/lit/ - Literature

>>14398033
Nobody cares about tranny philosophy. Go back!

>>14398049
How is it tranny philosophy? What do you mean by tranny philosophy? Is it the fact that Sartre believes there is not concrete self that can't be changed? I know you are shit-posting but I'd like to know why you don't like Sartre.

>>14398033
yep

>>14398106
I feel like most people aren't concrete and can fuck their own psyches up. Like children who are transsexual or who claim to be transsexual and later regret it, which is about half the time. Hes kind of throwing a blanket onto all humans, which I believe he admits that no philosophy or mode of thought can ever really capture how things are. I think he has some interesting things to say, a lot of it is drivel but he has some important insights.

>>14398033
Consciousness completely lacking substance is one of them.

>>14398033

>tenants

philosophy will be lost on you no matter what

>>14398033
He's not a shit from my ass.

>>14398154
Am I too stupid? Is that it anon?

>>14398087
/lit/ niggers have always been allergic to sartre because they are retarded and he in later life became a marxist

>>14398191
Was he just a sympathizer before? I thought he was essentially Marxist already its just that they didn't like him.

>>14398087
I don't know anything about Sartre (why would I waste my time), I just know he is a Marxist. Tranny philosophy is a joke because of the Marxist Tranny correlation

>>14398191
It's more because he's a discount Heidegger with shitty metaphysics and somehow even shittier political views.

>>14398265
What about Heidegger makes him better? Can you sum him up?

>>14398298
>>What about Heidegger makes him better?
he's harder to read. that's literally it.

>>14398191
Of course he's a Marxist with a face like that.
I don't read Marxists not because they are Marxists ,but because they are subhuman.

>>14398304
So lit is just full of pseuds?

>>14398033
>Is Sartre worth reading?
No.

>>14398319
of course
are you new?

>>14398154
rofl, hey everyone has a few of those. something something pedal stool

>>14398298
Heidegger didnt disregard metaphysics, for one thing. Sartre, on the other hand, decided to say he moved beyond metaphysics and then went on to make metaphysical statements anyway.
Also existentialism in general has just fallen out of favour.

>>14398265
"I think I am thinking, therefore I am." The (I think) being the implied observer, and the (I am thinking, therefore I am.) Being the observed, is not bad. The observer being Nothing makes sense. Obviously everything he says is not original but they are interesting things to think about. Not sure how this was necessary for the later chapters on the book or if I agree with it completely but it's interesting that, thinking itself can be an automated process and meta-cognition can be what we regularly believe is thinking.

>>14398328
Kind of, browse at work and when I have a some time to kill. For like a year or so.

Sartre's most readable work is the play 'No Exit,' if you must read something by him. There's nothing special about his work.

>>14398334
The translator did mention a few things about Sartre rejecting religion specifically but having references to it, mainly Christianity. She also said that Sartre in her opinion, is saying that human beings ultimate wish is to become itself, to bring about itself, something which it can never do but is akin to becoming a God. As much as he has written, I don't doubt he contradicts himself a lot.

>>14398366
I'll get it to it, when I get tired of reading Being and Nothing. I've read parts of Myth of Sisyphus. I think I like Camus better. It seems like he doesn't really play word games.

>>14398334
It may have fallen out of popular view but I think existentialist thinking is still the zeitgeist.

>>14398366
I disagree, 'Age of Reason' was great, though I've yet to read the others associated with it. And 'Nausea' is alright thus far.

>>14398033
>Is Sartre worth reading
Absolutely not.

>>14398553
Nausea is his novel right? I forget about it, Ill probably get that soon. What is the "Age of Reason" about?

>>14398604
Largely his conception of what freedom is, and they are both novels. I loved Age of Reason, but I'm a sucker for a book about squalid living in Paris.

>>14398641
I know that he believes that humanity has been condemned to be free and that's why that guy was screeching about his philosophy being a "tranny philosophy" but what do you mean by conception of freedom? What does he think we should do with this freedom?

>>14398033
His small essay "The Transcendance of The Ego" is really good, internally consistent and also very fascinating.

>>14398049
You do.

>>14398133
>Like children who are transsexual or who claim to be transsexual and later regret it, which is about half the time. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262734734_An_Analysis_of_All_Applications_for_Sex_Reassignment_Surgery_in_Sweden_1960-2010_Prevalence_Incidence_and_RegretsThere were 15 (5 MF and 10 MF)
>There were 15 regret applications corresponding to a 2.2 % regret rate for both sexes.

You can learn a lot from Heidegger about how to extract yourself from the implicit assumptions enlightenment era philosophy forces us all to make, whether or not you buy his account of Being is a different matter but his Hermeneutic way of understanding the world is invaluable.

Sartre on the other hand is just a reddit fedora-wearing atheist who, despite constantly bashing religion, ended up joining the cult of Marxism.

Camus does the whole Paris-scum aesthetic way better too.

tldr read Camus and if you're interested in Heidegger read Dreyfus' Being in the World first, its like babby's first Heidegger

>>14398666
Witnessed. Satanic trips

>>14399756
I was just pulling shit out of my ass. Or you know going off what I've seen and read. Informative. Thanks anon.

>>14399972
I'll check it out. Thanks for the recs man.