[ 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: 222 KB, 600x400, Jeanrich Sartzsche.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3630717 No.3630717 [Reply] [Original]

How is Sartre any different from Nietzsche? They're both existentialist and they both want to "create new values." Are they basically interchangeable except for what language they speak?

>> No.3630719

>>3630717
No, Nietzsche wasn't a talentless act whose sole historical importance was being Simone de Beauvoir's husband.

>> No.3630721

One has a moustache and the other is Nietzsche.

>> No.3630735

>>3630717
Nietzsche wasn't an existentialist in the most important sense: he denied the freedom of the will, and he denied 'freedom' altogether as an irreality and an irrelevant (because completely ideal) criteria for judging reality. The only sense I know that Nietzsche could be considered an existentialist, sans all dubious political interpretation, is that he deals with the subject as a product of the spiritual currents of modern nihilism. Both thinkers start from nihilistic premises. Sartre's problems is he tried to fight the battles of life in philosophy by creating benign and helpful concepts that occasioned the possibility of the individual to 'be whatever they want' - and yet from this overtly bourgeois, late capitalist premise, he threw himself into communism. Nietzsche doubts this immensely, emphasising nature, fate, instinct as fatalistic determiners on everything. Ultimately, Nietzsche is not interested in an exhortation to the individual (Tony Robbins-like) to become the ubermensch. The ubermensch, properly understood, is not even a human but an over-human, beyond all of us, even if we are Goethes and Napoleons and Nietzsches.

>> No.3630769

>>3630719
>sole historical importance was being Simone de Beauvoir's husband
>>>tumblr

>> No.3631002

>>3630735
Was Kierkegaard an existentialist, then?

>> No.3631005

>>3631002
Yeah, but he was a godfag.

>> No.3631012
File: 12 KB, 237x213, images (4).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3631012

>>3630717

I do not find in Sartre, as we do in Nietzsche, a clear cut division between the rational man and the intuitive man.

Though, what the heck, after Aristotle all philosophy became cartoonish.

>> No.3631013

>>3631002
fucking duh

>> No.3631028

>>3631013
>>3631005
Is existentialism compatible with theism?

>> No.3631033

>>3631028
of course it is. nihilism and theism are the same thing, and most existentialists never move beyond nihilism.

>> No.3631044

>>3631012
>Though, what the heck, after Aristotle all philosophy became cartoonish.
Aristotle was the best. Now there was a guy who knew how to solve problems. We should all follow his example and ignore stuff that came after him.

>> No.3631053
File: 8 KB, 191x263, einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3631053

>>3631044

Oh how cute you are.

*NOTHING* "came" after. What was yesterday is today and what is today shall be tomorrow. Nothing new under the sun, son.

>> No.3631083
File: 29 KB, 250x352, Bug eyed marxist fucker AKA Jean-Paul Frog Face Sartre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3631083

One couldn't see straight and the other couldn't see at all

>> No.3631246

Existence precedes essence?

Man is a rope over an abyss?

French?

>> No.3631262

this kind of thread and all the faggy responses in it are the reason why we can't have good things in here

btw >>3630735 this, except that nietzsche put an immense emphasis on the role of art and creation as an affirmation of the will while sartre was just busy writing shitty commie pamphlet

>> No.3631263

>create new values

Let's consult Soren "The Hunchback King of Existentialism" Kierkegaard on this issue:

>In vain do individual great men seek to mint new concepts and to set them in circulation — it is pointless. They are used for only a moment, and not by many, either, and they merely contribute to making the confusion even worse, for one idea seems to have become the fixed idea of the age: to get the better of one's superior. If the past may be charged with a certain indolent self-satisfaction in rejoicing over what it had, it would indeed be a shame to make the same charge against the present age (the minuet of the past and the gallop of the present). Under a curious delusion, the one cries out incessantly that he has surpassed the other, just as the Copenhageners, with philosophic visage, go out to Dyrehausen "in order to see and observe," without remembering that they themselves become objects for the others, who have also gone out simply to see and observe. Thus there is the continuous leap-frogging of one over the other — "on the basis of the immanent negativity of the concept", as I heard a Hegelian say recently, when he pressed my hand and made a run preliminary to jumping. — When I see someone energetically walking along the street, I am certain that his joyous shout, "I am coming over," is to me — but unfortunately I did not hear who was called (this actually happened); I will leave a blank for the name, so everyone can fill in an appropriate name.

>> No.3631267

>>3630717
Actually, funnily enough,
these 2 represent pretty much the difference between Germany and France.

>> No.3631268

>>3631005
He was basically saying God wasn't real, but we will believe in him anyway, as we created him.

>> No.3631277

>>3631267
>being this ignorant
sartre was more of a shitty-tiers german philosopher than a french thinker.

>> No.3631286

>>3631012
>after

>> No.3631299

>>3631246
Why do people here on /lit/ bash the ''existence precedes essence'' idea so much? I can't say Sartre's philosophy was perfect but having influenced Lacan and modern psychology, I'd say it's far from being idiotic.It seems wrong to me to completely nullify a man's work and take extreme sides on your views.

>> No.3631302

>>3631277
He was french.
You can tell because he was full of hot air.

>> No.3631304

>>3631299

/Lit/ doesn't like men with a lazy eye

>> No.3631319

So, what professor was promoting the idea that Sartre was a mediocre thinker? It's almost a consensus here, which means there's some authority figure behind it.

>> No.3631351

>>3631319
We're too cool for school, dude

>> No.3631364

>>3631319
general 4chan hivemind bullshit is all, not even a Bloom to blame

>> No.3631373

>>3631319
He's French.

>> No.3631380

>>3630735
>Ultimately, Nietzsche is not interested in an exhortation to the individual (Tony Robbins-like) to become the ubermensch. The ubermensch, properly understood, is not even a human but an over-human, beyond all of us, even if we are Goethes and Napoleons and Nietzsches.

This is false. While Nietzsche was skeptical of individualism and free will, he was hardly consistent about it. Let's refer to the prologue in Zarathustra.

>"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?"

>"Behold, I teach you the overman! The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes!"

Zarathustra makes a direct appeal to the mob, specifically exhorting them to let their wills say affirm it is the meaning of the earth. This is pretty unequivocal "Tony-Robbins"-ism, even if its aim is much more noble.

>Sartre's problems is he tried to fight the battles of life in philosophy by creating benign and helpful concepts that occasioned the possibility of the individual to 'be whatever they want' -

Even if Sartre took a political turn later, his existential philosophy has nothing to do with liberalism, "rational self-interest" or economics.

The only way you can read late capitalism into Sartre's existentialism is approaching him in hindsight from a very shallow understanding of consumer marketing, which mainly achieves its vague promises of "self-actualization" through identity.

Sartre's emphasis was on action -- not identity -- however, and arguing that authenticity requires acknowledgement of a fundamental ethical obligation to exercise agency.

>> No.3631388

>>3631364
Same place that gets antsy with "edgy atheists" while idolizing Nietzsche, whose critique of Christian morality and the cultural relevance of god is even more devastating -- if overly hyperbolic and unscholarly.

Of course while he was writing The Anti-Christ his brain cancer and functional blindness may have played a role in all that.

>> No.3631390

>>3631388
>Nietzsche is just like edgy atheism
You shouldn't blame your reading problems on others.

>> No.3631391

>>3631390
I didn't say that. I said it was an even more scathing (and also valid) critique.

>> No.3631393

>>3631391
Then I think you're confused over why people here get antsy over edgy atheists.

>> No.3631396

>>3631044
>implying Aristotle was important to philosophy at all and not just science
Plato is probably what you meant to say.

>> No.3631397

>>3631396
You're outing yourself on only knowing Aristotle through hearsay.

>> No.3631401

>>3631393
Their arguments are often insipid and dismissive of something they're ignorant about, but really aren't worth getting bent out of shape over if you accept the dubious claim that "god is dead". A bunch of bandits rifling through god's pockets is symptomatic, much in the same way televangelists are.

>> No.3631403

>>3631401
>if you accept the dubious claim that "god is dead"
I don't think that means what you think it means. But go ahead, what do you think "God is dead" means?

>> No.3631404

>>3631397
No I've read The Art of Philosophy and Aristotle isn't known for his philosophy, he is known for he contribution to biology with his sub par philosophy, excluding metaphysical stuff, coming after.

>> No.3631407

>>3631403
It means that god is no longer an intellectually or culturally tenable basis for valuation.

>> No.3631409

>>3631404
Sounds like you've been reading a really shitty book. Aristotle was integral to the scholastics, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, many of the philosophers in the Arab world. And "excluding metaphysical stuff" would be excluding a great deal of pretty much any Ancient Greek thinker you happen to apply that to. I mean, his logic on its own is enough to put him way up there.

>> No.3631414
File: 156 KB, 1130x785, 1364103806973.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3631414

I guess i'll just ask here

Is it possible to find good primers of some sort on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche's works or am i stuck with reading just their own texts alone?

Are they, as authors, accessible?

>> No.3631419

>>3631407
I don't agree, but I disagree less than I thought I would. One has to wonder how you make sense of that entire paragraph though.

>> No.3631426

>>3631414
Both are writing very much in reaction to previous thinkers, so no. If you want to read them, Plato and Aristotle should come first.

>> No.3631428

>>3631419
One has to wonder why you're posting passive aggressively rather than engaging the topic at hand.

>> No.3631432

>>3631299
"stop thinking things I don't think"

>> No.3631440

>>3631428
>you're posting passive aggressively
What the hell, no I'm not.
>rather than engaging the topic at hand.
As far as I'm concerned, the topic is "what on earth is this guy even saying?" and now you've gone all cagey.

>> No.3631451

>>3631388
I personally find his master/slave ethics dichotomy is a little over-simplistic and I tend to take a more nuanced view. I actually think traits from both these categories are "admirable", all depending on context and not a dogmatic deification of either.

>> No.3631453

>>3631426
I was afraid of that. i understand that nearly all them dang western philosophers write in reply to someone before them, who wrote in reply to someone before them...

Is there no such item that clues you in saying "Nietszche writes this in critique of X's arguments on Y" in the margins or whatever? Didnt the three main Classical philosophers write a lot.. it'd be nice to know reference points

>> No.3631455

>>3631432
''stop getting carried away by hate and superficial thought,it doesn't make you look cool''

>> No.3631462

>>3631440
>God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

>Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Must we not then begin the revaluation of all values? Must we not create and affirm new values?

>God is dead: but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which people will show his shadow.—And we—we have
still to overcome his shadow!

His shadow looms large -- humanity will continue to act as if god isn't dead. The reference Plato's cave allegory is deliberate here.

>> No.3631465

>>3631455
You'd be a lot more credible if you actually discussed Sartre's ideas instead of simply telling us all how much of an idiot he is, and how much anyone who gets something out of him is also an idiot.

>> No.3631469

>>3631451
if you actually read him closely, you'll find that it is more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy. there's the preists too, neither slaves nor masters, who are also deemed noble, who were catalytic in the slave revolt. i don't know what you find so admirable in slave morality? slave morality is a product of psychological ressentiment.

>> No.3631471

>>3631451
Nietzsche's mainly in the corner of a synthesis of the two. Those who "obey themselves".

>> No.3631474

>>3631462
What Nietzsche failed to recognize is that God is in the Resurrection business. Typical of a man who refused to see Power in any weakness and mocked the "slave ethics" of the Judeo-Greco-Roman tradition.

>> No.3631481

>>3631453
read nietzsche without reading his main influences. that's fine. it's still an interesting read. read him closely and imaginatively and you can discover almost the kernels of his thought both in those thinkers and the 19c environment and culture - even if you know nothing about it, it bleeds onto every page. fortunately nietzsche wrote and thought very deeply, so his work rewards re-reading, especially i think if you go back and read his major influences - which is enormous because he was a philologist who read all the major works, literary and philosophy, in greek and latin, italian and french and of course german.

>> No.3631483

>>3631465
I can't understand you, that's the excact opposite of what i'm saying

>> No.3631484

>>3631469
The very fact that there exist Master and Slave archetypes is because of the injustice of classist societies, caused by the abuse of Power. This Power cannot be won back by the oppressed in the same manner that the oppressors gained it, because then they only give into the oppressors' wicked game. So as long as there are those who are oppressed, a conception of triumph through righteous indignation and defiant love shall also.

>> No.3631486

>>3631474
Can you elaborate? His critique of Christian morality is directed more toward its negation of life (in favor of judgement in the afterlife) and its rejection of natural desire.

>>3631481
I agree, you're not going to be totally lost, and Nietzsche's a surprisingly good read even in English.

>> No.3631487

>>3631453
Nietzsche's not subtle in terms of references if you're at least somewhat familiar with the material he's referencing. You don't have to become a Plato or Aristotle scholar. You just won't get much out of him without the familiarity. You can pick up secondary literature, but then it's just some guy giving you some opinion, and a lot of the time the opinions aren't fantastic.

If you really want to jump in and read, there's Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling. I would think you'd still get a lot out of it cold. And some of Nietzsche's work on aesthetics should be fairly accessible (Apollonian and Dionysian have less to do with Ancient Greece and more to do with 19th C Germany for example). I would also recommend secondary lit even after reading the Greeks. I like Lampert for his advice on what order to tackle Nietzsche's project in for example, and I like Copleston's perspective on his work. You could have a look at the In Our Time podcasts too, I think they've both been done. And don't forget, read the Bible, esp. New Testament.

>> No.3631488

>>3631483
My bad, that was a reply to the guy you replied too.

>> No.3631494

>>3631486
Well, in my examination the life and teachings of Christ have very little to do with the afterlife or promises and condemnations thereof. Early Christianity was essentially a blending of the Hebrew prophetic tradition with Greek mystery-religions. It was very humanist and social-justice-oriented - essentially, embodying Christ's teaching by showing sacrificial and radical love to transform the world. The "kingdom of God" was an alternative citizenship, opposed to the authorities of State and Organized Religion, by whom early Christians were often persecuted and martyred for their seditious outlooks. "Eternal life" could better be translated from the Greek as "abundant life" or "life of the ages" - in other words, a life fully tuned into Eternal realities, not necessarily literally "ever-lasting".

Of course this was all hijacked and warped by the Roman Empire, and later its remnant the Catholic church. And that is mainly the Christendom I see Nietzsche as rebelling against, much the same kind of constructs that Christ himself preached against. But Nietzsche makes the mistake of condemning the "slave morality" ethics of Christianity's Jewish roots. I think an emphasis on compassion and self-sacrifice is what lent early Christianity much of its power.

>> No.3631495

Hey guys. Would it be fair to say existentialism is defined more in terms of the problem they tackle than a doctrine for how to solve it?

>> No.3631496

>>3631495
Essentially, yes, nihilism.

>> No.3631497

>>3631496
Do you mean that "existentialism" is really short for "ways to stop being a nihilist?"

>> No.3631504

>>3631494
Well, he traces slave morality to a perversion of the Jewish tradition in the Anti-Christ. Again he probably didn't draw on the same sources, and put his attention to the modern re-iteration of "slave morality" in utilitarianism and liberalism or -- "English democratic tendency" or whatever.

His father was also a Lutheran pastor, so he was also probably reacting to that environment generally, esp as a spruned recluse permavirgin

>> No.3631515

>>3631494
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_%28book%29#Origin_of_Christianity

This might help, lolwikipedia notwithstanding

>> No.3631516

>>3631504
I asked this yesterday in another Nietzche thread, but get no response.

its just me , or there are a lot in common between nietzche's master morality and Sade philosophy?

>> No.3631525

>>3631462
>His shadow looms large
It's first and foremost a descriptive statement of something that has already and is happening. Not something in the future. People had already removed God from the centre of all things, whether it be nature with Newton and Darwin, or ethics with Kant's categorical imperative or Mill's and Bentham's Utilitarianism (How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun?). Nietzsche is arguing that, while those values seem to have changed, there is still an apparent figure and presence of "God". Not only is his shadow apparent, but his "blood" too, we are incapable of making a world where it is not apparent God was present (This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star, and yet they have done it!). The idea that most of that paragraph is "re-evaluate values make values" is poor reading. Did you not find the idea of having "festivals of atonement" and "sacred games" to clean away "God" at least a little absurd? The whole last part is Socratic rhetoric anyway, he's pretty much asking "Are we going to go so far to remove God just to replace him with something so similar as to be the same?" and scoffing at the idea we could even do that.

>> No.3631526

>>3631516
dunno lol

>> No.3631527

>>3631380
i like to read this passage and ubermensch with a more careful air i think, as pertaining to a grander scheme of things than you or i at this present time. i suppose i read nietzsche modestly, which is something few rabid nietzscheans do at first - over time, i think, they will learn this almost girly modesty that i have learned.

my interpretation: ubermensch then, not as something for you or anyone to choose to become, because there is no exhortation anywhere in his work or suggestion as far as i can see for anyone 'to become the ubermensch.' rather, and in a pindaric vein, nietzsche exhorts -, the few, nobody - merely to 'become what you are.' that's all, monsieur. fate takes care of the rest. these passages are easily misread by teenagers as The Mission from on high, ex cathedra, finally the beautiful and hard as steel thou shalt sans gods that provides that grandiose sense of purpose my life is lacking!!!!

but that can be found elsewhere in nietzsche, i believe, with more textual delicacy. the ubermensch is something else. the ubermensch is introduced in TSZ... not the high watermark of nietzsche's ideas.... as a new teleology, godless but godlike, a goal, a target. it is over humanity, but is it OF humanity? it seems to be something for humanity to be for, but is it for humanity? it is the meaning of the earth, i think, but purely as teleology, as an ultimate end, and not specifically for humanity but for the whole earth, remember, and over humanity as over monsters and beasts too. perhaps that is not an allegory at all, though open to supplementation, still, a literal moral parable.

as for sartre, kudos, kudos kudos. but i think sartre makes yet a despicable appeal to our modern taste for unlimited expansion of the ego, which is what capitalism does. the shallow promises, the bargain bin self-improvementism, the philosophical snake-oil. behind that, platonism. sartre had good intentions.

isn't individualism the tragedy of modernity? eh, atom?

>> No.3631531

>>3631516
Like a lot of this kind of thing, you can apply these lenses to past events and get a different perspective. So yeah, but that in itself isn't anything amazing.

>> No.3631535
File: 21 KB, 471x480, 1299630540272.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3631535

>>3631481
>>3631486
>>3631487
I thank you for your advice
polite sage

>> No.3631544

>>3631525
i marvel at people who read into the lyrical tragedy of the death of god some kind of call to worship the dead god, to start a zombie religion. that's nihilism full stop. nietzsche would probably get a headache and need to take a cocktail of drugs even contemplating such nihilism.

>> No.3631547

>>3631299
he said essence precedes existence, U numbskull.

>> No.3631562

>>3631527
>but that can be found elsewhere in nietzsche, i believe, with more textual delicacy. the ubermensch is something else. the ubermensch is introduced in TSZ... not the high watermark of nietzsche's ideas.... as a new teleology, godless but godlike, a goal, a target. it is over humanity, but is it OF humanity? it seems to be something for humanity to be for, but is it for humanity? it is the meaning of the earth, i think, but purely as teleology, as an ultimate end, and not specifically for humanity but for the whole earth, remember, and over humanity as over monsters and beasts too. perhaps that is not an allegory at all, though open to supplementation, still, a literal moral parable.
To be an "over" man, you must also go under. There's a few tricks to reading Nietzsche, and one of them is he likes the whole pharmakos !the thing is also its opposite", especially when it comes to perspectives/prepositions/directions. I guess you could say the Ubermensch is as much above humanity as foot cleaning Jesus was, and in a similar sense is both beyond and a part of humanity. You also have to remember that the Ubermensch is neither a logical end point or something inherent and disparate. Nietzsche uses the very specific image from paganism of mankind being a bridge between animal and ubermensch. To my mind, a bridge doesn't simply lead you from one place to another, it connects two points and turns them into one single point. Mankind is the thing which allows ubermensch and animal to be the same thing I guess.

>> No.3631572

>>3631531
is not amazing but we use to relate ideas to their creators. So I dont like to get confused.

>> No.3631573

>>3631562
even avec the heraclitean unity of opposites, you still haven't turned my head. i think it's because, the ubermensch is not an end point in the sense of eschatology, but he is a telos, a purpose, a goal - that's what i meant, monsieur. but i might just write 'be the ubermensch' on my personal planner now, and let the absurdity of that guard me against absurd and trivialising interpretations of my precious.

>> No.3631574

>>3631525
Nietzsche is arguing that, while those values seem to have changed, there is still an apparent figure and presence of "God". Not only is his shadow apparent, but his "blood" too, we are incapable of making a world where it is not apparent God was present (This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star, and yet they have done it!).

Thanks for clarifying, but

>The idea that most of that paragraph is "re-evaluate values make values" is poor reading.

I didn't actually argue that's what all the passage had to say, but I inferred that the "death of god" was the starting point for nihilism and thus necessitating the creation of new values.

Thanks for expanding what he meant by the "shadow of god", but again, it's no accident that I brought up the line from the Gay Science.

Read what I was saying:

>humanity will continue to act as if god isn't dead

>It's first and foremost a descriptive statement of something that has already and is happening.

Yes... and that's exactly what I said. Hence "continue".

You seem very eager to correct what I'm saying and bury it with your own thoughts, even if you don't make the effort to read what you're replying to. While what you're saying is interesting, you really could be a bit less of a dickhead.

>> No.3631577

>>3631574
Are there particular passages in TSZ where I might read about this "God's blood" stuff? I haven't heard about it before.

>> No.3631584

>>3631562
i never saw the bridge like that, either, for me there was this abyss, nothingness, complete nihilism if you like, void, and then there was Man, and a bridge disconnected from man, and beyond that, the ubermensch in a turban. a bridge, or a lion or a camel or something spinning up into it, or a whip, or zarathustra's lantern, a rope, a finger.

>> No.3631586

>>3631573
>i think it's because, the ubermensch is not an end point in the sense of eschatology, but he is a telos, a purpose, a goal
"Was gross ist am Menschen, das ist, dass er eine Brücke und kein Zweck ist"
You really need to read the shit you're talking about: what is great in man is that he is a bridge, and not a goal.

>> No.3631588

>>3631574
GOD'S WOUNDS --- blood? shadows? maybe even the turin shroud too? his 'prescence', yes, not even a ghost's, but rather, a corpse's. and surely worms too gnawing at it. wow... nietzsche BELEIVED in god (as a corpse)!

>> No.3631591

>>3631577
That's all in the ol' Gay Science. You'd like that bit, a Zarathustrian mad man cum Diogenes runs around with a lantern asking is anyone's seen God lately.

>> No.3631593

>>3631586
as a matter of fact, that passages, like all you have quoted at me, monsieur agrees with me. man is not a goal, he is a bridge. it's the ubermensch that is the goal. now don't be upset.

>> No.3631602

>>3631593
So you think, the ubermensch is not man?

>> No.3631606

>>3631527
Interesting. I don't particularly care for the very iffy interpretation of the ubermensch as "mission from on high". Primarily it's meant to be contrasted with the after-worldliness of Christianity.

>but i think sartre makes yet a despicable appeal to our modern taste for unlimited expansion of the ego, which is what capitalism does.

I'm having trouble seeing how consumer capitalism demands of us an expansion of the ego. I'd sooner argue it distorts the ego's mediation of desire in a healthy way through offering a temporary, fleeting fulfillment of desire and creating the illusion of freedom of choice. If anything Sartre's philosophy would be an attempt to reclaim the ego from this false consciousness, even if I don't specifically mean that in a Marxist sense.

>> No.3631612

>>3631606
*the ego's function as healthy mediator of desire

Tired, can't write...argh

>> No.3631618

>>3631602
yes. --- the ubermensch as specifically something that comes after man, homo sapien. perhaps a cyborg?

>> No.3631620

>>3631574
>You seem very eager to correct what I'm saying and bury it with your own thoughts, even if you don't make the effort to read what you're replying to.
Right back at you. To put it simply: there is no need to create new values, the mad man says we can't anyway without recreating previous ones. Aside from vague claims like coming too early, and knowledge or occurrence of the event being disparate from the even itself (the whole Thunder Lightning malarkey), he also doesn't claim anything about the future. It's not that people are acting like God isn't dead, to them God is still alive.

>> No.3631624

>>3631618
Funny you should put it that way. "Übermensch" could arguably be translated as "transhuman" (although that's not how anyone would ever use it when translating his works).

>> No.3631637

>>3631606
what i mean, i think, is that both are atomising of the individual, both dissolve society, the physicality of life in a community is violently torn apart because of this elevation of the individual to an absurdly prominent and vulnerable place. i know that, given the present manners of this generation and the pressures of late capitalism, you may not want to fraternise with your neighbours, and i am not advocating that, i'm advocating for the pre-formative cultural bonds which make for those things in the first place. without the possibility of society (rather than social media). our lives are not only becoming more solitary, but they are also losing a more real context for a completely illusory social media. so it is necessary. i think. and existentialism is part of this individualistic strain. and i think sartre half-realised this in view of his social commitments to communism.

>> No.3631649

>>3631624
Trans wouldn't work. What the hell would be "what is great in man is a going trans and a going cis" anyway?

>> No.3631657

>>3631620
>It's not that people are acting like God isn't dead, to them God is still alive.

You're drawing a distinction between my use of "acting as if" and "thinking god isn't dead" that I do not intend. "continuing as if he isn't" might've made more sense. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As for the rest I simply disagree that it's only rhetorical. In the context of the rest of the damn book it's pretty easy to see where it's going.

>> No.3631661

>>3631624
it doesn't matter how you translate it, over or trans, ubermensch, the word is open to - requires - interpretation on any score.

>> No.3631663

>>3631584
The bridge is taken from Norse myth. It's like their version of purgatory, or kinda like Sisyphus I guess. You have to cross an abyss on the thinnest of threads, and every time you fall in you get burnt or something, and cleansed. The thing is, the ubermensch is also not separate from man, he is the third metamorphosis of the soul after all. I also don't see why a man would cross on a bridge made from himself, just seems weird.

>> No.3631672

>>3631663
i never said he was separate from man, monsieur. but that he comes after, like we came after the earliest bacteria, and i came out of your mother last night.

>> No.3631680

>>3631637
>what i mean, i think, is that both are atomising of the individual, both dissolve society, the physicality of life in a community is violently torn apart because of this elevation of the individual to an absurdly prominent and vulnerable place.

Sartre begins from (and laments) the atomization of the individual. "Hell is other people" and "Man is condemned to be free". He's not elevating this state of affairs in any way. For him it's a fundamental reality - an ethical starting point.

>without the possibility of society (rather than social media). our lives are not only becoming more solitary, but they are also losing a more real context for a completely illusory social media.

Social media is illusory precisely because it permits people to put their identity before their agency. Instead of being judged by your actions, you're judged by the image you present of your preferences, ideas, and yes -- your actions.

While I may be going too far out on a limb, acting is necessarily social, and acting while acknowledging that you simply aren't acted upon and do thus is the essential ethical project of Sartre's. "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you". Not what you buy, not who you know or associate, and not your value or tastes. What you DO.

>> No.3631686

>>3631672
Is he or isn't he a man? You've made out the ubermensch isn't a man, now you seem to be saying he is.

>> No.3631688

>>3631680
*aren't simply acted upon

>> No.3631690

Ubermensch is a man, but not A man, if you follow.

>> No.3631705

>>3631680
herr nietzsche ends with the dissolution of the individual and the ego into the fires of fate. sartre begins with the individual again as a fundamental reality. so much progress or a european reading curriculum.

>> No.3631707

>>3631686
It is not man, because it comes after man, it is Over man, like a rainbow.

>> No.3631714

>>3631707
i like this interpretation, monsieur, because it takes all Hope of becoming the ubermensch away from humans. whatever destroys our hope is noble and tragic.

>> No.3631713

>>3631707
The over man is also the under man though.

>> No.3631718

>>3631713
over and under, beside, perpendicular man, either way, monsieur, that is not man. you seem to be inviting us to consider prefixes as mere vain baubles, pure adornment.

>> No.3631721

>>3631705
You're forgetting that Sartre begins from consciousness defined as awareness of objects, not a cartesian cogito.

>> No.3631725

>>3631718
You're irritating.

>> No.3631735

>>3631721
even if he begins with 'it is aware of objects, therefore it is conscious', eventually an analysis begins, phenomenonological or cartesian, which is pure conjecture, or falsehood,'it is an individual', 'it is real', 'it laments the atomisation of itself.'

>> No.3631737

>>3630717
see: >>3630719


Nietzsche wasn't an Existentialist.
Sartre believed in essence preceding existence, whereas Nietzsche was a perspectivist and thought essence was not a thing-in-itself, but a subjective and possibly illusionary judgement based on previous knowledge.
Sartre believed that everyone can and should create meaning, value and morality.
Nietzsche knew you can't make meaning, value or morality. However, he said that we as a society need to keep the morals and values we use relevant through resentment.
Sartre believed that the few outweigh the many and that the whole is more important than the component.
Nietzsche saw the herd-mentality as foolish.
>THE LIST GOES ON

They are not alike at all. Nietzsche was much more of a technical philosopher and a better thinker.

>> No.3631743

>>3631725
it's all too sloppy for my taste, monsieur, all these rancid and Hopeful equations. it's like you've turned the ubermensch into a wagnerian climax. on the other, the ubermensch is for you and i, all of us, just an intellectual tease, a little leg for the old men of planet earth, a tristan chord.

>> No.3631757

>>3631028
Yes it is. Theistic Existentialism and Atheistic Existentialism are two diverging sects within of the school of thought.
>>3631033
Kill yourself.

>> No.3631758

>>3631735
Which is no less a conjecture than assuming the existence of fate, the supposition that Christianity is a morality of slaves, or that a dichotomous/inverted relationship exists between it and Greek/Roman values.

Please just (re-)read Being and Nothingness instead of further polluting this thread with your cryptic, glib mental diarrhea.

>> No.3631762

>>3631757
if you don't equate god and nothing, monsieur, then you are a true nihilist.

>> No.3631763

>>3631743
The content of your post is beside the point, actually.

>> No.3631766

>>3631299
That is all good and well, but Sartre didn't ever support existence precedes essence, he always said esssence precedes existence.
They are both bullshit.
Essence must be recognized as totally subjective and therefore you can not make it a thing-in-itself.
I don't think essence exists if the object the "essence" is attached to is not observed.

>> No.3631773

>>3631766
>That is all good and well, but Sartre didn't ever support existence precedes essence, he always said esssence precedes existence.
>They are both bullshit.

No, what's bullshit is that you can't even recall what he said, yet seem to feel justified in dismissing it.

>> No.3631778

>>3631758
the difference, monsieur, is that nietzsche's falsehoods and conjectures are more edifying, if you want to press my epistemological buttons, or i might say 'more will-to-powering', if you like those sorts of newfangled expression?

>> No.3631781

>>3631762
I am a nihilist in that I follow perspectivist views about knowledge and do not believe in truth.
I also believe that morals are never absolute.

Anyways, religious existentialism is a thing.

>> No.3631784

>>3631763
no, monsieur, it is above the point, --- agjally.

>> No.3631787

>>3631778
>i learned more and he made me feel more feels, so the big N was a better thinker

Simpleton.

>> No.3631790

>>3631784
nigga u gay

>> No.3631791

>>3631781
you are a moral and epistemological nihilist? that is one way of expressing these things quickly. i am an epistemological nihilist but not a moral nihilist, because i posit my own criterion of value which is founded on what i had for breakfest this morning, which itself is validated endlessly by the circularity of my arms, turning back upon themselves, i can trace a line from one spot around and back to the same place, continuously, on my arm.

>> No.3631797

>>3631787
i didn't say he was a better thinker, monsieur, i said he was more edifying. now you are putting words into my mouth. but, agjally, now that you mention, i do think he was a better thinker than sartre, because i think that he thinks closer to the way i think, and the way i think is better than the way other people think because i share the same cock as myself.

>> No.3631800

>>3631649
That's exactly why I said nobody would use it.

All the wordplay works better in German anyway.

>> No.3631801

>>3631790
i can stand many insults, many libels, slaners, gross misrepresentations, child molestation... but at my sexual orientation....i draw a line in the sand, curving back upon itself, until it becomes a circle, in which i draw the zodiac, my astrological symbol, and a number 5

>> No.3631803

>>3631797
u still gay

>> No.3631806

>>3631773
"the essence of man precedes his historically prinative existence in nature."
I literally opened "Existentialisn is a Humanism," in all it's godawfulness just to find that fucking line.
You clearly have been lucky enough to have neither read Sartre's terrible writings nor even his Wikipedia.
Stay pleb.

>> No.3631811

>>3631803
stop saying that right now please

>> No.3631817

>>3631791
I am an epistemological perspectivist.
I am a moral nihilist. I do not think you can actually make morals. That would mean that your morals actually exist, when they are just artificial limitations. However, I do live by morals that I have decied upon even though I know they are inherently lacking in value.

>> No.3631822

>>3631806
That's nowhere in there. You literally made this line up on the spot. Here's (maybe?) the passage you tried to quote.

> In the philosophic atheism of the eighteenth century, the notion of God is suppressed, but not, for all that, the idea that essence is prior to existence; something of that idea we still find everywhere, in Diderot, in Voltaire and even in Kant. Man possesses a human nature; that “human nature,” which is the conception of human being, is found in every man; which means that each man is a particular example of a universal conception, the conception of Man. In Kant, this universality goes so far that the wild man of the woods, man in the state of nature and the bourgeois are all contained in the same definition and have the same fundamental qualities. Here again, the essence of man precedes that historic existence which we confront in experience.

>> No.3631826
File: 156 KB, 706x385, 1325021933738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3631826

>>3631811

>> No.3631829

>>3631817
it depends how you understand the word 'moral' - if as mores, - conventions or traditions or customs or - moral laws - no. if you mean, an ethical precept which i follow myself, of course. for example, i don't drink decaf as matter of ethical conscience, i don't listen to wagner on tuesdays, i don't murder or kill, and i manipulate my office co-workers into buying coffees for me. i have a 'become the ubermensch' fridge magnet - one at work and one at home - and i drive a prius.

>> No.3631835

>>3631822
He said it, he said it. What's the difference?

>> No.3632476

>>3631826
:)

>> No.3632515

>>3631800
Yeah, wordplay is a real big part of Nietzsche. Though TRANSlators do seem to love overlooking it anyway, so you never know, TRANSlating it in such a way may not be such a stretch.

I wonder if you could, thinking about it, do a sentence like man is both in translation and, I dunno, being misunderstood? I'm not sure it's quite the same overall, but it's an interesting exercise nonetheless.

>> No.3632602
File: 71 KB, 437x400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3632602

>>3631822
Bad troll is obvious.
You also have "Existentialism is a Humanism," and have literally found the exact quote and just turned the words.
1/10 for making me reply.

>> No.3632604

>>3631829
That, my friend, is the difference between ethics and morals.

>> No.3632616

>>3632604
if a convention is obsolete is it no longer a mos? i follow the morality of achilles and ron jeremy.

>> No.3632617

>>3631773
And my justification in dismissing the question has nothing to do with who supports what.
I don't believe essence exists BECAUSE essence is not objective.
For a tree to exist, it must exist and be categorized as a tree by an observer. Until it is categorized as a tree, how could you say it is a tree?
It's essence can not define it. Consciousness can define it.

>> No.3632625

>>3632616
Ethics are a constructed set of moral-judgements.
Morals are abstract judgements that are not universal or absolute.
Ethics aren't either, but they don't claim to be.

>> No.3632634

>>3632625
very good, monsieur, very good definitions!!! ethics are constructed sets of moral jugements, morals are abstract judgements that are -- perspectival? but what we are deciding here, is whether a mos, a moral, can be individual or whether it is necessarily collective and so an individual - except in extraordinary circumstances - cannot generate 'mores' himself. some familiarity with the etymology helps.

>> No.3632658

>>3632634
No, I don't think that one can generate morals.
I don't believe we have that faculty, nor do I think that morals actually exist on an absolute level.
For that reason, I do not think an individual can "generate" morals.
As for whether a moral is a collective of ideas or an individual idea unto-itself, I would say that since I have already said that morals are themselves as arbitrary and categorical as the name of an animal, that morals can be called individual ideas unto themselves.
Having said that, the want to break them down into smaller parts is totally fulfillable.

>> No.3632990

>>3631649
Transhumanism is about the directed evolution of man through technology, nano machinery, bioengineering, robotics, etc.

It has nothing to do with gender confused kids on tumblr.

>> No.3633160

Did Sartre have any kind of concept equivalent to the will to power?

>> No.3633178

>>3633160
No.

>> No.3633189

>>3633178
What about changing the world to reflect the new values you create? Surely he said something about that.

>> No.3634909

I wanted to get Being and Nothingness at the store today but they didn't have it

Should I look for a different Sartre book?

>> No.3635025

>>3634909
nausea and existentialism is a humanism
probably the latter

>> No.3635029

>>3633189
yeah he did
every decision you make is because you see the world as a whole will become a better place because of it

>> No.3636631

Did Sartre believe we could erase God's influence from society?