Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism and Humanism Part 1/2
BackThis lecture was taken from nigelwarburton.typepad.com/ and is intended to inform. All rights belong to him.
Nigel Warburton is a lecturer at the Open University. Some of his books include --
Philosophy: The Basics (4th ed.),
Philosophy: The Classics (3rd ed.)
Thinking from A to Z (3rd ed.),
Philosophy: The Essential Study Guide, and The Art Question; he also edited Philosophy: Basic Readings, second edition and is co-author of Reading Political Philosophy: Machiavelli to Mill.
Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (June 21, 1905 -- April 15, 1980), normally known simply as Jean-Paul Sartre was a French existentialist philosopher and pioneer, dramatist and screenwriter, novelist and critic. He was a leading figure in 20th century French philosophy. Some of his books include;
• L'Imagination (Imagination: A Psychological Critique), 1936
• La Transcendance de l'égo (The Transcendence of the Ego), 1937
• La Nausée (Nausea), 1938
• Le Mur (The Wall), 1939
• Esquisse d'une théorie des émotions (Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions), 1939
• L'Imaginaire (The Imaginary), 1940, lit. "The Unconscious"
• Les Mouches (The Flies), 1943 - a modern version of the Oresteia
• L'Être et le néant (Being and Nothingness), 1943
• Réflexions sur la question juive (Anti-Semite and Jew; literally, Reflections on the Jewish Question), 1943
SOURCE:
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality. It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, Humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
SOURCE:
Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: November 18, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Author: Chomskyno1
Length: 00:09:42
Rating: 4.79
Views: 23991
Tags: Jean-Paul Sartre Existentialism Humanism Culture Theology Law Philosophy Politics nigel warburton
Video Comments:
cojueloworms (November 20, 2008 at 1:03 am)
dumnezeu nu exista;nu exista bine,nu exista rau;suntem doar libertate.sarte nu se imbraca in legi si norme carteziene,nu izoleaza constiinta in paranteze.esenta grupului(societatea) este individul,esenta individului este constiinta.o definitie primitiva a individului o putem construi in jurul adn-ului.constiinta nu poate fi definita.suntem libertate,in act suntem libertate posibila;dar posibilitatea nu este un act al constiintei.doar constiinta este libertate,individul este un act social.
Peaceganjareggae (November 7, 2008 at 2:07 pm)
Thanks, i did this for my AS, Sartre has definately influenced me.
BecomingThePath (October 27, 2008 at 3:16 pm)
Ay! I say! ay!
deepdivestudios (October 25, 2008 at 10:53 am)
I'm inclined to enjoy the content. And now I am interested in application. Let us take all of this wisdom and apply it in a cavalier manner to produce a new commodity of being, in the hopes that it will take us to the next level. Come on, folks, what do you say?
VeryEvilPettingZoo (September 9, 2008 at 7:26 pm)
for f1ghtclub2k3:
Nihilism is the claim that there's no intrinsic or rational preference in morals and values. Nietzsche believed that the West had lost God as its mooring for values, morals, and guarantee of any truth. This left everyone to create these as a matter of force of will. Most would shirk the task, becoming sheep, but some would be great (Nietzsche's value judgment!) - boldly manifesting new ways to live by exercising their superior will and life force. Silly stuff, in my opinion.
Nihilism is the claim that there's no intrinsic or rational preference in morals and values. Nietzsche believed that the West had lost God as its mooring for values, morals, and guarantee of any truth. This left everyone to create these as a matter of force of will. Most would shirk the task, becoming sheep, but some would be great (Nietzsche's value judgment!) - boldly manifesting new ways to live by exercising their superior will and life force. Silly stuff, in my opinion.
VeryEvilPettingZoo (September 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm)
When Nihilists say things like Nietzsche's views, or your "it is a desire for the wholesale destruction of decadent values, traditions and attitudes, and the institutions perpetuating those poisonous values", they are obviously deeply committed to a value system. Nihilists are free to have values, but they can't claim any particular merit or justification for those views, without becoming self-contradictory. They can't fairly say "We should do X because...", they can only say "We should do X."
f1ghtclub2k3 (September 7, 2008 at 11:02 am)
..according to Nietzsche active nihilism is one of the highest forms of the will to power...a sublimation...whoever is a creator is first a destroyer.
f1ghtclub2k3 (September 7, 2008 at 11:01 am)
No NO nO Nihilism is the realization that everything that requires faith is invalid and unattainable in reality....Nihilism is an extreme form of skepticism consisting of the basic tenets that deny faith God dogma teleology, etc....it is a desire for the wholesale destruction of decadent values, traditions and attitudes, and the institutions perpetuating those poisonous values...it goe sbeyond right and wrong good and evil, self destruction...etc .
sweetmama208 (August 30, 2008 at 12:06 am)
Wow...thanks thats loads of info I need for my Philosophy Paper !
VeryEvilPettingZoo (August 25, 2008 at 2:44 am)
Not everyone is a nihilist, so your statement was false. Then again, the truth has no value to a nihilist, so who cares? Likewise there's nothing commendable or truly to be preferred between having balls versus not having balls, so why bring it up? As a true nihilist, you can comment on youtube, or go get a lobotomy; a flip a coin could decide between those actions, as both are equally justified in principle. As a true nihilist, anything you have to say is, by your own admission, unimportant.