Derrida never disappoints in his interviews. Remarkably unpretentious. Hard to imagine such an intellectual giant consistently relating in such an unaffected way.

@leonardotavaresdardenne9955

Жыл бұрын

Sharp contrast with someone like Jean Luc Godard

The title of this video - Derrida on Sartre "Not a strong philosopher", is a quote that has been taken out of context. It is juicy like a newspaper headline. Strong opinions get more attention than modest ones. It's really about marketing.

@alaabouferguine1132

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly ❤️

Why is there never any serious mention of Sartre's 'Transcendence of the Ego'? That book anticipates most if not all post-structuralist thinking in regards to the subject, and can even be reconciled quite easily with Lacan. As for Sartre's freedom being 'weak' compared to the Ubermensch, such a comment sounds like a 17 year old wrote it. The absolute freedom we have at any moment to turn and kill our neighbor, for instance, is a very serious and important thing to consider.

@scioarete7987

4 жыл бұрын

Hmm. Interesting point. How does Sartre anticipate post-structuralism with that text?

@scioarete7987

2 жыл бұрын

@Lucas Santos hi Lucas, Yes. I recall the use of the transcendental field in Logic of Sense. I think what I was suggesting here is how Sartre would anticipate post-structuralism. Whether or not Deleuze reads Sartre seems beside the point to me. Part of why I ask is in the essay we're discussing, Sartre promptly rejects the unconscious: there is only first and second degree consciousness. It seems like a mainstay of pststructuralism is the unconscious, which is why I'm asking about Sartre here. Do you perhaps see him as a post-structuralist in phenomenogy. I'd like to know that explanation

Lesson: it’s important to be strong.

Danilo Kis once said: "Everybody in France thinks that Sartre is a philosopher and that peoples from central Europe only reads Zola."

really like the posts on the this video, got more info than the vid itself :D

ancient rapper beef

Sartre was a better novelist than he was a philosopher.

@SPACEDOUT19

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Its important to distinguish poets from philosophers.

@paratext

5 ай бұрын

​@@SPACEDOUT19He wasn't a poet. He was a playwright.

As for the comparison between them ,let us read Sartre and Derrida at the same Time to be convinced...

Kiitos!

Can someone explain to me Derrida’s disposition to Sartre?

@SPACEDOUT19

Жыл бұрын

What he means by "not very strong" is how terrible his bench press was. It was atrocious.

@vvviiixxx8745

Ай бұрын

I'm not 100% sure I can answer your question concisely, but I suspect that Derrida's comments on Sartre here, and particularly Sartre's "weakness", are in relation to Sartre's misreadings of Heidegger, from which he develops much of his theory. Just a hunch, though.

I once heard François Purdue nicoise say of Sartre " if you went into a revolving door ahead of Sartre, he'd come out before you ."

@DefenceSpeech you really don't understand the meaning of the word 'essence' in this context, do you?

Its weird. For no other philosipher had such a clear impact on modern psychology.

The title is somewhat misleading as it does not express the nuances of his answer.

what i dont understnd is what derrida means by sartre being a bad writer. i dont understand what this means as sartre wrote many very good plays and novels.

@luckyswine

5 жыл бұрын

Have you really read Iron in the Soul etc? I mean I read Nausea when I was about 15. At that age it was good, but not great.

Sartre Was a strong and very profound philosopher. Derrida Knows that perfectly. As Much as Derrida himself.

@Deantrey

8 жыл бұрын

You know I think that in everything that you love, there is always that one thing you just really don't like. Derrida loved and appreciated almost every philosopher it seems like but there had to be that one you just didn't like. For example, take TV shows. I love almost every show I have seen on network television. But I have never been able to see the hype around TWD. You know, there always has to be at least that one thing that you just find overrated for some reason. I think Sartre was that for Derrida.

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand you? did you mean Heidegger was the great guy and sartre was just his diet philosophy version? wouldn't know about that, haven't read sartre. so what's your problem with derrida?

@DefenceSpeech This is ridiculous. The claims of evolutionary biology have nothing to do with "existence" or "essence" which are specialized philosophical terms, unrelated to how you seem to have read them, as "fact" and "material". Neither is it Sartre's "existentialism", but Heidegger's. By "existence" is meant, the "human MODE of being" not the "human FACT of being".

@DefenceSpeech If you were to actually read Being and Nothingness you'd see what a bogus statement you just made. Understand the philosophy (even naively please) before you assume the philosopher is making assumptions. Being and Nothingness if littered with real-life, easily understandable examples of EXACTLY what his philosophy works to make explicit. Free will fanatic? Sure, but I don't see it as a pejorative statement.

I like Derrida even though I’ve read little from him. But what he says here is pure BS. Sartre took it up to try to build a wide ranging historical anthropology trying to synthethize his own phenomenological ontology with Hegelian and Marxist social philosophy (specially in the Critique). A breathtaking compatibilist project that only the greats attempt, looking at Hegel himself, of course, and the German idealist tradition, and the return to certain forms of compatibilism in the work of Zizek, Badiou, and other modern philosophers; it only means that Sartre was on the right track. What hell is a strong philosopher even? That sounds very metaphysical (in Heideggerian sense). If he means it in a good way implying Sartre’s critique of representationalism, then that’s another thing. And then again Sartre was, of course, trying to construct a philosophy that didn’t claim access to totality as final, not what a (strong systematic philosopher does). But judging by Derrida’s tone it doesn’t seem to be the case that this is what he meant. Shame on him.

@carlosluis1970

8 ай бұрын

agree. in fact, Sartre has done the synthesis of Hegel - Husserl - Heidegger

@nonsonoleonardopapa8

2 ай бұрын

You do, in fact, sound very sartrean in spirit! Free will believers never fail to disappoint for what concerns shaming others for the sake of it.

I think the holistic system that Sartre constructs in Being and Nothingness is admirable but it is definitely marred by some inherent logical flaws. But I think that is the nature of an ontological system literally and metaphysically based on nothing or rather nothingness.

What are you talking about? Do you know ANYTHING about Sartre's actual political beliefs and causes?

These continental French guys were all great. Sad that they had such hard-ons for each other.

Wow, but you missed it! The point was that Being and Nothingness was a lightweight version of the REAL one, which is Being and Time and that it's ironic that yet another French philosopher riding Heidegger's coattails (in combination with Saussure's) should be the one to point this out. That needed explaining?!

@mycroftholmes7379

3 жыл бұрын

no, Being and Nothingness is a complete disaster, a complete misconception of Heidegger's work on Being and Time. It's unto subject on which the Husserlian idea is embedded into, that's why Heidegger according to Dreyfus, calls Being and Nothingness, a muck...

@philosphorus

2 жыл бұрын

Being and Time is unfinished...

@philosphorus

2 жыл бұрын

@@mycroftholmes7379 It isn't a disaster at all. There are plenty of great ideas in Being and Nothingness. Being and Time is an unfinished work, and I've read it and, yes, Sartre based his ideas on a misunderstanding, but Sartre also developed a completely different way of looking at the world.

@Smonsequenses

Жыл бұрын

@@mycroftholmes7379 I recommend reading the actual book instead of going of the opinion of Heidegger according to Dreyfus.

nice

@Beingmeansliberty you maybe say something that can be developed, but believe me, the way you put it lacks of argument, in the sense thatyour philosophical skill needs to be developed to attain maturity and complexity

But he did not say what is a strong philosophy or philosopher or why Sartre is not a strong philosopher.

@johnw6337

7 жыл бұрын

For a word from a man who's deeply involved in de-construction, still you took it literally.

@theelectricant98

3 жыл бұрын

Probably has to do with Sartre's misinterpretation of Heidegger, but even this misinterpretation I think has a lot to take away from it

@theelectricant98

3 жыл бұрын

And his temporary support for the USSR

Sartre was famous for he was not only a philosopher but also a major novelist and storyteller unlike Derrida who is technically just a 'philosopher' of being and language so to say.

thankfully, reinterpreted Heidegger, who's more faithful fellow travelers were, of course, nazis. Sartre saw the naturalization of language in Heidegger, German perhaps in particular, as radically reactionary, and turned instead to "engagement" in place of (fascist) essentialism. For which he is to be celebrated. To be a revolutionary, with a communist politics instead of a reactionary who added wreaths to Hitler's intellectual arsenal. As for Derrida - fap fap fap.

I wish the visual quality of this was better. It is hard to understand what Derrida is saying because the visual quality is weak. Whoever took the video was "Not a strong photographer" I cannot really see what he is saying. He does say that Sartre was generous, a strong compliment.

Сартр это косплей философии

Ironic to hear Derrida refer to Sartre as "not a very good writer." If anything sustains even his straightforwardly philosophical treatises it's his skill as an author. And if there is anything to be said about Derrida's writing it is that it is willfully obscure in the manner of all such similar mystics and ju-ju men. Read the Zohar if you don't believe me.

@lmm4889

8 жыл бұрын

'I haven't actually read Derrida but I'm cool with outsourcing my critical capacities to Foucault, Chomsky, Searle and other second-, third-, and tenth-rate thinkers on this one.'

@Deantrey

8 жыл бұрын

Derrida was actually a really great writer. If you read a lot of his later stuff, some of the passages are just delightful to read. His earlier works are written in an at times very obscure way. But all of this was by design. He was playing and toying with language, and that in its own way is a kind of skill at writing. Believe it or not I actually go back and read his texts just for the prose. I know it's def not for everyone and I'm pretty weird for that but it's completely true.

i'm not convinced. i esteem both philosophers quite a bit still, and in fact suggest they may have both been weak too, playing to the winds public fancy from time to time, spouting random things more than reflecting intelligently. maybe i secretly wish he had liked Sarte to fit my false narrative, i dunno why!

oh but then I was right when I realized I misunderstood you xD ok, I don't think you can be a credible philosopher of language today and not take account of Heidegger and Saussure. And, while I am personally far from being able to judge philosophers in the category of Heidegger, Saussure etc. I don't think Derrida was a lightweight philosopher. Or do you mean it's just ironic that they're similar insofar as they're bothFfrench and draw on Heidegger?

@GnomesAmok LoL!!

b-g damn u all :D

"...not a very good writer...", pot calling the kettle black

Gluttony is universally humanistic as is sarcasm I suppose. The wry aspect of your wit being lost on the masses as they consume, having mistakenly heard your loaf.

This is what you call a clickbait !!!

with that said Sartre is most certainly a weak philosopher who misinterpreted Heidegger

@Maria-up2yv

3 жыл бұрын

Lol misinterpreted

People laugh like it's a roast show... Nice conversations in search for the truth....

Not a strong video

I see Sartre as the beginning of Post-modernism. As in philosopher/ writer/ political figure/ international media personality - without contributing anything really seminal in any field. The whole greater than the sum of his parts. But Derrida is right, his political engagement was his most admirable quality. He had the balls to nail his political colours to the mast, and made time for movements and struggles both in France and internationally. However, his politics seemed at odds with his philosophical ideas. Existentialism seemed to contradict his support of communism, an ideology that is ultimately conformist with little time for questioning the nature of existence . But perhaps contradicting himself was his existential prerogative.

@samweisselberg8440

5 жыл бұрын

trev moffatt I age many questions after reading your comment. How is Sartre the beginning of postmodernism? How is communism conformist? How does it not have anytime for questioning existence? How does the contradictory nature of his politics and philosophy relate to anything when they are diachronically separate? How can one even separate his philosophy and politics when observing a synchronic slice of his life? There are so many premises here that even your straw man is questioning his existence. If you want to see Sartre as the beginning of postmodernism then do it, that view is not a performance. Saying it does not do it. You must justify this please.

@tcmackgeorges12

3 жыл бұрын

There’s nothing contradictory with existentialism and communism

@thetumans1394

10 ай бұрын

"communism, an ideology that is ultimately conformist with little time for questioning the nature of existence." A sentence equally worthless even five years after you wrote it.

disliked for clickbait

He said that people should not take prepackaged belief systems, because that would force one to decieve oneself when they are inconsistant, which would be "Bad faith." But then he became a Marxist, which is a pre-packaged ideoogy. At least he had the courage to renounce that after the Russians invades Checkoslavakia. Then he called himself an anarchist.

When Anglo-Saxons talk philosophy on youtube they stop by wikipedia first. Then they come & troll. Aren't you supposed to be watching snookie right now?

@lostintime519

6 жыл бұрын

yeah fucking hate them all, watching peterson and then have a lot to say.

@theuberman7170

3 жыл бұрын

So should they stay stupid then?

Derrida is jealous. Sartre had a politics.

@tapomoy1

3 жыл бұрын

a politics that weakened his philosophy

Major irony - Derrida accusing someone of being a bad writer!

"not a strong a philosopher ...." *COUGH*

This is laughable

Stupid words by Darrida

Not a good writer is rich coming from Derrida

Derrida is a fake philosopher.