วีดีโอ

Thank you

🤣🤣

Glad it helped!

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you! I’d also suggest watching a few videos with Roger Scruton. Here is a short video to get you started: th-cam.com/video/xtTaOEUH53Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Q83xFDvYmCQhGsqX

Thank you!

Thank you!!

I think atheism is a very respectable intellectual position but that is about all I think of it. I spent most of my life using that description while ignoring all the other forms of dogma that I was absorbing and pushing out into the world. I took on every ‘ism’ without critically thinking about it. Now I use the word ‘god’ to refer to that which is beyond human intelligibility. It’s a loose conception of the word and many atheists would challenge it’s use in this way. I find it it be appropriate as it has a long history, especially among mystics.

I elaborate on the issue in this video: Jean-Paul Sartre: Phenomenology, Theism and Atheism th-cam.com/video/HY0XxAtpxrM/w-d-xo.html

@@robsamartino71 yeah... it turns out that I've actually seen this. I decided to re-watch it, however. I think that was a good 'judgment call' given that I 'absorbed' much more the second time around. As always, 'job well done'! I think that you're an exceptionally bright person and that your material is nothing short of fantastic. I haven't actually studied Miester Eckhart at all. As such, I can't (at this specific 'event', whereby my consciousness 'cuts into the all encompassing, plenitude of being which provides the illusion of 'temporality', I cannot offer much). Man... Things were alot simpler when I could simply say 'At this juncture'. Joking aside, though, I want to (once again) thank you for making these videos. I found them to be exceptionally helpful as it pertains to understanding Sartre and explicating my dialectic. It appears that in this video, you're trying to reconcile Sartres 'phenomenological approach' with 'Non Denominational, Non- Dogmatic, DEISM'. You may be on to something! I would still be reluctant to use the word 'God', though. I think that the absurdity of Conventional, Conservative, Exoteric Religion combined with the laundry list of the most egregious acts of tyranny conceivable has resulted in JUSTIFIABLY 'stigmatizing' the word 'God'. It would probably best to use some synonomous word instead. Aside from that, excellent work. You made some great points about the phenomenological methodology that anyone who thinks it to be 'impractical' should hear. So, once again, your work is very much appreciated. Keep it up! I'd love to see new material.

@@YoungMommy14 I think you’re on firm ground to not use the word ‘God’

@@robsamartino71 I think it will only serve to mislead people. That being said, I would definitely encourage you to make more material. I'm not one to haphazardly and arbitrarily throw around terms like 'incredibly profound thinker'. I say that to incredibly few people. I think that Sartre certainly was absolutely brilliant. I also do truly believe that you are exceptionally bright. I don't think you're even remotely close to being a Theist (of any stripe). I think you're more than likely a fellow Atheist or perhaps a Deist at the most who is justifiably opposed to this narrative very often espoused by Atheists that all 'Theists are stupid people', and also opposed to contemporary scientist's (neuroscientists specifically) implicit insistence that there is absolutely no chance immaterial or 'transcendental of physical substance' can render any effect on anything. There's actually a fair bit of people that are 'of that mindset'. They're simply not nearly asoitspoken as someone like Christopher Hitchens, for instance. But, let's face it... Absolutely no one could be as outspoken as Christopher Hitchens. I'd love to hear more of your commentary on Western Philosophy. Sartre is the very first philosopher that really impressed the hell out of me. The very first philosopher i studied in detail was Neitzche. I read all of his works with the exception of the stuff that he wrote while dying of syphilis. My understanding is it's completely unintelligible. At that point in his life, he was 100% clinically insane. Thankfully today, we have very effective medication that (if taken on a regular basis) will completely prevent you from developing any if those absurdly horrible symptoms of syphilis. Up until very recently, that was Universally regarded as one of the worst diseases that one could contract. What do you think about all the other big 'existentialists'? Are there any others that resonate with you? Also, I watched your video on 'Postmodernism'. I'm not positive, but I kind of got the impression that you were referring mostly to the 'artistic movement of the sake name'. I've watched number of lectures on Postmodernism and I have still no clue what is. These guys said the absolutely weirdest sh*t that I've ever sent expressed. I remember reading one quote from of The French Postmodernists. He said that (Paraphrase) 'Rationality is nothing a form of hegemony'. I'm not going to pretend like I have the vaguest idea what that is supposed to mean. It appears to me that The French Modernists often asserted that Reason or Rationality is infact illegitimate which sounds awfully 'self defeating' to me. How could it possibly be a form of 'hegemony', though? I definitely would like to develop an understanding of this philisophical school of thought (assuming that it's substantive enough to qualify as a philosophy). American Conservatives have 'weaponized' the term 'Postmodernist' against Liberals. It doesn't appear that a single one of them have the vaguest comprehension of what 'Postmodernism is'. All I ever hear is 'they think everything is a Social Construct'. What? Everything? Liberals thin that The Universe is a 'Social Construct'? They think that The Earth is a social construct? Trees, flowers, animals... Those are all 'Social Constructs'? Literally no one believes that. Liberals generally think that 'race' is a 'Social Construct' because... it is a 'Social Construct'. As you know, phenotypic traits cannot qualify as a valid taxanomic metric. If geneticists were able to neatly put us in a small number of taxanomic categories according to nucleotide sequences, they would have done it a long time ago.

You're welcome!

Thank you for the question! I see what you’re saying. Sartre is definitely an existentialist but he is also much more than that. He is an existentialist in that he emphasizes action, or existence itself over the nothingness of thought, optimism, bad faith etc. We act first then attribute meaning to our actions after the fact, hence ‘existence precedes essence.’ Being and Nothingness is more of a philosophical basis for an existentialist point of view on life, it concerns a much broader set of issues and questions. I think his essay ‘Existentialism as a Humanism’ best lays out Sartre’s existentialism whereas Being and Nothingness is the philosophical groundwork for his views.

@@robsamartino71 yeah. That's 'fair enough'. I suppose THEORETICALLY we could 'pursue our ends' using a 'Self Reflective' Epistemic approach, but it wouldn't be in our best interest. When you want 'SOMETHIMG', you have to have your 'eyes on the prize'. In other words, the 'ends' are 'The Subject' and there is no 'object', unless you're looking back retrospectfuly or you get 'caught up' in a circumstance of a certain nature (like Sartre's 'keyhole predicament'). And 'yes'. We can't 'apply meaning' while 'Event XYZ' is still occuring'. We can only properly 'understand' and 'contextualize' things after their completion. When 'Alternative Rock' was takin the World by storm it wasn'tcalled 'Alternative'. We simply called it 'Post-Punk'. The label 'Alternative' was affixed only AFTER the movement suffered it's creative desth and became a 'cookie cutter, formulaic, gentrified commodity'. Once again, Rob... I want to thank you for making all these great videos! In the pantheon of 'Western Philosophy' Sartre is definitely not 'Novice Material'. I wouldn't suggest any newcomer to 'Start with Sartre'. It's a shame, too. If you pronounce 'Sartre' in the Anglonized Fashion, 'Start with Sartre' would be a great 'rhyming slogan'. So, I very much appreciate your work Re/ Sartre. I'll definitely have to check out your other material.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Yes, Sartre points out that Descartes reflects on his thinking and concludes that he exists. Your formulation here ‘I am therefore I think’ is spot on and aligns nicely with ‘existence precedes essence’

Thank you!!

Thank you! Feel free to email me with any questions. It may take me a minute to get back to you but I try to respond within a day or two

Thanks lol

Thank you!!

The silence of the crowd after calling his name would be a form of negation. Recognizing silence is recognizing nothing

@@robsamartino71 I see. If we take it a step further, I have become blind, Pierre deaf. He is relying on me seeing a written sign stating "I am Pierre" and I am relying on him hearing me call out his name. Wait a minute, now I'm confused. lol.

Thank you!!

Thanks! I’ll look if I saved the page numbers in my notes.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Glad to hear it! Definitely watch his lecture ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’ th-cam.com/video/TiD_hMGJPi8/w-d-xo.html

You’re welcome!

You're welcome!

Randy! Hope you are doing well. Most of this is probably gibberish to anyone not reading Sartre’s text. Sartre’s ideas about social relations in many ways derive from Hegel and they are understood through conflict. A lot of Sartre’s philosohy has to grow on you as he builds a system out of subject / object relations. Even as you find yourself disagreeing with his ideas there is a lot to benefit from familiarizing yourself with them, especially when considering the moral relativism of the modern era. As far as opinions and facts go, Sartre’s Being and Nothingness is a phenomenological study, and in that sense he is basing everything on appearances. Facts are a bit too rigid to have a central place in his philosophy. Think ‘appearances’ over opinions and facts. I’ll have another video that speaks more plainly about it as I have been meaning to make more personal content that speaks to what I take from philosophy in general as opposed to these videos that are specific to Sartre’s text. I’d also point out that Sartre’s critics from often express great admiration for him. You are on firm ground if there is something about these ideas that rub you the wrong way.

I agree, and thank you for this insightful comment. The conflict he finds in social relations are mostly taken from Hegel. Roger Scruton makes a similar critique that you have shared with us in his epic critique of left wing thinkers ‘Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands’

@@robsamartino71 Thanks for the compliment! ‘Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands’. Haha, yeah, isn't that the perfect summation of these pseudo-intellectual theorists? I've heard of postmodernism in political discussion and this sounded a lot like it. This false ideology is so corrosive to impressionable minds that it resonates a fundamental evil at its core. The guys that came up with this stuff were likely psychopathic/narcissistic, anti-social, personality types. Only those kinds of personalities would model this kind of dark theory about human interactions/relationships.

It was Roger Scruton’s criticism of Sartre that sparked my interest in him, he had high praise for him as well, describing his description of self consciousness as ‘unforgettable.’ Sartre is considered a man of the left but is respected among conservatives. I find that intriguing. Christian Hoff Sommers also praised Sartre, Camille Paglia is as well. Even if you are a critic of moral relativism you have to admit that it has a profound grip on our culture and studying Sartre is a great way of gathering some insight on why that is. Both Sartre and Heidegger make their contributions in an interesting moment in history. It’s easy to see how European culture became particularly disillusioned with every traditional source of meaning in society. In our era it seems as though we threw out our traditions too quickly. I find myself curious about religion without being religious. I want to learn from traditions, but if you were living in the first half of the 20th century you may have been inclined to see religion as a complete failure. Especially as Nazi tanks invaded your city and your fellow citizens abandoned their national allegiances just to protect themselves.

@@robsamartino71 Ah, you're correct. I was planning on listening to more from Sartre simply because Im curious about what else he might think and you just explained why I should. I have to admit that my initial impression of his logic was very repulsive to me. But that typically wont stop me from investigating further. As far the 1st half of the 20th century being the failures of religion, I would say that ideologues were the cause of the atrocities and religion lost its power to influence because of leftist ideology. Religion promises rewards for obedience in the afterlife and leftism promises them now. Too many rose to power without a moral compass that religion offers. With religion you have more checks and balances. With leftist ideology those checks and balances reside with the party in power which means leftism is a monopoly of power. Humans manage themselves poorly, and tend to abandon their moral compass when they've achieved a monopoly in power. I believe that this is just an evolutionary trait that allows the most successful of us to further our DNA replication into the next generation. And it would make sense from a genetic standpoint. It certainly does from a biological standpoint since being in power is a huge dopamine kick. Once you have all that power, its a constant rush of dopamine and you become an addict. Addicts do just about anything to get their fix and this is why consolidation of power is a dangerous thing for humanity in general. Because lots of people are murdered by dopamine addicted, psychopathic genocidal leaders that refuse to let go of power because it will mean the death of their feeling like the supreme ruler of the universe. And it all ties into our genetics and dopamine behavior reinforcing system. Im not sure if you watch any Jordan Peterson but he's got the 20th century nailed down as far as understanding religion and leftist ideology. I probably listened to his university lectures and debates off and on for about 6 years. I highly recommend him.

@@stephencarlsbad I agree, although I wonder if those who achieve power are any more evil than those without. I suspect it may bring out the worst in us but so does the desperation of the impoverished masses. The powerful have no monopoly on cruelty and baseness. I have seen a lectures by JP and admire his insights into mythology, religion, and the systematic cruelty of 20th century ideologies.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Reading Nausea was kind of disturbing in how accurate it felt for me. I always feel like I’m outside of myself in a a sense unless I’m in pain or playing an instrument. As I read Being and Nothingness now, it’s hard not to naturally view my experience through the lens of Sartre’s philosophy.

I’ll have to check that out