion issue. Much of it deals with Sartre's rejection of Marxism as the "philosophy of our time." (Sartre had concluded in his Critique of Dialectical Reason that Marx's notion of "class" as an objective entity was false.) But Sartre does state his interest in messianic Judaism, which grew from his post-war realization that Jews lived their lives beyond the Holocaust; that is, diasporic Jewish life did not begin & end with the Holocaust. Sartre believed that the core of messianic Judaism was hope. BubbleDine (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the website, JewornotJew.com on Jean Paul Sartre, it states: "Supposedly, a month before his death, Sartre showed an interest in Judaism. But, from what we can gather, an interest is all that was; Sartre did not consider himself a Jew... he was just Jew-curious." - Jean-Paul Sartre. Unless there is a reliable resource that states he converted to Judaism, he should stay labeled as an atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninmacer20 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

News flash: An author isn't the same as the characters he creates

The following passage was added by user SummerWithMorons in this edit of 3 June 2011.

In 1939, in his famous short-story collection The Wall, referring to a fake turd, he will say that in pranks "There is more destructive power than in all the works of Lenin."[1]
Reference
  1. ^ Stuart Zane Charmé (1993) Vulgarity and Authenticity: Dimensions of Otherness in the World of Jean-Paul Sartre, pp.184–5

What the Stuart Charmé, author of the cited book Vulgarity and Authenticity actually writes isn't about Sarte himself, but about one of the characters Sartre created. Charmé writes:

In one of his early stories, Sartre had already established the connection between homosexuality and the complex nature of tricks and illusions. When Lucien, the incipient antisemite in "The Childhood of a Leader," visited the home of the homosexual Bergère, he was surprised by Bergère's enormous collection of practical jokes: "solid liquids, sneezing powder, floating sugar, an imitation turd, and a bride's garter." Bergère gracefully took the "perfectly imitated excrement" in his long, delicate fingers, and told Lucien, "These jokes have a revolutionary value. They disturb. There is more destructive power in them than in all the works of Lenin."

It's original research to suggest that Sartre's views were literally identical to the words he put into the mouth of one of his many characters. On the same basis we might as reasonably claim that Sartre thought it was a good thing to have coitus with a duck, or to go unrecoverably insane, because he has Bergère praise these things. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thought?

Could someone explain and/or cite any of the following claims about Sartre's views?

  • "To begin with, the thing-in-itself is infinite and overflowing." -- Where does Sartre accept the idea of a noumenon? Sartre's "being-in-itself" is not the same thing as Kant's "thing-in-itself." Sartre's way of distinguishing the two (look at "The Phenomenon of Being and the Being of the Phenomenon" in B&N 7-9) is to say that being-in-itself is "in" a phenomenon, while a noumenon would be "behind" a phenomenon. For Kant, the noumenon is an inconceivable mind-independent reality corresponding to a mental phenomenon; for Sartre, being-in-itself is an unknowable (i.e., transphenomenal) mind-independent reality which simply is a phenomenon, or rather the existence-act of the phenomenon (which is now an extra-mental intentional object).
  • "Sartre refers to any direct consciousness of the thing-in-itself as a 'pre-reflective consciousness.'" -- Where? Reflective consciousness is also consciousness of being-in-itself. All positional consciousness is consciousness of an object, and all objects are in-itself. Reflection is distortive precisely because it is consciousness of the in-itself which pretends to be consciousness of consciousness (whereas in fact the only consciousness-of-consciousness is non-positional, and therefore not 'knowable' as such (B&N 114: "non-thetic consciousness is not to know")).
  • "Any attempt to describe, understand, historicize etc. the thing-in-itself, Sartre calls 'reflective consciousness.'" - This is false. Reflective consciousness is consciousness which attempts to describe, understand, etc. itself. "It's raining" is pre-reflective. "I'm getting wet!" is reflective. But both are descriptions/thoughts about being-in-itself, simply because both are intentional (both are "about" some object). The only difference is that the reflective consciousness posits something "magical" (i.e., irrational): an ego which is both thinker and thought, subject and object, active and passive. This is the inevitable result of trying to make an (intentional) object out of consciousness.
  • "reflection is fated to a form of anxiety" - Reflection has nothing directly to do with anxiety. Anxiety exists non-positionally even when one is not reflecting. Anxiety is the result of two features of consciousness: its freedom and its transparency. Consciousness is free in that it transcends itself (its past self, its facticity) toward an object; and it is transparent in that it is 'pure awareness,' nothing but being-conscious. (It's "for-itself"; any feature of consciousness must be accessible to consciousness.) Since freedom is a real structure of consciousness, then, consciousness must be aware of itself as freedom; this inescapable awareness is 'anxious' because consciousness lacks any sufficient criterion to determine its behavior.
  • "self-knowledge (self-consciousness - a reflective consciousness of an overflowing infinite)" - These are not the same thing. Self-knowledge is impossible: if by 'self' you mean an ego or psyche, no such thing exists for Sartre; and if by 'self' you simply mean consciousness, consciousness is unknowable (transphenomenal). Self-consciousness, on the other hand, is not only possible but inescapable. Self-consciousness, however, occurs only in consciousness' non-positional aspect; its positional aspect (i.e., the side that takes objects, that reflects or fails to reflect) is blind to itself, because it is necessarily directed outward (toward being-in-itself).
  • "Consciousness is consciousness of itself insofar as it is consciousness of a transcendent object." - This is a confusing way to put it. Consciousness is awareness of two things: itself, and an object other than itself. The former Sartre calls 'non-positional' or 'non-thetic,' because it does not posit any object. The latter Sartre calls positional, or intentional. Consciousness is aware of itself both as 'consciousness of a transcendent object' and as 'consciousness of itself.' In other words, consciousness must be aware of every aspect of itself at all times.
  • "'Other' (meaning simply beings or objects that are not the self)" - This is false, as far as I'm aware. 'Others' are other human beings, not other 'objects' or 'beings.' For Sartre, a chair is a being and an object, but not an 'Other.'

If I've misunderstood anything, let me know. If I was unclear about anything or you have questions or issues with what I said, go for it. -Silence (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that Sartre definitely denied AT LEAST the significance of noumenon, if not their very (non)existence. I remember very explicitly, from his introduction in B&N, agreeing that we have to "get away from what Nietzsche called the 'worlds-behind-the-scenes' ". This was Sartre's personal stance at least, although I feel that he falls into a strange contradiction. Pulling from my notes here: insofar as he reduces all of existence to phenomenon and directly rejects the possibility of the Kantian noumenon, he in a certain sense brings phenomenon into one role previously denied it by noumenon: phenomenon becomes the only true reality which previously could only have been noumenon. Yet even in this sense Sartre's idea that there is nothing behind the phenomenon remains true, because he (I believe) is not here being ontological, but only phenomenological. I would go as far as to assume that Sartre would admit the possibility of a noumenon, but not their "reality". I feel I'm being quite confusing here, I apologize for that. I feel that Sartre is still very close to the significance Kant gave to his noumenon, as they both insist on the utter unknowability of it. Sartre might say that even the noumenon could only ever be a phenomenon. We cannot get to the worlds-behind-the-scene, the worlds not seen: all we would ever have is another world seen.
Anyway, I think I agree with everything you've said. You definitely seem to know Sartre much better than I do. I'll come along a bit later and do some more thinking on this. SSBDelphiki (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
"insofar as he reduces all of existence to phenomenon" - Sartre does not reduce all existence to phenomena. There are two things which exist and are not phenomena: being-in-itself (existence itself, in its plenitude) and being-for-itself (consciousness). He explains that being-in-itself is not a phenomenon in the section where he speaks of "the being of the phenomenon" (the in-itself) not being the same as the "phenomenon of being" (i.e., the appearance that things exist). These two basic structures of Sartre's ontology are transphenomenal, and therefore not directly 'knowable,' even though they are necessary conditions for phenomena to exist. But the in-itself and the for-itself are not 'beyond' or 'behind' phenomena -- the in-itself is phenomena, and the for-itself is nothing but a self-aware movement toward phenomena. The only reason we can't 'know' that they exist is that we can't turn around and make our consciousness its own object (intentionality is irreflexive), nor make pure existence our object (to exist, the object 'being' would still need a transphenomenal 'being' of its own); but we are still perpetually, pre-epistemically aware that both exist, because we're aware that our phenomena are and we're aware that we're aware at all.
"phenomenon becomes the only true reality which previously could only have been noumenon" - For Kant, phenomena and noumena are both real, at least in that both play ontological roles. The fact that Sartre accepts phenomena and rejects noumena doesn't mean that he is using phenomena to fill the void left by noumena. Nothing fills that void, for Sartre; it's an ill-formed question, an error, even to ask "What is the world like beyond the Categories?" ("Existence," of course, is one of Kant's Categories!) We can speak of what existence would be like without constitution (i.e., without consciousness), but the most we could say about this world is that it would exist, that it would be pure positivity. (This doctrine comes from Parmenides; Kant would disagree.)
"Sartre would admit the possibility of a noumenon, but not their 'reality'" - Nope. Possibility is constituted by the for-itself. For Sartre, something is only possible if consciousness is aware of it as possible. But for us to be aware of something as possible, that something must be conceivable, and 'noumena' are inconceivable by definition. And it makes no sense anyway to deny reality to something 'possible' -- to say that it's possible is to say that it may be real. Noumena can't be real, because they transcend even being, and therefore by definition lack existence. The concept is self-defeating.
"they both insist on the utter unknowability of it" - Not in the same sense. Kant thinks noumena are inconceivable on principle, since they lack the qualities constituted by us: unity, plurality, totality, reality, negation, limitation, substance/accident, causality/dependence, community, possibility, existence, necessity. Sartre only thinks the in-itself and the for-itself are unknowable because they're the concrete ingredients, the necessary conditions, for knowledge (i.e., for phenomena). To make the in-itself or for-itself knowable, to make them objects of consciousness, would be to turn them into mere phenomena. Sartre is not a monist of phenomena, like Husserl; he's a dualist of being-in-itself and consciousness, phenomena being the mode of the in-itself as apprehended by consciousness. (The key difference between Sartre and Husserl is that Husserl brackets existence, while Sartre thinks that we must affirm existence even though it is not a phenomenon.)
"Sartre might say that even the noumenon could only ever be a phenomenon." - Isn't that a contradiction in terms? -Silence (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just jumping into this interesting conversation. Interpreting Sartre requires that we think of him as a post-Hegelian (also Hegel was attempting to complete Kant's Critiques... some would argue that by the end Kant had reduced everything to phenomena anyway). It's not a contradiction to the extent that for Hegel the noumenon is objectified consciousness. (Definitely speculative and not necessarily explanatory I admit... but not a contradiction) The problem with the article is that it lacks sufficient references for various claims and the bit about "Consciousness is consciousness of itself..." is a direct quote from the English translation of The Transcendence of the Ego... So it should be quoted and referenced. Triistan (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sartre rejects the idea of a noumenon; he allows the existence of 'pure being' or 'being-in-itself,' but this is not a 'thing-in-itself' because (a) it's not a thing (it's, in a sense, the raw 'stuff' all things are made of), and (b) it's directly experienced (every time we perceive any phenomenon, we are perceiving a modified version of being-in-itself; so being-in-itself is in every phenomenon, whereas Kant's thing-in-itself is forever hidden behind all phenomena). Sartre was also certainly influenced by Hegel, but since he bases his entire philosophy on the foundational rejection of idealism, he is a 'Hegelian' only in the same sense that Kierkegaard is a 'Hegelian:' He is an anti-Hegelian. -Silence (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Early life

Cut from the early life section: "Sartre was influenced by many aspects of Western philosophy, adopting ideas from Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Søren Kierkegaard, Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, among others. " A famous episode recounts Sartre hearing from Aron about Husserl - it was in the mid thirties; he read Heidegger in the stalag; later in life he admitted knowing about Hegel only from second hand and read it after "Being and Nothingness".195.96.229.83 (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Brian C. Anderson

This guy is just a conservative propagandist who is barely wiki worthy... I'm not saying his sourced statement should necessarily be deleted, but if its kept perhaps some effort should be made to make clear who he is, he's not an intellectual of any note and what he has to say is said more eloquently by clive james 202.49.0.2 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"More eloquently" is a matter of opinion. I don't see any reason Anderson's comments should be removed; there's no rule that conservative views can't be mentioned. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
it's not simply that Anderson is a conservative; it is the caliber of his work as compared to that of the other critics listed. There are _plenty_ of credible conservative critics of Sartre. Anderson is not one of them.--64.234.26.106 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Formally Bullied?

The Early Life section says he was "formally bullied." What does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3F00:C0A:3475:94FA:5A1D:E868 (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Castro

AlterBerg edited a sentence to read as follows, 'However he stood against the (temporary) persecution of gays by Castro's régime, which he compared to Nazi persecution of the Jews, and said: "Homosexuals are Cuba's Jews".' The addition was the word "temporary" in parentheses. The addition is inappropriate for numerous reasons. In the first place, readers of the article cannot reasonably be expected to know what it is supposed to mean. In the second place, it confuses the sense of the sentence, making it imply that Sartre opposed the persecution of gays by Castro's régime because the persecution was temporary. I realize that this is probably not what AlterBerg intends his version of the sentence to mean, but that is nevertheless still what it implies given the rules of the English language. Fundamentally, the addition is irrelevant - the article is about Sartre, not about Castro, and adding additional information about Castro and his régime does nothing to help readers understand Sartre. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jean-Paul Sartre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Studies

The article says: The first time Sartre took the exam to become a college instructor, he failed. But he took it a second time and was first in his class, with Beauvoir second.
I assume that refers to his sitting the agrégation in philosophy? If so, he came top in the whole country, not just in his class. (De Beauvoir sat it the same year, and indeed came second.) Aridd (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Significance of "open relationship" with Simone de Beauvoir (in lede section)

The lede section of this article presently contains the following sentence:

Sartre has also been noted for his open relationship with the prominent feminist theorist Simone de Beauvoir.

There is no indication given to our readers of what exactly the words "open" and "relationship" mean in this context. If the intended meaning is what is found at the article "Open relationship", then linking the phrase to that article would be helpful. In any case, there is also no indication of why this rises to the level of significance that would make it appropriate for inclusion in the lede section. The claim is also unsourced. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jean-Paul Sartre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobel Prize award and refusal (in lede section)

The lede section of this article presently concludes with the following paragraph:

He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature but refused it, saying that he always declined official honours and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution".[ref] According to Nobel committee member Lars Gyllensten,[ref] Sartre asked for the $53,000[ref] prize money later on but was turned down.[ref]

That someone was awarded a Nobel Prize is certainly significant, and probably should be mentioned in the lede section of a biographical article. And if the fact that a Nobel Prize was offered is included there, it makes sense also to note that it was refused. However, the mention of a later request for the prize money seems like minutia that should at least be moved into the appropriate part of the article's main text, if not relegated to a footnote that is referenced mid-article. It is not significant enough to appear in the lede section. — Jaydiem (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It's important that it stays in there as it sheds considerable light on Sartre's character and moral fibre. There are more discussion about this in the archived section of this Talk page.
I agree with you, Jaydiem. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Jean-Paul Sartre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jean-Paul Sartre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Paul Sartre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

this article needs more references

There are a lot of paragraphs without a single citation, mostly in the Biography and Thought sections. —howcheng {chat} 18:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jean-Paul Sartre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean-Paul Sartre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Section on literary work

The section on Sartre's extensive fictional and dramatic oeuvre is ridiculously tiny, considering he was as famous for that as for his philosophy, and arguably more influential. Compare and contrast with the French article, which possibly should be translated here. Straw Cat (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Filmography

I removed the "filmography" section, since not of the films are actually by JP Sartre, which is somewhat of a prerequisite for a filmography section IMO. Plays by this author are already mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC) No response, but reinserted same. “Films are important” is not an argument. Kleuske (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The term "filmography" has been replaced. But what does "filmography" mean? Is a filmography only for screenwriters? I don't think so. A filmography of source material is also possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:C733:AD39:1092:A968:95B1:3093 (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Currently it lists works by other people. They belong in the articles about those people, not in the article on JP Sartre. We don't list Westside Story in the filmography of Shakespeare, either. This is way out of scope for the subject of the article. Removing again and please seek consensus before adding it again. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Westside Story is in Wikipedia's filmographies of Shakespeare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_William_Shakespeare_screen_adaptations and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Romeo_and_Juliet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:dd:c733:ad39:b4fa:12fd:5864:6872 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

Sartre has gathered an enormous amount of controversy the past half-century since his death, both inside and outside the Francosphere, primarily but not limited to his personal life & treatment of women. It would be great if we could move toward such a section; Sartre's personal life in this regard is perhaps the dominant posthumous narrative around the philosopher, and is nowhere to be found in this entry. For context, such controversies arose largely in the wake of the publication of Letters to Sartre and the Rowley biography Tete-a-Tete, documentation of which can be found in the book reviews and press coverage. I hope to add this section myself in the near future, but given its importance to the article, am documenting this need in advance so that others might also be inspired to contribute. --Ganteka (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree - will try to include relevant details. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Critiques section

I want to better integrate the critiques into the article rather than ghettoizing them in a critiques section. Going to have to have a think about how. Thoughts? Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, made a shot at it. The only things I've cut were the random Australian poet and this: "Richard Webster considers Sartre one of many modern thinkers who have reconstructed Christian orthodoxies in secular form.[1]" which seems just kind of random. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Being honest my gripe here is mainly that criticisms of a philosopher's body of work should be grounded in the work of other philosophers and not n-random popular authors. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Webster, Richard (2005). Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis. Oxford: The Orwell Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-9515922-5-0.

That petition (we all know which one)

Ok so first off we need, if we are going to bring up that petition, to contextualize it both within the core of the complaint being about the unequal treatment of gay men by the law compared to straight men and also within the context of the activist milieu in which it arose. Furthrmore, we do have a whole article on that petition at French petition against age of consent laws and it cites a whole array of sources more notable for a matter of historical record than a random article in a newspaper. This isn't a current event and there's no good reason to use non-academic sources as a basis for citation here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Completely disagree. Separate issues entirely. 2001:56A:FCFE:E200:7437:80D5:5A6C:86E2 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

P.A. Amongst other David Thorstad types.

Thorstad is listed as a P.A. in his intro, why not Sartre? I’d call this a minor addition, if you will. 2001:56A:FCFE:E200:4063:3F77:64BF:36FC (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Paul_Sartre/Archive_2&oldid=1240084090"