/lit/ - Literature

>>8804368
neither does Sartre, he just capitalized the word "Be" and people thought he was deep and smart

I think it has to do with the fact that to find an essence in something, you first have to exist, and also it depends on where you live (values etc.) what you see as the essence of a certain thing, not sure though and probably 100 ways to interpret this.

>>8804368
Link.

>>8804368
So you came to /lit/ for an explanation.

>>8804368
I believe he's basically saying that humans are just animals. They don't exist as souls before they're born. They only get an "essence," which could refer to being, personality, life, until they actually begin to exist.

>>8804368
Go back to Descartes
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/#2

>>8804368
it means he does not avoid women, though he does deny them his essence.

>>8804368
If you don't get that you won't get this either:

>Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, Monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk

>>8804368

In most of traditional Western metaphysics, essences (or natures) exist independently of the objects that instantiate those essences and those essences determine the nature of their instantiations (the most obvious version of this idea is in Plato, but it is found in many of forms throughout the Western tradition). So, the essence of a triangle (or triangularity) exists independently of specific, concrete triangles and it determines that all triangles must have three sides, etc. This was also taken to be true for humans: there is a human nature, or essence of humanity, that determines what people are like and what is best for them (think of Aristotle's account of human flourishing being determined by human function, in turn determined by human nature). In this sense, essence precedes existence--first, essence exist independently of concretely existing individuals and they shape the natures of those individuals.

Sartre reverses this, at least for human beings. In his view, there is no essence of humanity independently of human existence and action--people exist first and then are radically free to create their own nature through their choices and actions. There is no prior essence of humanity that determines how one does and should live. Rather, each individual shapes their own nature through their free action.

>>8804547
I don't know but it has something to do with '''''''''''choice'''''''''''

>>8804368
Just read Existentialism is a Humanism, my dude.

for a board that likes to fling shit at Sartre you guys don't even have a basic understanding of his principal philosophy.
This guy >>8804554 covers it mostly.

Existentialism and Human Emotions probably covers it mostly thoroughly in the shortest page count.

Essentially, before anything can be prescribed a definition or a label or a role in the world, it simply is. This applies to everything.
A chair is not a chair, it's an arrangement of pieces of wood. It's convenient for sitting, but the arrangement of wood does not acknowledge "sitting" or even humans. The upright position of the chair is also not part of the chair's existential composition. Nor is even the idea of chairs, it simply is what it is, singularly, and nothing more.
It's existence(wooden structure) precedes it's essence(upright "chair" meant for people to sit on) because the essence is applied to the existing thing.

apply that concept to your life and it's less mundane.

>>8804372
>>8804377
>>8804521
Holy fuck I thought you people read.

>>8804636
There are no real barriers to posting on /lit/. It is damn disappointing compared to years ago though.

>>8804368
Things "are", everything else is an attempt to understand/describe it.

>>8804651
Good try, but no it goes a fair bit deeper than that.

why isn't existence essence?

>>8804681
Look up theories of real and rational distinction.

>>8804681
holy shit just read his work.

>>8804368

It basically denotes a mixture of "#YOLO" and "LOL, JUST DO WAT U WANT".

Which is actually an accurate summary of french existentialism. Heidegger and Kierkegaard are the real niggas.

>>8804368
Oh jesus the Sartre porn hub guy. I found him a few years back, he posts excerpts from No Exit in the comments of random porn vids. He's totally broses this board

he is speaking of materialism and it's baseness

>>8804368
How can we understand the comment unless we know to which video it was a comment?

>>8804764
it is probably sasha being facefucked again and saying something stupid and putrefactive about the pop philosophy Wikipedia page she's just read

what are some other good babbys first existentialism books after existentialism is a humanism? it's a really good book

>>8804797
Most of Sartre and Camus.

>>8804797
No Exit and Nausea

>>8804368
>Implying existence exists

>>8804368
It's an inversion of the Platonist idea that essence precedes being. If being precedes essence there is no inherent meaning to anything until you decide what that meaning is.

>>8804873
But where does this existence-ness proceed from?

>>8804873
No it isn't. The various theories of forms are not only way more subtle than that, the essence preceding existence thing was about in the medieval philosophies prior to a good translation of the republic. Really, look up Aquinas on this shit and you'll see you're thinking this is like a debate had best part of a millenium prior.

>>8804636
Even if they did, reading and comprehending are not the same.

>>8804368

>>8804547
Wasn't this supposed to be about Hegel's dialectics?

>>8804918
Yeah it is, although "classical" is probably a better word than "Platonic" since he go into the hierarchy of forms, just the issue of essence and being. And Aquinas talking about it in the 1200s doesn't preclude Sartre from talking about it in the 1900s.

>>8804547
Heard this one in a Zizek lecture

>>8805205
Yea, but something about thesis and athesis and all that shit idk I'm tired.

>>8805368
This is not hegel.

>>8804547
All I got out of this was that people don't fucking listen when you talk

>>8804984
Kek
>>8805547
Idg that one

>>8804873
I like this explanation.

>>8805228
>And Aquinas talking about it in the 1200s doesn't preclude Sartre from talking about it in the 1900s.
Look, most of these things have a level of interpretation right? What I'm saying is that you lack background and are hoping it's simpler than it is. It isn't, or at least it isn't massively convincing. You're also slightly overcomplicating it in other ways at the same time.

Platonic forms are neither essence nor being, and Republic isn't the only book that covers them either. Your hunch that they're all related is correct though, so well done, you have some good instincts. This isn't simple shit, you've done pretty well tbqh, but you can't sub instinct for reading.

Aquinas wouldn't have been able to ever read the Republic, he's alive just as Aristotle is majorly being translated (in many ways Aristotle is more relevant to this) along with a couple of other of Plato's dialogues, but Republic is done in the 15th C and Aquinas is dead in the 13th. The Platonic forms of that period would have been derived from Timaeus, which is to say all things are conscious of themselves (roughly speaking).

Don't get too stuck on the cave allegory, it happens to fit the enlightenment narrative. It is kind of relevant to Descartes though, and he wrote quite a lot on this. I would suggest that you check it out since it's a couple of steps closer to what Sartre is going on about.

>>8804797
Read "Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction", it might be a little Sartre-heavy, but it really is an excellent introduction.

>>8804500
>>8804764
Here is the sauce:
http://www.pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1495400875
plz no ban

>>8806879
Production quality is too high for my taste, only homemade porn deserves existential thought.