Vidmission | Positive Videos

dagasdfa3333 (November 21, 2008 at 1:56 pm)

Kierkegaard was a far better writer than Sartre. Kierkegaard makes you alive; Sartre puts you to sleep. Plus, Sartre was one of the most inauthentic human beings I've ever read about. Kierkegaard lived what he believed down to the nib.

getherintobednow (November 11, 2008 at 4:34 am)

sounds like a fuckin' freak

kellymich (November 7, 2008 at 7:02 pm)

So Sartre screws up the lives of the people around him ... but gets all misty eyed about pygmy tribes and such... and people call him a "great man".

Nice !

Philosophically and politically this fellow is nothing, in my opinion... and a rather disagreeable little man to boot.

skutari (October 24, 2008 at 5:49 pm)

ma che bello retardo !

mopsius (October 11, 2008 at 9:06 am)

It is a pity Sartre does not seem to have known much, as far as I know, either Santayana (Scepticism and Animal Faith) or Kazantzakis (the New Odyssey especially).

Sartre was also weak on Peirce, as were most Europeans at the time.

mopsius (October 11, 2008 at 9:01 am)

Kierkegaard is a fraud. He accorded Hegel logical and philosophical validity, for example, simply in order to counter with his own "existential nonsense", based on a concealed rejection of logos for pistis.

Sarte was, certainly, far beyond that.

I do credit Kierkegaard as a good stylist, but in essence he was the exact antithesis of what he argued for, and a hypocrite to boot.

oleajani (October 11, 2008 at 6:21 am)

But whether this power works against you in despair (think Nietzsche's madness) or lift you in freedom, is another matter.

I recognize though, if we are to talk about existentialism as a humanist philosophy as per se, then by itself perhaps Sartrean existentialism alone is flawed. I like to think that we must consider existentialism since Ecclesiastes and other major philosophies e.g. Romanticism for it to work.

:)

oleajani (October 11, 2008 at 6:16 am)

Existentialism is not flawed IMHO, but rather, incomplete. To fully grasp the profound implications of existentialism I sometimes think we must not think that it began only with Sartre. We may need to read Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, or even the biblical Ecclesiastes.

The "incompleteness" was perhaps exposed when Sartre tried to tackle "Existentialism is a Humanism". Atheistic existentialism is a powerful philosophy, as I again stress.

mopsius (October 10, 2008 at 6:03 pm)

Sarte was misled by Heidegger.

Logically and as a philosophy Sartre's existentialism is flawed.

Sartre knew this on some level.

He could have remedied the matter by returning to the pre-Socratics on his own.

Camus, who did not bother about the apparatus,
was the more genuine article.

Sartre was a prophet in relation to Marxism, however.

It is a religion like other religions, but useful critically.

oleajani (October 10, 2008 at 11:13 am)

I meant, he "was not* a conventional nice guy".

Existentialism rocks! :p