I was fighting for my life trying to find something that would make this topic comprehensible to me for my final assignment. Nothing made sense until I stumbled upon this video. This was an absolute lifesaver. Thank you so much!!
Hi! I love classic literature and your videos always help me to understand the books I'm reading better. I wanna to request a video on how to read properly, how to get the most out of a book and how you read, etc. Love your videos!!
@@brokenrecord3523 folks are used to looking at language in the conotative. What I said was denotative. It might not mean what one would think, at a glance.
Excellent summarization of J P! I have always liked Camus better for a number of reasons. It strikes me that Sartre's devaluation of the imagination and the social roles we invent was one of the main reasons he was not a "novelist." By which I mean a writer like Balzac or De Maupassant, who employed the social roles Sartre disparaged to create fiction. I suspect the intent of Nausea and The Wall is to demonstrate a philosophical position, not create a fictional universe.
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.
6:32 Not to be pedantic, but this is philosophy, so I'm sure you'll forgive me. That is not how a planet forms. Planets form by aggregation, not reduction and if the analogy is to hold true, we must ask, "Do we form by aggregation or reduction?" To become our true self, do we seek out and add all the we are or do we remove all we are not?
@@Fiction_Beast Turns out, I just needed to be patient. Once again, thank you so much. I am very helped by almost all of your content. may goodness always come to you 😉
Gotta read Sartre one day although I disagree with him about the unconscious part. When people are in a blind rage their unconscious sometimes gets projected onto other people and then when they come back they’ll be like I don’t even remember being like that or doing that 😅, but just like his, it’s just my opinion
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.
Well presented video on Sartre's ideas. But to me, Sartre just presents Opinion. Sartre just shouts "there IS no subconscious, there IS no repressed memories". So Sartre yells "Freud is wrong, Jung is wrong, and I'm not wrong". Sartre offers no proof, just says how silly the other thinkers are. But Sartre never puts his own ideas to the same test. If making ad hominem attacks is acceptable, then I'll do it to Sartre. "Bad Faith" is merely regurgitated Christian Original Sin and "Good Faith" is being Born Again. Sartre is just theology without a God.
Thanks for the video. I don’t understand the concept of bad faith fully. Being human means we have infinite choices in theory but sounds like making any choice is inauthentic and bad faith (since it involves some form of compromise)? If so, how can one live an authentic life?
Being and Nothingness is basically simple concepts overwrought by unnecessary obscurification and word play. Don’t expect enlightenment by reading it. Expect you are being punished for majoring in Philosophy or worse; you’ve made a conscious effort to over-intellectualize yourself in spite of the fact the title of the book clearly states what it’s actually about.
0:50 minutes in and, God will be questioned again. Teachers say read books but i don't want to questions that God is present but maybe i will continue to watch it better to know your enemy than just blindly hate and fight. Also for me it's as simple as this nothing just came into existence someone has to make it in the first place. And we have free will so this can give you a lot of answers.
@@KarminsLynn explain it a little further, to me it is just so simple. But I would like to have a little more opinion from your side. And if you want to point your finger then it shall be....
Simone did not exercise sexual freedom as much as Sartre because of the constraints of the times and of society in which she lived. No woman thinks "oh, I've only got one egg on the go, so I don't really fancy it"!! Prenant women have sex and enjoy it, even though they cannot become pregnant again and men who know they are firing blanks still enjoy it. So in that way, Sartre is correct, sex does not necessarily have to have anything to do with procreation!
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.
That seems a little harsh. He was writing about the (lack of) purpose in our actions surely, rather than trying to work out what personal factors may impact the decisions we take in such actions? Our biology doesn't limit our freedom to choose? Surely, it just impacts the probability of what we will choose?
I guess for the most of human history biological purpose (procreation) has been the main someone’s life goal. Sartre didn’t want to have kids so he replaced biological purpose with a political purpose of creating a just society.
everyone defines their own reality. if you keep it in the most general of terms, your definition has a better chance of appearing real. my interest in your definition is inversely proportional to the volume of details in your definition.
You got the essence of Sartre's philosophy wrong, bro, especially in the beginning. We are not like a flower, we never achieve essence. Existence precedes essence - you need a better grasp of that. Hint: it's not related to birth!
Totalizing is the ultimate form of a delusional mirror, reflecting only a singular, distorted perspective while erasing the complexity and multiplicity inherent in reality.
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
This Channel is SOOOOOO underrated
True
True
Too true
So true
I dont know!
Dude, ur channel is damn...good...keep bringing these priceless,timeless wisdom people need it 🤗
I appreciate that!
I was fighting for my life trying to find something that would make this topic comprehensible to me for my final assignment. Nothing made sense until I stumbled upon this video. This was an absolute lifesaver. Thank you so much!!
I always wait for your uploads. Thank you for the new content ❤️
You are so welcome!
Hi! I love classic literature and your videos always help me to understand the books I'm reading better. I wanna to request a video on how to read properly, how to get the most out of a book and how you read, etc. Love your videos!!
I’m reading being and nothingness now, this helps a lot man!!!
So insightful. Will you be uploading any more eastern philosophers and philosophy like Vivekananda? Or Krishnamurti? Please and thank you?
"unless you go the DIY route..." 😂😂
Wow - I read B&N years ago and only partly understood it and watching this video brought it all back! Great work!
Existence precedes essence. That is such a fantastic statement, literally.
Why? The assonance and alliteration? It does make a very good sound bite. Short enough to put on a coin or letterhead.
@@brokenrecord3523 folks are used to looking at language in the conotative. What I said was denotative. It might not mean what one would think, at a glance.
Completely summarizes his philosophy - so much is conveyed in those three words it's incredible.
@@chrisrosenkreuz23 I looked those words up - I think you have them backwards.
@@brokenrecord3523 orly? did you look up 'fantastic' as well?
Thanks Clear n concise explanation , very well presented
Excellent summarization of J P!
I have always liked Camus better for a number of reasons.
It strikes me that Sartre's devaluation of the imagination and the social roles we invent was one of the main reasons he was not a "novelist."
By which I mean a writer like Balzac or De Maupassant, who employed the social roles Sartre disparaged to create fiction.
I suspect the intent of Nausea and The Wall is to demonstrate a philosophical position, not create a fictional universe.
you and i are the same. I also prefer Camus , his philosophy and his fiction.
Excellent explanation
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.
Can you please do a video on haruki murakami again?
Honestly, Murakami is so overrated. Read #Mishima or #Endo if you want great Japanese fiction.
6:32 Not to be pedantic, but this is philosophy, so I'm sure you'll forgive me.
That is not how a planet forms. Planets form by aggregation, not reduction and if the analogy is to hold true, we must ask,
"Do we form by aggregation or reduction?" To become our true self, do we seek out and add all the we are or do we remove all we are not?
Great channel
Not all humans are intellectually developed enough to actually be a thing-for-themselves. We are probably a minority.
Great video!
I used google translate to type this: if you don't mind, can you insert Indonesian subtitles in each of your videos? thank you
i added.
@@Fiction_Beast Turns out, I just needed to be patient. Once again, thank you so much. I am very helped by almost all of your content. may goodness always come to you 😉
Congratulation for 100k bro 🤟 ❤️❤️
Thanks for adding Indonesian subtitle.
Do also make a video on kant philosophy...
Just started reading it. From the beginning I’m lost already
Gotta read Sartre one day although I disagree with him about the unconscious part. When people are in a blind rage their unconscious sometimes gets projected onto other people and then when they come back they’ll be like I don’t even remember being like that or doing that 😅, but just like his, it’s just my opinion
Excellent!
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.
Well presented video on Sartre's ideas.
But to me, Sartre just presents Opinion. Sartre just shouts "there IS no subconscious, there IS no repressed memories". So Sartre yells "Freud is wrong, Jung is wrong, and I'm not wrong".
Sartre offers no proof, just says how silly the other thinkers are.
But Sartre never puts his own ideas to the same test. If making ad hominem attacks is acceptable, then I'll do it to Sartre. "Bad Faith" is merely regurgitated Christian Original Sin and "Good Faith" is being Born Again.
Sartre is just theology without a God.
What is the DIY route?!
Hey great mind you got for philosophy and man do youtube shorts to have large audience..
Thanks for sharing.
Any chance you could do an analysis of the works of Thomas Hardy?
i did mention him in my 10 english novels. Tess is a great one.
could u make a video on demian by herman hesse ??
thank you
9:46
Thanks for the video. I don’t understand the concept of bad faith fully. Being human means we have infinite choices in theory but sounds like making any choice is inauthentic and bad faith (since it involves some form of compromise)? If so, how can one live an authentic life?
Being and Nothingness is basically simple concepts overwrought by unnecessary obscurification and word play. Don’t expect enlightenment by reading it. Expect you are being punished for majoring in Philosophy or worse; you’ve made a conscious effort to over-intellectualize yourself in spite of the fact the title of the book clearly states what it’s actually about.
0:50 minutes in and, God will be questioned again. Teachers say read books but i don't want to questions that God is present but maybe i will continue to watch it better to know your enemy than just blindly hate and fight. Also for me it's as simple as this nothing just came into existence someone has to make it in the first place. And we have free will so this can give you a lot of answers.
Why don't you want to question God's presence?
@@KarminsLynn explain it a little further, to me it is just so simple. But I would like to have a little more opinion from your side. And if you want to point your finger then it shall be....
@@KarminsLynnokay....
Hello fiction beast
Do one on the tunnel by Ernesto sabato
Sweet jesus…great video
Glad you liked it!
Which accent is that?
im kinda scared about satre on sex what does he mean freedom to another person during sex
Wowzerz.. . . .
Very well said, maybe we should be calling you diction beast 🤣🤣
Simone did not exercise sexual freedom as much as Sartre because of the constraints of the times and of society in which she lived. No woman thinks "oh, I've only got one egg on the go, so I don't really fancy it"!! Prenant women have sex and enjoy it, even though they cannot become pregnant again and men who know they are firing blanks still enjoy it. So in that way, Sartre is correct, sex does not necessarily have to have anything to do with procreation!
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.
If people don't have essence before existence how are women inherently different from men when it comes to exercising their relationship freedom?
Sartre rejected human nature or evolutionary biology as a purpose which I think was his biggest mistake.
@@Fiction_Beast But that's saying that the whole existentialism is a mistake
@@Fiction_Beast That doesn't make any sense at all. I really hope if he was alive today he would think twice on that.
That seems a little harsh. He was writing about the (lack of) purpose in our actions surely, rather than trying to work out what personal factors may impact the decisions we take in such actions? Our biology doesn't limit our freedom to choose? Surely, it just impacts the probability of what we will choose?
I guess for the most of human history biological purpose (procreation) has been the main someone’s life goal. Sartre didn’t want to have kids so he replaced biological purpose with a political purpose of creating a just society.
💜🧡🖤
Sartre was ripping off the Buddha.
Probably
everyone defines their own reality. if you keep it in the most general of terms, your definition has a better chance of appearing real.
my interest in your definition is inversely proportional to the volume of details in your definition.
No.
Short answer is no. How could there be a bible to existentialism? If there is nothing more than our 'parts', there can be nothing more to our being?
You got the essence of Sartre's philosophy wrong, bro, especially in the beginning. We are not like a flower, we never achieve essence. Existence precedes essence - you need a better grasp of that. Hint: it's not related to birth!
We are like a pizza
If Sarte did not recognize soul and spirit then I disagree with whatever he wrote.
Totalizing is the ultimate form of a delusional mirror, reflecting only a singular, distorted perspective while erasing the complexity and multiplicity inherent in reality.
this is Buddhism.
It was nothingness for us as human beings. There is another nothingness that encompasses all creatures, which is the total nothingness in which God alone was. God Almighty said to the angels, "I have created man from clay." Here He proves that man did not exist. The angels, the heavens and the earth were in existence and God mentions another verse (I will make in the earth a caliph) and this proves that the universe exists without a doubt. The first nothingness was God and nothing was with Him and in that hour God created the universe whenever God wanted to create it, but the point is that the beginning of the universe was from the beginning of the first existence from the first nothingness and was not from the same hour as the creation of humanity.