What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賲匕賴亘 廿賳爻丕賳賷
It was to correct common misconceptions about his thought that Sartre accepted an invitation to speak on October 29, 1945, at the Club Maintenant in Paris. The unstated objective of his lecture (Existentialism Is a Humanism鈥�) was to expound his philosophy as a form of "existentialism鈥�, a term much bandied about at the time. Sartre asserted that existentialism was essentially a doctrine for philosophers, though, ironically, he was about to make it accessible to a general audience.听The published text of his lecture听quickly became one of the bibles of existentialism and made Sartre an international celebrity.
The idea of freedom occupies the center of Sartre鈥檚 doctrine. Man, born into an empty, godless universe, is nothing to begin with. He creates his essence鈥攈is self, his being鈥攖hrough the choices he freely makes ("existence precedes essence鈥�). Were it not for the contingency of his death, he would never end. Choosing to be this or that is to affirm the value of what we choose. In choosing, therefore, we commit not only ourselves but all of mankind.
This edition of Existentialism Is a Humanism is a translation of the听1996 French听edition, which includes Arlette Elka茂m-Sartre鈥檚 introduction and听a Q&A with Sartre about his lecture. Paired with "Existentialism Is a Humanism鈥� is another seminal Sartre text, his commentary on Camus鈥檚 The Stranger. In her foreword, intended for an American audience, acclaimed Sartre biographer Annie Cohen-Solal offers an assessment of both works.
The idea of freedom occupies the center of Sartre鈥檚 doctrine. Man, born into an empty, godless universe, is nothing to begin with. He creates his essence鈥攈is self, his being鈥攖hrough the choices he freely makes ("existence precedes essence鈥�). Were it not for the contingency of his death, he would never end. Choosing to be this or that is to affirm the value of what we choose. In choosing, therefore, we commit not only ourselves but all of mankind.
This edition of Existentialism Is a Humanism is a translation of the听1996 French听edition, which includes Arlette Elka茂m-Sartre鈥檚 introduction and听a Q&A with Sartre about his lecture. Paired with "Existentialism Is a Humanism鈥� is another seminal Sartre text, his commentary on Camus鈥檚 The Stranger. In her foreword, intended for an American audience, acclaimed Sartre biographer Annie Cohen-Solal offers an assessment of both works.
105 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1946
1656 people are currently reading
81089 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Paul Sartre
905听books12.3k听followersJean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'脢tre et le N茅ant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'脢tre et le N茅ant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,474 reviews
January 15, 2021
Man is nothing other than what he makes of himself.
鈥� Jean-Paul Sartre
If you're interested in Existentialism, this is the book you should dive into. You will find an energetic Sartre defending his views on many subjects. I was immediately drawn to one opinion in particular: existentialism emphasizes what is despicable about the world. I have read that before. Most people apparently want to read about beauty and bliss and puppies and all those things that are part of one side of our reality. Denying the ugliness of the world doesn't vanish it at all. It is there in all its glory regardless of how fast you close your eyes. Some authors have been labeled as violent freaks, racists or misogynists because they wrote about those particulas issues鈥攖he cruelty and selfishness that also characterize human beings鈥攁s if they were more than mere narrators. Some people mistake honesty with a defense of whatever the awful subject the book deals with. Speaking about it doesn't justify it.
I have already wrote about Sartre's beautiful and accessible writing while reviewing . This book is no exception. I also found a subtle humor that made the reading experience even more enjoyable.
Those who easily stomach a Zola novel like "The Earth" are sickened when they open an existentialist novel. (19)
I am quite intrigued by that, now.
Sartre felt the need to make a statement in favor of this doctrine. Why do people criticize it? Perhaps because they have read about it and know what it is all about. Others because they have heard about it... And that is much more common than most of us think. We tend to judge what we don't know. And in most cases we don't even bother in getting to know it. We judge and we fear. And we talk. That is why Sartre asked and answered the following question: "What, then, is 'existentialism'?" He then started by explaining one of the most important principles of the doctrine: existence precedes essence. That alone might sound confusing, however, Sartre's masterful use of metaphors and engaging prose made it all possible.
In a universe where there is not a god, man is born empty without a specific purpose. He creates his own essence while making decisions based on the well-known concept of freedom. A thing every man and woman pursuits but few would be able to handle.
Freedom without God. Without that sense of protection. Because we do feel safe if we are only acting according to something that has been decided before we were born. Every awful consequence would not be our fault. Nevertheless, in a world sans God, we become a little lonely dot with nothing above us but stars. And that's a horrifying thought. Liberating, terrifying.
The author later affirmed that when man makes a choice, he doesn't make it just for himself but for all humanity. Those choices reflect what we think a man should be. Try not to feel pressured for the great responsibility that represents making choices that concerns all people in the planet.
Choosing to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can he good for any of us unless it is good for all. (24)
Debatable.
There are certain words that people use to reach the conclusion that existentialism is a depressing way to look at the world: anguish, abandonment, despair. They are all related to what the author explained about man's existence in a godless world. A man who is aware of the fact that he is responsible for himself and for the rest of humanity. That kind of responsibility surely creates anguish, but it does not prevent men from acting. As for the abandonment issue, it's not as negative as it sounds. He simply meant that if God doesn't exist, then we are alone without excuses. We are alone and free. That thought led him to one of the most memorable lines of the book:
That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. (29)
Freedom has been defined as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. From a certain perspective, Sartre made his point. Without God, everything is permissible. However, the freedom (or lack of it) we have to deal with every day, the freedom that is far away from the abstraction of a concept, that entails earthly matters such as work, people, love, well... that is another issue. The absence of necessity is too rare.
Can a person be happy while knowing that he is free because there is no God but, at the same time, not so free because he is a victim of some system? Just like there are several concepts of freedom, there are many factors that restrict them, making the man feel like a powerless individual immersed in a situation he cannot complain about without being replaced in a heartbeat.
On one hand, we are condemned to be free; on the other, freedom is apparently nothing more than theory, something we experience by convincing ourselves that we are free while being constrained by political or economical factors (Locke explained it with much more precise words).
Yes. There is an answer for every aspect of the term. We can be free or we can convince ourselves that we are. Birds still sing while they spend their lives in a cage鈥攚hether it is because of joy or plea, that is another matter.
There is another interesting passage about signs. We often look for them while going through a difficult situation. Sartre skillfully explained that we are the ones who find a particular meaning in those signs. They may mean something different for everybody; in any case, said meaning is determined by us.
This is what "abandonment" implies: it is we, ourselves, who decide who we are to he. (34)
The last word used to describe existentialism was 鈥渄espair鈥�. That alone, yes, it doesn't sound so pleasant. Even so, by adding some context to it... still, it doesn't sound good. I had some trouble trying to digest this idea.
It means that we must limit ourselves to reckoning only with those things that depend on our will, or on the set of probabilities that enable action... From the moment that the possibilities I am considering cease to be rigorously engaged by my action, I must no longer take interest in them, for no God or greater design can bend the world and its possibilities to my will. In the final analysis, when Descartes said "Conquer yourself rather than the world," he actually meant the same thing: we should act without hope. (35)
From a practical point of view, the time we spend hoping for a result is time wasted. Sartre encourages us to act. To do something in order to achieve what we want and not to wait for others to do it for us; people or a superior being, whichever the case may be. Reality exists only in action.
By the end of the book, there is a commentary on . Do not miss it.
If you are new to Sartre's philosophy, then this remarkable essay would be a perfect introduction.
It's not only a book that sheds some light on the matter and rectifies many misconceptions, but also a book which gently encourages you to do some serious introspection. Shall we?
Stop for a minute. Breathe. Take a look around. Look back; contemplate your present. Where are you right now? Are you the person you have always wanted to be?
"Get up, take subway, work four hours at the office or plant, eat, take subway, work four hours, eat, sleep鈥擬onday-Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday-Friday-Saturday鈥攁lways the same routine..." (77)
Now tell me, I'm dying to know. Do you feel free?
April '14
* Also on .
February 1, 2012
have you ever noticed that when you are at rock bottom nothing makes you feel better quite as much as Sartre telling you that if your life is screwed up it's your own damn fault.
April 29, 2025
鈥�There is no reality except in action鈥�
Speaking of action, I鈥檝e got some happening book action for you. Check this: taken from his lecture at Club Maintenant in Paris, in 1945, Existentialism is a Humanism is Jean-Paul Sartre鈥檚 rather succinct expressions of existentialism through a rebuttal of criticisms and an effort to examine key notions of his work such as 鈥�existence precedes essence.鈥� Sounds great, right? Get ready for a riveting read my friends! To tell the truth, I can鈥檛 help but imagine Sartre鈥檚 lectures as how he was satirically portrayed in (Michel Gondry鈥檚 film adaptation of 鈥檚 ):
Jean-Sol Partre, as he is named in the film, delivers his lecture above adoring fans standing in a smoker鈥檚 pipe that moves about the room, everyone hollering like are attending a rock concert as another character scrambles to take notes yelling that the lecture is difficult but worthwhile. I regret to inform you this book is not quite that level of uproarious excitement, but it is still a fascinating and highly intelligent analysis of a rather freeing and optimistic philosophy. 鈥�[N]o doctrine is more optimistic, since it declares that man鈥檚 destiny lies within himself.鈥� See? If you are looking for great introductory texts to French Existentialism, put this in your pipe and smoke it because it is an apt selection (鈥檚 What is Existentialism? as well). And get your pens ready to underline because I left nary a page unmarked as Sartre has such noteworthy, snappy phrasing (though neurobiologist would argue that Sartre鈥檚 writing was 鈥�more an exercise in political sloganeering than a sustainable philosophical position,鈥� in his book ) and the book is delivered in a rather welcoming and accessible approach (other than when he鈥檚 kind of a pompous ass, but in a cool way?). Unpopular book aesthetic opinion but, yes, I underline books and I write in the margins. I also dog ear them. I can hear some of you shrieking but, personally, I like the practice for when I need some quotes to write (like now) and I think it makes books look all edgy and kind of punk. It鈥檚 like you are getting your books tattooed. They鈥檙e taking a deep drag off a cigarette and saying in a throaty voice 鈥測ea I look rough but it鈥檚 because I鈥檝e been loved--love hurts but it makes it all worthwhile.鈥� and you are like woah reign it in a little bit, my friend, but I follow ya I think. Sartre would say you鈥檙e actions towards love are what you want to see in all humans and the meaning you have ascribed to life, so already we鈥檝e learned a lesson from this book. Good work us, lets see what other treasure troves of knowledge we can discover! [insert bass-heavy show theme and a cartoon dog saying 鈥淏rought to you by PBS!鈥漖
鈥�Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself.鈥�
You didn鈥檛 just scroll by that quote did you? Go back, read it again like it鈥檚 the first time. Pretty great stuff, and according to Sartre 鈥�that is the first principle of existentialism.鈥� We are learning up a storm in here. So what Sartre really wants to impress upon us is that people define meaning for themselves through their actions, which they are fully responsible for, and that through our action we also define the world. This is the idea that 鈥�existence precedes essence,鈥� which means that 鈥�man first exists鈥� by coming into the world, encountering themself and then thusly defining themself. To help illustrate, Sartre proposes we imagine a paper knife. Cool man, not a dated reference at all (think 鈥渓etter opener鈥� if you are struggling). He says that when it is built, it is made around with preconceived ideas of how it will be used, or that 鈥�production precedes essence.鈥� Humans, he argues, are the opposite. We 鈥�exist first,鈥� that we start fresh and blank and define ourselves through actions. Existentialists reject the idea of people being like a paper knife with god as 鈥�the artisan鈥�, and following stating that 鈥�god is dead,鈥� we have to consider the idea of an absence of god. Sartre splits existentialists up between two group, Christian existentialists (he cites and ) and atheist existentialsts, which he says includes and himself.
We need to pause a moment because it鈥檚 important to note that Heidegger was not into Sartre writing this and did not want to be labeled an existentialist under Sartre鈥檚 definition of one. You may have heard about Camus refusing the categorization for , but Heidegger was actually news to me. He didn鈥檛 mind Sartre referring to him as an atheist, but rejected the label of existentialist under Sartre鈥檚 depiction of it. While both philosophers addressed the concept of Being, a very basic difference is how Heidegger questioned the meaning of Being, whereas Sartre examined different ways of Being in the world. There are many other differences, such as Heidegger argued life exists in a wholeness because of death, which allows for meaning, while Sartre thought this put too much emphasis on death and saw it instead as the endpoint to our ability to give meaning into our lives. About this book, Heidegger said he thinks Sartre 鈥�stays with metaphysics in oblivion of the truth of Being鈥� Anyways, where were we? Oh yes, atheist existentialists:
Sartre discusses how existentialism removes any universal code that applies a definite meaning and in its place 鈥�Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.鈥� We exist 鈥�only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life.鈥� We are what we do, what we become, and there is no external force or invisible eternal being dictating this in Sartre鈥檚 eyes. But this isn鈥檛 strictly a dismissal of the possibility of god but merely that 鈥�if God were to exist, it would make no difference,鈥� and belief in a god or not is irrelevant when the issue is that people must discover themselves and nobody can save them but themselves. So where Jean-Paul would tell us that we are defined by actions, Jean-Luc would tell us to 鈥�make it so.鈥�
鈥�It is a doctrine of action,and it is only in bad faith鈥攊n confusing their own despair with ours鈥攖hat Christians are able to assert that we are 鈥渨ithout hope.鈥�鈥�
Sartre dispels the common criticisms levied at existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, arguing that it is the critics who are the true pessimists. He argues that claims existentialism discourages people from actions and only focuses on the darker parts of life is intentionally misunderstanding that 鈥�only hope resides鈥� in the actions of an existentialist as it is action creating all meaning. He also refutes that the philosophy rejects responsibility for humanity, saying existentialism is a commitment that each person is 鈥�responsible for myself and for everyone else,鈥� that in 鈥�choosing myself, I choose man鈥� because when we choose our actions we choose what believe good and believe that reflects what is good for humanity. I see what he鈥檚 getting at here, and it鈥檚 not my favorite of his points. This will later be important in his discussion on choosing actions that support freedom and freedom for everyone, which I believe Beauvoir does a much better and more detailed discourse on in The Ethics of Ambiguity. More on this in a bit.
鈥�We seek to base our doctrine on truth, not on comforting theories full of hope but without any real foundation.鈥�
Still with me? Still learning? Because now we get some key terms! Sartre launches into a discussion on three terms and his definitions for them: anguish, abandonment, and despair. I know, I told you this was an optimistic philosophy but hold on, let鈥檚 see what he means by them.
Here is his definition for anguish :
We were basically just talking about this, but now with the emphasis on responsibility that what we choose as our actions should be what we believe would be what everyone should also be choosing. He briefly discusses the issue of actions such as Abraham in the Bible via 鈥檚 and that just because Abraham heard a voice, it was his responsibility because he chose to listen when that voice could have also been a demon or hallucination. We have to own up to our actions, basically, and all actions are our interpretations of symbols and events, but ultimately our choice.
Next is abandonment which Sartre explains 鈥�we merely mean to say that God does not exist, and that we must bear the full consequences of that assertion,鈥� and that it is 鈥�we, ourselves, who decide who we are to be.鈥� Basically everything we鈥檝e been discussing. He cites 鈥檚 famous line from the 鈥�if God is dead, everything is permitted,鈥� and calls it a starting point of philosophy, though personally I much prefer Beauvoir鈥檚 arguments against this asserting life is not a nihilistic free-for-all and existentialism can, in fact, provide an ethic for positive and productive living.
Finally we reach despair. Don鈥檛 get too excited. Despair means we have to reckon with only what depends on our will. 鈥�When Descartes said 鈥楥onquer yourself rather than the world鈥�, what he meant was, at bottom, the same 鈥� that we should act without hope.鈥� Which sounds bleak but basically he鈥檚 saying we cant rely on anything outside our control but that this shouldn鈥檛 cause us to abandon action because there is no reality except in action.
鈥�Life is nothing until it is lived.鈥�
One of my favorite discussions in this book, however, is his metaphor of a person like a painting, or 鈥�that moral choice is like constructing a work of art.鈥� We can鈥檛 judge a painting before it has begun or even before it is finished, we don鈥檛 know what it is yet to be, and the act of painting is like our actions that define us. 鈥�We are in the same creative situation.鈥� he says. 鈥�What are and morality have in common is creation and invention鈥� I also enjoy his assertions on how we are 鈥�obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as I will my own. I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal.鈥� Those who do not will the freedom of others are acting in bad faith (this comes up a lot, and he argues we can judge people who act in bad faith). Though, as I said earlier, this is better addressed in The Ethics of Ambiguity and I would encourage any of you to read that.
But finally we reach why he believes existentialism is a humanism, a 鈥�existential humanism.鈥� Here鈥檚 what he means by that:
He argues this is different than a definition that all humankind is inherently valuable, and that this is cultish and that because 鈥�man is constantly in the making,鈥� there is no defined 鈥�humankind.鈥� His definition is that people act towards goals and values outside themselves in order to make something meaningful out of their existence in relation to the world. He calls this humanism because 鈥�the only universe that exists is鈥he universe of human subjectivity.鈥�
This is an interesting book and a really nice primer for both Sartre鈥檚 philosophies and existentialism itself, though I would encourage anyone to also read more than just this as each philosopher had different opinions and often disagreed with each other (there is a great Q&A session in this book that offers some discussions and Sartre getting flustered). I like a lot of what he says, I wish he didn鈥檛 gender everything as man, but it was the times and translator, thats what it is. I also quite enjoyed his essay on 鈥� , which he says is a great representation of the absurd and is a comical book, as well as compares the writing style to . This is a nice volume with a lot of big ideas to grapple with, though it is a rather accessible introductory book and will make for a nice cozy evening of existentialism. Because it鈥檚 about to be Hot Existentialist Summer, you鈥檝e been warned.
鈪�
鈥�This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does.鈥�
Speaking of action, I鈥檝e got some happening book action for you. Check this: taken from his lecture at Club Maintenant in Paris, in 1945, Existentialism is a Humanism is Jean-Paul Sartre鈥檚 rather succinct expressions of existentialism through a rebuttal of criticisms and an effort to examine key notions of his work such as 鈥�existence precedes essence.鈥� Sounds great, right? Get ready for a riveting read my friends! To tell the truth, I can鈥檛 help but imagine Sartre鈥檚 lectures as how he was satirically portrayed in (Michel Gondry鈥檚 film adaptation of 鈥檚 ):
Jean-Sol Partre, as he is named in the film, delivers his lecture above adoring fans standing in a smoker鈥檚 pipe that moves about the room, everyone hollering like are attending a rock concert as another character scrambles to take notes yelling that the lecture is difficult but worthwhile. I regret to inform you this book is not quite that level of uproarious excitement, but it is still a fascinating and highly intelligent analysis of a rather freeing and optimistic philosophy. 鈥�[N]o doctrine is more optimistic, since it declares that man鈥檚 destiny lies within himself.鈥� See? If you are looking for great introductory texts to French Existentialism, put this in your pipe and smoke it because it is an apt selection (鈥檚 What is Existentialism? as well). And get your pens ready to underline because I left nary a page unmarked as Sartre has such noteworthy, snappy phrasing (though neurobiologist would argue that Sartre鈥檚 writing was 鈥�more an exercise in political sloganeering than a sustainable philosophical position,鈥� in his book ) and the book is delivered in a rather welcoming and accessible approach (other than when he鈥檚 kind of a pompous ass, but in a cool way?). Unpopular book aesthetic opinion but, yes, I underline books and I write in the margins. I also dog ear them. I can hear some of you shrieking but, personally, I like the practice for when I need some quotes to write (like now) and I think it makes books look all edgy and kind of punk. It鈥檚 like you are getting your books tattooed. They鈥檙e taking a deep drag off a cigarette and saying in a throaty voice 鈥測ea I look rough but it鈥檚 because I鈥檝e been loved--love hurts but it makes it all worthwhile.鈥� and you are like woah reign it in a little bit, my friend, but I follow ya I think. Sartre would say you鈥檙e actions towards love are what you want to see in all humans and the meaning you have ascribed to life, so already we鈥檝e learned a lesson from this book. Good work us, lets see what other treasure troves of knowledge we can discover! [insert bass-heavy show theme and a cartoon dog saying 鈥淏rought to you by PBS!鈥漖
鈥�Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself.鈥�
You didn鈥檛 just scroll by that quote did you? Go back, read it again like it鈥檚 the first time. Pretty great stuff, and according to Sartre 鈥�that is the first principle of existentialism.鈥� We are learning up a storm in here. So what Sartre really wants to impress upon us is that people define meaning for themselves through their actions, which they are fully responsible for, and that through our action we also define the world. This is the idea that 鈥�existence precedes essence,鈥� which means that 鈥�man first exists鈥� by coming into the world, encountering themself and then thusly defining themself. To help illustrate, Sartre proposes we imagine a paper knife. Cool man, not a dated reference at all (think 鈥渓etter opener鈥� if you are struggling). He says that when it is built, it is made around with preconceived ideas of how it will be used, or that 鈥�production precedes essence.鈥� Humans, he argues, are the opposite. We 鈥�exist first,鈥� that we start fresh and blank and define ourselves through actions. Existentialists reject the idea of people being like a paper knife with god as 鈥�the artisan鈥�, and following stating that 鈥�god is dead,鈥� we have to consider the idea of an absence of god. Sartre splits existentialists up between two group, Christian existentialists (he cites and ) and atheist existentialsts, which he says includes and himself.
We need to pause a moment because it鈥檚 important to note that Heidegger was not into Sartre writing this and did not want to be labeled an existentialist under Sartre鈥檚 definition of one. You may have heard about Camus refusing the categorization for , but Heidegger was actually news to me. He didn鈥檛 mind Sartre referring to him as an atheist, but rejected the label of existentialist under Sartre鈥檚 depiction of it. While both philosophers addressed the concept of Being, a very basic difference is how Heidegger questioned the meaning of Being, whereas Sartre examined different ways of Being in the world. There are many other differences, such as Heidegger argued life exists in a wholeness because of death, which allows for meaning, while Sartre thought this put too much emphasis on death and saw it instead as the endpoint to our ability to give meaning into our lives. About this book, Heidegger said he thinks Sartre 鈥�stays with metaphysics in oblivion of the truth of Being鈥� Anyways, where were we? Oh yes, atheist existentialists:
鈥�Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself鈥f God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior.鈥�
Sartre discusses how existentialism removes any universal code that applies a definite meaning and in its place 鈥�Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.鈥� We exist 鈥�only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life.鈥� We are what we do, what we become, and there is no external force or invisible eternal being dictating this in Sartre鈥檚 eyes. But this isn鈥檛 strictly a dismissal of the possibility of god but merely that 鈥�if God were to exist, it would make no difference,鈥� and belief in a god or not is irrelevant when the issue is that people must discover themselves and nobody can save them but themselves. So where Jean-Paul would tell us that we are defined by actions, Jean-Luc would tell us to 鈥�make it so.鈥�
鈥�It is a doctrine of action,and it is only in bad faith鈥攊n confusing their own despair with ours鈥攖hat Christians are able to assert that we are 鈥渨ithout hope.鈥�鈥�
Sartre dispels the common criticisms levied at existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, arguing that it is the critics who are the true pessimists. He argues that claims existentialism discourages people from actions and only focuses on the darker parts of life is intentionally misunderstanding that 鈥�only hope resides鈥� in the actions of an existentialist as it is action creating all meaning. He also refutes that the philosophy rejects responsibility for humanity, saying existentialism is a commitment that each person is 鈥�responsible for myself and for everyone else,鈥� that in 鈥�choosing myself, I choose man鈥� because when we choose our actions we choose what believe good and believe that reflects what is good for humanity. I see what he鈥檚 getting at here, and it鈥檚 not my favorite of his points. This will later be important in his discussion on choosing actions that support freedom and freedom for everyone, which I believe Beauvoir does a much better and more detailed discourse on in The Ethics of Ambiguity. More on this in a bit.
鈥�We seek to base our doctrine on truth, not on comforting theories full of hope but without any real foundation.鈥�
Still with me? Still learning? Because now we get some key terms! Sartre launches into a discussion on three terms and his definitions for them: anguish, abandonment, and despair. I know, I told you this was an optimistic philosophy but hold on, let鈥檚 see what he means by them.
Here is his definition for anguish :
鈥�a man who commits himself, and who realizes that he is not only the individual that he chooses to be, but also a legislator choosing at the same time what humanity as a whole should be, cannot help but be aware of his own full and profound responsibility鈥�
We were basically just talking about this, but now with the emphasis on responsibility that what we choose as our actions should be what we believe would be what everyone should also be choosing. He briefly discusses the issue of actions such as Abraham in the Bible via 鈥檚 and that just because Abraham heard a voice, it was his responsibility because he chose to listen when that voice could have also been a demon or hallucination. We have to own up to our actions, basically, and all actions are our interpretations of symbols and events, but ultimately our choice.
Next is abandonment which Sartre explains 鈥�we merely mean to say that God does not exist, and that we must bear the full consequences of that assertion,鈥� and that it is 鈥�we, ourselves, who decide who we are to be.鈥� Basically everything we鈥檝e been discussing. He cites 鈥檚 famous line from the 鈥�if God is dead, everything is permitted,鈥� and calls it a starting point of philosophy, though personally I much prefer Beauvoir鈥檚 arguments against this asserting life is not a nihilistic free-for-all and existentialism can, in fact, provide an ethic for positive and productive living.
Finally we reach despair. Don鈥檛 get too excited. Despair means we have to reckon with only what depends on our will. 鈥�When Descartes said 鈥楥onquer yourself rather than the world鈥�, what he meant was, at bottom, the same 鈥� that we should act without hope.鈥� Which sounds bleak but basically he鈥檚 saying we cant rely on anything outside our control but that this shouldn鈥檛 cause us to abandon action because there is no reality except in action.
鈥�Life is nothing until it is lived.鈥�
One of my favorite discussions in this book, however, is his metaphor of a person like a painting, or 鈥�that moral choice is like constructing a work of art.鈥� We can鈥檛 judge a painting before it has begun or even before it is finished, we don鈥檛 know what it is yet to be, and the act of painting is like our actions that define us. 鈥�We are in the same creative situation.鈥� he says. 鈥�What are and morality have in common is creation and invention鈥� I also enjoy his assertions on how we are 鈥�obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as I will my own. I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal.鈥� Those who do not will the freedom of others are acting in bad faith (this comes up a lot, and he argues we can judge people who act in bad faith). Though, as I said earlier, this is better addressed in The Ethics of Ambiguity and I would encourage any of you to read that.
But finally we reach why he believes existentialism is a humanism, a 鈥�existential humanism.鈥� Here鈥檚 what he means by that:
鈥�This is humanism because we remind man that there is no legislator other than himself and that he must, in his abandoned state, make his own choices, and also because we show that it is not by turning inward, but by constantly seeking a goal outside of himself in the form of liberation, or of some special achievement, that man will realize himself as truly human.
He argues this is different than a definition that all humankind is inherently valuable, and that this is cultish and that because 鈥�man is constantly in the making,鈥� there is no defined 鈥�humankind.鈥� His definition is that people act towards goals and values outside themselves in order to make something meaningful out of their existence in relation to the world. He calls this humanism because 鈥�the only universe that exists is鈥he universe of human subjectivity.鈥�
This is an interesting book and a really nice primer for both Sartre鈥檚 philosophies and existentialism itself, though I would encourage anyone to also read more than just this as each philosopher had different opinions and often disagreed with each other (there is a great Q&A session in this book that offers some discussions and Sartre getting flustered). I like a lot of what he says, I wish he didn鈥檛 gender everything as man, but it was the times and translator, thats what it is. I also quite enjoyed his essay on 鈥� , which he says is a great representation of the absurd and is a comical book, as well as compares the writing style to . This is a nice volume with a lot of big ideas to grapple with, though it is a rather accessible introductory book and will make for a nice cozy evening of existentialism. Because it鈥檚 about to be Hot Existentialist Summer, you鈥檝e been warned.
鈪�
鈥�This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does.鈥�
October 9, 2021
L'Existentialisme est un Humanisme = Existentialism Is a Humanism = Existentialism, by Jean-Paul Sartre
Existentialism Is a Humanism is a 1946 work by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, based on a lecture by the same name he gave at Club Maintenant in Paris, on 29 October 1945.
In early translations, Existentialism and Humanism was the title used in the United Kingdom; the work was originally published in the United States as Existentialism, and a later translation employs the original title.
The work, once influential and a popular starting-point in discussions of Existentialist thought, has been criticized by several philosophers. Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 丿乇 賲丕賴 丌诏賵爻鬲 爻丕賱 1992賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賵 丕氐丕賱鬲 亘卮乇貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 跇丕賳 倬賱 爻丕乇鬲乇貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲氐胤賮蹖 乇丨蹖賲蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲乇賵丕乇蹖丿貙 1354貨 丿乇 109 氐貨 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲 1361貨 趩丕倬 丿賴賲 1380貨 卮丕亘讴 9644480236貨 趩丕倬 爻蹖夭丿賴賲 1389貨 卮丕亘讴: 978964480232貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 - 爻丿賴 20賲
爻丕乇鬲乇 賲蹖诏賵蹖賳丿: (丌賳趩賴 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丌丿賲蹖丕賳 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫必� 芦囟乇賵乇鬲 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 亘賵丿賳禄貙 芦丿乇 噩賴丕賳 讴丕乇 讴乇丿賳禄貙 芦丿乇 噩賴丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 夭蹖爻鬲賳禄貙 賵 丿乇 丌賳 賮丕賳蹖 卮丿賳 丕爻鬲貙 丕蹖賳賴丕 賴賲 噩賳亘賴 蹖 毓蹖賳蹖貙 賵 賴賲 匕賴賳蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貨 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇 噩賳亘賴 蹖 毓蹖賳蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貙 讴賴 賴賲賴 噩丕 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 噩丕 亘丕夭 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賱丨丕馗 噩賳亘賴 蹖 匕賴賳蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貙 讴賴 亘丕 亘卮乇 夭賳丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貙 賵 丕诏乇 亘卮乇 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 夭賳丿賴 賳丿丕乇丿 - 蹖毓賳蹖 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 賵噩賵丿貙 乇丕亘胤賴 蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丌夭丕丿丕賳賴 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賳讴賳丿 - 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿)貨 倬丕蹖丕賳 賳賯賱
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 08/08/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 16/07/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Existentialism Is a Humanism is a 1946 work by the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, based on a lecture by the same name he gave at Club Maintenant in Paris, on 29 October 1945.
In early translations, Existentialism and Humanism was the title used in the United Kingdom; the work was originally published in the United States as Existentialism, and a later translation employs the original title.
The work, once influential and a popular starting-point in discussions of Existentialist thought, has been criticized by several philosophers. Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 丿乇 賲丕賴 丌诏賵爻鬲 爻丕賱 1992賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賵 丕氐丕賱鬲 亘卮乇貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 跇丕賳 倬賱 爻丕乇鬲乇貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲氐胤賮蹖 乇丨蹖賲蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲乇賵丕乇蹖丿貙 1354貨 丿乇 109 氐貨 趩丕倬 賴卮鬲賲 1361貨 趩丕倬 丿賴賲 1380貨 卮丕亘讴 9644480236貨 趩丕倬 爻蹖夭丿賴賲 1389貨 卮丕亘讴: 978964480232貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 賮乇丕賳爻賴 - 爻丿賴 20賲
爻丕乇鬲乇 賲蹖诏賵蹖賳丿: (丌賳趩賴 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丌丿賲蹖丕賳 鬲賮丕賵鬲 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫必� 芦囟乇賵乇鬲 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 亘賵丿賳禄貙 芦丿乇 噩賴丕賳 讴丕乇 讴乇丿賳禄貙 芦丿乇 噩賴丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 夭蹖爻鬲賳禄貙 賵 丿乇 丌賳 賮丕賳蹖 卮丿賳 丕爻鬲貙 丕蹖賳賴丕 賴賲 噩賳亘賴 蹖 毓蹖賳蹖貙 賵 賴賲 匕賴賳蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貨 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳馗乇 噩賳亘賴 蹖 毓蹖賳蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貙 讴賴 賴賲賴 噩丕 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 噩丕 亘丕夭 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賱丨丕馗 噩賳亘賴 蹖 匕賴賳蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貙 讴賴 亘丕 亘卮乇 夭賳丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貙 賵 丕诏乇 亘卮乇 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 夭賳丿賴 賳丿丕乇丿 - 蹖毓賳蹖 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 賵噩賵丿貙 乇丕亘胤賴 蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丌夭丕丿丕賳賴 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丌賳鈥屬囏� 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賳讴賳丿 - 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲賳丿)貨 倬丕蹖丕賳 賳賯賱
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 08/08/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 16/07/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
October 3, 2020
兀賳丕 兀賮賰賾乇 廿匕賸丕 兀賳丕 賲賵噩賵丿
賴賰匕丕 乇丕丨 爻丕乇鬲乇 賵噩丕亍 賷毓乇囟 賵賷賮賳丿 賵賷賳丕賯卮
賵賴匕賴 丕賱賱丕賮鬲丞 賱丕 鬲賮丕乇賯 賷丿賴
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 丕賱兀爻丕爻 鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賲丨丕囟乇丞 賲賳 賲丨丕囟乇丕鬲 爻丕乇鬲乇
賵賯丿 丕賴鬲賲 賰孬賷乇丕 賮賷賴丕 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 毓賱賶 賳賯胤丞 兀賳 丨乇賷丞 丕賱賮乇丿 賲爻卅賵賱賷丞
賵兀賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賱爻賮丞 鬲兀賲賱賷丞 賮賯胤
亘賱 賴賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨孬 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 兀賳 賷氐賳毓 賵賷賮毓賱
賵丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賱丕 鬲丨乇氐 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賲賱 賰孬賷乇丕
賵賱賷爻鬲 匕賱賰 爻賵丿丕賵賷丞 賮賷賴丕
賵賱賰賳 賱兀賳 丕賱兀賲賱 賷丐丿賷 亘丕賱賮乇丿 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲乇丕禺賷 賵毓丿賲 廿賳噩丕夭 毓賲賱賴 亘丕賱噩賴丿 賵丕賱賲賴丕乇丞 丕賱賰丕賮賷賷賳
賮乇賯 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賷賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱賲丐賲賳
丕賱匕賷 賷丐賲賳 亘兀賳 丕賱賲丕賴賷丞 爻亘賯鬲 丕賱賵噩賵丿
"賵 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱賲賱丨丿 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷丐賲賳 亘"賮賰乇丞 丕賱賱賴
賵毓賳丿賴 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賴賳丕 賷爻亘賯 丕賱賲丕賴賷丞
賵卮乇丨 匕賱賰 亘賯賵賱賴
賴賰匕丕 乇丕丨 爻丕乇鬲乇 賵噩丕亍 賷毓乇囟 賵賷賮賳丿 賵賷賳丕賯卮
賵賴匕賴 丕賱賱丕賮鬲丞 賱丕 鬲賮丕乇賯 賷丿賴
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮賷 丕賱兀爻丕爻 鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賲丨丕囟乇丞 賲賳 賲丨丕囟乇丕鬲 爻丕乇鬲乇
賵賯丿 丕賴鬲賲 賰孬賷乇丕 賮賷賴丕 亘丕賱鬲兀賰賷丿 毓賱賶 賳賯胤丞 兀賳 丨乇賷丞 丕賱賮乇丿 賲爻卅賵賱賷丞
賵兀賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賱賷爻鬲 賮賱爻賮丞 鬲兀賲賱賷丞 賮賯胤
亘賱 賴賷 丕賱鬲賷 鬲丨孬 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賱賶 兀賳 賷氐賳毓 賵賷賮毓賱
賵丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賱丕 鬲丨乇氐 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賲賱 賰孬賷乇丕
賵賱賷爻鬲 匕賱賰 爻賵丿丕賵賷丞 賮賷賴丕
賵賱賰賳 賱兀賳 丕賱兀賲賱 賷丐丿賷 亘丕賱賮乇丿 廿賱賶 丕賱鬲乇丕禺賷 賵毓丿賲 廿賳噩丕夭 毓賲賱賴 亘丕賱噩賴丿 賵丕賱賲賴丕乇丞 丕賱賰丕賮賷賷賳
廿賳 賴丿賮賷 賴賳丕 賴賵 丕賱丿賮丕毓 毓賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 囟丿 賰賱 賲丕 賷賵噩賴 廿賱賷賴丕 賲賳 丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲
賮賴賲 賷鬲賴賲賵賳賴丕 兀賵賱丕 亘兀賳賴丕 丿毓賵丞 賱賱兀爻鬲爻賱丕賲 賱賱賷兀爻
賱兀賳賴 賲丕 丿丕賲鬲 賰賱 丕賱丨賱賵賱 賲爻鬲丨賷賱丞
賮廿賳 丕賱毓賲賱 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賲爻鬲丨賷賱 賰匕賱賰 賵賱丕 噩丿賵賷 賲賳賴
賵丨賷賳卅匕 鬲賰賵賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賮賱爻賮丞 鬲兀賲賱賷丞
賵賲丕丿丕賲 丕賱鬲兀賲賱 乇賮丕賴賷賴 賵賲賳 賰賲丕賱賷丕鬲 丕賱丨賷丕丞
賮賴賷 賱賳 鬲賰賵賳 爻賵賷 賮賱爻賮丞 亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 鬲囟丕賮 丕賱賷 丕賱賮賱爻賮丕鬲 丕賱亘乇噩賵丕夭賷丞 丕賱兀禺乇賷.
廿賳賾 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷賾丞 賮賱爻賮丞 賲鬲賮丕卅賱丞
賱兀賳賴丕 賮賷 氐賲賷賲賴丕 鬲囟毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲賵丕噩賴賭賸丕 賱匕丕鬲賴
丨乇賸丕
賷禺鬲丕乇 賱鬲賮爻賴 賲丕賷卮丕亍
賮乇賯 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賷賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱賲丐賲賳
丕賱匕賷 賷丐賲賳 亘兀賳 丕賱賲丕賴賷丞 爻亘賯鬲 丕賱賵噩賵丿
"賵 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 毓賳丿 丕賱賲賱丨丿 丕賱匕賷 賱丕 賷丐賲賳 亘"賮賰乇丞 丕賱賱賴
賵毓賳丿賴 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賴賳丕 賷爻亘賯 丕賱賲丕賴賷丞
賵卮乇丨 匕賱賰 亘賯賵賱賴
賵賳丨賳 毓賳丿賲丕 賳賮賰乇 賮賷 丕賱賱賴 賰禺丕賱賯
賳賮賰乇 賮賷賴 胤賵丕賱 丕賱賵賯鬲 毓賱賷 兀賳賴 氐丕賳毓 兀毓馗賲
賵賲賴賲丕 賰丕賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賳丕
爻賵丕亍 賰賳丕 賲賳 丕卮賷丕毓 丿賷賰丕乇鬲 兀賵 賲賳 兀賳氐丕乇 賱賷亘賳夭
賮廿賳賳丕 賱丕 亘丿 兀賳 賳丐賲賳 亘兀賳 廿乇丕丿丞 丕賱賱賴 鬲賵賱丿 丕爻丕爻丕
兀賵 毓賱賷 丕賱兀賯賱 鬲爻賷乇 噩賳亘丕 丕賱賷 噩賳亘 賲毓 毓賲賱賷丞 丕賱禺賱賯
亘賲毓賳賷 兀賳賴 毓賳丿賲丕 賷禺賱賯 賮賴賵 賷毓乇賮 鬲賲丕賲 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賲丕 賷禺賱賯丞
賮廿匕丕 賮賰乇 賮賷 禺賱賯 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳
賮廿賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 鬲鬲乇爻亘 賱丿賷 丕賱賱賴
賰賲丕 鬲鬲乇爻亘 賮賰乇丞 丕賱爻賰賷賳 賮賷 毓賯賱 丕賱氐丕賳毓 丕賱匕賷 賷氐賳毓賴
亘丨賷孬 賷兀鬲賷 禺賱賯賴丕 胤亘賯丕 賱賲賵丕氐賮丕鬲 禺丕氐丞 賵卮賰賱 賲毓賷賳
賴賰匕丕 丕賱賱賴 賮廿賳賴 賷禺賱賯 賰賱 賮乇丿 胤亘賯丕 賱賮賰乇丞 賲爻亘賯丞 毓賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賮乇
賮賷 丕賱亘丿亍 賰丕賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵亘毓丿賴 噩丕亍鬲 噩賲賷毓 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍
亘賲丕 賮賷賴丕 賮賰乇丞 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴
賵亘匕賱賰 賷賰賵賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賯丿 氐賳毓 賳賮爻賴 兀賷 兀賳賴 賷氐亘丨 賴賵 丕賱丨乇賷丞 丕賱賲胤賱賯丞
廿賳賾 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賷賵噩丿 孬賲 賷乇賷丿 兀賳 賷賰賵賳
賵賷賰賵賳 賲丕 賷乇賷丿 兀賳 賷賰賵賳賴 亘毓丿 丕賱賯賮夭丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷賯賮夭賴丕 廿賱賶 丕賱賵噩賵丿
廿賳賾 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賳 賷丨賯賯 賱賳賮爻賴 丕賱賵噩賵丿
賵賱賳 賷賳丕賱賴
廿賱丕 亘毓丿 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賲丕 賷賴丿賮 廿賱賷賴 賲丕 賷賰賵賳賴
賵賱賷爻 賲丕 賷乇睾亘 兀賳 賷賰賵賳賴
賱兀賳賴 賲丕 賳賮賴賲賴 毓丕丿丞 賲賳 丕賱乇睾亘丞 兀賵 丕賱廿乇丕丿丞
賴賵 兀賳賴丕 賯乇丕乇 賵丕毓 賳鬲禺匕賴 睾丕賱亘丕 亘毓丿 兀賳 賳賰賵賳 賯丿 氐賳毓賳丕 兀賳賮爻賳丕 毓賱賶 賲丕 賳丨賳 毓賱賷賴 賮賯丿 兀乇睾亘 兀賳 兀賳囟賲 廿賱賶 丨夭亘 賲賳 丕賱兀丨夭丕亘 兀賵 兀賳 兀賰鬲亘 賰鬲丕亘丕賸
兀賵 兀賳 兀鬲夭賵噩
賱賰賳 賮賷 丨丕賱丞 賰賴匕賴 賮廿賳 賲丕 賷爻賲賶 毓丕丿丞 亘丕爻賲 廿乇丕丿鬲賷
廿賳 賴賵 廿賱丕 丕賱賲賲丕乇爻丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賱賯乇丕乇 賲爻亘賯 丕鬲賾禺匕鬲賴 毓賮賵賸丕
賮廿匕丕 賰丕賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丨賯賷賯丞 兀爻亘賯 毓賱賶 丕賱賲丕賴賷丞 賮丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲爻丐賵賱 毓賲丕 賴賵 毓賱賷賴
賵廿匕賳 鬲賰賵賳 兀賵賾賱 丌孬丕乇 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 丕賱賲鬲乇鬲亘丞 毓賱賶 匕賱賰 賴賷 賵囟毓賴丕
賰賱 賮乇丿 賵氐賷 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴 賲爻卅賵賱丕 毓賲丕 賴賷 毓賱賷賴 賲爻卅賵賱賷丞 賰丕賲賱丞
廿匕賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賳丿 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲爻卅賵賱 毓賳 賰賱 賲丕賷氐丿乇 毓賳賴 毓賳 毓丕胤賮丞
"賱丕 賷賲賰賳賴 兀賳 賷乇丿 賲丕 賷賮毓賱賴 廿賱賶 睾賷亘賷丕鬲 "鬲賵丨賶 廿賱賷賴
賵賱賰賳賴 賷丐賵賱 賴匕賴 丕賱睾賷亘賷丕鬲 丕賱賲賵丨丕丞 賰賲丕 賷乇賵賯 賱賴
"賵丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賰匕賱賰 賱賷爻 爻賵賶 "爻賱爻賱丞 賲卮丕乇賷毓
廿賳賾 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賷爻 廿賱丕 賲卮乇賵毓 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕賱匕賷 賷鬲氐賵乇賴
賵賵噩賵丿賴 賴賵 賲噩賲賵毓 賲丕 丨賯賯賴
賵賴賵 賳賮爻賴 賱賷爻 廿賱丕 賲噩賲賵毓 兀賮毓丕賱賴 賵賴賵 丨賷丕鬲賴
賮賷 賳賴丕賷丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓乇囟 爻丕乇鬲乇 賱賲丨丕賵乇丞賮賱爻賮賷丞 亘賷賳賴 賵亘賷賳 賳丕賮賷賱
賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷 VS 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷
賵丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 兀賳賳賷 丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 亘賴丕 賰孬賷乇丕
August 4, 2015
爻丕乇鬲乇 賲卮 毓丕噩亘賳賷 賷丕 兀賲 爻丕乇鬲乇 :DD
丨爻賳賸丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 鬲賮乇賷睾 賱賲丨丕囟乇丞 賰丕賳 爻丕乇鬲乇 賯丿 兀賱賯丕賴丕
賱賱乇丿 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕囟丕鬲 丕賱賲賵噩賴丞 賱賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞
賮鬲丨丿孬 賮賷 丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱兀賵賱 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賳 丕賱禺胤賵胤 丕賱毓乇賷囟丞 賱賱賵噩賵丿賷丞
丕賱丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘丕賱賵噩賵丿 賯亘賱 丕賱賲丕賴賷丞
賵兀賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲丕 賴賵 廿賱丕 丨氐賷賱丞 毓賲賱賴
毓賲賱 丕賱卮禺氐 賴賵 丕賱匕賷 賷丨丿丿 賲丕賴賷鬲賴 賵賵噩賵丿賴
亘賱 賵賷丨丿丿 賵噩賵丿 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 兀賷囟賸丕
賵賰匕丕 丕禺鬲賷丕乇丕鬲賴 丕賱鬲賷 爻鬲卮賰賱 賵噩賵丿賴 賵賵噩賵丿 賲賳 丨賵賱賴
賵囟乇亘 賲孬丕賱 丕賱卮丕亘 丕賱匕賷 噩丕亍 賷胤賱亘賴 丕賱賳氐丨 賮賷 賯囟賷鬲賴
賴匕丕 丕賱賲孬賱 丕賱匕賷 丕爻鬲毓丕賳 亘賴 賮賷 賰賱 爻胤乇 賷賰鬲亘賴
賵丕賱匕賷 丕賱賲丨 賳丕賮賷賱 廿賱賶 賰孬乇丞 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 爻丕乇鬲乇 賱賴
賵丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 兀賳賴 賱賷爻 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱賵丨賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 爻丕乇鬲乇 賷賯賵賲 亘鬲賰乇丕乇賴
賮賴賵 毓賱賶 氐睾乇 賲爻丕丨丞 丨丿賷孬賴 賱賲 賷賳賮賰 賷乇丿丿 孬賱丕孬丞 兀卮賷丕亍 亘賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱鬲賰乇丕乇
1-丕賱賵噩賵丿 賯亘賱 丕賱賲丕賴賷丞
2-丕賱毓賲賱 賴賵 丕賱賵噩賵丿
3-丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賲匕賴亘 廿賳爻丕賳賷
賵鬲賱賰 丕賱兀禺賷乇丞 氐丿賯賸丕 賱賲 兀賮賴賲賴丕貙 丨丕賵賱 卮乇丨賴丕 賱賰賳賷 卮毓乇鬲 亘丕賱鬲賷賴
賰丕賳 爻丕乇鬲乇 賴賳丕 乇噩賱 囟毓賷賮 丕賱丨噩丞貙 賲囟胤乇亘
賷亘丿兀 丨丿賷孬賴 亘賴賰匕丕 賷賴丕噩賲賵賳 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞貙 賵賷賯賵賱 亘毓囟 賳丕賯丿賷 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 廿賱禺
乇亘賲丕 賰孬乇丞 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 丨賵賱賴 賵賲丨丕賵賱鬲賴 丕賱乇丿 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賯丨賲賴 賮賷 噩賵 賲卮丨賵賳 賲囟胤乇亘
爻丕賴賲 賮賷 睾賷丕亘 丨噩鬲賴
賵賴匕丕 賲丕 爻賷亘丿賵 賱賷賾 氐丨鬲賴 賲賳 禺胤兀賴
丨賷賳 丕賯乇兀 兀丨丿 兀毓賲丕賱賴 丕賱兀禺乇賶
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲丨丕賵乇丞 亘賷賳賴 賵亘賷賳 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷 賳丕賮賷賱
丕賱兀禺賷乇 賷賳賯丿貙 賵爻丕乇鬲乇 賷乇丿
賵乇睾賲 兀賳 丕賱賲丕乇賰爻賷丞 兀賷囟賸丕 賮賱爻賮丞 亘賴丕 賲丕 亘賴丕 賲賳 丕賱兀禺胤丕亍
賵賷賵噩賴 賱賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲
廿賱丕 兀賳賳賷 卮毓乇鬲 兀賳 賲賵賯賮 賳丕賮賷賱 賵乇丿賵丿賴 兀賰孬乇 賯賵丞 賵廿賯賳丕毓賸丕 賲賳 爻丕乇鬲乇
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳氐賮賴 賱賳 鬲賮賴賲賴
賵丕賱賳氐賮 丕賱丌禺乇 賲賰乇乇 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 賲乇丞
賵賱丕 丕毓鬲亘乇賴 丨鬲賶 賷氐賱丨 賰賲丿禺賱 賱賱賵噩賵丿賷丞
鬲賲賾鬲
August 4, 2014
Reading Sartre鈥檚 Existentialism is a Humanism has been as arduous as it has been stimulating, for while I did try to understand his philosophy, I could also acutely discern what challenged my understanding of his work.
To begin with Sartre explains Atheistic Existentialism. He says:
Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world 鈥揳nd defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.
The first principle of Existentialism according to him is: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.
By this he places the entire responsibility of a human self on himself. In this World where 鈥淕od is Dead鈥�, we humans are condemned to be free. Condemned because we do not exist out of our choice but our existence is, to begin with, imposed upon us i.e. we are here first and then once we become aware of this existence, are only we free to make out whatever we wish to from it, any action that we will to, in a world which doesn鈥檛 offer any objective, guidance or consolation.
Sartre speaks of abandonment. The 鈥榓产补苍诲辞苍尘别苍迟鈥� implies that since there is no God to lead the humanity, we are on our own. This abandonment may result in anguish or despair. Anguish, for being aware of the weight of responsibility of our freedom, for if God does not exist we are left without excuses. Despair, for being unable to accept things as they happen outside our control.
While explaining existentialism, he strongly opines that there is no human nature because there is no God. By this he means, there is no conception prior to the existence of man, but that man simply is. So, he is responsible for what he is and what he makes of himself. Hence, man is defined by the sum total of actions that he takes and his relation with the world.
Answering his critics, he further says:
And this is what people call its 鈥渟ubjectivity,鈥� using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists 鈥� that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower.
Also:
Quietism is the attitude of people who say, 鈥渓et others do what I cannot do.鈥� The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, 鈥淢an is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.鈥�
It is here that the question arises: what about the people who cannot take actions according to their will? First, because they may not be free to do so. Second, even if we argue that this cannot be the case, [Sartre gives the example of a coward whose actions determine the way he live his life (cowardly)] still what can be said of people who are not even remotely aware of their freedom i.e. even the freedom to think, let alone to choose or act. In other words, who are not conscious of their will but accede to their circumstances mechanically. Why, aren鈥檛 we aware of the oppression of certain classes/ races in the form of slavery? Can we say for sure that when they didn鈥檛 oppose, it was because of only cowardliness, a fear of things falling apart from even the tolerable? Couldn鈥檛 it be that they were so numbed of the continuous oppression/ exploitation that they were not even conscious of their own will?
Also, what can be said of the people whose minds are not as evolved as those of their fellow beings? Those who depend entirely upon a help to even go through their daily routines because they are not conscious of their surroundings or even of their body? What can be said of their life since it is not a life which is a sum total of their actions, because strictly speaking they do not act themselves for they cannot even think. Can we then conclude that their life is not a subjective life but is equivalent to that of a moss or a cauliflower? Surely, we cannot say this because it is not humane and lacks the virtue of kindness or empathy.
The humanism that he(Sartre) endorses emphasises the dignity of human beings; it also stresses the centrality of human choice to the creation of all values.[1]
But for Existentialism to be truly Humanism, shouldn鈥檛 there be an emphasis on right action, rather than just action? How one can justify the individual choices / action which can bring upon wars / anarchies in this world? How can then such individual choices be responsible for whole human kind? And the question which may still arise is who can justify what 鈥渞ight action鈥� is?
I think it is time for me to read Kant.
Sartre, while publishing this work in translation, had changed the title from 鈥淓xistentialism is a Humanism鈥� (French) to 鈥淓xistentialism and Humanism鈥�. I wonder what his reasons were for doing so.
Of course I, in no way, possess wisdom or knowledge adequate to justify my thoughts on the subject of Existentialism. Further, it cannot be ignored that Sartre was an eminent philosopher who influenced, and still influences, the views held on this subject by not only literati but also common readers like me. And I do believe that this work is quite important in understanding the philosophy of existence.
Should definitely be read.
-----------------------------------------------------
[1] Source:
To begin with Sartre explains Atheistic Existentialism. He says:
Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world 鈥揳nd defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.
The first principle of Existentialism according to him is: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.
By this he places the entire responsibility of a human self on himself. In this World where 鈥淕od is Dead鈥�, we humans are condemned to be free. Condemned because we do not exist out of our choice but our existence is, to begin with, imposed upon us i.e. we are here first and then once we become aware of this existence, are only we free to make out whatever we wish to from it, any action that we will to, in a world which doesn鈥檛 offer any objective, guidance or consolation.
Sartre speaks of abandonment. The 鈥榓产补苍诲辞苍尘别苍迟鈥� implies that since there is no God to lead the humanity, we are on our own. This abandonment may result in anguish or despair. Anguish, for being aware of the weight of responsibility of our freedom, for if God does not exist we are left without excuses. Despair, for being unable to accept things as they happen outside our control.
While explaining existentialism, he strongly opines that there is no human nature because there is no God. By this he means, there is no conception prior to the existence of man, but that man simply is. So, he is responsible for what he is and what he makes of himself. Hence, man is defined by the sum total of actions that he takes and his relation with the world.
Answering his critics, he further says:
And this is what people call its 鈥渟ubjectivity,鈥� using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists 鈥� that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower.
Also:
Quietism is the attitude of people who say, 鈥渓et others do what I cannot do.鈥� The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, 鈥淢an is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.鈥�
It is here that the question arises: what about the people who cannot take actions according to their will? First, because they may not be free to do so. Second, even if we argue that this cannot be the case, [Sartre gives the example of a coward whose actions determine the way he live his life (cowardly)] still what can be said of people who are not even remotely aware of their freedom i.e. even the freedom to think, let alone to choose or act. In other words, who are not conscious of their will but accede to their circumstances mechanically. Why, aren鈥檛 we aware of the oppression of certain classes/ races in the form of slavery? Can we say for sure that when they didn鈥檛 oppose, it was because of only cowardliness, a fear of things falling apart from even the tolerable? Couldn鈥檛 it be that they were so numbed of the continuous oppression/ exploitation that they were not even conscious of their own will?
Also, what can be said of the people whose minds are not as evolved as those of their fellow beings? Those who depend entirely upon a help to even go through their daily routines because they are not conscious of their surroundings or even of their body? What can be said of their life since it is not a life which is a sum total of their actions, because strictly speaking they do not act themselves for they cannot even think. Can we then conclude that their life is not a subjective life but is equivalent to that of a moss or a cauliflower? Surely, we cannot say this because it is not humane and lacks the virtue of kindness or empathy.
The humanism that he(Sartre) endorses emphasises the dignity of human beings; it also stresses the centrality of human choice to the creation of all values.[1]
But for Existentialism to be truly Humanism, shouldn鈥檛 there be an emphasis on right action, rather than just action? How one can justify the individual choices / action which can bring upon wars / anarchies in this world? How can then such individual choices be responsible for whole human kind? And the question which may still arise is who can justify what 鈥渞ight action鈥� is?
I think it is time for me to read Kant.
Sartre, while publishing this work in translation, had changed the title from 鈥淓xistentialism is a Humanism鈥� (French) to 鈥淓xistentialism and Humanism鈥�. I wonder what his reasons were for doing so.
Of course I, in no way, possess wisdom or knowledge adequate to justify my thoughts on the subject of Existentialism. Further, it cannot be ignored that Sartre was an eminent philosopher who influenced, and still influences, the views held on this subject by not only literati but also common readers like me. And I do believe that this work is quite important in understanding the philosophy of existence.
Should definitely be read.
-----------------------------------------------------
[1] Source:
February 19, 2015
Existentialism is an Essentialism
This is supposed to be the only one of his lectures that Sartre regretted seeing in print. This was primarily because it became accepted as a sort of manifesto piece and thus tended to reduce the original themes. Sartre repeatedly implies that he will not admit to this essay/lecture being considered as an introduction to his philosophy. Again, this is because treating an 'explanation' as an essential component (or worse a summary) of his complex system of philosophy did not sit well with him.
However, by framing the core of the philosophy of existentialism as it applies to the most urgent walk of life - human freedom - he does clarify the core purpose of his philosophy: How mankind can live "as if there were no God." And this is extremely valuable for any student of his work.
It also redefines Humanism in a very basic way and makes it primarily about human freedom, choice and the dignity therein. So the freedom that attacks the reader as an Anguish in Nausea is reframed here as a great and true liberator of the individuals' truest tendencies. This is absolutely in keeping with the core themes of B&N.
He puts your future, your potential and the entire future of humanity in your limitlessly capable hands. That is the freedom we have to deal with. That is the responsibility of this humanism. It is central. It is unbearable. It is glorious. It is the only attribute of a human being. It is an essentialism
And even if only for this glorious vision of Humanism, this small lecture should stand as an important monument. Any insights into Sartre's philosophy it might provide is only an added bonus.
February 6, 2016
丕诏乇 亘禺賵丕賴賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 蹖讴 噩賲賱賴 禺賱丕氐賴 讴賳賲 丕夭 賳馗乇賲 賴蹖趩 噩賲賱賴 丕蹖 乇爻丕鬲乇 丕夭 "亘卮乇 賲丨讴賵賲 亘賴 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲" 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 亘丕卮丿
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 爻賴 亘禺卮 丕氐賱蹖 鬲賯爻蹖賲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 亘禺卮 丕賵賱 讴賴 賲賴賲鬲乇蹖賳 賵 噩匕丕亘 鬲乇蹖賳 亘禺卮 讴鬲丕亘 賳蹖夭 賴爻鬲 "爻丕乇鬲乇" 爻毓蹖 亘乇 丕蹖賳 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 禺賱丕氐賴 丕蹖 噩丕賲毓 賵 讴丕賲賱 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丕乇丕蹖賴 丿賴丿 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 倬丕爻禺蹖 丿賴丿 亘賴 丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丌賳 賵丕乇丿 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 賵 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丕賳丨乇丕賮丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘乇 丕孬乇 讴噩 賮賴賲蹖 丌賳 丕蹖噩丕丿 卮丿賴 卮賮丕賮 爻丕夭蹖 賳賲丕蹖丿.丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 "賵噩賵丿" 丕賳爻丕賳 賲賯丿賲 亘乇 "賲丕賴蹖鬲" 丕賵爻鬲貙 亘丿蹖賳 賲賳馗賵乇 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 倬蹖卮 丕夭 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿貙 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖 禺賵丿 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵 賴蹖趩 丕爻鬲; 丕賲丕 亘賴 毓賴丿賴 丕賳爻丕賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 亘亘禺卮丿 賵 "丕乇夭卮" 趩蹖夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 噩夭 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丕賵 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳 亘乇 賲蹖 诏夭蹖賳蹖丿 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇丕賴 亘卮乇 賲丨讴賵賲 丕爻鬲 亘賴 丌夭丕丿蹖貙 賲丨讴賵賲 丕爻鬲 夭蹖乇丕 禺賵丿 乇丕 賳蹖丕賮乇蹖丿賴 賵 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 丌夭丕丿 丕爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 賴賲蹖賳 讴賴 倬丕 亘賴 噩賴丕賳 诏匕丕卮鬲 賲爻卅賵賱 賴賲賴 蹖 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖 丿賴丿. 亘禺卮 丕賵賱 亘賴 賱胤賮 倬丕賳賵蹖爻 賴丕蹖 賲鬲乇噩賲 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 讴賴 趩賳丿丕賳 亘丕 賲亘丕丨孬 賮賱爻賮蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖 賳丿丕乇賲 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 亘賵丿 .賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丿乇 毓蹖賳 爻禺鬲诏蹖乇丕賳賴 亘賵丿賳 亘乇丕蹖賲 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖亘丕 賵 賲賳胤賯蹖 賵 賲賱賲賵爻 亘賵丿 賵 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 亘賴 禺賵丿賲貙 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲賲 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賴丕 賵丕乇夭卮 賴丕蹖賲 賳诏丕賴蹖 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賵 毓賲蹖賯 鬲乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賲
亘禺卮 丿賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 卮丕賲賱 倬乇爻卮 賵 倬丕爻禺 賴丕蹖蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 亘丕 "爻丕乇鬲乇" 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丕氐賵賱 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 诏賳锟斤拷 賵 賳丕賮賴賵賲 亘賵丿 賵 亘禺卮 爻賵賲 讴賴 "丌賳趩賴 賲賳 賴爻鬲賲" 賳丕賲 丿丕乇丿 诏賮鬲诏賵蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賳蹖 亘丕 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 賲賳丕爻亘鬲 賴賮鬲丕丿 爻丕賱诏蹖 丕賵 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丕夭 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮毓賱蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕貙 亘乇賳丕賲賴 賴丕貙 毓賱丕蹖賯 賵 爻亘讴 賵 爻蹖丕賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿 爻禺賳 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿
丿乇 丌禺乇 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 賴丕 亘賴 丿賵 丿爻鬲賴 "賲爻蹖丨蹖" 賵 "睾蹖乇 賲匕賴亘蹖" 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖 卮賵賳丿 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 "爻丕乇鬲乇" 讴賴 丿乇 丿爻鬲賴 丿賵賲 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙丿乇禺氐賵氐 噩賲毓 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 亘丕 "賲匕賴亘" 毓賱丕賲鬲 爻賵丕賱 亘夭乇诏蹖 亘乇丕蹖賲 丕蹖噩丕丿 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丨鬲賲丕 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 倬丕爻禺 丌賳 禺賵丕賴賲 亘賵丿
丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 爻賴 亘禺卮 丕氐賱蹖 鬲賯爻蹖賲 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丿乇 亘禺卮 丕賵賱 讴賴 賲賴賲鬲乇蹖賳 賵 噩匕丕亘 鬲乇蹖賳 亘禺卮 讴鬲丕亘 賳蹖夭 賴爻鬲 "爻丕乇鬲乇" 爻毓蹖 亘乇 丕蹖賳 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 禺賱丕氐賴 丕蹖 噩丕賲毓 賵 讴丕賲賱 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丕乇丕蹖賴 丿賴丿 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 倬丕爻禺蹖 丿賴丿 亘賴 丕蹖乇丕丿丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 丌賳 賵丕乇丿 賲蹖 讴賳賳丿 賵 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丕賳丨乇丕賮丕鬲蹖 讴賴 亘乇 丕孬乇 讴噩 賮賴賲蹖 丌賳 丕蹖噩丕丿 卮丿賴 卮賮丕賮 爻丕夭蹖 賳賲丕蹖丿.丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 "賵噩賵丿" 丕賳爻丕賳 賲賯丿賲 亘乇 "賲丕賴蹖鬲" 丕賵爻鬲貙 亘丿蹖賳 賲賳馗賵乇 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 倬蹖卮 丕夭 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿貙 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖 禺賵丿 亘乇丕蹖 丕賵 賴蹖趩 丕爻鬲; 丕賲丕 亘賴 毓賴丿賴 丕賳爻丕賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 亘亘禺卮丿 賵 "丕乇夭卮" 趩蹖夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 噩夭 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丕賵 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳 亘乇 賲蹖 诏夭蹖賳蹖丿 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇丕賴 亘卮乇 賲丨讴賵賲 丕爻鬲 亘賴 丌夭丕丿蹖貙 賲丨讴賵賲 丕爻鬲 夭蹖乇丕 禺賵丿 乇丕 賳蹖丕賮乇蹖丿賴 賵 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱 丌夭丕丿 丕爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 賴賲蹖賳 讴賴 倬丕 亘賴 噩賴丕賳 诏匕丕卮鬲 賲爻卅賵賱 賴賲賴 蹖 讴丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖 丿賴丿. 亘禺卮 丕賵賱 亘賴 賱胤賮 倬丕賳賵蹖爻 賴丕蹖 賲鬲乇噩賲 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 讴賴 趩賳丿丕賳 亘丕 賲亘丕丨孬 賮賱爻賮蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖 賳丿丕乇賲 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲 亘賵丿 .賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丿乇 毓蹖賳 爻禺鬲诏蹖乇丕賳賴 亘賵丿賳 亘乇丕蹖賲 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖亘丕 賵 賲賳胤賯蹖 賵 賲賱賲賵爻 亘賵丿 賵 亘丕毓孬 卮丿 亘賴 禺賵丿賲貙 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲賲 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賴丕 賵丕乇夭卮 賴丕蹖賲 賳诏丕賴蹖 丿賵亘丕乇賴 賵 毓賲蹖賯 鬲乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賲
亘禺卮 丿賵賲 讴鬲丕亘 卮丕賲賱 倬乇爻卮 賵 倬丕爻禺 賴丕蹖蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 亘丕 "爻丕乇鬲乇" 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丕氐賵賱 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 诏賳锟斤拷 賵 賳丕賮賴賵賲 亘賵丿 賵 亘禺卮 爻賵賲 讴賴 "丌賳趩賴 賲賳 賴爻鬲賲" 賳丕賲 丿丕乇丿 诏賮鬲诏賵蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賳蹖 亘丕 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 賲賳丕爻亘鬲 賴賮鬲丕丿 爻丕賱诏蹖 丕賵 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丕夭 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮毓賱蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕貙 亘乇賳丕賲賴 賴丕貙 毓賱丕蹖賯 賵 爻亘讴 賵 爻蹖丕賯 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿 爻禺賳 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿
丿乇 丌禺乇 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 賴丕 亘賴 丿賵 丿爻鬲賴 "賲爻蹖丨蹖" 賵 "睾蹖乇 賲匕賴亘蹖" 鬲賯爻蹖賲 賲蹖 卮賵賳丿 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 "爻丕乇鬲乇" 讴賴 丿乇 丿爻鬲賴 丿賵賲 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙丿乇禺氐賵氐 噩賲毓 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 亘丕 "賲匕賴亘" 毓賱丕賲鬲 爻賵丕賱 亘夭乇诏蹖 亘乇丕蹖賲 丕蹖噩丕丿 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丨鬲賲丕 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 倬丕爻禺 丌賳 禺賵丕賴賲 亘賵丿
April 25, 2017
鬲氐賵蹖乇 噩丕賱亘蹖賴. 丕爻賲卮 乇賵 诏匕丕卮鬲賲: 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丿乇 蹖讴 丿賯蹖賯賴.
賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖 乇蹖夭卮 賵丕囟丨 賳蹖爻鬲貙 诏賮鬲賲 亘丕 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 亘丕賱丕鬲乇 亘匕丕乇賲貙 丨噩賲卮 亘丕賱丕 賲蹖乇賴貙 賲賲讴賳賴 亘毓囟蹖丕 乇丕囟蹖 賳亘丕卮賳.
鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鬲賵賳賲 亘诏賲貙 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕賮鬲囟丕丨 亘賵丿. 賮讴乇 讴賳賲 爻賵丕丿 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 丿乇 丨丿 爻賵丕丿 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖 賲賳 亘賵丿賴. 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲 爻賵丕丿 賮丕乇爻蹖卮 讴賲 亘賵丿賴. 賳賲蹖丿賵賳賲貙 禺賱丕氐賴 亘賴 賯丿乇蹖 噩賲賱丕鬲 乇賵 亘丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘丕 趩賴丕乇 倬賳噩 亘丕乇 禺賵賳丿賳 賴賲 賳賲蹖卮丿 丨丿爻 夭丿 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 趩蹖 賲蹖禺丕爻鬲賴 亘诏賴. 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 賳賯胤賴 诏匕丕乇蹖 賴賲 讴賴 亘诏匕乇蹖賲. 賵爻胤 噩賲賱賴 蹖賴 丿賮毓賴 賳賯胤賴 賲蹖匕丕卮鬲貙 丌禺乇 噩賲賱賴 賳賯胤賴 賳賲蹖匕丕卮鬲 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 賴乇 噩丕 毓賱丕賯賴 丿丕卮鬲貙 丕夭 毓賱丕卅賲 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴乇丿.
丕蹖賳 鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 亘诏賲 趩賵賳 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 鬲乇噩賲賴 蹖 亘丿貙 賳鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 夭蹖丕丿 賲鬲賳 爻丕乇鬲乇 乇賵 亘賮賴賲賲.
亘毓丿丕賸 讴賴 蹖賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 蹖 亘賴鬲乇 诏蹖乇賲 丕賵賲丿 賵 禺賵賳丿賲貙 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 乇賵 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賲蹖丿賲.
賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖 乇蹖夭卮 賵丕囟丨 賳蹖爻鬲貙 诏賮鬲賲 亘丕 讴蹖賮蹖鬲 亘丕賱丕鬲乇 亘匕丕乇賲貙 丨噩賲卮 亘丕賱丕 賲蹖乇賴貙 賲賲讴賳賴 亘毓囟蹖丕 乇丕囟蹖 賳亘丕卮賳.
鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鬲賵賳賲 亘诏賲貙 丕蹖賳賴 讴賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 丕賮鬲囟丕丨 亘賵丿. 賮讴乇 讴賳賲 爻賵丕丿 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖 賲鬲乇噩賲貙 丿乇 丨丿 爻賵丕丿 賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖 賲賳 亘賵丿賴. 卮丕蹖丿 賴賲 爻賵丕丿 賮丕乇爻蹖卮 讴賲 亘賵丿賴. 賳賲蹖丿賵賳賲貙 禺賱丕氐賴 亘賴 賯丿乇蹖 噩賲賱丕鬲 乇賵 亘丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 讴乇丿賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘丕 趩賴丕乇 倬賳噩 亘丕乇 禺賵賳丿賳 賴賲 賳賲蹖卮丿 丨丿爻 夭丿 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 趩蹖 賲蹖禺丕爻鬲賴 亘诏賴. 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 賳賯胤賴 诏匕丕乇蹖 賴賲 讴賴 亘诏匕乇蹖賲. 賵爻胤 噩賲賱賴 蹖賴 丿賮毓賴 賳賯胤賴 賲蹖匕丕卮鬲貙 丌禺乇 噩賲賱賴 賳賯胤賴 賳賲蹖匕丕卮鬲 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 賴乇 噩丕 毓賱丕賯賴 丿丕卮鬲貙 丕夭 毓賱丕卅賲 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴乇丿.
丕蹖賳 鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 乇丕噩毓 亘賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 亘诏賲 趩賵賳 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 鬲乇噩賲賴 蹖 亘丿貙 賳鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 夭蹖丕丿 賲鬲賳 爻丕乇鬲乇 乇賵 亘賮賴賲賲.
亘毓丿丕賸 讴賴 蹖賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 蹖 亘賴鬲乇 诏蹖乇賲 丕賵賲丿 賵 禺賵賳丿賲貙 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 乇賵 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賲蹖丿賲.
May 4, 2015
[Please note that the reviewer is a new entrant in the school of existentialism and is attempting to grasp the building blocks. Hence, her inferences can be basic and occasionally, vague too. Those who have spent considerable time in this school can choose to overlook this little account if so deemed fit (although I would love to have them here to elevate my understanding level). For the more tolerant and sagaciously curious, I will go about my way.]
Essentially, 鈥淓xistentialism Is a Humanism鈥� is a lecture that Sartre gave in Paris during 1945. By this time, many of his notable works like The Transcendence of the Ego, Nausea, Being and Nothingness, No Exit, The Roads to Freedom series, etc. had won him a fair amount of loyalists but had also ushered in a frenzied group of detractors. The major bone of contention of the latter was the repugnance, this doctrine created by perennially pushing the Man or the Individual, into wells of anguish, abandonment and despair. They saw this philosophy seeped in negativism, even romanticizing hopelessness.
This essay was one of those communiques through which Sartre chose to dispel some of these misconceptions.
To begin with, he describes the principle tenet of Existentialism as valuing human life by empowering the individual to make his choices and take actions and holding him accountable for the environment his action creates for himself as well as the human community.
He states that there are two types on existentialism: Theistic Existentialism (TE) and Atheistic Existentialism (AE). And he champions for the latter. His mantra: 鈥漞xistence precedes essence鈥�. . Since AE doesn鈥檛 acknowledge the presence of God, there is no divine intelligence from which the essence of the Man (who is to be created), can be drawn. Hence, the Man has to essentially exist first and then, go about finding/ creating his essence in life.
Sartre, then, tries to tackle the three primary accusations that bog down heavily AE鈥檚 neck.
Anguish 鈥� He maintains that every action of the individual is not restricted to individual ramification alone but extends to human community as well.He gives this example: 鈥滲y undertaking to marry, I am committing not only myself but to all of humanity, the practice of monogamy.鈥� Hence, this enormous sense of collective responsibility is bound to reign in a certain amount of anguish in him. This anguish is not palpable to any other person but is a battle of intrinsic nature.
Abandonment 鈥� There is no God, no past point of beginning and no future line of reference. In such a scenario, the individual feels abandoned by good measure and is left with the only support of his own choices and interpretations for which he is, solely and completely, responsible. That he is condemned to be free. The tendency of blaming circumstances or making excuses of external forces is non-existent in AE.
Despair 鈥� Since we are nothing more or less than what our will can afford, there is a sense of despair to limitations of such probability cloud. So, essentially, the individual has to act without hope of a certain outcome but act nonetheless in the best of his minds.
Having soothed the frayed veins of the naysayers with his above constructs, he goes on to say that Existentialism is, in fact, akin to Humanism since this school of philosophy never objectifies human, always places the power in his hands and doesn鈥檛 treat him as an end. In being constantly in making, having the control of his life, making choices, seeking out an outside goal to project himself onto the canvas of liberation, he can realize what it means to be truly human.
While, for a beginner like me, this essay has proven to be an effective harbinger to better understanding of this doctrine, I can鈥檛 help but have some questions pop in my head.
Firstly, what merits the choice of Atheistic Existentialism (AE) over Theistic Existentialism (TE)? How is the fundamental of essence precedes existence (which is the manifested principle of TE) a bad thing? Isn鈥檛 the presence of an objective a trigger to action which is the main point of deliberation in AE?
Also, if my decision is a collective commitment to the human community, then is my renouncement (or the choice of 鈥渘ot choosing鈥�), a renouncement by the community too? Is there a concept of anguish and 鈥渓arger鈥� anguish here?
At some point in the essay, Sartre says, 鈥橳he only way I can measure the strength of this affection is precisely by performing an action that confirms and defines it.
Where does AE accommodate recurring acts then? There are many emotions or even events that have a streak of commonality. While taking a fresh call on an existing event, doesn鈥檛 the past experience form part of the set of probable choices upon which the subsequent action will be based?
This one statement, which finds place in the later part of the essay, really baffled me:
鈥滻 cannot discover any truth whatsoever about myself except through the mediation of another. The other is essential to my existence, as well as to the knowledge I have of myself.鈥�
Now, if knowing myself mandates the presence of another individual, then there is a reference point, a yardstick; which is against the fundamentals of AE doctrine, right? How is this dichotomy addressed then?
Alright, I am babbling in either my ignorance or half knowledge. But this essay had been handy in encapsulating the highlights of Existentialism in terse narrative, giving examples from routine life to simplify its heavy garb. There is a lot of reference to past and fellow philosophers like Descartes, Voltaire, Kant, Kierkegaard and Heidegger and reading them in parallel might bring about wider perspectives and clarity.
[Thank you. The class is over. For those who are still with me, you love philosophy. Really.]
Essentially, 鈥淓xistentialism Is a Humanism鈥� is a lecture that Sartre gave in Paris during 1945. By this time, many of his notable works like The Transcendence of the Ego, Nausea, Being and Nothingness, No Exit, The Roads to Freedom series, etc. had won him a fair amount of loyalists but had also ushered in a frenzied group of detractors. The major bone of contention of the latter was the repugnance, this doctrine created by perennially pushing the Man or the Individual, into wells of anguish, abandonment and despair. They saw this philosophy seeped in negativism, even romanticizing hopelessness.
This essay was one of those communiques through which Sartre chose to dispel some of these misconceptions.
To begin with, he describes the principle tenet of Existentialism as valuing human life by empowering the individual to make his choices and take actions and holding him accountable for the environment his action creates for himself as well as the human community.
He states that there are two types on existentialism: Theistic Existentialism (TE) and Atheistic Existentialism (AE). And he champions for the latter. His mantra: 鈥漞xistence precedes essence鈥�. . Since AE doesn鈥檛 acknowledge the presence of God, there is no divine intelligence from which the essence of the Man (who is to be created), can be drawn. Hence, the Man has to essentially exist first and then, go about finding/ creating his essence in life.
Sartre, then, tries to tackle the three primary accusations that bog down heavily AE鈥檚 neck.
Anguish 鈥� He maintains that every action of the individual is not restricted to individual ramification alone but extends to human community as well.He gives this example: 鈥滲y undertaking to marry, I am committing not only myself but to all of humanity, the practice of monogamy.鈥� Hence, this enormous sense of collective responsibility is bound to reign in a certain amount of anguish in him. This anguish is not palpable to any other person but is a battle of intrinsic nature.
Abandonment 鈥� There is no God, no past point of beginning and no future line of reference. In such a scenario, the individual feels abandoned by good measure and is left with the only support of his own choices and interpretations for which he is, solely and completely, responsible. That he is condemned to be free. The tendency of blaming circumstances or making excuses of external forces is non-existent in AE.
Despair 鈥� Since we are nothing more or less than what our will can afford, there is a sense of despair to limitations of such probability cloud. So, essentially, the individual has to act without hope of a certain outcome but act nonetheless in the best of his minds.
Having soothed the frayed veins of the naysayers with his above constructs, he goes on to say that Existentialism is, in fact, akin to Humanism since this school of philosophy never objectifies human, always places the power in his hands and doesn鈥檛 treat him as an end. In being constantly in making, having the control of his life, making choices, seeking out an outside goal to project himself onto the canvas of liberation, he can realize what it means to be truly human.
While, for a beginner like me, this essay has proven to be an effective harbinger to better understanding of this doctrine, I can鈥檛 help but have some questions pop in my head.
Firstly, what merits the choice of Atheistic Existentialism (AE) over Theistic Existentialism (TE)? How is the fundamental of essence precedes existence (which is the manifested principle of TE) a bad thing? Isn鈥檛 the presence of an objective a trigger to action which is the main point of deliberation in AE?
Also, if my decision is a collective commitment to the human community, then is my renouncement (or the choice of 鈥渘ot choosing鈥�), a renouncement by the community too? Is there a concept of anguish and 鈥渓arger鈥� anguish here?
At some point in the essay, Sartre says, 鈥橳he only way I can measure the strength of this affection is precisely by performing an action that confirms and defines it.
Where does AE accommodate recurring acts then? There are many emotions or even events that have a streak of commonality. While taking a fresh call on an existing event, doesn鈥檛 the past experience form part of the set of probable choices upon which the subsequent action will be based?
This one statement, which finds place in the later part of the essay, really baffled me:
鈥滻 cannot discover any truth whatsoever about myself except through the mediation of another. The other is essential to my existence, as well as to the knowledge I have of myself.鈥�
Now, if knowing myself mandates the presence of another individual, then there is a reference point, a yardstick; which is against the fundamentals of AE doctrine, right? How is this dichotomy addressed then?
Alright, I am babbling in either my ignorance or half knowledge. But this essay had been handy in encapsulating the highlights of Existentialism in terse narrative, giving examples from routine life to simplify its heavy garb. There is a lot of reference to past and fellow philosophers like Descartes, Voltaire, Kant, Kierkegaard and Heidegger and reading them in parallel might bring about wider perspectives and clarity.
[Thank you. The class is over. For those who are still with me, you love philosophy. Really.]
August 18, 2019
禺蹖賱蹖 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿 賵 賱匕鬲 亘乇丿賲. 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖 讴賴 亘賴 賲賵囟賵毓 讴鬲丕亘 賵 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 毓賱丕賯賴 丿丕乇蹖丿 丨鬲賲丕賸 亘禺賵丕賳蹖丿貙 丿乇 睾蹖乇 丕蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲 賳禺賵丕賳蹖丿. 鬲乇噩賲賴 亘爻蹖丕乇 禺賵亘 亘賵丿 賵 倬丕賳賵蹖爻鈥屬囏й� 毓丕賱蹖 賲鬲乇噩賲 亘爻蹖丕乇 讴賲讴 讴賳賳丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿.
丌丿賲蹖 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿 亘賴 賳丨賵蹖 賲賱鬲夭賲 賵 丿乇诏蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 亘丿蹖賳 诏賵賳賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲. 氐 52 讴鬲丕亘
丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賮賱爻賮賴鈥屫й� 賲亘賳蹖 亘乇 丕賳夭賵丕胤賱亘蹖 賵 诏賵卮賴鈥屭屫臂� 丿丕賳爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 丌丿賲蹖 乇丕 亘丕 賲賯蹖丕爻 毓賲賱 賲蹖鈥屫迟嗀� 賵 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 鬲賵氐蹖賮蹖 亘丿亘蹖賳丕賳賴 丕夭 亘卮乇 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 亘丿蹖賳 爻丕賳貙 賮賱爻賮賴鈥屫й� 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 蹖丕賮鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 毓賯蹖丿賴 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 爻乇賳賵卮鬲 亘卮乇 丿乇 丿爻鬲 禺賵丿 丕賵爻鬲. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賵卮卮蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳氐乇丕賮 亘卮乇 丕夭 毓賲賱 賳蹖爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 亘賴 丌丿賲蹖丕賳 丕毓賱丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕賲蹖丿蹖 噩夭 亘賴 毓賲賱 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿丕卮鬲 賵 丌賳趩賴 亘賴 亘卮乇 丕賲讴丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賮賯胤 毓賲賱 丕爻鬲. 氐 55 讴鬲丕亘
丌丿賲蹖 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿 亘賴 賳丨賵蹖 賲賱鬲夭賲 賵 丿乇诏蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 亘丿蹖賳 诏賵賳賴 鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵蹖乇 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲. 氐 52 讴鬲丕亘
丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賮賱爻賮賴鈥屫й� 賲亘賳蹖 亘乇 丕賳夭賵丕胤賱亘蹖 賵 诏賵卮賴鈥屭屫臂� 丿丕賳爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 丌丿賲蹖 乇丕 亘丕 賲賯蹖丕爻 毓賲賱 賲蹖鈥屫迟嗀� 賵 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 鬲賵氐蹖賮蹖 亘丿亘蹖賳丕賳賴 丕夭 亘卮乇 亘賴 丿爻鬲 賳賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 亘丿蹖賳 爻丕賳貙 賮賱爻賮賴鈥屫й� 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丌賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 蹖丕賮鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 毓賯蹖丿賴 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 爻乇賳賵卮鬲 亘卮乇 丿乇 丿爻鬲 禺賵丿 丕賵爻鬲. 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 讴賵卮卮蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丕賳氐乇丕賮 亘卮乇 丕夭 毓賲賱 賳蹖爻鬲貙 夭蹖乇丕 亘賴 丌丿賲蹖丕賳 丕毓賱丕賲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 丕賲蹖丿蹖 噩夭 亘賴 毓賲賱 賳亘丕蹖丿 丿丕卮鬲 賵 丌賳趩賴 亘賴 亘卮乇 丕賲讴丕賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賮賯胤 毓賲賱 丕爻鬲. 氐 55 讴鬲丕亘
July 15, 2019
丕毓鬲乇丕賮 賲蹖讴賳賲 讴賴 鬲丕 賯亘賱 丕夭 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賴蹖趩 卮賳丕禺鬲 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丕夭 賲讴鬲亘 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賳丿丕卮鬲賲 賵 丌賳趩賴 丿乇 丕蹖賳鬲乇賳鬲 賵 丕蹖賳 胤乇賮 賵 丌賳 胤乇賮 禺賵丕賳丿賴 亘賵丿賲 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕 乇亘胤蹖 亘賴 賲賮賴賵賲 賵丕賯毓蹖 丌賳 賳丿丕卮鬲.
讴鬲丕亘 丨丕囟乇 丕夭 爻賴 賳賵卮鬲賴 賲噩夭丕 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賴: 賳禺爻鬲 賲鬲賳蹖 丨丿賵丿丕 卮氐鬲 氐賮丨賴 丕蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 丌賳 乇丕 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖 賴丕蹖卮 鬲賳馗蹖賲 讴乇丿賴. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴貙 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘丕 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲蹖 爻丕丿賴 賵 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲貙 丕氐賵賱 賮賱爻賮賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲蹖 讴賴 亘丿丕賳 亘丕賵乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 乇丕 卮乇丨 丿丕丿賴 丕爻鬲. 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 賲鬲乇噩賲 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮 (亘丕 賵噩賵丿 賯丿蹖賲蹖 亘賵丿賳 鬲乇噩賲賴) 讴賲讴 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘賴 賮賴賲 賲鬲賳 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 丿賵 賳賵卮鬲賴 亘毓丿蹖 卮丕賲賱 丿賵 賲氐丕丨亘賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 賲胤丕賱亘卮丕賳貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賲氐乇賮 卮丕賳 诏匕卮鬲賴 賵 丨丿丕賯賱 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賳丿. 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丕诏乇 賴賲丕賳 卮氐鬲 氐賮丨賴 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 胤賲丕賳蹖賳賴 賵 丿賯鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賴听 賵 丨鬲蹖 丿賵亘丕乇賴 禺賵丕賳蹖 卮賵丿貙 丨馗 讴丕賮蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丿賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 噩匕丕亘 亘賵丿貨 賲讴鬲亘蹖 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 丨爻 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 倬匕蹖乇蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 丕鬲讴丕蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿 (賳賴 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賵 賳賴 毓丕賱賲 亘丕賱丕)貙 鬲賱丕卮 賵 鬲丨乇讴 賮乇丿蹖 賵 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳蹖 亘賴 賯丿乇鬲 亘卮乇 丿乇 丕蹖噩丕丿 鬲睾蹖蹖乇. 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賲禺丕賱賮 "诏賵卮賴 诏蹖乇蹖" 賵 "乇丕丨鬲 胤賱亘蹖" 賵 "賳丕丕賲蹖丿蹖" 丕爻鬲 (賵蹖跇诏蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘蹖賳 賮乇賴蹖禺鬲诏丕賳 賲丕 亘賴 賵賮賵乇 丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵丿). 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 讴丕乇蹖 亘丕蹖丿 丿爻鬲 亘賴 讴丕乇蹖 夭丿!
鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿 丿丕乇丕蹖 爻賴 賵蹖跇诏蹖 丕氐賱蹖 丕爻鬲:
1. 丌夭丕丿 丕爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 禺賵丿卮 鬲氐賲蹖賲 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 讴賴 趩賴 讴爻蹖 亘丕卮丿. 賴蹖趩 賯丕賱亘 丕夭 倬蹖卮 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 卮丿賴 丕蹖 (賲孬賱 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘卮乇蹖 蹖丕 丕禺賱丕賯 蹖丕 ...) 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 賴賵爻 丕爻鬲. 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵丿 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 毓賱丕賵賴 亘乇 禺賵丿卮貙 丿蹖诏乇 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳蹖夭 趩诏賵賳賴 亘丕卮賳丿 (賲孬賱 蹖讴 丕賱诏賵).
2. 鬲賳賴丕爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 讴爻蹖 賯乇丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲 丕賵 乇丕 蹖丕乇蹖 讴賳丿. 賴乇 讴爻 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 匕丕鬲蹖 丕蹖 讴賴 丿丕乇丿 亘丕蹖丿 亘乇禺蹖夭丿 賵 鬲賱丕卮 讴賳丿.
3. 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳 丕爻鬲. 亘丿蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 讴賴 丿乇 爻丕禺鬲 丌蹖賳丿賴 丕蹖 乇賵卮賳貙 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 丿乇 丿爻鬲 禺賵丿卮 丕爻鬲 賵 毓丕賲賱 禺丕乇噩蹖 丕蹖 丿禺丕賱鬲 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲 鬲賱丕卮蹖 丿乇禺賵乇貙 賯胤毓丕 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖 亘蹖賳丿.
爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴 禺賵丿卮 賲爻蹖丨蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴 禺丿丕 亘丕賵乇 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕賲丕 賴蹖趩 鬲賱丕卮蹖 賴賲 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 孬丕亘鬲 讴賳丿 禺丿丕 賳蹖爻鬲. 趩賵賳 亘賴 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賵 亘賴 賮乇囟 亘賵丿賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 (蹖丕 禺丿丕) 趩蹖夭蹖 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿. 丿乇賵丕賯毓 丕夭 賳馗乇 爻丕乇鬲乇 "賲爻丕賱賴 丕爻丕爻蹖 亘賵丿賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賳蹖爻鬲貨 賲賴賲 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘卮乇 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵丿 卮禺氐丕 禺賵蹖卮鬲賳 乇丕 亘丕夭蹖丕亘丿 賵 蹖賯蹖賳 讴賳丿 讴賴 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 丕賵 乇丕 丕夭 禺賵丿 乇賴丕蹖蹖 丿賴丿貙 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丿賱蹖賱蹖 亘蹖丕亘丿 讴賴 亘賵丿賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 亘乇 丕賵 孬丕亘鬲 卮賵丿".
讴鬲丕亘 丨丕囟乇 丕夭 爻賴 賳賵卮鬲賴 賲噩夭丕 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賴: 賳禺爻鬲 賲鬲賳蹖 丨丿賵丿丕 卮氐鬲 氐賮丨賴 丕蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 丌賳 乇丕 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖 賴丕蹖卮 鬲賳馗蹖賲 讴乇丿賴. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴貙 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘丕 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲蹖 爻丕丿賴 賵 賯丕亘賱 賮賴賲貙 丕氐賵賱 賮賱爻賮賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲蹖 讴賴 亘丿丕賳 亘丕賵乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 乇丕 卮乇丨 丿丕丿賴 丕爻鬲. 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲 賲鬲乇噩賲 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丕蹖賳 亘禺卮 (亘丕 賵噩賵丿 賯丿蹖賲蹖 亘賵丿賳 鬲乇噩賲賴) 讴賲讴 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘賴 賮賴賲 賲鬲賳 賲蹖 讴賳丿. 丿賵 賳賵卮鬲賴 亘毓丿蹖 卮丕賲賱 丿賵 賲氐丕丨亘賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 賲胤丕賱亘卮丕賳貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賲氐乇賮 卮丕賳 诏匕卮鬲賴 賵 丨丿丕賯賱 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賳丿. 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丕诏乇 賴賲丕賳 卮氐鬲 氐賮丨賴 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖蹖 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 胤賲丕賳蹖賳賴 賵 丿賯鬲 禺賵丕賳丿賴听 賵 丨鬲蹖 丿賵亘丕乇賴 禺賵丕賳蹖 卮賵丿貙 丨馗 讴丕賮蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丿賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲.
丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 賮賵賯 丕賱毓丕丿賴 噩匕丕亘 亘賵丿貨 賲讴鬲亘蹖 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 丨爻 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 倬匕蹖乇蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 丕鬲讴丕蹖 亘賴 禺賵丿 (賳賴 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賵 賳賴 毓丕賱賲 亘丕賱丕)貙 鬲賱丕卮 賵 鬲丨乇讴 賮乇丿蹖 賵 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳蹖 亘賴 賯丿乇鬲 亘卮乇 丿乇 丕蹖噩丕丿 鬲睾蹖蹖乇. 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賲禺丕賱賮 "诏賵卮賴 诏蹖乇蹖" 賵 "乇丕丨鬲 胤賱亘蹖" 賵 "賳丕丕賲蹖丿蹖" 丕爻鬲 (賵蹖跇诏蹖 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘蹖賳 賮乇賴蹖禺鬲诏丕賳 賲丕 亘賴 賵賮賵乇 丿蹖丿賴 賲蹖 卮賵丿). 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 倬蹖卮 丕夭 賴乇 讴丕乇蹖 亘丕蹖丿 丿爻鬲 亘賴 讴丕乇蹖 夭丿!
鬲氐賵蹖乇蹖 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖 讴賳丿 丿丕乇丕蹖 爻賴 賵蹖跇诏蹖 丕氐賱蹖 丕爻鬲:
1. 丌夭丕丿 丕爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 噩賴丕賳 禺賵丿卮 鬲氐賲蹖賲 賲蹖 诏蹖乇丿 讴賴 趩賴 讴爻蹖 亘丕卮丿. 賴蹖趩 賯丕賱亘 丕夭 倬蹖卮 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 卮丿賴 丕蹖 (賲孬賱 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘卮乇蹖 蹖丕 丕禺賱丕賯 蹖丕 ...) 賵噩賵丿 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕賱亘鬲賴 丕蹖賳 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 賴賵爻 丕爻鬲. 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳 亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵丿 鬲毓蹖蹖賳 賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 毓賱丕賵賴 亘乇 禺賵丿卮貙 丿蹖诏乇 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳蹖夭 趩诏賵賳賴 亘丕卮賳丿 (賲孬賱 蹖讴 丕賱诏賵).
2. 鬲賳賴丕爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 讴爻蹖 賯乇丕乇 賳蹖爻鬲 丕賵 乇丕 蹖丕乇蹖 讴賳丿. 賴乇 讴爻 亘乇 丕爻丕爻 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 匕丕鬲蹖 丕蹖 讴賴 丿丕乇丿 亘丕蹖丿 亘乇禺蹖夭丿 賵 鬲賱丕卮 讴賳丿.
3. 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳 丕爻鬲. 亘丿蹖賳 賲毓賳丕 讴賴 丿乇 爻丕禺鬲 丌蹖賳丿賴 丕蹖 乇賵卮賳貙 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭 丿乇 丿爻鬲 禺賵丿卮 丕爻鬲 賵 毓丕賲賱 禺丕乇噩蹖 丕蹖 丿禺丕賱鬲 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲 鬲賱丕卮蹖 丿乇禺賵乇貙 賯胤毓丕 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖 亘蹖賳丿.
爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴 禺賵丿卮 賲爻蹖丨蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴 禺丿丕 亘丕賵乇 賳丿丕乇丿. 丕賲丕 賴蹖趩 鬲賱丕卮蹖 賴賲 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 孬丕亘鬲 讴賳丿 禺丿丕 賳蹖爻鬲. 趩賵賳 亘賴 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丕賵 亘賴 賮乇囟 亘賵丿賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 (蹖丕 禺丿丕) 趩蹖夭蹖 鬲睾蹖蹖乇 賳賲蹖 讴賳丿. 丿乇賵丕賯毓 丕夭 賳馗乇 爻丕乇鬲乇 "賲爻丕賱賴 丕爻丕爻蹖 亘賵丿賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 賳蹖爻鬲貨 賲賴賲 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘卮乇 亘丕蹖丿 禺賵丿 卮禺氐丕 禺賵蹖卮鬲賳 乇丕 亘丕夭蹖丕亘丿 賵 蹖賯蹖賳 讴賳丿 讴賴 賴蹖趩 趩蹖夭 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳丿 丕賵 乇丕 丕夭 禺賵丿 乇賴丕蹖蹖 丿賴丿貙 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丿賱蹖賱蹖 亘蹖丕亘丿 讴賴 亘賵丿賳 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 亘乇 丕賵 孬丕亘鬲 卮賵丿".
June 16, 2017
賴賳诏丕賲蹖 讴賴 丿讴丕乇鬲 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿: "亘賴 噩丕蹖 鬲爻賱胤 亘乇 噩賴丕賳貙 亘丕蹖丿 亘乇 禺賵蹖卮鬲賳 賲爻賱胤 卮丿" 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賲蹖禺賵丕賴丿 亘诏賵蹖丿: 毓賲賱 讴賳蹖賲 亘蹖 丌賳讴賴 亘賴 丕賲蹖丿 賲鬲讴蹖 亘丕卮蹖賲.
丕賵賳 乇賵夭 讴賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 禺乇蹖丿賲貙 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 丕蹖賳 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘丕 賲賮賴賵賲 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 丿乇 乇賵丕賳 丿乇賲丕賳蹖 賲卮讴賱 丿丕卮鬲賲 賵 丕賲蹖丿 丿丕卮鬲賲 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 蹖賴 丿乇讴 賲爻鬲賯賱 丕夭 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲貙 讴賲讴蹖 亘丕卮賴 亘乇丕蹖 丿乇讴 亘賴鬲乇卮 丿乇 乇賵丕賳 丿乇賲丕賳蹖. 丨丕賱丕 讴賴 鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 亘禺賵賳賲卮貨 丿蹖诏賴 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賲賮賴賵賲 丿乇 乇賵丕賳 丿乇賲丕賳蹖 賲卮讴賱蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賲 賵 亘丕賱丕禺乇賴 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕 亘乇丕賲 噩丕 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 亘賵丿貙 丕賲丕 賲卮讴賱 丕蹖賳噩丕爻鬲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 禺賵亘 賳賮賴賲蹖丿賲.
丨鬲蹖 丨爻 賲蹖讴賳賲 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘诏賲 禺賵賳丿賲卮 賮毓賱 丿乇爻鬲蹖 賳亘丕卮賴貙 趩賵賳 禺賵賳丿賳 趩賳丿亘丕乇賴 蹖 亘毓囟蹖 噩賲賱丕鬲 賴賲 诏丕賴蹖 亘乇丕蹖 賮賴賲蹖丿賳卮賵賳 讴丕賮蹖 賳亘賵丿. 丿乇賳賴丕蹖鬲 丕蹖賳讴賴 鬲乇噩賲賴 蹖 毓噩蹖亘 賵 丿賵乇蹖 丿丕卮鬲 賵 賳鬲賵賳爻鬲賲 亘丕 乇蹖鬲賲 讴賱賲丕鬲 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘乇賯乇丕乇 讴賳賲. 賴賲蹖賳.
April 28, 2014
鈥淓xistentialism Is a Humanism鈥� is the result of a transcribed lecture Sartre delivered in 1945 responding to several critiques to existentialist theories. Communist detractors accused Existentialism of being a contemplative and bourgeois philosophy that led to quietism while Catholics condemned it for emphasizing what was despicable about humanity, which induced to a hopeless and pessimistic notion of human nature.
Sartre presents his defense dissecting the concept of Existentialism in a very didactic fashion, avoiding technical jargon or abstract content and using illustrative examples to make his points clear to reply one by one to all the attacks with a well argued discourse in spite of the ongoing contradictions he was struggling with at the time.
He proclaims: 鈥淢an is nothing other than his own project. He exists only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions鈥esponsible for what he is鈥� free鈥� condemned to be free鈥� committing himself to life.鈥�
According to Sartre, the leitmotif existence precedes essence denotes the often misunderstood optimism of the existentialist doctrine, for it places the responsibility of 鈥渂eing鈥� upon mankind, stressing the impossibility of a predefined 鈥渉uman nature鈥� a priori and therefore allowing man to be nothing other than what he makes of himself. Man materializes in the world through his own actions but at the same time he is overburdened with his choices because he commits not only himself but all of humanity.
Sentiments of 鈥渁nguish鈥�, 鈥渁bandonment鈥� and 鈥渄espair鈥� might ensue. 鈥淎nguish鈥� appears when the individual realizes the profound responsibility and the consequence of his actions on a collective level. Sartre quotes Dostoevsky鈥檚 words 鈥淚f God does not exist, everything is permissible鈥� to address the concept of abandonment. As there is no human nature or moral values to ascribe to a priori, man is condemned to freedom because once cast into the world he is responsible for everything he does without having any values or code of ethics that can legitimate his conduct. Consequently, he is 鈥渁bandoned鈥� in his present to create a virgin future defined only through his own actions. As the realm of possibilities yet to be transformed into realities and the intersubjectivity of man鈥檚 existence can鈥檛 be controlled, they can generate hope, expectations and dreams which eventually end up in 鈥渄espair鈥� and disappointment.
In analyzing the cornerstones of Existentialism, Sartre stresses the underlying contradictions in the accusations of its detractors pointing out that a philosophy based on action can鈥檛 be accused of quietism the same way that an unequivocal declaration of man as the only actor to dictate his own destiny can鈥檛 be labeled as a pessimistic view on existence, rather the opposite.
This short essay is a very accessible introduction to Sartre because it is addressed to the general public making use of an instructive tone and a simple yet eloquent language, very appropriate for neophytes on Existentialism like myself.
Although I can鈥檛 proclaim I fully comprehend the intricate web of reasoning behind Sartre鈥檚 viewpoint, the proposition of 鈥渇reedom鈥� as the foundation of all value, the transcendental belief that true essence lies in man discovering himself and the idea of a morality based on human beings taking responsibility of their own actions resonate within me.
At the same time I find comfort in recalling Whitman鈥檚 saying 鈥淚 am large, I contain multitudes鈥�, so I don鈥檛 even bat an eye when my quixotic self rebels against a doctrine which discards ideals and dreams for not being based on real foundations or when the romantic in me cringes at art being defined as a mere aesthetic invention in continuous progress instead of the passionate expression of an artist鈥檚 understanding of the world.
I have to keep reminding myself that Sartre鈥檚 world was falling apart in 1945 when he declared his critical defiance against all forms of authority in freeing himself from the weight of history and in urging a new generation to ponder and to reject dogma. I am made myself of many doubts and just one certainty: "the only way to learn is to question鈥�. And that is precisely what I aim to do. Keep questioning.
Sartre presents his defense dissecting the concept of Existentialism in a very didactic fashion, avoiding technical jargon or abstract content and using illustrative examples to make his points clear to reply one by one to all the attacks with a well argued discourse in spite of the ongoing contradictions he was struggling with at the time.
He proclaims: 鈥淢an is nothing other than his own project. He exists only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions鈥esponsible for what he is鈥� free鈥� condemned to be free鈥� committing himself to life.鈥�
According to Sartre, the leitmotif existence precedes essence denotes the often misunderstood optimism of the existentialist doctrine, for it places the responsibility of 鈥渂eing鈥� upon mankind, stressing the impossibility of a predefined 鈥渉uman nature鈥� a priori and therefore allowing man to be nothing other than what he makes of himself. Man materializes in the world through his own actions but at the same time he is overburdened with his choices because he commits not only himself but all of humanity.
Sentiments of 鈥渁nguish鈥�, 鈥渁bandonment鈥� and 鈥渄espair鈥� might ensue. 鈥淎nguish鈥� appears when the individual realizes the profound responsibility and the consequence of his actions on a collective level. Sartre quotes Dostoevsky鈥檚 words 鈥淚f God does not exist, everything is permissible鈥� to address the concept of abandonment. As there is no human nature or moral values to ascribe to a priori, man is condemned to freedom because once cast into the world he is responsible for everything he does without having any values or code of ethics that can legitimate his conduct. Consequently, he is 鈥渁bandoned鈥� in his present to create a virgin future defined only through his own actions. As the realm of possibilities yet to be transformed into realities and the intersubjectivity of man鈥檚 existence can鈥檛 be controlled, they can generate hope, expectations and dreams which eventually end up in 鈥渄espair鈥� and disappointment.
In analyzing the cornerstones of Existentialism, Sartre stresses the underlying contradictions in the accusations of its detractors pointing out that a philosophy based on action can鈥檛 be accused of quietism the same way that an unequivocal declaration of man as the only actor to dictate his own destiny can鈥檛 be labeled as a pessimistic view on existence, rather the opposite.
This short essay is a very accessible introduction to Sartre because it is addressed to the general public making use of an instructive tone and a simple yet eloquent language, very appropriate for neophytes on Existentialism like myself.
Although I can鈥檛 proclaim I fully comprehend the intricate web of reasoning behind Sartre鈥檚 viewpoint, the proposition of 鈥渇reedom鈥� as the foundation of all value, the transcendental belief that true essence lies in man discovering himself and the idea of a morality based on human beings taking responsibility of their own actions resonate within me.
At the same time I find comfort in recalling Whitman鈥檚 saying 鈥淚 am large, I contain multitudes鈥�, so I don鈥檛 even bat an eye when my quixotic self rebels against a doctrine which discards ideals and dreams for not being based on real foundations or when the romantic in me cringes at art being defined as a mere aesthetic invention in continuous progress instead of the passionate expression of an artist鈥檚 understanding of the world.
I have to keep reminding myself that Sartre鈥檚 world was falling apart in 1945 when he declared his critical defiance against all forms of authority in freeing himself from the weight of history and in urging a new generation to ponder and to reject dogma. I am made myself of many doubts and just one certainty: "the only way to learn is to question鈥�. And that is precisely what I aim to do. Keep questioning.
June 15, 2021
O conferin葲膬 de popularizare, care cuprinde toate locurile comune ale existen葲ialismului sartrian. Transport aici un pasaj bine cunoscut din aceast膬 prelegere 葲inut膬 卯n 1945, c卯nd toat膬 lumea s-a trezit brusc condamnat膬 la libertate:
鈥濫xisten牛ialismul ateu, printre ai c膬rui reprezentan牛i m膬 num膬r, declar膬 cu mult膬 claritate c膬 dac膬 Dumnezeu nu exist膬, atunci exist膬 cel pu牛in o fiin牛膬 la care existen牛a precede esen牛a, o fiin牛膬 care exist膬 卯nainte de a putea fi definit膬 de orice concep牛ie asupra ei. Acea fiin牛膬 este omul... Ce vrem s膬 spunem atunci c卯nd afirm膬m c膬 existen牛a precede esen牛a? Vrem s膬 spunem c膬 omul mai 卯nt卯i exist膬, ia cuno艧tin牛膬 de el, survine 卯n lume - 艧i abia dup膬 aceea se define艧te. Dac膬 omul a艧a cum 卯l vede un existen牛ialist nu este definibil, e pentru c膬 de la 卯nceput nu este nimic. El nu va fi ceva dec卯t mai t卯rziu, 艧i anume, va fi ceea ce va face din el. Astfel, nu exist膬 natur膬 uman膬, pentru c膬 nu exist膬 un Dumnezeu care s膬 aib膬 o concep牛ie asupra ei. Omul este pur 艧i simplu. Nu 卯n sensul c膬 este ceea ce se concepe el a fi, ci c膬 este ceea ce se vrea 艧i ceea ce se concepe el 卯nsu艧i dup膬 ce exist膬 deja - a艧a cum 卯艧i proiecteaz膬 el s膬 fie dup膬 acel salt c膬tre existen牛膬鈥�.
鈥濫xisten牛ialismul ateu, printre ai c膬rui reprezentan牛i m膬 num膬r, declar膬 cu mult膬 claritate c膬 dac膬 Dumnezeu nu exist膬, atunci exist膬 cel pu牛in o fiin牛膬 la care existen牛a precede esen牛a, o fiin牛膬 care exist膬 卯nainte de a putea fi definit膬 de orice concep牛ie asupra ei. Acea fiin牛膬 este omul... Ce vrem s膬 spunem atunci c卯nd afirm膬m c膬 existen牛a precede esen牛a? Vrem s膬 spunem c膬 omul mai 卯nt卯i exist膬, ia cuno艧tin牛膬 de el, survine 卯n lume - 艧i abia dup膬 aceea se define艧te. Dac膬 omul a艧a cum 卯l vede un existen牛ialist nu este definibil, e pentru c膬 de la 卯nceput nu este nimic. El nu va fi ceva dec卯t mai t卯rziu, 艧i anume, va fi ceea ce va face din el. Astfel, nu exist膬 natur膬 uman膬, pentru c膬 nu exist膬 un Dumnezeu care s膬 aib膬 o concep牛ie asupra ei. Omul este pur 艧i simplu. Nu 卯n sensul c膬 este ceea ce se concepe el a fi, ci c膬 este ceea ce se vrea 艧i ceea ce se concepe el 卯nsu艧i dup膬 ce exist膬 deja - a艧a cum 卯艧i proiecteaz膬 el s膬 fie dup膬 acel salt c膬tre existen牛膬鈥�.
September 10, 2023
丕乇夭卮 趩蹖夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 噩夭 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 讴賴 卮賲丕 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳 亘乇 賲蹖诏夭蹖賳蹖丿.丕賳爻丕賳 賴蹖趩 丕爻鬲 亘賴 噩夭 丌賳趩賴 禺賵丿 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿.
賮賱爻賮賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 貙 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖丕爻 賵 亘丿亘蹖賳蹖 賵 噩丿丕蹖蹖 賵 鬲賳賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 讴賱丕賲 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 蹖讴 賳賵毓 "禺卮賵賳鬲 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳丕賳賴 " 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賵馗蹖賮賴 蹖讴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖丕 蹖讴 賴賳乇賲賳丿 "賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳" 亘丿蹖 賴丕 賵 夭卮鬲蹖 賴丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 乇蹖卮賴 讴賳 讴乇丿賳 丌賳賴丕 .
噩丿丕蹖 鬲賵囟蹖丨 毓丕賱蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丿乇 亘禺卮 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 爻丕乇鬲乇 賴賮鬲丕丿 爻丕賱賴 賲賵丕噩賴 賴爻鬲蹖賲 讴爻蹖 讴賴 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿蹖 丕夭 丿爻鬲 賵 倬丕 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 賵 丿蹖诏乇 賳賵卮鬲賳 亘乇丕蹖卮 賲賯丿賵乇 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 亘丕 蹖讴 夭賳丿诏蹖 貙 亘丕 蹖讴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘卮乇蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 丕蹖賲.
亘賳馗乇 賲賳 丕夭 賲賵賮賯蹖鬲 賴丕 貙 丿卮賲賳蹖 賴丕 貙 乇卮丿 賮讴乇蹖 賵 鬲賵賯賮 乇卮丿 賮讴乇蹖 蹖讴 卮禺氐 (蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳) 賵 賳馗乇 禺賵丿卮 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿卮 禺蹖賱蹖 丿乇爻 賴丕 賲蹖卮賴 诏乇賮鬲.
讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賴 卮丿鬲 夭蹖亘丕
賮賱爻賮賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 貙 賮賱爻賮賴 蹖丕爻 賵 亘丿亘蹖賳蹖 賵 噩丿丕蹖蹖 賵 鬲賳賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 讴賱丕賲 爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 蹖讴 賳賵毓 "禺卮賵賳鬲 禺賵卮 亘蹖賳丕賳賴 " 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賵馗蹖賮賴 蹖讴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖丕 蹖讴 賴賳乇賲賳丿 "賳卮丕賳 丿丕丿賳" 亘丿蹖 賴丕 賵 夭卮鬲蹖 賴丕爻鬲 亘乇丕蹖 乇蹖卮賴 讴賳 讴乇丿賳 丌賳賴丕 .
噩丿丕蹖 鬲賵囟蹖丨 毓丕賱蹖 丿乇亘丕乇賴 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丿乇 亘禺卮 丌禺乇 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 爻丕乇鬲乇 賴賮鬲丕丿 爻丕賱賴 賲賵丕噩賴 賴爻鬲蹖賲 讴爻蹖 讴賴 鬲丕 丨丿賵丿蹖 丕夭 丿爻鬲 賵 倬丕 丕賮鬲丕丿賴 賵 丿蹖诏乇 賳賵卮鬲賳 亘乇丕蹖卮 賲賯丿賵乇 賳蹖爻鬲 賵 亘丕 蹖讴 夭賳丿诏蹖 貙 亘丕 蹖讴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 夭賳丿诏蹖 亘卮乇蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 丕蹖賲.
亘賳馗乇 賲賳 丕夭 賲賵賮賯蹖鬲 賴丕 貙 丿卮賲賳蹖 賴丕 貙 乇卮丿 賮讴乇蹖 賵 鬲賵賯賮 乇卮丿 賮讴乇蹖 蹖讴 卮禺氐 (蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳) 賵 賳馗乇 禺賵丿卮 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵丿卮 禺蹖賱蹖 丿乇爻 賴丕 賲蹖卮賴 诏乇賮鬲.
讴鬲丕亘蹖 亘賴 卮丿鬲 夭蹖亘丕
October 13, 2024
It is difficult to overstate the effect of Sartre鈥檚 L鈥櫭妕re et le N茅ant (1943) on postwar French culture. Although the book was, by Sartre鈥檚 own account, a technical work intended only for professional philosophers, it captured the imagination of a generation of disaffected youth, catapulting the author into superstardom and putting him at the centre of public controversy. Catholic conservatives accused him of corrupting the youth; Marxist revolutionaries of lulling them into an apolitical slumber, and just about everyone else of glorifying ugliness, negativity, and nihilism.
L鈥橢xistentialisme est un humanisme (1946) is a popularization of L鈥櫭妕re et le N茅ant intended to clear it of these accusations. The Existentialism developed therein, Sartre tells us, does nothing more than to draw the logical consequences of atheism. Its central thesis is that 鈥渆xistence precedes essence.鈥� There being no God, human beings have no intrinsic nature (ousia) or objective purpose (telos) to give their lives meaning. They must rather make themselves what they are and set their own purpose by their actions. In this sense, 鈥渕an is nothing else than what he makes himself.鈥�
Sartre鈥檚 ontological views have important ethical implications. The non-existence of God, he maintains, entails the unreality of mind-independent moral values. Values are instead strictly subjective: To say that one values some object is to say no more than that one chooses it or is disposed to choose it on the appropriate occasion, and there is no criterion to decide what one ought to choose. Human beings therefore find themselves alone in the midst of infinite possibilities with nothing to guide them through an objectively meaningless existence. As Sartre puts it, 鈥淢an is condemned to be free.鈥�
Existentialism is unmistakably a product of its time. Sartre wrote in the mid-twentieth century when scientific advances, social upheavals, and armed conflicts had destabilized the traditional order of things and shattered narratives of human progress. Reading his work, one can practically see him struggling to build a coherent philosophical system from the rubble around him. As evidenced by his own awkward and unconvincing attempts to get ethics back off the ground, however, the project was doomed from the start. Try as Sartre may to convince otherwise, his doctrine is ultimately a philosophy of irrationalism and arbitrariness.
L鈥橢xistentialisme est un humanisme (1946) is a popularization of L鈥櫭妕re et le N茅ant intended to clear it of these accusations. The Existentialism developed therein, Sartre tells us, does nothing more than to draw the logical consequences of atheism. Its central thesis is that 鈥渆xistence precedes essence.鈥� There being no God, human beings have no intrinsic nature (ousia) or objective purpose (telos) to give their lives meaning. They must rather make themselves what they are and set their own purpose by their actions. In this sense, 鈥渕an is nothing else than what he makes himself.鈥�
Sartre鈥檚 ontological views have important ethical implications. The non-existence of God, he maintains, entails the unreality of mind-independent moral values. Values are instead strictly subjective: To say that one values some object is to say no more than that one chooses it or is disposed to choose it on the appropriate occasion, and there is no criterion to decide what one ought to choose. Human beings therefore find themselves alone in the midst of infinite possibilities with nothing to guide them through an objectively meaningless existence. As Sartre puts it, 鈥淢an is condemned to be free.鈥�
Existentialism is unmistakably a product of its time. Sartre wrote in the mid-twentieth century when scientific advances, social upheavals, and armed conflicts had destabilized the traditional order of things and shattered narratives of human progress. Reading his work, one can practically see him struggling to build a coherent philosophical system from the rubble around him. As evidenced by his own awkward and unconvincing attempts to get ethics back off the ground, however, the project was doomed from the start. Try as Sartre may to convince otherwise, his doctrine is ultimately a philosophy of irrationalism and arbitrariness.
April 23, 2021
Uzun zamand谋r hakk谋nda okuma yapmad谋臒谋m baz谋 konular谋 g枚zden ge莽irme ihtiyac谋 duyuyorum. Bunu Nietzsche i莽in yak谋n zamanda yapm谋艧 ve g枚r眉艧lerimin baz谋 yerlerde eskisine g枚re farkl谋l谋klar g枚sterdi臒ini farketmi艧tim. 艦imdi de bu okumay谋 鈥渧arolu艧莽uluk鈥� i莽in yapt谋m, hem de bu konuda en temel metin olan ve 枚zg眉n ismi 鈥淰arolu艧莽uluk bir 陌nsanc谋ll谋kt谋r鈥� olan J. P. Sartre鈥櫮眓 kitab谋ndan.
Her艧eyden 枚nce varolu艧莽uluk bir ideoloji de臒il, felsefik farkl谋 d眉艧眉nme sonunda olu艧an bir felsefe 莽e艧ididir. Tek bir varolu艧莽u g枚r眉艧 yoktur, temelde 鈥渋nsan 枚nce vard谋r ve 枚z眉n眉 kendisi yarat谋r鈥� gibi basit bir tan谋m varolu艧莽ular谋 birbirine ba臒lar, bu ba臒lar i莽inde ise insan 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉, se莽me 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉, bireycili臒in 枚n plana 莽谋kmas谋, bunal谋m, korku ve kayg谋 gibi duygular谋n tecr眉beleri yer al谋r. 脰zg眉rl眉k konusu varolu艧莽ular aras谋nda 枚ne 莽谋kmaktad谋r 莽眉nk眉 bu konuda eylemleriyle uygulama i莽inde bulunmu艧lard谋r.
Bu k谋sa g枚zden ge莽irme okumamda esasen 鈥渧arolu艧莽uluk鈥� felsefesi ya da d眉艧眉nce sistemine inanc谋m谋n ayn谋 oldu臒unu, sadece 鈥渂a艧kalar谋n谋 kendi varolu艧 nedeni hatta ko艧ulu sayma鈥� konusunda yani 鈥渒endisi ile ilgili bir ger莽e臒e varma konusunda ba艧kalar谋ndan ge莽mesi gerekti臒i ko艧ulunda鈥� tak谋ld谋臒谋m谋 belirtmemde yarar var.
Varo艧莽ulu臒un anlamland谋r谋lmas谋ndaki temel sorunun kavram ve tan谋mlara Sartre鈥櫮眓 romanlar yoluyla (Bulant谋, Sinekler, 脰zg眉rl眉k Yollar谋 vb...) girmi艧 olmas谋n谋, saf felsefik metinleri sonra bu romanlar谋 tamamlamak i莽in yazm谋艧 oldu臒unu da bu okumamda farkettim. T眉m ele艧tirilere ra臒men 鈥渧arolu艧莽uluk鈥� benim d眉艧眉ncelerimde kar艧谋l谋臒谋n谋 buluyor.
Kitaba gelirsek derli toplu bir kaynak kitap niteli臒inde, bir s枚yle艧i ve J.P. Sartre鈥檔in hayat hikayesi kitaba eklenmi艧. Sonunda da geni艧 bir kaynak莽a var.
Her艧eyden 枚nce varolu艧莽uluk bir ideoloji de臒il, felsefik farkl谋 d眉艧眉nme sonunda olu艧an bir felsefe 莽e艧ididir. Tek bir varolu艧莽u g枚r眉艧 yoktur, temelde 鈥渋nsan 枚nce vard谋r ve 枚z眉n眉 kendisi yarat谋r鈥� gibi basit bir tan谋m varolu艧莽ular谋 birbirine ba臒lar, bu ba臒lar i莽inde ise insan 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉, se莽me 枚zg眉rl眉臒眉, bireycili臒in 枚n plana 莽谋kmas谋, bunal谋m, korku ve kayg谋 gibi duygular谋n tecr眉beleri yer al谋r. 脰zg眉rl眉k konusu varolu艧莽ular aras谋nda 枚ne 莽谋kmaktad谋r 莽眉nk眉 bu konuda eylemleriyle uygulama i莽inde bulunmu艧lard谋r.
Bu k谋sa g枚zden ge莽irme okumamda esasen 鈥渧arolu艧莽uluk鈥� felsefesi ya da d眉艧眉nce sistemine inanc谋m谋n ayn谋 oldu臒unu, sadece 鈥渂a艧kalar谋n谋 kendi varolu艧 nedeni hatta ko艧ulu sayma鈥� konusunda yani 鈥渒endisi ile ilgili bir ger莽e臒e varma konusunda ba艧kalar谋ndan ge莽mesi gerekti臒i ko艧ulunda鈥� tak谋ld谋臒谋m谋 belirtmemde yarar var.
Varo艧莽ulu臒un anlamland谋r谋lmas谋ndaki temel sorunun kavram ve tan谋mlara Sartre鈥櫮眓 romanlar yoluyla (Bulant谋, Sinekler, 脰zg眉rl眉k Yollar谋 vb...) girmi艧 olmas谋n谋, saf felsefik metinleri sonra bu romanlar谋 tamamlamak i莽in yazm谋艧 oldu臒unu da bu okumamda farkettim. T眉m ele艧tirilere ra臒men 鈥渧arolu艧莽uluk鈥� benim d眉艧眉ncelerimde kar艧谋l谋臒谋n谋 buluyor.
Kitaba gelirsek derli toplu bir kaynak kitap niteli臒inde, bir s枚yle艧i ve J.P. Sartre鈥檔in hayat hikayesi kitaba eklenmi艧. Sonunda da geni艧 bir kaynak莽a var.
October 18, 2018
In this short book Sartre provides a clear overview of the varying aspects of existentialism, clarifying each while refuting arguments against the philosophy throughout, which leaves us with a well rounded understanding of the tenets of the philosophy. It's more educational that it is enjoyable, but then one doesn't read Sartre for the thrill of it. He composes his theory, shrinks it down from the massive and better in-depth Being and Nothingness really, so it's not a bad place to start for the Sartre novice looking for nothing too expansive.
In short, in the eyes of Sartre, there is no God, we have simply been abandoned to our fate. That point however should not be misconstrued as that Existentialism is only about Atheism. It simply affirms that even if a holy being like God existed, it would make no difference to humanities existence. Human nature is not a self-congratulatory condition, but rather a fearful, uncertain, anguished and forlorn condition. Thus the real problem with our humanity is not with God's existence, but with man's own. Existentialism argues that man does not need a God so much as he needs to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself. The view is understanding alone makes Existentialism, not only profoundly human, but also optimistic about human nature and the human condition.
In short, in the eyes of Sartre, there is no God, we have simply been abandoned to our fate. That point however should not be misconstrued as that Existentialism is only about Atheism. It simply affirms that even if a holy being like God existed, it would make no difference to humanities existence. Human nature is not a self-congratulatory condition, but rather a fearful, uncertain, anguished and forlorn condition. Thus the real problem with our humanity is not with God's existence, but with man's own. Existentialism argues that man does not need a God so much as he needs to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself. The view is understanding alone makes Existentialism, not only profoundly human, but also optimistic about human nature and the human condition.
January 16, 2020
L鈥檈xistentialisme est un humanisme est la transcription d鈥檜ne conf茅rence de Jean-Paul Sartre, prononc茅e quelques mois apr猫s la Lib茅ration. L鈥檕bjet de cette conf茅rence est, principalement, de dissiper certains malentendus au sujet de la doctrine philosophique d茅fendue par Sartre. Autrement dit, il s鈥檃git d鈥檜ne apolog茅tique de Sartre par lui-m锚me, en r茅ponse aux diff茅rentes critiques que lui avaient adress茅 les philosophes communistes d鈥檜n c么t茅, chr茅tiens de l鈥檃utre. Les principaux points d茅fendus par Sartre sont l鈥檃ffirmation d鈥檜n non-d茅terminisme absolu de l鈥檋omme et donc d鈥檜ne morale de la libert茅 totale et de la responsabilit茅 absolue. En r茅sum茅 : on ne peut pas ne pas choisir et on choisit toujours seul (voir exemple du jeune r茅sistant) ; par cons茅quent aussi, on est responsable de tout ce que l鈥檕n fait (et de tout ce qui nous arrive !).
L鈥檌mpression g茅n茅rale que j鈥檈n tire est celle d鈥檜n texte simple, accessible, o霉 Sartre s鈥檈xprime sur le ton de la conversation. Cependant, pour 锚tre clair, il n鈥檈st pas pour autant tr猫s 茅clairant quant aux positions existentialistes. Et, 脿 lire la discussion qui suivit la conf茅rence, il est assez 茅vident que l鈥檕bjectif de r茅conciliation avec le camp adverse (communistes en particulier) est manqu茅. Quant 脿 la doctrine de la libert茅 totale, les mots de n鈥檕nt cess茅 de revenir 脿 mon esprit :
L鈥檌mpression g茅n茅rale que j鈥檈n tire est celle d鈥檜n texte simple, accessible, o霉 Sartre s鈥檈xprime sur le ton de la conversation. Cependant, pour 锚tre clair, il n鈥檈st pas pour autant tr猫s 茅clairant quant aux positions existentialistes. Et, 脿 lire la discussion qui suivit la conf茅rence, il est assez 茅vident que l鈥檕bjectif de r茅conciliation avec le camp adverse (communistes en particulier) est manqu茅. Quant 脿 la doctrine de la libert茅 totale, les mots de n鈥檕nt cess茅 de revenir 脿 mon esprit :
Concevez maintenant, si vous voulez bien, que la pierre, tandis qu'elle continue de se mouvoir, sache et pense qu'elle fait tout l'effort possible pour continuer de se mouvoir, Cette pierre, assur茅ment, puisqu'elle n'est consciente que de son effort, et qu'elle n'est pas indiff茅rente, croira 锚tre libre et ne pers茅v茅rer dans son mouvement que par la seule raison qu'elle le d茅sire. Telle est cette libert茅 humaine que tous les hommes se vantent d'avoir et qui consiste en cela seul que les hommes sont conscients de leurs d茅sirs et ignorants des causes qui les d茅terminent. (Lettre 脿 Schuller, 1674).
September 3, 2018
螆谓伪 尾喂尾位委慰 蟺慰蠀 尉蔚蟺蔚蟻谓维蔚喂 蟿慰 "蟺蟻苇蟺蔚喂 谓伪 未喂伪尾伪蟽蟿蔚委" 魏伪喂 蟺蔚蟿蠀蠂伪委谓蔚喂 蟿慰 "渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 未喂伪尾伪蟽蟿蔚委" 伪蟺蠈 蠈位慰蠀蟼. 螒蠀蟿蠈 魏伪喂 渭蠈谓慰 伪蟺慰未蔚喂魏谓蠉蔚喂 蟿畏谓 伪尉委伪 蟿慰蠀.
韦喂 蟺喂慰 伪尉喂慰胃伪蠉渭伪蟽蟿慰 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺喂位慰纬萎 蔚谓蠈蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽蠈蠁慰蠀 谓伪 蔚魏位伪蠆魏蔚蠉蟽蔚喂 蟿畏 胃蔚蠅蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 纬喂伪 谓伪 渭蟺慰蟻苇蟽蔚喂 谓伪 伪蟺蔚蠀胃蠀谓胃蔚委 蟽蟿慰 蔚蠀蟻蠉 魏慰喂谓蠈 魏喂 蠈蠂喂 渭蠈谓慰 蟽蔚 渭委伪 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻喂蟽渭苇谓畏 蔚位喂蟿委蟽蟿喂魏畏 渭蔚喂慰蠄畏蠁委伪.
韦慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 魏伪蟿伪蟻蠂维蟼 未蔚谓 蔚委谓伪喂 慰纬魏蠋未蔚蟼 魏喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 伪谓伪渭蠁委尾慰位伪 伪蟺慰蟿蔚位蔚委 苇谓伪 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻蠈 蟺位蔚慰谓苇魏蟿畏渭伪 纬喂伪 维蟿慰渭伪 蟺慰蠀 魏维谓慰蠀谓 蟿伪 蟺蟻蠋蟿伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 尾萎渭伪蟿伪 蟽蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂慰蠀 蔚委未慰蠀蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽渭伪蟿伪. 螒蟽蠁伪位蠋蟼 伪蟺伪喂蟿蔚委 蟽蠀纬魏苇谓蟿蟻蠅蟽畏, 蟽蟿慰蠂伪蟽渭蠈, 尉蔚魏慰蠉蟻伪蟽蟿慰 渭蠀伪位蠈, 蟺蟻慰蠇蟺慰胃苇蟽蔚喂蟼 蟺慰蠀 胃蔚蠅蟻蠋 蟺蠅蟼 慰 渭苇蟽慰蟼 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰蟼 蔚尉伪蟽蠁伪位委味慰谓蟿维蟼 蟿蔚蟼 胃伪 渭蟺慰蟻苇蟽蔚喂 谓伪 魏伪蟿伪谓慰萎蟽蔚喂 蟿慰蠀位维蠂喂蟽蟿慰谓 蟽蔚 喂魏伪谓慰蟺慰喂畏蟿喂魏蠈 尾伪胃渭蠈 蟿喂蟼 尾伪蟽喂魏苇蟼 蟺蟿蠀蠂苇蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟽蠀谓胃苇蟿慰蠀谓 蟿畏谓 胃蔚蠅蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂蟽渭慰蠉. 螆蟿蟽喂, 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠋谓慰谓蟿伪蟼 蟿畏谓 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏 伪蠀蟿慰蠉 蟿慰蠀 尾喂尾位委慰蠀, 慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟽蔚 胃苇蟽畏 谓伪 伪蟺慰蠁伪蟽委蟽蔚喂 魏伪蟿维 蟺蠈蟽慰 蟿慰谓 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 谓伪 蔚谓蟿蟻蠀蠁萎蟽蔚喂 蟽蟿慰谓 危伪蟻蟿蟻 魏伪喂 谓伪 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委蟽蔚喂 未喂伪尾维味慰谓蟿伪蟼 未蠀蟽魏慰位蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 尾喂尾位委伪 蟿慰蠀. 惟蟽蟿蠈蟽慰, 伪魏蠈渭伪 魏伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蔚蟻委蟺蟿蠅蟽畏 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 未蔚谓 未畏渭喂慰蠉蟻纬畏蟽蔚 蟽蟿慰谓 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏 蟿慰 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓 蟺蔚蟻伪喂蟿苇蟻蠅 渭蔚位苇蟿畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂蟽渭慰蠉, 魏伪喂 蟺维位喂 苇蠂蔚喂 魏蔚蟻未委蟽蔚喂 苇蠂慰谓蟿伪蟼 渭维胃蔚喂 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿伪谓慰萎蟽蔚喂 蟿伪 魏蠀蟻喂蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 蟽畏渭蔚委伪 伪蠀蟿慰蠉 蟿慰蠀 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏慰蠉 蟻蔚蠉渭伪蟿慰蟼. 螘蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼, 慰 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 胃伪 蔚蟺喂位苇尉蔚喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰, 渭蠈谓慰 魏蔚蟻未喂蟽渭苇谓慰蟼 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 尾纬蔚喂.
螤苇蟻伪谓 蟿慰蠉蟿慰蠀, 蟿慰 蟽畏渭伪谓蟿喂魏蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪蟿慰蠉 蟿慰蠀 尾喂尾位委慰蠀 伪蟺慰蟿蔚位蔚委 蟿慰 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟽蠀渭蟺蔚蟻委位畏蠄畏蟼 伪谓蟿喂位蠈纬慰蠀. 螣 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼 未蔚谓 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻委味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿喂蟼 尾伪蟽喂魏苇蟼 苇谓谓慰喂蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂蟽渭慰蠉, 伪位位维 苇蟻蠂蔚蟿伪喂 伪谓蟿喂渭苇蟿蠅蟺慰蟼 魏伪喂 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪渭蠁喂蟽尾萎蟿畏蟽萎 蟿慰蠀 魏喂 畏 未喂伪位蔚魏蟿喂魏萎 伪蠀蟿萎 蟺蟻慰蟽蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟿畏谓 喂魏伪谓慰蟺慰委畏蟽畏 渭喂伪蟼 魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎蟼 魏喂 蔚蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼 蔚谓 慰位委纬慰喂蟼 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅渭苇谓畏蟼 蟺蟻蠋蟿畏蟼 蔚蟺伪蠁萎蟼 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪 蟿慰蠀 危伪蟻蟿蟻.
韦喂 蟺喂慰 伪尉喂慰胃伪蠉渭伪蟽蟿慰 伪蟺蠈 蟿畏谓 蔚蟺喂位慰纬萎 蔚谓蠈蟼 蠁喂位慰蟽蠈蠁慰蠀 谓伪 蔚魏位伪蠆魏蔚蠉蟽蔚喂 蟿畏 胃蔚蠅蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 纬喂伪 谓伪 渭蟺慰蟻苇蟽蔚喂 谓伪 伪蟺蔚蠀胃蠀谓胃蔚委 蟽蟿慰 蔚蠀蟻蠉 魏慰喂谓蠈 魏喂 蠈蠂喂 渭蠈谓慰 蟽蔚 渭委伪 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻喂蟽渭苇谓畏 蔚位喂蟿委蟽蟿喂魏畏 渭蔚喂慰蠄畏蠁委伪.
韦慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 魏伪蟿伪蟻蠂维蟼 未蔚谓 蔚委谓伪喂 慰纬魏蠋未蔚蟼 魏喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 伪谓伪渭蠁委尾慰位伪 伪蟺慰蟿蔚位蔚委 苇谓伪 喂蟽蠂蠀蟻蠈 蟺位蔚慰谓苇魏蟿畏渭伪 纬喂伪 维蟿慰渭伪 蟺慰蠀 魏维谓慰蠀谓 蟿伪 蟺蟻蠋蟿伪 蟿慰蠀蟼 尾萎渭伪蟿伪 蟽蔚 蟿苇蟿慰喂慰蠀 蔚委未慰蠀蟼 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽渭伪蟿伪. 螒蟽蠁伪位蠋蟼 伪蟺伪喂蟿蔚委 蟽蠀纬魏苇谓蟿蟻蠅蟽畏, 蟽蟿慰蠂伪蟽渭蠈, 尉蔚魏慰蠉蟻伪蟽蟿慰 渭蠀伪位蠈, 蟺蟻慰蠇蟺慰胃苇蟽蔚喂蟼 蟺慰蠀 胃蔚蠅蟻蠋 蟺蠅蟼 慰 渭苇蟽慰蟼 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰蟼 蔚尉伪蟽蠁伪位委味慰谓蟿维蟼 蟿蔚蟼 胃伪 渭蟺慰蟻苇蟽蔚喂 谓伪 魏伪蟿伪谓慰萎蟽蔚喂 蟿慰蠀位维蠂喂蟽蟿慰谓 蟽蔚 喂魏伪谓慰蟺慰喂畏蟿喂魏蠈 尾伪胃渭蠈 蟿喂蟼 尾伪蟽喂魏苇蟼 蟺蟿蠀蠂苇蟼 蟺慰蠀 蟽蠀谓胃苇蟿慰蠀谓 蟿畏谓 胃蔚蠅蟻委伪 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂蟽渭慰蠉. 螆蟿蟽喂, 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠋谓慰谓蟿伪蟼 蟿畏谓 伪谓维纬谓蠅蟽畏 伪蠀蟿慰蠉 蟿慰蠀 尾喂尾位委慰蠀, 慰 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼 蔚委谓伪喂 蟽蔚 胃苇蟽畏 谓伪 伪蟺慰蠁伪蟽委蟽蔚喂 魏伪蟿维 蟺蠈蟽慰 蟿慰谓 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻蔚喂 谓伪 蔚谓蟿蟻蠀蠁萎蟽蔚喂 蟽蟿慰谓 危伪蟻蟿蟻 魏伪喂 谓伪 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委蟽蔚喂 未喂伪尾维味慰谓蟿伪蟼 未蠀蟽魏慰位蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 尾喂尾位委伪 蟿慰蠀. 惟蟽蟿蠈蟽慰, 伪魏蠈渭伪 魏伪喂 蟽蟿畏谓 蟺蔚蟻委蟺蟿蠅蟽畏 蟺慰蠀 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰 伪蠀蟿蠈 未蔚谓 未畏渭喂慰蠉蟻纬畏蟽蔚 蟽蟿慰谓 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏 蟿慰 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓 蟺蔚蟻伪喂蟿苇蟻蠅 渭蔚位苇蟿畏蟼 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂蟽渭慰蠉, 魏伪喂 蟺维位喂 苇蠂蔚喂 魏蔚蟻未委蟽蔚喂 苇蠂慰谓蟿伪蟼 渭维胃蔚喂 魏伪喂 魏伪蟿伪谓慰萎蟽蔚喂 蟿伪 魏蠀蟻喂蠈蟿蔚蟻伪 蟽畏渭蔚委伪 伪蠀蟿慰蠉 蟿慰蠀 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁喂魏慰蠉 蟻蔚蠉渭伪蟿慰蟼. 螘蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼, 慰 维谓胃蟻蠅蟺慰蟼 蟺慰蠀 胃伪 蔚蟺喂位苇尉蔚喂 伪蠀蟿蠈 蟿慰 尾喂尾位委慰, 渭蠈谓慰 魏蔚蟻未喂蟽渭苇谓慰蟼 渭蟺慰蟻蔚委 谓伪 尾纬蔚喂.
螤苇蟻伪谓 蟿慰蠉蟿慰蠀, 蟿慰 蟽畏渭伪谓蟿喂魏蠈蟿蔚蟻慰 伪蟿慰蠉 蟿慰蠀 尾喂尾位委慰蠀 伪蟺慰蟿蔚位蔚委 蟿慰 纬蔚纬慰谓蠈蟼 蟿畏蟼 蟽蠀渭蟺蔚蟻委位畏蠄畏蟼 伪谓蟿喂位蠈纬慰蠀. 螣 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蟿畏蟼 未蔚谓 蟺蔚蟻喂慰蟻委味蔚蟿伪喂 蟽蟿喂蟼 尾伪蟽喂魏苇蟼 苇谓谓慰喂蔚蟼 蟿慰蠀 蠀蟺伪蟻尉喂蟽渭慰蠉, 伪位位维 苇蟻蠂蔚蟿伪喂 伪谓蟿喂渭苇蟿蠅蟺慰蟼 魏伪喂 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 伪渭蠁喂蟽尾萎蟿畏蟽萎 蟿慰蠀 魏喂 畏 未喂伪位蔚魏蟿喂魏萎 伪蠀蟿萎 蟺蟻慰蟽蠁苇蟻蔚喂 蟿畏谓 喂魏伪谓慰蟺慰委畏蟽畏 渭喂伪蟼 魏蟻喂蟿喂魏萎蟼 魏喂 蔚蟺慰渭苇谓蠅蟼 蔚谓 慰位委纬慰喂蟼 慰位慰魏位畏蟻蠅渭苇谓畏蟼 蟺蟻蠋蟿畏蟼 蔚蟺伪蠁萎蟼 渭蔚 蟿畏谓 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪 蟿慰蠀 危伪蟻蟿蟻.
December 29, 2017
賲賳 丕夭 賵賯鬲蹖 讴賴 亘丕 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丌卮賳丕 卮丿賲 賵丕賯毓丕 乇丕丨鬲 鬲乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳賲貙 倬匕蹖乇卮 賲胤丕賱亘 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱爻賲 亘賴 賲賳 丨爻 丕爻鬲賯賱丕賱 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖 賲蹖丿賴 賵 亘賴 賮乇丿蹖鬲 賲賳 讴賲讴 賲蹖讴賳賴 賵 毓賱丕賵賴 亘乇 丕蹖賳 丿乇 鬲毓丕賲賱丕鬲 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 賴賲 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖卮賴 胤賵乇蹖 讴賴 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賴爻鬲賳 乇賵 禺蹖賱蹖 乇丕丨鬲 鬲乇 亘倬匕蹖乇賲.
亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵亘 鬲乇噩賲賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賵 爻毓蹖 卮丿賴 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 賲禺鬲氐乇 賵 賲賮蹖丿 亘賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲賳鬲賯賱 亘卮賴.
'' 亘卮乇 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲 賲诏乇 丌賳趩賴 丕夭 禺賵丿 賲蹖爻丕夭丿 ''
亘賴 賳馗乇 賲賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺蹖賱蹖 禺賵亘 鬲乇噩賲賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 賵 爻毓蹖 卮丿賴 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲 賲禺鬲氐乇 賵 賲賮蹖丿 亘賴 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 賲賳鬲賯賱 亘卮賴.
'' 亘卮乇 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲 賲诏乇 丌賳趩賴 丕夭 禺賵丿 賲蹖爻丕夭丿 ''
June 2, 2016
A friend of mine once said something that I found very insightful: 鈥淲estern people are bad at navigating the difference between nihilism and despair.鈥� I think this comment is right on the money. For example, in Schopenhauer鈥檚 hands, Hinduism and Buddhism are transformed into an extraordinarily pessimistic and tortured philosophy. This also reminds me of Sartre.
I am hesitant to judge Sartre鈥檚 philosophy from this book. For one, it鈥檚 so short. And besides, it鈥檚 a popularization. Nevertheless, I want to offer some critiques.
The existentialism in this book is essentially Dostoyevsky stripped of God. Sartre says so much himself: 鈥淒ostoyevsky once wrote: 鈥業f God does not exist, than everything is permissible.鈥� This is the starting point of existentialism.鈥� That quote of Dostoyevsky's (from The Brothers Karamazov ) has always struck me as strange. This means that Christianity was so central Dostoyevsky鈥檚 worldview that the absence of God entailed the entire collapse of all morality鈥攅ven civilization itself. Apparently Christianity was still so central to the European worldview that in 1945 Sartre uses words like 鈥渁nxiety鈥� and 鈥渄espair鈥� to describe the human condition when God is removed.
Sartre goes on to echo Dostoyevsky again when he says 鈥淭hus, the first effect of existentialism is to make every man conscious of what he is, and to make him solely responsible for his own existence. And when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.鈥�
Quoth Dostoyevsky:
Again, I find statements like these puzzling. In the absence of a universal, eternal law-giving God, Sartre proclaims that it is now we who must take up the mantle. Each individual must play God, and set the values for the entire human race. Not only do I fail to understand the logic behind this idea, but it strikes me as absurd on its face, since every person would individually be setting the standard for every other person. What鈥檚 that add up to? Nobody is listening to anyone else in this scheme.
The existence precedes essence argument is a bit of Aristotelian rubbish. The idea, as I understand it, goes like this. You can explain an object like a chair by pointing to the design that the chairmaker had in mind, which you can call the essence. Thus, the chair鈥檚 鈥榚ssence鈥� precedes its existence. But without God, humans have no designer, and therefore exist before they have any definition. They must give themselves their own 鈥榚ssence鈥�. So, unlike chairs, we鈥檙e not cast in any particular mold, but mold ourselves through our actions.
I suppose if this argument is meant metaphorically then I have no problem with it. Still, I do not see how essences could apply to inanimate objects that were not designed, like rocks. Moreover, to return to the chair example, I don鈥檛 think there is any such thing as an 鈥榚ssence鈥� of a chair鈥攐r any other object for that matter.
Let鈥檚 say I sit down too hard and accidentally break the back off of a chair. I ask you if you鈥檇 still call it a chair, and you say 鈥渘o, it鈥檚 a stool.鈥� So what happened to its essence? Did I break it? Also, I had no design or purpose when I broke the back off鈥攊t was an accident. Yet now we鈥檙e calling it a stool. Did this stool鈥檚 existence, in chair form, precede its essence?
Clearly, all this talk of essences is silly. In fact, 鈥榚ssences鈥� are not properties of objects, they are properties of language. Words have set definitions. We can call a certain object a certain word if the object has the right qualities. But this definition is external to the object, not something that inheres in it like an 鈥榚ssence鈥�. To twist Sartre鈥檚 example, what if I used a paper knife to slit someone鈥檚 throat鈥攕omething it clearly wasn鈥檛 designed for. Am I betraying its essence?
People don鈥檛 have these core 鈥榚ssences鈥� either. Let鈥檚 go back to one of Aristotle鈥檚 examples. If Socrates was wearing a hat, we鈥檇 still call him Socrates. That鈥檚 because the presence or absence of headgear has almost nothing to do with our idea of Socrates. But if Socrates got in a terrible chariot accident and became a vegetable, some of us might say 鈥渢hat鈥檚 Socrates鈥� body, but not Socrates.鈥� Part of Socrates鈥� 鈥榙efinition鈥� (i.e. 'essence') is his habit of going around asking annoying questions.
Let鈥檚 move on to Sartre's ideas on responsibility and freedom. Sartre believes that, since we are all absolutely free, we are all absolutely responsible for our actions. Those who point to outside sources as explanations are acting in 鈥榖ad faith鈥�, since they aren鈥檛 owning up to the reality of their condition.
On the one hand, I鈥檓 all for personal responsibility. But on the other hand, this clearly takes things too far. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a coincidence that crime rates are higher in poorer neighborhoods, that corruption rates are higher in Third World countries, and that divorce rates are higher now than they were 60 years ago. Of course, if you get divorced, you are responsible. But if a divorcee pointed to the increased acceptance and prevalence of divorce as a partial explanation, I wouldn鈥檛 say they were operating in 鈥榖ad faith鈥�. That鈥檇 be true.
In fact, I sense a bit of 鈥榖ad faith鈥� in Sartre鈥檚 single-minded insistence that we are the sole determinants of our actions. His argument feels like it鈥檚 a retrospective justification for his beliefs rather than something he arrived at through dispassionate thinking鈥攁lways a no-no for a philosopher. Plus, every shred of empirical evidence is against the claim that human beings are capable of absolutely free decisions. For example, I have political views broadly similar to my parents and my friends, and I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 because I independently came to the same conclusion. To refuse to admit that wouldn鈥檛 be 鈥榞ood faith鈥�, it would be childish.
And, as I hoped to have shown above, Sartre鈥檚 thinking is deeply rooted in a Christian worldview鈥攁 worldview that was collapsing, but Christian nonetheless. Is he 鈥榬esponsible鈥� for the effect that this had on his philosophy? Or are we acting in 'bad faith' if we partially attribute these thoughts to the time and place that he lived?
So, in summary, I found the arguments in this book rather weak. I鈥檓 sure is more convincing.
If you鈥檝e managed to make it to the bottom of this review, you鈥檒l now be wondering why I鈥檓 giving this book so high a rating. Well, for one, Sartre鈥檚 a great writer. You can鈥檛 argue with style.
What鈥檚 more, I think the kinds of issues he is dealing with are profoundly relevant to our current time. It is all too easy to do as I have done and point to cultural, historical, biological, and psychological explanations for human behavior. The world seems full of biological, cultural, economic, and geographic determinists. (For example, subjective thoughts and decisions play absolutely no role in Jared Diamond鈥檚 .) I absolutely agree with Sartre, that there鈥檚 something of bad faith in all this. We may not be absolutely free and absolutely responsible, but we鈥檙e certainly free enough to have to take responsibility.
I am hesitant to judge Sartre鈥檚 philosophy from this book. For one, it鈥檚 so short. And besides, it鈥檚 a popularization. Nevertheless, I want to offer some critiques.
The existentialism in this book is essentially Dostoyevsky stripped of God. Sartre says so much himself: 鈥淒ostoyevsky once wrote: 鈥業f God does not exist, than everything is permissible.鈥� This is the starting point of existentialism.鈥� That quote of Dostoyevsky's (from The Brothers Karamazov ) has always struck me as strange. This means that Christianity was so central Dostoyevsky鈥檚 worldview that the absence of God entailed the entire collapse of all morality鈥攅ven civilization itself. Apparently Christianity was still so central to the European worldview that in 1945 Sartre uses words like 鈥渁nxiety鈥� and 鈥渄espair鈥� to describe the human condition when God is removed.
Sartre goes on to echo Dostoyevsky again when he says 鈥淭hus, the first effect of existentialism is to make every man conscious of what he is, and to make him solely responsible for his own existence. And when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.鈥�
Quoth Dostoyevsky:
For I want you to know, my beloved ones, that every one of us is responsible for all men and for everything on earth, not only responsible through the universal responsibility of mankind, but responsible personally鈥攅very man for all people and for each individual man who lives on earth.
Again, I find statements like these puzzling. In the absence of a universal, eternal law-giving God, Sartre proclaims that it is now we who must take up the mantle. Each individual must play God, and set the values for the entire human race. Not only do I fail to understand the logic behind this idea, but it strikes me as absurd on its face, since every person would individually be setting the standard for every other person. What鈥檚 that add up to? Nobody is listening to anyone else in this scheme.
The existence precedes essence argument is a bit of Aristotelian rubbish. The idea, as I understand it, goes like this. You can explain an object like a chair by pointing to the design that the chairmaker had in mind, which you can call the essence. Thus, the chair鈥檚 鈥榚ssence鈥� precedes its existence. But without God, humans have no designer, and therefore exist before they have any definition. They must give themselves their own 鈥榚ssence鈥�. So, unlike chairs, we鈥檙e not cast in any particular mold, but mold ourselves through our actions.
I suppose if this argument is meant metaphorically then I have no problem with it. Still, I do not see how essences could apply to inanimate objects that were not designed, like rocks. Moreover, to return to the chair example, I don鈥檛 think there is any such thing as an 鈥榚ssence鈥� of a chair鈥攐r any other object for that matter.
Let鈥檚 say I sit down too hard and accidentally break the back off of a chair. I ask you if you鈥檇 still call it a chair, and you say 鈥渘o, it鈥檚 a stool.鈥� So what happened to its essence? Did I break it? Also, I had no design or purpose when I broke the back off鈥攊t was an accident. Yet now we鈥檙e calling it a stool. Did this stool鈥檚 existence, in chair form, precede its essence?
Clearly, all this talk of essences is silly. In fact, 鈥榚ssences鈥� are not properties of objects, they are properties of language. Words have set definitions. We can call a certain object a certain word if the object has the right qualities. But this definition is external to the object, not something that inheres in it like an 鈥榚ssence鈥�. To twist Sartre鈥檚 example, what if I used a paper knife to slit someone鈥檚 throat鈥攕omething it clearly wasn鈥檛 designed for. Am I betraying its essence?
People don鈥檛 have these core 鈥榚ssences鈥� either. Let鈥檚 go back to one of Aristotle鈥檚 examples. If Socrates was wearing a hat, we鈥檇 still call him Socrates. That鈥檚 because the presence or absence of headgear has almost nothing to do with our idea of Socrates. But if Socrates got in a terrible chariot accident and became a vegetable, some of us might say 鈥渢hat鈥檚 Socrates鈥� body, but not Socrates.鈥� Part of Socrates鈥� 鈥榙efinition鈥� (i.e. 'essence') is his habit of going around asking annoying questions.
Let鈥檚 move on to Sartre's ideas on responsibility and freedom. Sartre believes that, since we are all absolutely free, we are all absolutely responsible for our actions. Those who point to outside sources as explanations are acting in 鈥榖ad faith鈥�, since they aren鈥檛 owning up to the reality of their condition.
On the one hand, I鈥檓 all for personal responsibility. But on the other hand, this clearly takes things too far. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a coincidence that crime rates are higher in poorer neighborhoods, that corruption rates are higher in Third World countries, and that divorce rates are higher now than they were 60 years ago. Of course, if you get divorced, you are responsible. But if a divorcee pointed to the increased acceptance and prevalence of divorce as a partial explanation, I wouldn鈥檛 say they were operating in 鈥榖ad faith鈥�. That鈥檇 be true.
In fact, I sense a bit of 鈥榖ad faith鈥� in Sartre鈥檚 single-minded insistence that we are the sole determinants of our actions. His argument feels like it鈥檚 a retrospective justification for his beliefs rather than something he arrived at through dispassionate thinking鈥攁lways a no-no for a philosopher. Plus, every shred of empirical evidence is against the claim that human beings are capable of absolutely free decisions. For example, I have political views broadly similar to my parents and my friends, and I don鈥檛 think that鈥檚 because I independently came to the same conclusion. To refuse to admit that wouldn鈥檛 be 鈥榞ood faith鈥�, it would be childish.
And, as I hoped to have shown above, Sartre鈥檚 thinking is deeply rooted in a Christian worldview鈥攁 worldview that was collapsing, but Christian nonetheless. Is he 鈥榬esponsible鈥� for the effect that this had on his philosophy? Or are we acting in 'bad faith' if we partially attribute these thoughts to the time and place that he lived?
So, in summary, I found the arguments in this book rather weak. I鈥檓 sure is more convincing.
If you鈥檝e managed to make it to the bottom of this review, you鈥檒l now be wondering why I鈥檓 giving this book so high a rating. Well, for one, Sartre鈥檚 a great writer. You can鈥檛 argue with style.
What鈥檚 more, I think the kinds of issues he is dealing with are profoundly relevant to our current time. It is all too easy to do as I have done and point to cultural, historical, biological, and psychological explanations for human behavior. The world seems full of biological, cultural, economic, and geographic determinists. (For example, subjective thoughts and decisions play absolutely no role in Jared Diamond鈥檚 .) I absolutely agree with Sartre, that there鈥檚 something of bad faith in all this. We may not be absolutely free and absolutely responsible, but we鈥檙e certainly free enough to have to take responsibility.
October 8, 2021
"Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower."
"Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose."
"Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose."
November 30, 2016
丕賱禺賲爻 賳噩賵賲 賱兀賵賱 70 氐賮丨丞 (賰丕賳賵丕 70 亘丕賷賳) 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賱毓亘 丕賱毓賷丕賱 丕賱賱賷 丨氐賱 亘毓丿 賰丿賴 :D
October 14, 2015
My first exposure to Existentialism is a Humanism was in our faculty book fair when I was the second year student of engineering. I bought this book and another book Hajj written by Ali Shariati. I was totally a blockhead. I knew almost nothing about literature, philosophy, theology, God and whatever else which wasn't science. All I knew was that I was a Muslim, growing up in a religious family and society, but I always wished to choose my beliefs by myself, I mean I wish to have some well thought and examined ideas based on good books that I needed to read. The very first step for a journey of self discovery was to find someone to help me understand at least from which way I had to start. I needed a motive force; an initial velocity or initial condition. But actually the most difficult part was that. To read an atheistic philosophy or a religious book in order to reinforce the basis of your beliefs. The latter was the one that I used to hear from people around myself. You should first read books about your own religion then read other kind of philosophies in order to critic them by your own reasons. Obviously, that way wasn't correct. If my religious thoughts were correct they shouldn't be changed after reading other kind of books. And now that I think about it, my situation was just like the man in that example of Sartre in this book who wasn't sure about which way he had to choose. And Sartre's suggestion was: "You are free, so choose; in other words, invent. No general code of ethics can tell you what you ought to do; there are no signs in the world". Even, I was free in choosing my guidance. Reading Existentialism is a Humanism or Hajj?! That was the question. It was not actually that simple. For a long time I felt I was a suspended particle, with no special orientation. A point in the Cartesian system with no coordinates with a very random and accidental motion.
I chose Sartre.
I chose him not that I knew him or the impression of a friend or someone else encouraged me to read him. All I knew about him was that he was a great philosopher of 20th century. His philosophy affected many things in many countries and my own region of world was not an exception. I needed to feel that I was "Free" . My friends kept saying "Do not engage yourself with Sartre, it will plunge you into despair." Indeed it did. It was officially the first time in my life that I was reading a book saying there was no need to consider God in life, it was extremely different from what we had "proudly" been taught at schools.
Existentialism is a Humanism was indeed among one of top ten books which change my life. A new window. A new way of thinking. A new way of living.
This is the third time that I read it and if I get any time I will read it again. Not that this is too difficult to understand, I think this book needs a general background of philosophy. Surely, I now understand it better that 8 years ago, but still I can't totally connect all the parts and come to one conclusion, for instance I do not know anything about phenomenology, materialism or philosophy of Marx.
The first part of the book is a speech about Existentialism, then two Q&As that the first one still very philosophical and the second one is more about Sartre himself in his 70.
I have already highlighted every sentence of this book. I think this is a precise explanation of Existentialism, a good start in order to read his other work "Being and Nothingness".
I chose Sartre.
I chose him not that I knew him or the impression of a friend or someone else encouraged me to read him. All I knew about him was that he was a great philosopher of 20th century. His philosophy affected many things in many countries and my own region of world was not an exception. I needed to feel that I was "Free" . My friends kept saying "Do not engage yourself with Sartre, it will plunge you into despair." Indeed it did. It was officially the first time in my life that I was reading a book saying there was no need to consider God in life, it was extremely different from what we had "proudly" been taught at schools.
Existentialism is a Humanism was indeed among one of top ten books which change my life. A new window. A new way of thinking. A new way of living.
This is the third time that I read it and if I get any time I will read it again. Not that this is too difficult to understand, I think this book needs a general background of philosophy. Surely, I now understand it better that 8 years ago, but still I can't totally connect all the parts and come to one conclusion, for instance I do not know anything about phenomenology, materialism or philosophy of Marx.
The first part of the book is a speech about Existentialism, then two Q&As that the first one still very philosophical and the second one is more about Sartre himself in his 70.
I have already highlighted every sentence of this book. I think this is a precise explanation of Existentialism, a good start in order to read his other work "Being and Nothingness".
August 9, 2015
賲胤丕賱亘 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇诏乇賮鬲賴 丕夭 賲氐丕丨亘賴 賵 倬乇爻卮 賵 倬丕爻禺蹖 亘丕 丌賯丕蹖 爻丕乇鬲乇 丿乇 夭賲蹖賳賴 乇賮毓 丕亘賴丕賲 賵 乇賵卮賳 爻丕夭蹖 賮賱爻賮賴 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 賲蹖 亘丕卮丿. 趩乇丕 讴賴 毓丿賴 丕蹖 亘賴 丕卮讴丕賱 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳貙 亘乇丿丕卮鬲 賴丕蹖蹖 賳丕丿乇爻鬲 丕夭 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕賳丿.
毓丿賴 丕蹖 丌賳 乇丕 爻乇丕爻乇 丌賲蹖禺鬲賴 亘丕 毓夭賱鬲 賵 诏賵卮賴 诏蹖乇蹖 賲蹖 丿丕賳賳丿貙 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳丕賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丕蹖 噩夭 賳丕丕賲蹖丿蹖 賵 诏乇蹖夭 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賳丿丕乇丿.
賵 丿爻鬲賴 丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇貙 丕蹖賳 賲讴鬲亘 乇丕 亘丿賱蹖賱 亘蹖丕賳 丕蹖賳讴賴 "亘卮乇 丌夭丕丿 丕爻鬲"貙 爻乇丕爻乇 亘蹖 賯蹖丿蹖 賵 毓亘孬 賲蹖 賳丕賲賳丿. 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 丌夭丕丿蹖 鬲丕賲 亘卮乇蹖鬲貙 鬲賳亘蹖賴 賵 噩夭丕蹖蹖 卮丕賲賱 丕毓賲丕賱 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳賲蹖 卮賵丿.
爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 氐乇丕丨鬲 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴 "丕蹖賳 賲讴鬲亘 亘丿蹖 賴丕 乇丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖丿賴丿 鬲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 丿诏乇诏賵賳 爻丕夭丿". 賵 丕蹖賳 毓賲賱 氐賵乇鬲 賳賲蹖 倬匕蹖乇丿 賲诏乇 亘丕 卮賳丕禺鬲蹖 讴賴 亘卮乇 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘賴 毓賲賱 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿.
亘賳丕 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴 蹖 丕賵 "亘卮乇 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲 賲诏乇 丌賳趩賴 丕夭 禺賵丿 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿". 亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲 丿蹖诏乇貙 "亘卮乇 噩夭 賲噩賲賵毓賴 丕蹖 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇 賵 讴乇丿丕乇 賲賮賴賵賲 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賳丿丕乇丿."
丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲賽 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賴 "鬲賯丿賲 賵噩賵丿 亘乇 賲丕賴蹖鬲" 賵 賲賳讴乇 賵噩賵丿 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘卮乇蹖 賵 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕爻鬲.
丕賵 亘卮乇 乇丕 賵丕賳賴丕丿賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿. 蹖毓賳蹖 蹖丕乇 賵 蹖丕賵乇蹖 丿乇 丌爻賲丕賳賴丕 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 禺賵丿 丕賵爻鬲 讴賴 乇丕賴賳賲丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮 賲蹖 亘丕卮丿. 賵賱蹖 賳丕诏賮鬲賴 賳賲丕賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕蹖賳 賲讴鬲亘貙 毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 亘賴 賲賳夭賱賴 蹖 亘蹖 亘賳丿 賵 亘丕乇蹖 亘卮乇 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘乇毓讴爻貙 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 亘卮乇 乇丕 賲爻卅賵賱 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿 賵 亘卮乇蹖鬲 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿 賵 亘賳丕亘乇賽 丕蹖賳 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 讴賱蹖貙 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賴丕蹖 氐丨蹖丨 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 丕夭 鬲讴 鬲讴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿丕乇丿.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴貙 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲毓丕賳蹖 賵 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 丕夭 "丿賱賴乇賴"貙 "賳丕丕賲蹖丿蹖"貙 "丕氐丕賱鬲 亘卮乇" 賵 "賲賵賯毓蹖鬲" 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖丿賴丿. 賵 丕夭 賵噩賵丿 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲賴丕蹖蹖 爻禺賳 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 賴賲蹖卮賴 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 蹖 丕毓氐丕乇 倬丕 亘乇噩丕 禺賵丕賴賳丿 賲丕賳丿.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
噩丕賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 鬲賱丕卮蹖 亘乇丕蹖 亘蹖丕賳 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 賮賱爻賮蹖 禺賵丿 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 丕蹖噩丕丿 賱睾丕鬲 噩丿蹖丿 賳丿丕卮鬲. 鬲賲丕賲蹖 賱睾丕鬲 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 賮賱爻賮賴 賴丕蹖 倬蹖卮蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 鬲丕夭賴 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴乇丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 禺賵丿 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕蹖乇丕丿賴丕蹖 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮丿賴 亘乇 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賵丿.
毓丿賴 丕蹖 丌賳 乇丕 爻乇丕爻乇 丌賲蹖禺鬲賴 亘丕 毓夭賱鬲 賵 诏賵卮賴 诏蹖乇蹖 賲蹖 丿丕賳賳丿貙 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 丌賳丕賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 丕蹖 噩夭 賳丕丕賲蹖丿蹖 賵 诏乇蹖夭 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 賳丿丕乇丿.
賵 丿爻鬲賴 丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇貙 丕蹖賳 賲讴鬲亘 乇丕 亘丿賱蹖賱 亘蹖丕賳 丕蹖賳讴賴 "亘卮乇 丌夭丕丿 丕爻鬲"貙 爻乇丕爻乇 亘蹖 賯蹖丿蹖 賵 毓亘孬 賲蹖 賳丕賲賳丿. 蹖毓賳蹖 亘賴 丿賱蹖賱 丌夭丕丿蹖 鬲丕賲 亘卮乇蹖鬲貙 鬲賳亘蹖賴 賵 噩夭丕蹖蹖 卮丕賲賱 丕毓賲丕賱 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳賲蹖 卮賵丿.
爻丕乇鬲乇 亘賴 氐乇丕丨鬲 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴 "丕蹖賳 賲讴鬲亘 亘丿蹖 賴丕 乇丕 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖丿賴丿 鬲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇丕 丿诏乇诏賵賳 爻丕夭丿". 賵 丕蹖賳 毓賲賱 氐賵乇鬲 賳賲蹖 倬匕蹖乇丿 賲诏乇 亘丕 卮賳丕禺鬲蹖 讴賴 亘卮乇 丕夭 禺賵丿 亘賴 毓賲賱 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿.
亘賳丕 亘賴 诏賮鬲賴 蹖 丕賵 "亘卮乇 賴蹖趩 賳蹖爻鬲 賲诏乇 丌賳趩賴 丕夭 禺賵丿 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿". 亘賴 毓亘丕乇鬲 丿蹖诏乇貙 "亘卮乇 噩夭 賲噩賲賵毓賴 丕蹖 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇 賵 讴乇丿丕乇 賲賮賴賵賲 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賳丿丕乇丿."
丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲賽 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲毓鬲賯丿 亘賴 "鬲賯丿賲 賵噩賵丿 亘乇 賲丕賴蹖鬲" 賵 賲賳讴乇 賵噩賵丿 胤亘蹖毓鬲 亘卮乇蹖 賵 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 丕爻鬲.
丕賵 亘卮乇 乇丕 賵丕賳賴丕丿賴 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿. 蹖毓賳蹖 蹖丕乇 賵 蹖丕賵乇蹖 丿乇 丌爻賲丕賳賴丕 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 鬲賳賴丕 禺賵丿 丕賵爻鬲 讴賴 乇丕賴賳賲丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮 賲蹖 亘丕卮丿. 賵賱蹖 賳丕诏賮鬲賴 賳賲丕賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕蹖賳 賲讴鬲亘貙 毓丿賲 賵噩賵丿 賵丕噩亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿 亘賴 賲賳夭賱賴 蹖 亘蹖 亘賳丿 賵 亘丕乇蹖 亘卮乇 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘乇毓讴爻貙 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 亘卮乇 乇丕 賲爻卅賵賱 賵噩賵丿 禺賵丿 賵 亘卮乇蹖鬲 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿 賵 亘賳丕亘乇賽 丕蹖賳 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 讴賱蹖貙 丕賳鬲馗丕乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 賴丕蹖 氐丨蹖丨 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 丕夭 鬲讴 鬲讴 丕賮乇丕丿 丿丕乇丿.
丿乇 丕丿丕賲賴貙 爻丕乇鬲乇 賲毓丕賳蹖 賵 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 丕夭 "丿賱賴乇賴"貙 "賳丕丕賲蹖丿蹖"貙 "丕氐丕賱鬲 亘卮乇" 賵 "賲賵賯毓蹖鬲" 丕乇丕卅賴 賲蹖丿賴丿. 賵 丕夭 賵噩賵丿 賲丨丿賵丿蹖鬲賴丕蹖蹖 爻禺賳 賲蹖 诏賵蹖丿 讴賴 賴賲蹖卮賴 賵 丿乇 賴賲賴 蹖 丕毓氐丕乇 倬丕 亘乇噩丕 禺賵丕賴賳丿 賲丕賳丿.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
噩丕賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 亘賵丿 讴賴 爻丕乇鬲乇 鬲賱丕卮蹖 亘乇丕蹖 亘蹖丕賳 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 賮賱爻賮蹖 禺賵丿 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 丕蹖噩丕丿 賱睾丕鬲 噩丿蹖丿 賳丿丕卮鬲. 鬲賲丕賲蹖 賱睾丕鬲 賲賵噩賵丿 丿乇 賮賱爻賮賴 賴丕蹖 倬蹖卮蹖賳 乇丕 亘丕 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 鬲丕夭賴 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴乇丿 讴賴 丕蹖賳 禺賵丿 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕蹖乇丕丿賴丕蹖 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮丿賴 亘乇 丕蹖賳 賮賱爻賮賴 亘賵丿.
July 2, 2020
螠委伪 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪 蟺慰蠀 尾维味蔚喂 伪谓蟿委蟻蟻慰蟺蔚蟼 蟿维蟽蔚喂蟼 渭苇蟽伪 渭伪蟼 谓伪 魏慰喂蟿喂慰蠉谓蟿伪喂 魏伪蟿维渭伪蟿伪, 蔚委谓伪喂 渭喂伪 蠁喂位慰蟽慰蠁委伪 蟽蟿畏谓 慰蟺慰委伪, 伪谓 渭畏 蟿喂 维位位慰, 伪尉委味蔚喂 谓伪 伪蠁蔚胃慰蠉渭蔚 蟺伪蟻伪蟺维谓蠅.
螝伪蟿伪蟺位畏魏蟿喂魏萎 畏 渭蔚蟿维蠁蟻伪蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 螒谓蟿蠋谓畏 围伪蟿味畏渭蠅蠀蟽萎 蠈蟺蠅蟼 魏喂 畏 苇魏未慰蟽畏 蟽蠀谓慰位喂魏维, 谓慰渭委味蠅 蠈蟿喂 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委味蔚喂 蠅蟻伪委伪 蟿畏谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 蟽蔚喂蟻维蟼 芦韦伪 危蟿慰喂蠂蔚喂蠋未畏禄 蟺慰蠀 尾纬维味蔚喂 蟿慰 螖蠋渭伪 魏伪喂 蟺慰蠀 渭慰喂维味蔚喂 谓伪 蟽蠀渭蟺位畏蟻蠋谓蔚喂 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚纬纬委蟽蔚喂蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蟺蠋蟼 谓伪 味蔚喂 魏伪谓蔚委蟼 蟽蟿慰 蔚未蠋 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰 蟿蠋蟻伪.
螝伪蟿伪蟺位畏魏蟿喂魏萎 畏 渭蔚蟿维蠁蟻伪蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 螒谓蟿蠋谓畏 围伪蟿味畏渭蠅蠀蟽萎 蠈蟺蠅蟼 魏喂 畏 苇魏未慰蟽畏 蟽蠀谓慰位喂魏维, 谓慰渭委味蠅 蠈蟿喂 蟽蠀谓蔚蠂委味蔚喂 蠅蟻伪委伪 蟿畏谓 蟺蟻慰蟽蟺维胃蔚喂伪 蟿畏蟼 蟽蔚喂蟻维蟼 芦韦伪 危蟿慰喂蠂蔚喂蠋未畏禄 蟺慰蠀 尾纬维味蔚喂 蟿慰 螖蠋渭伪 魏伪喂 蟺慰蠀 渭慰喂维味蔚喂 谓伪 蟽蠀渭蟺位畏蟻蠋谓蔚喂 伪谓伪纬谓蠋蟽蔚喂蟼 魏伪喂 蟺蟻慰蟽蔚纬纬委蟽蔚喂蟼 纬蠉蟻蠅 伪蟺蠈 蟿慰 蟺蠋蟼 谓伪 味蔚喂 魏伪谓蔚委蟼 蟽蟿慰 蔚未蠋 魏伪喂 蟽蟿慰 蟿蠋蟻伪.
August 1, 2023
爻賷卮賰賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘噩夭卅賴 丕賱兀賵賱 賲丿禺賱賸丕 賱丕亘兀爻 亘賴 丕賱賶 賮賱爻賮丞 爻丕乇鬲乇 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞. 賲卮賰賱丞 丕賱賲丿禺賱 丿賵賲賸丕 丕賳賴 賷亘爻賾胤 丕賱賲賮丕賴賷賲 賵賷丨丕賵賱 丕賷氐丕賱賴丕 丕賱賶 丕賱噩賲賷毓 亘睾囟賾 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賲爻鬲賵丕賴賲 丕賱孬賯丕賮賷 丕賵 丕賱毓賲賱賷貙 賵賲賳 賴賳丕 賷賲賰賳賳丕 丕賳 賳賮賴賲 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 丕禺匕賴丕 爻丕乇鬲乇 賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 卮乇丨 賲丕 賷乇賲賷 丕賱賷賴.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 鬲賮乇賷睾 賱賲丨丕囟乇丞 噩丕賲毓賷丞貙 亘廿禺鬲氐丕乇貙 賵兀賷囟賸丕 賴匕丕 賷丐孬乇 毓賱賶 丕賱賳氐 (乇睾賲 賲乇丕噩毓丞 爻丕乇鬲乇 賱賴 賵賲賵丕賮賯鬲賴 毓賱賷賴).
賱賰賳..
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賲賱 毓賱賶 賲亘丿兀 "賷賯賵賱賵賳 毓賳丕 賰匕丕" 賵賳丨賳 賳乇丿賾 毓賱賷賴賲 亘賰匕丕 賵賰匕丕貙 賵賴匕丕 (乇睾賲 丕賱廿禺鬲氐丕乇) 賷亘賷賾賳 亘毓囟 噩賵丕賳亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 丕賳賴 賷乇丿賾 丕賱鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕氐丨丕亘賴丕 (毓賲賵賲賸丕).
爻兀賰鬲賮賷 亘兀乇亘毓丞 賲賯丕胤毓 丕毓鬲亘乇賴丕 賲賴賲賾丞 丨賷賳 鬲乇亘胤 亘亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟:
"廿賳賳丕 賱丕 賳噩丿 禺賱賮賳丕 賵賱丕 兀賲丕賲賳丕 賮賷 丕賱賲賷丿丕賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賯賷賲賸丕 賵賱丕 鬲亘乇賷乇丕鬲 丕賵 丕毓匕丕乇賸丕. 賳賵噩丿 賵丨丿賳丕 賲賳 丿賵賳 兀毓匕丕乇. 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 兀毓亘賾乇 毓賳賴 亘丕賱賯賵賱 "丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲丨賰賵賲 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱丨乇賷丞". 賲丨賰賵賲 毓賱賷賴 賱兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賴賵 賲賳 禺賱賯 賳賮爻賴貙 賮賷 丨賷賳 兀賳賴 賲毓 匕賱賰 賷賰賵賳 丨乇賸丕貙 賱兀賳賴 亘賲噩乇賾丿 賲丕 賷賱賯賶 亘賴 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賷賰賵賳 賲爻丐賵賱賸丕 毓賳 賰賱 賲丕 賷賮毓賱"
"丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 鬲賰賵賳 賮賱爻賮丞 賷兀爻 亘賲丕 丕賳賴丕 賱丕 鬲毓乇賾賮 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 廿賱丕 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賮毓賱. 賮賴賷 賱賷爻鬲 鬲賵氐賷賮賸丕 賲鬲卮丕卅賲賸丕 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賮賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 賲賳夭毓 兀賰孬乇 鬲賮丕丐賱賸丕 賲賳賴丕 亘賲丕 丕賳賴丕 鬲毓鬲亘乇 丕賳 賲氐賷乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲賵賰賵賱 廿賱賷賴 賴賵 匕丕鬲賴貙 賵賴賷 賱賷爻鬲 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱廿丨亘丕胤 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賳 丕賱賮毓賱貙 亘賲丕 丕賳賴丕 鬲毓賱賳 兀賳 賱丕 兀賲賱 廿賱丕 賮賷 賮毓賱賴 賵兀賳 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱賵禺賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷爻賲丨 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞 賴賵 丕賱賮毓賱"
"賵丕賱兀賰賷丿 丕賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 亘賲丕 賴賷 鬲毓乇賷賮 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱丕 鬲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕賱睾賷乇貙 賱賰賳 亘賲噩乇賾丿 丕賱廿賱鬲夭丕賲貙 爻兀賰賵賳 賲囟胤乇賸丕 丕賳 丕乇賷丿 丨乇賷鬲賷 賮賷 丕賱賵賯鬲 賳賮爻賴 丕賱匕賷 兀乇賷丿 賮賷賴 丨乇賷丞 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 廿賳賳賷 賱丕 丕爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賳 兀鬲禺賾匕 丨乇賷鬲賷 賴丿賮賸丕 廿賱丕 廿匕丕 丕鬲禺匕鬲 賲賳 丨乇賷丞 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賴丿賮賸丕 兀賷囟賸丕"
"廿賳 丕賱賲賳夭毓 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷 賱賷爻 亘丕賱囟亘胤 廿賱丨丕丿賸丕 亘丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱匕賷 賷爻鬲賳夭賮 匕丕鬲賷賸丕 賱賱亘乇賴賳丞 毓賱賶 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 睾賷乇 賲賵噩賵丿貙 廿賳賴 賷毓賱賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇噩丨: 丨鬲賶 賵廿賳 賰丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賲賵噩賵丿賸丕 賮廿賳 匕賱賰 賱賳 賷睾賷賾乇 卮賷卅賸丕貙 賴匕賴 賴賷 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賳丕. 賵賴匕丕 賱丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳賳丕 賳毓鬲賯丿 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賲賵噩賵丿貙 賵廿賳賲丕 賳毓鬲亘乇 丕賳 丕賱賲卮賰賱 賱賷爻 匕賱賰 丕賱匕賷 賷禺氐 賵噩賵丿賴貙 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賳 賷賵噩丿 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 賵賷賯賳毓 賳賮爻賴 兀賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷賳賯匕賴 賲賳 賳賮爻賴貙 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 匕賱賰 丨噩賾丞 氐丕賱丨丞 毓賱賶 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴"
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇 賲丕 亘賷賳 爻丕乇鬲乇 賵賳丕賮賷賱 賰丕賳 噩賷丿賸丕貙 氐賵乇丞 毓賳 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵胤乇賯賴丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 賵丕賱鬲賳馗賷乇 賵丕賱賯乇丕亍丞貙 丕賱禺賱丕賮 賮賷 丕賱賲賳胤賱賯丕鬲貙 賮賷 丕賱乇丨賱丞貙 賵賮賷 丕賱賵氐賵賱.
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 鬲賮乇賷睾 賱賲丨丕囟乇丞 噩丕賲毓賷丞貙 亘廿禺鬲氐丕乇貙 賵兀賷囟賸丕 賴匕丕 賷丐孬乇 毓賱賶 丕賱賳氐 (乇睾賲 賲乇丕噩毓丞 爻丕乇鬲乇 賱賴 賵賲賵丕賮賯鬲賴 毓賱賷賴).
賱賰賳..
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓賲賱 毓賱賶 賲亘丿兀 "賷賯賵賱賵賳 毓賳丕 賰匕丕" 賵賳丨賳 賳乇丿賾 毓賱賷賴賲 亘賰匕丕 賵賰匕丕貙 賵賴匕丕 (乇睾賲 丕賱廿禺鬲氐丕乇) 賷亘賷賾賳 亘毓囟 噩賵丕賳亘 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 丕賳賴 賷乇丿賾 丕賱鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕氐丨丕亘賴丕 (毓賲賵賲賸丕).
爻兀賰鬲賮賷 亘兀乇亘毓丞 賲賯丕胤毓 丕毓鬲亘乇賴丕 賲賴賲賾丞 丨賷賳 鬲乇亘胤 亘亘毓囟賴丕 丕賱亘毓囟:
"廿賳賳丕 賱丕 賳噩丿 禺賱賮賳丕 賵賱丕 兀賲丕賲賳丕 賮賷 丕賱賲賷丿丕賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷 賯賷賲賸丕 賵賱丕 鬲亘乇賷乇丕鬲 丕賵 丕毓匕丕乇賸丕. 賳賵噩丿 賵丨丿賳丕 賲賳 丿賵賳 兀毓匕丕乇. 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 兀毓亘賾乇 毓賳賴 亘丕賱賯賵賱 "丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲丨賰賵賲 毓賱賷賴 亘丕賱丨乇賷丞". 賲丨賰賵賲 毓賱賷賴 賱兀賳賴 賱賷爻 賴賵 賲賳 禺賱賯 賳賮爻賴貙 賮賷 丨賷賳 兀賳賴 賲毓 匕賱賰 賷賰賵賳 丨乇賸丕貙 賱兀賳賴 亘賲噩乇賾丿 賲丕 賷賱賯賶 亘賴 賮賷 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賷賰賵賳 賲爻丐賵賱賸丕 毓賳 賰賱 賲丕 賷賮毓賱"
"丕賱賵噩賵丿賷丞 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 鬲賰賵賳 賮賱爻賮丞 賷兀爻 亘賲丕 丕賳賴丕 賱丕 鬲毓乇賾賮 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 廿賱丕 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕賱賮毓賱. 賮賴賷 賱賷爻鬲 鬲賵氐賷賮賸丕 賲鬲卮丕卅賲賸丕 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳貙 賮賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 賲賳夭毓 兀賰孬乇 鬲賮丕丐賱賸丕 賲賳賴丕 亘賲丕 丕賳賴丕 鬲毓鬲亘乇 丕賳 賲氐賷乇 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賲賵賰賵賱 廿賱賷賴 賴賵 匕丕鬲賴貙 賵賴賷 賱賷爻鬲 賲丨丕賵賱丞 賱廿丨亘丕胤 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 毓賳 丕賱賮毓賱貙 亘賲丕 丕賳賴丕 鬲毓賱賳 兀賳 賱丕 兀賲賱 廿賱丕 賮賷 賮毓賱賴 賵兀賳 丕賱卮賷亍 丕賱賵禺賷丿 丕賱匕賷 賷爻賲丨 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 亘丕賱丨賷丕丞 賴賵 丕賱賮毓賱"
"賵丕賱兀賰賷丿 丕賳 丕賱丨乇賷丞 亘賲丕 賴賷 鬲毓乇賷賮 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱丕 鬲乇鬲亘胤 亘丕賱睾賷乇貙 賱賰賳 亘賲噩乇賾丿 丕賱廿賱鬲夭丕賲貙 爻兀賰賵賳 賲囟胤乇賸丕 丕賳 丕乇賷丿 丨乇賷鬲賷 賮賷 丕賱賵賯鬲 賳賮爻賴 丕賱匕賷 兀乇賷丿 賮賷賴 丨乇賷丞 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳貙 廿賳賳賷 賱丕 丕爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賳 兀鬲禺賾匕 丨乇賷鬲賷 賴丿賮賸丕 廿賱丕 廿匕丕 丕鬲禺匕鬲 賲賳 丨乇賷丞 丕賱丌禺乇賷賳 賴丿賮賸丕 兀賷囟賸丕"
"廿賳 丕賱賲賳夭毓 丕賱賵噩賵丿賷 賱賷爻 亘丕賱囟亘胤 廿賱丨丕丿賸丕 亘丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱匕賷 賷爻鬲賳夭賮 匕丕鬲賷賸丕 賱賱亘乇賴賳丞 毓賱賶 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 睾賷乇 賲賵噩賵丿貙 廿賳賴 賷毓賱賳 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇噩丨: 丨鬲賶 賵廿賳 賰丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賲賵噩賵丿賸丕 賮廿賳 匕賱賰 賱賳 賷睾賷賾乇 卮賷卅賸丕貙 賴匕賴 賴賷 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇賳丕. 賵賴匕丕 賱丕 賷毓賳賷 兀賳賳丕 賳毓鬲賯丿 丕賳 丕賱賱賴 賲賵噩賵丿貙 賵廿賳賲丕 賳毓鬲亘乇 丕賳 丕賱賲卮賰賱 賱賷爻 匕賱賰 丕賱匕賷 賷禺氐 賵噩賵丿賴貙 毓賱賶 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賳 賷賵噩丿 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 噩丿賷丿 賵賷賯賳毓 賳賮爻賴 兀賳 賱丕 卮賷亍 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷賳賯匕賴 賲賳 賳賮爻賴貙 賵賯丿 賷賰賵賳 匕賱賰 丨噩賾丞 氐丕賱丨丞 毓賱賶 賵噩賵丿 丕賱賱賴"
丕賱噩夭亍 丕賱孬丕賳賷 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇 賲丕 亘賷賳 爻丕乇鬲乇 賵賳丕賮賷賱 賰丕賳 噩賷丿賸丕貙 氐賵乇丞 毓賳 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 賲丕 亘賷賳 丕賱毓賯丕卅丿 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賵胤乇賯賴丕 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 賵丕賱鬲賳馗賷乇 賵丕賱賯乇丕亍丞貙 丕賱禺賱丕賮 賮賷 丕賱賲賳胤賱賯丕鬲貙 賮賷 丕賱乇丨賱丞貙 賵賮賷 丕賱賵氐賵賱.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,474 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.