[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 582 KB, 858x665, memri jps.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10238900 No.10238900 [Reply] [Original]

What are /lit/'s thoughts on the Existentialists - Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and even Camus? Is there anything worth salvaging, or are they the self-help of philosophers who try to understand being? Camus admittedly introduced me to philosophy, but I see no point in reading his essays anymore - The Rebel is terrible.

>> No.10239114

I have a particular fondness for de Beauvoir's The Ethics of Ambiguity, the second part of it especially.

>> No.10239225

>>10238900
Mothercucker you can't just start at the existentialists. Sartre himself says this both in Being and Nothingness as well his Existential Essays. Eat pubes you pseud

>> No.10239326
File: 45 KB, 400x400, Ce n'est pas une pipe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10239326

>>10239114

Yeah. This is a really great read. I still have yet to get into Existentialist Psychoanalysis. I admittedly did not understand Sartre's arguments against the Freudian conception of the unconscious in Being and Nothingness.

>> No.10239355

>>10238900
I don't care what anyone says, Camus is a great read for abnormal, discontent adolescents. From there, the natural progression is either:
>if God, but no Church
Soren Kierkegaard
>if no God, but Church
Sartre
>if no God and no Church
NEETzsche

personally, i hate Sartre (he's okay as a short fiction writer). Nietzsche occupies that weird Moses role to me, much like Freud did: lead people to the promised land, but you can't go there yourself. Kierkegaard, i think, still holds up rather nicely — doubly so if you focus on his upbuilding discourses. Heidegger is literally a systematized, plagiarized Kierkegaard.

>> No.10239367

>>10238900
They all suck, Sartre et de Beauvoir are just bored upper class and Camus always have to tell what's good, what's bad, etc.

>> No.10239380

if GOG nut Church if GOD note Church if not Good but no Church if no Goat no Church if no

personally, i hate Descartes (he's okay as a short fiction writer)

>> No.10239594

>>10238900
Sartre is mostly right about things, yet mind-numbingly boring.
Beauvoir is feminism, hit or miss stuff.
Camus is okay.

>> No.10239598

>>10239355
Heidegger is Kierkegaard with broader scope, more erudition and less outdated references to Christianity. Also, he brings language in play, something Kierkegaard never did.

>> No.10239706

>>10239380
Lmfao

>> No.10239726

>>10239355
This is the first time I ever saw anyone accusing Heidegger of plagiarism. It's usually people saying Sartre plagiarized Heidegger.

>> No.10239737

>>10238900
>Is there anything worth salvaging
Read Heidegger, he's the dictionary to all later continental philosophy.

>> No.10239750

>>10239737
As if any philosophy after him is important.

>> No.10239762

>>10239750
>implying philosophy is important
If you losers picked up a science textbook and read the first word of it you would learn more than you will ever 'learn' reading endless pages on philosophy.

>> No.10239907

>>10239762
>implying philosophy POST-1960s is important

Anything actually new is infected by our cultural decadence. Anything important is just complaints from lost and forgotten philosophies.