/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4787463]

>rich middle-class french intellectual tells me that I am entirely free
>he tells me I have no excuses for being a failure
>refutes any measure of determinism
>presents no evidence, just writes on blind conviction
>mfw

Does Sartre have any good ideas beyond this? Is he actually worth reading? Because this whole ontological freedom is total bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4787467]

Enjoy being a plebeian anus for eternity

[Anonymous No.4787471]

read husserl, then get back to sartre.

[Anonymous No.4787472]

Which philosopher are you describing? Because what you've written has nothing to do with Sartre...

[Anonymous No.4787652]

>>4787463
look at >>4787471

Also dont be a fag and start with Existentialism is a Humanism or his plays. Read Being and Nothingness. Actually, after you read Husserl (start with ideas) read Heidegger (being in time). Sartre isnt like Camus and just talking out his ass, but people treat him like that

also,
>rich middle-class
>rich
>middle-class
pick one

[Anonymous No.4788803]

>>4787463
Your problem is that you read a copy of a copy of a copy of, etc, etc. Existentialism without God is a farce.

Discard all the feeble, atheist imitators and go back to Kierkegaard and Martin Luther. It is God who sets you free. It is the faith in spite of doubt that allowed Descartes to escape his brain in a jar.
You were free before Nietzsche arrived with his hackneyed, bitter gibberish about slave-morality-this and the-greeks-that. You were free before Hegel tried to ensnare history in his idiot dialectic and radical doubt, and Marx followed him with jealous, square-headed nonsense that couldn't comprehend anything other than a dollar spent and lost. You were free before Husserl and Wittgenstein and Euclid tried to describe the world in calculus, as if these abstract, meaningless numbers where better than the brush of fingers on your face. You were free before Dawkins and his anthropomorphic genes, idiot molecules that can't even have a self to defend, let alone the mechanisms to perform such an activity. You were free without the guilt and weight of being, such things have been redeemed by God's love. Fuck your privilege, fuck your post-modern weights, fuck irony, fuck it all. You were born into it, but you only have to carry it as long as it is the limit of your existence.
You were free without man, free without reason, and free without science. Science is just useful knowledge, that Einstein is more useful than Newton and Copernican model of the solar system is held more useful than some doesn't mean anything to you. Use what you need and discard the rest, your pack is heavy enough without carrying all the world.

It will revolt you at first, of course. It will more than revolt the people who want you to justify their intersubjectivity by participating in their delusions of truth and meaning. Even me, writing here, should be discarded. I'm just trying to justify my own irresponsibility by saying it is right to dive off into complete madness. It isn't. Universal applicability don't hardly justify it, but who cares? It is just you before the divine, I'm not even in the room. Your life is your own, and it exists with a specific relationship to God. Your Becoming and Your image of Being can only conjoin in one place, and that is your subjective existence.

Only your irresponsibility is right for you, because only your irresponsibility is your irresponsibility before God, and that God is whatever your subjectivity deems divine. Become a dervish, spin free.

[Anonymous No.4788810]

>>4788803
And God is what exactly?

[Anonymous No.4788845]

>>4788810
Whatever your subjectivity finds the need to believe in. Some people seem to use a Spinoza-type infinite Being, I use the infinite expanse of nothing that spreads between each existent particle of matter, but make it a fucking chinese cartoon character, if that's what you need to relate to.
As a subjective experience destined to cease in less than a heartbeat, it doesn't matter how you define the infinite. Much like the current fuck-up between 4chan and Google, this is something you must see for yourself and overcome alone.

[Anonymous No.4788854]

>>4788845
Could your conception of God perhaps be described as a psychological element? An upper bound or fundamental basis for being of sorts? (Not a pointed question but an honest desire for understanding your view)

[Anonymous No.4788860]

OP don't read anything written by someone with these three attributes 1 French 2 Called philosopher 3 From the 20th century

[Anonymous No.4788885]

>>4788854
God is just Being. It can't love you back or be a role model for your becoming, it just is the isness of all things. It is the final ideal of wholeness, which isn't necessarily goodness or anything understandable in the world of becoming. Language is a product of intersubjectivity, and so only intersubjective ideas communicate. You have to build the subjective for yourself, like how someone can tell you a rose is red or a poet can say you should call a rose beautiful, but your personal relationship to the rose has to be found between you and the rose.

If one needs a demiurge or angel or saint or buddha on top of that to exist as a psychological ideal to be strived toward (and many do, that's why they exist in tradition) then you should work to create one of those too.

[Anonymous No.4788890]

>>4788885
I believe I understand you. An interesting idea and thank you, I think it makes sense to me on some level.

Correct me if I'm wrong- in this view God becomes the very way in which things are, in their simple being, in their relations, in the possibility of all that which is?

[Anonymous No.4789024]

>>4788890
>God becomes the very way in which things are, in their simple being, in their relations, in the possibility of all that which is
Yeah, somewhat.
My God is nothing, so I see him as the infinite space between particles. When I reach out across the infinite expanse to express my idea, and you reach out to try and receive it in some intelligible fashion, God is in between. This is as opposed to intersubjectivity, which is where two or three people said something and so you say, okay, I guess that worked for them it is okay for me.
To me, God is the spark embedded in art and inspiration, where one voice reaches another in isolation. Like, if you read a book, or stumble across the margin notes in a book written a hundred years ago and those notes seem to speak exactly to your idea, or reading the journal of a complete stranger. God is simultaneously the abyss that devours meaning and the medium that allows some capacity for Truth to communicate. Or, within my brain, any one cell is useless. But one can fire and connect to another to create a thought, this is God at work, the interaction across the isolating void.

From what I have read, there are others that say God is light filtering from some Platonic ideal and it filters through layers to arrive in this thing and then penetrate their soul, or whatever. I don't believe this, so I can't give it a fair shake. There are others, I'm pretty sure I've never given Spinoza's God as substance the credit it deserves, because the man himself and his immediate followers must have believed they were something more than a stepping stone to pantheism and atheism.

As living organisms, we are nothing but becoming, and so our concepts of Being will be different based upon what we need from Being in our individual, subjective existences.

Anyway, I should thank you. These are difficult things to try and ram into language, and there are few opportunities to try and do so. Thanks for trying me, whether I passed your test or failed.

[Anonymous No.4789069]

>>4787463
>Is he actually worth reading?

Holy shit no. These people write massive, incomprehensible tomes of complete fucking nonsense which only become "popular" because (almost exclusively leftist) pretentious jackasses get some sort of weird psychological pleasure in proportion to how convoluted and "deep" the material is. This isn't exclusive to literature though, you'll find that these are usually the very same people who refuse to watch anything that didn't come second place at the Cannes Sundance Berlin Festival of Obscure Films.

Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.4789082]

He has some worthwhile ideas. Existentialism is a Humanism is a good read, and his concept of bad faith is interesting. Some of his views are very stark to consider, especially with regards to personal responsibility, but it can be worth considering.

Ultimately though, it's up to you. If you don't find value in what he has to say, then you have to decide if it's worth your time to study what he's saying.

[Anonymous No.4789324]

Is Sartre going to be trendy this year?

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4789347]

I think Sartre's idea of freedom had to do with ethics more than anything else, but few people seem to stress that, they seem to think he meant you were free in the bourgeois conception of class mobility and stupid shit like that.