Satre, one philosopher I hate

[Lark]

What's everyone's opinions of Satre? I know that his works are translations from French but I pretty much find them difficult and unrewarding to read, I have sympathy for most of the things Camus said about him actually and I've always disliked the kinds of hypocrisy of writers who expound one thing and practice another (in this respect Camus is nowhere near as bad as Koestler "the bastard" whose books I sold after learning about how he treated women).

There are a couple of things which really bug me about Satre, he didnt understand psycho-analysis, in fact I think he was actually jealous of Freud and consciously wanted to construct a rival theory and profile for himself in the process. It was rank intellectualism. Eric Fromm is a good example of someone who was innovative while being much more honest about standing on the shoulders of giants and for the most part being a populariser or trafficker in ideas rather than trying to reinvent the wheel or build a better mouse trap.

He wrote lots about existentialism but again it was like it was all very deliberate and he was aiming to be a "founding father" or "great theorist" figure in the process, instead of simply expounding a philosophy like Camus, who actually rejected the existentialist label.

There's not a lot of philosophers who I feel this way about, perhaps the only other one is Francis Fukuyama who I think is just complete full of shit, I'm suspiscious of Foucault and many others associated with what could have been labelled at a time "continential philosophy", including Derrida and Deconstructionism, Heiddiger (spelling) and to a less extent Habermas.

Does anyone else think this about Satre or have philosophers which really piss them off? I also hate it when people compare Satre to Orwell and think it would have been great if they met, I like to think Orwell would have hated him too.

 

[AhSver]

I actually like Sartre and I perceive his writings apart from his personality or historical figure. It's true that he was kind of a coward but at least he was good friends with Che. I find his writings are much more easier and pleasurable to read than say Heidegger's (talk about the real coward, but regardless a brilliant philosopher).
I am very skeptical of psycho-analysis too, for me it's more like a game and it does help to reach into some things hidden but currently it is not valued by the modern psychology. However, I do find it very interesting and genius in its own way.
I really like Sartre's play "No Exit." Hell is other people indeed.
I don't think he was aiming to be a founding father, maybe a revitalize-r of the movement? I know during his lifetime he hated being labeled and recognized even though I am sure secretly he loved it.
I would like to hear if you have any remarks about his writings, the essence of them?
I understand why you don't like him for the given reasons but maybe you should give him another spin?
Personally, from all Philosophers I am mostly weary of Hegel. Even Heidegger with his works that remind me an extra long foreplay with no culmination at the end. At least I admire his dedication. The pathos and the most ridiculous language to read (I am sure he loved hearing his voice when he was dictating his works to his secretary). Plus his world views and desire to generalize everything and put it into a specific place seemed to me too much.
I am glad that there are people who would like to discuss such things and especially concrete philosophers and their ideas!

 

[Faye]

Sartre is often criticized for being unoriginal. He is also criticized for raising the existentialist banner- especially by people like Heidegger who went out of his way to explicitly deny that he is an existentialist. As you know, Camus didn't like that move either.

In the end, I think Sartre's existentialism was subsumed by his Marxism- he prefers to be remembered by his book on dialectical materialism as opposed to the book he is actually remembered for: Being and Nothingness, along with his essay Existentialism is a Humanism (which I liked when I first read it but which he later retracted and declared a failed project) and of course his play No Exit. His works on Marxism generally go ignored, and many Marxists consider Existentialism and Marxism incompatible.

For a while I hated Sartre, but if you are willing to understand the entirety of his system, then I think you can gain a special appreciation for him even though it might be declared a lost cause. Sartre was pissed off that so many people during WW1, WW2, The Holocaust, etc. threw up their hands and said 'not my fault' (metaphorically speaking- but you get the point).

I'd say Existentialism is a Humanism is a fun and easy read, and Being and Nothingness has some good parts (but not the beginning). If you think his work is hard to read, then try reading Heidegger. Or worse, Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard made his stuff difficult on purpose.

As for 'continental philosophy', all the term means is philosophy that has come out of France and Germany, as opposed to England. Saying you're suspicious of continental philosophy will make you sound very ignorant to anyone who is familiar with the old division (or they will assume you know what you are talking about and conclude that you're an arrogant fan of analytical philosophy).

As for the jealous of Freud thing- I don't know what you're talking about. And if psychoanalysis can be understood, he understood it.

 

[Lark]

I dont know that his marxism was that great either, I read some of his books on Marxism, in fact there was a book which was entitled marxism, existentialism and psychoanalysis or something like that which was essays and interviews and its on that basis really that I know Satre. I'd read his book about emotions before that and had a growing dislike, knew of Camus' opinions about Satre and then moved on to this source that I mention.

I feel that Satre had a superficial understanding of both Freud and Marx and treated each like an intellectual movement to hitch himself and his ideas to, its not cowardice which I find most reprehensible about Satre but his unabashed intellectualism, this could be a cultural divide since I hear an intellectual is a good thing to be in France, for instance, although in the UK, NI (were I'm from) and ROI its not really a term of endearment, and the way he treated women. Simone De Bouvoir was in some kind of relationship with Satre and towards the end of it was steadily introducing him to a string of younger impressionable girls or groupies.

I liked Nausea and tried but failed with his trilogy of novels about life during and between the wars, cant warm to the guy at all, there is a good chance that I prefer analytical philosophy, I do prefer Bertrand Russell and others (what's the name of the guy who wrote the book about the uses of literacy? Cant remember) better than the continential philosophers who seem to take a pretty simple point and blow it out of all proportion and adopt this "no one can really understand what I'm getting at" stance. Things like deconstructionism just seem like a massive swindle and not that innovative really.

 

[Jungian Trip]

There's not a lot of philosophers who I feel this way about, perhaps the only other one is Francis Fukuyama who I think is just complete full of shit, I'm suspiscious of Foucault and many others associated with what could have been labelled at a time "continential philosophy", including Derrida and Deconstructionism, Heiddiger (spelling) and to a less extent Habermas.

I appreciate two works by Sartre: Being and Nothingness and The Age of Reason. I share the sentiment of No Exit being a load of bollocks.

I'm more interested in why you dislike Derrida, Foucault, and Jurgen Habermas. I especially think Derridean thought has great implications for ethics; the idea that justice is, to use a Gadamer term, an ever moving horizon of which we must continually seek but never obtain for obtaining justice leads ultimately to a corruption of absolutes. Deconstruction works on many levels outside of textual analysis and pure academia- not that either are unnecessary in their own right, but the fact that deconstruction transcends into areas even Derrida didn't foresee speaks to the force of his work.

I've not read Fukuyama. What don't you like about his writing/ethos?