/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14054731]

why do lefties take these two seriously? nothing they said was interesting or important, it’s just kantian moralism for 20th century faggots

[Anonymous No.14054757]

reminder that humanists bullied him to state that existentialism was a humanism

[Anonymous No.14054800]

Leftists doesn't just mean American liberals

[Anonymous No.14054803]

Because he enables them to dismiss criticism outside of their paradigm as "bad faith" arguments.

[Anonymous No.14054873]

I'm leftist and I don't particularly like either of them desu. Imo Sartre grabbed the wrong end of the stick when trying to reconcile materialism with questions of free will.
Debeauvoir is ok but far from the most interesting person in her lane

[Anonymous No.14055891]

i am a leftist and the only 20th century figure i take seriously is deleuze

[Anonymous No.14055914]

>>14054731
nobody actually talks about sartre anymore except for bait like this. Simone is cool

[Anonymous No.14055917]

>But it is clear now that Sartre and Beauvoir did not simply have a long-term relationship supplemented by independent affairs with other people. The affairs with other people formed the very basis of their relationship.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/09/26/stand-by-your-man

WTF. Is this normal?

[Anonymous No.14055976]

>>14054803
that's not even what Sartre meant by bad faith. i wouldn't be surprised though if the contemporary use of the term("im not going to reply to your argument, im just going to claim it is somehow dishonest and therefore beneath me") originated in retards aping him.

[Anonymous No.14056032]

>>14055891
You just KNOW

[Anonymous No.14056099]

>>14056032
his wife was pretty qt (ik that pic isn't her) and the fact that he stayed with her until his death (unlike other cucks of his time) makes him even more based

[Anonymous No.14056107]

>>14055917
It is true Sartre did have a wandering eye

[Anonymous No.14057432]

>>14055891
he was shit. read “the fascism of the potato”
most 20th century french philosophers were bad, in all honest

[Anonymous No.14057475]

>leftists do this, leftists do that!

The political dichotomy was a mistake. Horoscopes for politards

[Anonymous No.14057530]

>>14055976
thankfully "bona fides" and "mala fides" have nothing to do with that cockroach

[Anonymous No.14057665]

>>14056107
Based

[Anonymous No.14058610]

>>14055976
It’s similar enough to the way he uses it in Anti-Semite and Jew. There’s a reason it’s become common for internet leftists to post excerpts from it when they want to dismiss people. I guess Popper’s paradox was just plain inadequate.

[Anonymous No.14058622]

>>14058610
He's misusing his own term then. It had to do with people acting inauthentically because they were trying to become some image of a person, some character they wanted to play, but being aware of that they were doing this. They were choosing to be fake or something like that, choosing not to engage with reality.

Leftists use the term to mean basically concern trolling, a person who is just drawing out arguments in some framework that is apparently not honest, not trying to have a genuine conversation. In practice though they just throw the phrase out seemingly at random if people frame things in a way they dislike.

[Anonymous No.14058631]

>>14054731
Haven't heard a lefty mention either of them in years

[Anonymous No.14058637]

>>14058631
The last time I saw any reference to Sartre was the parody version in the movie Mood Indigo, and that was only there because the book it's based on is from the 1940s (Froth on the Daydream).

[Anonymous No.14058640]

>>14058622
> Never believe that anti‐ Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

There’s the passage that’s making the rounds. It seems more consistent with the definition you gave than the one you gave to it’s only one usage. The problem is that the leftist (particularly those of the intersectional variety) believes that people are are doing what you described in the former because they are incapable of understanding positions outside of their own paradigm.

[Anonymous No.14058670]

>>14057432
>Badiou declared Deleuze an “enemy of the people” and penned several anti-Deleuze articles. Under the psuedonym “Georges Peyol”, Badiou penned “The Fascism of the Potato,” because if I know anything about resisting fascism, it usually involves declaring enemies of the people and creating a cult of personality around yourself Speaking of fascism, Badiou and his gang of merry Maoist decided to stage invasions of Deleuze’s class room. At the height of the conflict, Badious “men” would prevent Deleuze from finishing his seminar, he would put his hat back on to his head to indicate surrender. Badiou himself would occasionally turn up at Deleuze’s seminar to interrupt him, as he admits in the book he wrote on Deleuze in 1997. Badiou, who is still totally not a fascist, created brigades to “monitor the political content of other classes in the philosophy department.” Deleuze responded to most interventions calmly, and would avoid conflict even when “groups of up to a dozen people bent on picking a fight would show up.” Sometimes these brigades would show up with copies of Nietzsche to ask trick questions in an effort to embarrass Deleuze. And when that didn’t work: Often the “brigade” would end up imposing the “Peoples Rule,” commanding the student to quit Deleuze’s classroom on the pretext of a meeting in Lecture Hall 1 or a rally in support of a workers’ struggle. Deleuze reacted calmly, pretending to agree with them and retaliating with irony. And when that also didn’t work: Only once did [Deleuze] get angry, when he found on his desk a tract by a “death squad” advocating suicide.”
that's so fucking based

[Anonymous No.14058799]

>>14058640

I love how Sartre admits in his own introduction he did no research whatsoever for that book. The English edition has an introduction which ties itself in knots to justify that, utterly pathetic.

[Anonymous No.14058805]

>>14056107
Heh.