0:05 - Sartre 1:06 - Why was it written? 1:59 - What is Existentialism and Humanism? 3:18 - 'Philosophy of quietism' 5:12 - 'Denies the seriousness of human affairs' 8:00 - 'Over-emphasis on the evil side of human life' 8:40 - 'No sense of morality'
"In a bourgeois society it is the constant movement of people, the collective currents, the styles, the customs - all these things that in effect create values. The value of poems, of furniture, of houses, of landscapes - derives in large part from the spontaneous condensations that fall on these objects live a light dew..." {-J.P. Sartre, from "On Living in an Old Country"}
Great video! I especially like philosophies that leave your judgement to yourself rather than a set of rules. Quietism seems very much prevalent in today's world however, most of us have our heads in the sand about many things... May I recommend you increase the gain of your voiceover in audacity, the sound is a little quiet for us mobile users. But may be different for PC etc, nevertheless an awesome video!
Feeling Philosophical. So great to a new philosophical channel. Please, do keep the good work up. Your content is very interesting and straight to point. Good job.
Why should one choose to universalize one's actions to others? I don't ask anyone else to follow my way of life. How is this a form of 'self-deception'? When one acts, one acts alone. Others are free to see you as an example, either good or bad. Do other animals feel this responsibility? A cat thinks, 'all other cats should act as I do. What a terrible responsibility!' One can understand the need to have universally applicable laws, e.g., against violence. Otherwise, I believe that individuals often value their freedom. Part of one's freedom is in allowing oneself to be different from others. And why waste mental effort in universalizing one's behaviour? If one is deliberately prescriptive in one's attitude, then such a mindset might be understandable. But this is a choice. The golden rule (treat others as you would be treated yourself) is simpler than Sartre's idea. Even this is a matter of discussion. It neglects our capacity to express our feelings to others, e.g., 'I don't like the way you're behaving'. We have automatic regulatory processes to deal with behaviours that we like or dislike. And Sartre's idea implies that we have complete freedom, which is out of keeping with experience. Do people really choose to behave 'badly'? I suspect that people take Sartre's ideas seriously because of his reputation, more than anything else. Reputation inhibits one's inclination to call an idea nonsense.
Did Sartre ever acknowledge the hypocrisy in a thesis like this? By this logic, Sartre, by choosing to be an academic and philosopher, is also choosing that for all humankind. It is obvious that the world would fall apart if all of humankind was absorbed in philosophical inquiry. This philosophy seems to work in certain circumstances. For example, if I choose to take a stance against inequality, it makes sense that I would also be saying that all of humankind should take that stance. But if I choose to be a baker, am I really saying that all man ought to be a baker? Hopefully not because, if realized, I’d soon run of flour to bake my bread. There also seems to be a strange paradox in other ways. Suppose my actions were combating crime. If I truly wanted all mankind to combat crime, if that was the purpose I chose for all humans, my end goal would be to effectively render meaningless that which I thought the ideal purpose. By that I mean, if all humans were meant to combat crime and did, there would be no crime. At that point all of humankind would have no purpose. In some ways, those that choose justice as the purpose of man, need others who choose crime to ensure the existence of their meaning.
You have to include the specific circumstance, with all variables included. In the assumption that humankind is making the decisions you have to make, they are doing so in the face of your circumstances. You're not saying "literally everyone should be a baker." You're saying "In this specific individual circumstance, I believe my choice is what I would wish of any human to choose, were they me, here."
The principle which we would universalise is not “we should all be moral philosophers” but rather “we should choose the job that is authentic/best etc” or something like that. It’s the same for choosing to eat pizza not steak. The principle is not “only eat pizza” but “eat what is pleasurable” or something like that
Sartre fails to acknowledge the significant differences in environments that enables or prevents an individual to ameliorate their essence. Feminism has to a degree enabled some improvements regarding inequality within the patriarchy. Activists have also made minor steps to change the environment to ameliorate access for the less able. However, the continuing world wide Eurocentric bias still places significant barriers that prevent a demographic to achieve said improvements and changes within their essence. Philosophy is the ongoing word salad of the European bourgeoisie.
*Philosophy is the ongoing word salad of the European bourgeoisie.* - You mustn't know much about philosophy if you think you can reduce it to that. Not to mention that it does nothing to argue against those philosophies, only shows your disdain for them.
0:05 - Sartre
1:06 - Why was it written?
1:59 - What is Existentialism and Humanism?
3:18 - 'Philosophy of quietism'
5:12 - 'Denies the seriousness of human affairs'
8:00 - 'Over-emphasis on the evil side of human life'
8:40 - 'No sense of morality'
This was an excellent video, thank you.
i’ve really been struggling following my uni courses online and this has helped so much. I probably would’ve failed without out it so thank you!!!!!
No problem! Glad it could help
One of my first forays into youtube videos about classic texts -- found this helpful. Well done.
"In a bourgeois society it is the constant movement of people, the collective currents, the styles, the customs - all these things that in effect create values. The value of poems, of furniture, of houses, of landscapes - derives in large part from the spontaneous condensations that fall on these objects live a light dew..."
{-J.P. Sartre, from "On Living in an Old Country"}
Keep speaking truth brother.
Great video!
I especially like philosophies that leave your judgement to yourself rather than a set of rules. Quietism seems very much prevalent in today's world however, most of us have our heads in the sand about many things...
May I recommend you increase the gain of your voiceover in audacity, the sound is a little quiet for us mobile users. But may be different for PC etc, nevertheless an awesome video!
Thanks for the advice Ben and I’m glad you enjoyed it :)
Feeling Philosophical. So great to a new philosophical channel. Please, do keep the good work up. Your content is very interesting and straight to point. Good job.
Thanks, I'm glad you're liking the channel :)
Helped in answering my thesis statement for orals! Cheers to you!
this is a very in-depth and easy-to-follow discussion! thank you so much really appreciate it
As per, LOVED this video! It’s soo informative! And this guys lived an interesting life and I was very interested in it! Keep it up mate!
Thanks Rohan, I appreciate it :)
This was an excellent video, thank you.
Cheers thank you did the breakdowns
This confirmed for me that existentialism has no answers
Please keep posting, i love your videos
Man this is awesome!
you're such a boss man, keep it up :)
Good job, very well done, nice way of teaching💕💕💕💖
Finally Someone pronouncing his name correctly!
An excellent video!
This was very helpful thank you
Thanks man 100%
Thank you!!! Amazing
I’m trying to teach myself French
Good but sound quality is poor.
Yes, sorry. This is one of my earlier videos where I didn't have a proper mic and didn't have any audio editing software so I do apologise
Best video ever
Why should one choose to universalize one's actions to others? I don't ask anyone else to follow my way of life. How is this a form of 'self-deception'? When one acts, one acts alone. Others are free to see you as an example, either good or bad.
Do other animals feel this responsibility? A cat thinks, 'all other cats should act as I do. What a terrible responsibility!'
One can understand the need to have universally applicable laws, e.g., against violence. Otherwise, I believe that individuals often value their freedom. Part of one's freedom is in allowing oneself to be different from others. And why waste mental effort in universalizing one's behaviour? If one is deliberately prescriptive in one's attitude, then such a mindset might be understandable. But this is a choice.
The golden rule (treat others as you would be treated yourself) is simpler than Sartre's idea. Even this is a matter of discussion. It neglects our capacity to express our feelings to others, e.g., 'I don't like the way you're behaving'. We have automatic regulatory processes to deal with behaviours that we like or dislike.
And Sartre's idea implies that we have complete freedom, which is out of keeping with experience. Do people really choose to behave 'badly'? I suspect that people take Sartre's ideas seriously because of his reputation, more than anything else. Reputation inhibits one's inclination to call an idea nonsense.
You saved my cam driving pre-u course than you
Did Sartre ever acknowledge the hypocrisy in a thesis like this? By this logic, Sartre, by choosing to be an academic and philosopher, is also choosing that for all humankind. It is obvious that the world would fall apart if all of humankind was absorbed in philosophical inquiry.
This philosophy seems to work in certain circumstances. For example, if I choose to take a stance against inequality, it makes sense that I would also be saying that all of humankind should take that stance. But if I choose to be a baker, am I really saying that all man ought to be a baker? Hopefully not because, if realized, I’d soon run of flour to bake my bread.
There also seems to be a strange paradox in other ways. Suppose my actions were combating crime. If I truly wanted all mankind to combat crime, if that was the purpose I chose for all humans, my end goal would be to effectively render meaningless that which I thought the ideal purpose. By that I mean, if all humans were meant to combat crime and did, there would be no crime. At that point all of humankind would have no purpose. In some ways, those that choose justice as the purpose of man, need others who choose crime to ensure the existence of their meaning.
You have to include the specific circumstance, with all variables included. In the assumption that humankind is making the decisions you have to make, they are doing so in the face of your circumstances. You're not saying "literally everyone should be a baker." You're saying "In this specific individual circumstance, I believe my choice is what I would wish of any human to choose, were they me, here."
The principle which we would universalise is not “we should all be moral philosophers” but rather “we should choose the job that is authentic/best etc” or something like that. It’s the same for choosing to eat pizza not steak. The principle is not “only eat pizza” but “eat what is pleasurable” or something like that
Such a vicious thinking ...
Sartre fails to acknowledge the significant differences in environments that enables or prevents an individual to ameliorate their essence.
Feminism has to a degree enabled some improvements regarding inequality within the patriarchy.
Activists have also made minor steps to change the environment to ameliorate access for the less able.
However, the continuing world wide Eurocentric bias still places significant barriers that prevent a demographic to achieve said improvements and changes within their essence.
Philosophy is the ongoing word salad of the European bourgeoisie.
*Philosophy is the ongoing word salad of the European bourgeoisie.* - You mustn't know much about philosophy if you think you can reduce it to that. Not to mention that it does nothing to argue against those philosophies, only shows your disdain for them.