So, two answers: 1) as I said, I'm currently planning on shooting videos on Being and Nothingness this Fall. So, no, I've not got videos on material specifically from that books yet. 2) yes, the fundamental cause of anguish/anxiety/Angst is awareness of the fact that our being is not determined in the way that things are -- that we are free to determine our being. This is what Sartre calls having being "for-itself" rather than "in-itself"
My math teacher makes videos on everything that he teaches, and he loves it when kids comment compliments so... I would like to thank you for doing it for philosophy, you are very good at creating examples. It allowed me to really grasp this concept, thanks a ton!
Thanks! Yes, we got our hears together and decided it was time to start producing some videos of this sort -- will still be producing full hour-length course videos as well, though
You're welcome -- yes, I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised that there aren't more professional/academic philosophers out there doing this. Two I've been particularly impressed by are the guys I have listed in "Interesting Channels" on my main channel page: Professors Anton and Campbell -- both clearly committed to producing lots of good videos
Hahaha! I'm sooo glad to get a response like that. Often when I bring up Hegel, either people haven't heard of him, or their eyes glaze over. A LOT of great stuff in his thought though.
Well, a Camusian answer would be that one makes there be something that seems like it could be permanent. Keep in mind that something might outlast one's existence and not be permanent, though
I enjoy these shorter videos on core concepts. Great idea! I find you to be one of the more practical and down-to-earth philosophy instructors currently teaching. I am still not really clear on what a person's essence (I have a vague notion) is but the video was enjoyable nonetheless. I know I would certainly appreciate more of these short videos so I can watch them quickly in between doing other things.
It certainly can't hurt to get a philosophy degree. If you particularly enjoy it, I'd advise to do it -- but also major in minor in another discipline as well
thank you for the video. I am currently taking an online course...and it was one of the biggest mistake of my college career. what was i thinking...taking a philosophy class online?? however i watch your video on every subject on existentialism and you break it down really simple and easy to understand. By reading the textbook and listening to your lecture, I can combine what I read and relate it to your lecture. Thanks again and please dont stop what you r doing. :) ps: i love your shorter versions...so much easier and time saving!
Well, online courses can be done well. I teach online courses in Philosophy for Marist College, and am developing an online course about Existentialism (in which I'll use this and other videos as a resource) for Oplerno
glad I found this video, I'm currently in my 2nd year of college and have been really into philosophy within the past year. Been getting into Nietzsche, Hume, and Kant lately. And philosophy's quickly becoming something that I really enjoy. Would love to see more videos! I'm debating on getting my bachelors in philosophy after I transfer from my community college
Well. . . here it stars to get pretty tricky. So, first, consciousness, yes, involves a kind of nothingness, not being any determinate thing, the way a stone or an animal is -- that's the difference between being in-itself and being for-itself. Now, one is stuck with that ontological condition as a human being -- one doesn't choose that. But, one can choose what shapes, forms, directions one's consciousness takes -- the determinate face of humanity, you could say - in thought, choice, action
Well, you're in luck then -- we've got plans to do a LOT of these Core Concepts videos, quite possibly in the hundreds. In the next month or so, you can look forward to some Aristotle, Epictetus, Thomas Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham, and Immanuel Kant. I'm going to keep on doing the longer lecture videos as well -- right now, the Existentialism ones, and then after that I'm thinking about perhaps a sequence on Thomas Aquinas, and another on Hegel's Phenomenology -- but, we'll see.
Yes, that's a different kind of something-outside-my-own-choices, isn't it -- something that precedes me and the spectrum of my choices, with which I could align myself or go against? That's part of what Sartre, in his works, calls "facticity"
We;re faced with our possibilities, and have only ourselves in the end that can decide between then, that bears responsibility for them. And since we haven't got a nature like a thing in-itself, we simply have to make the decision -- that's more or less Sartre's view on anxiety and choice
This one really helped me understand sartres philosophy. I have been reading being and nothingness and it has been grueling its hard to understand the way he writes. this video really broke down this concept for me. Well taught.
It seems to me that the tricky thing about teaching modern philosophical concepts is that they often seem obvious from our contemporary point of view. It may have been natural in the past to look at ourselves in an essentialist way, but it's clear that the students in this video already naturally think in the Sartrean existentialist way. And the notion that we assign our own meaning to our existence is also often taken for granted. I think ironically enough this makes it hard to teach. What do you believe is the best way to deal with that problem?
There are many conceptions available of "human nature". In some, it's something rather static. That would be the sort of thing you seem concerned about here. In other cases, its much more dynamic, involving movement from potentiality to actuality -- as in Aristotle. The art question? I'd say that "art" is an equivocal term. In extended senses, anyone can call anything art these days. But, in any real, meaningful, get-past-sonsumerism sense, there has to be more to it
I suppose he would, as far as that goes -- if it's being used as a sort of excuse. I don't know if we could attribute fear to Popeye as his motive for that though. It could be laziness as well, being comfortable with his present existence, etc. I guess Sartre would probably be able to say all of the characters of that cartoon -- Bluto the bully, Wimpy the mooch, Olive the girl who always seems to get herself caught in the middle (and has a closet of identical outfits!) exist in bad faith
choosing, making....our own essence. To me it implies a mind that realizes that "I can choose, I can change".."i can re-write" the script that's made by the interactions of countless things outside my choice or control". And then he or she starts the years-long journey of realizing his/her existence. In post ww2 France it all sounded good. And after all...what else could be the purpose of life than returning to yourself? Great video...great explanation
Yes, I suppose that one of the insights that would come from that is this: whether we regard the things that are (to some degree) "out of our control" as entirely so is also up to us. .. .
My understanding is that the notion of essence answers the question "what" something is. If that is correct, then it would necessarily precede existence because "what" I am is a human. According to Sartre, it would seem, I would have to exist minus an essence for many years in order to begin to have an essence, but one which is constantly changing according to the choices I make, which empties the notion of essence of all its meaning. Even the notion that I am fundamentally free to determine my essence itself serves as an essence, i.e. the one who is free to choose. If my essence was not one of freedom, how could my existence at some point produce this freedom if it were not already "essential" to my existence? If that is the case, then I just can't help but see Sartre as radically incorrect/inconsistent in his argument. Am I missing something here?
You're using "essence" in multiple senses of the term in your objection. Are you missing something here? Well, I would take a look at the text itself that the video is a commentary on, and you're probably answer your own question that way
Thank you .. I have a question though .. Would Sartre say that humans make the choice to be humans? .. I mean that in someway they exist first as "a conscious nothing" (Since nothing is something for Sartre) And then they decide in someway that they want to be this or this, would he say that?
Well, sort of what he's saying. . .there might be a good bit of groundwork required before all that. And, one's essence is a bit more than just mere definition, thankfully
I've been thinking this past few days about the concept of human nature. Is it nonexistent, as Sartre suggests? Camus, on his book "The rebel", says that in the moment a man rebels against a force that is oppressing him in some way, willing to even die instead of taking said oppression any longer, that man is standing up not only for himself, but for something else, something that outlasts his existence. "Why rebel at all if there's nothing permanent inside this man to preserve?"
Howdy, you are the man. I don't like making a criticism here but a better sound quality to your lectures would take you to the next level of awesomeness and Internet glory! Perhaps Santa should hook you up with a kick ass mic.
But if accepted, one could hardly go against human nature. Where does it start, and where does it end? If I cannot identify this, how would I deny it in action? At the same time, would accepting this limit (no matter how little) men's freedom? Not in a determinism sort of way, of course, but certainly in some way, wich takes me back to my first question. In a completely unrelated topic, what do you think defines art? Is intention enough, is acceptance necessary? Is "accidental art" possible?
Let's take a second to question this from the point of view of a realist positivist. Do evolutionary desires and instincts prevail as essences, defining the existence of he who inhibits them?
Yes, a poor choice of words on my end on that point. The permanent thing that I'm addressing here is something that precedes the existence of this man, therefore contradictory of Sartre's thoughts, as he denies human nature. Of course, this man's rebellion also aims at a future purpose -- but is this action caused by what we might call human nature, or is it something else? ... Thanks for your fast response, vous êtes très aimable.
I originally took essence as something aligning with the concept of purpose. However, from the examples provided, I am known inclined to believe essence is anything resulting from our ability to choose. Since freedom, responsibility, and choice are of the utmost importance to Sartre, would this be an accurate interpretation of the mantra, or am I missing something? Do we have multiple essences?
Well. . . we don't really know -- we're just guessing, since she's an imaginary being. I suppose we could look at all of her dialogue and actions. But, who's got the time for that?
Well, any of the great philosophies are going to take a while to assimilate, bit by bit. . . so, don't get discouraged, but keep plowing away at the texts
So basically, Sartre believes values are invented? He believes that existence is basically what we are and essence is who we become? Please help elaborate. - Also, i would like to mention: Your videos are so helpful!!
Do you have a video that explains starters concept of the causes of anguish? I am at the part in the book where he is talking about anguish caused by the future and anguish caused by the past. I guess is the cause of anguish, according to sartre, this being for itself conscious of the total freedom of nothingness being in itself?
hahaha! I get it! So olive oil is trying to regiment her life so as not to confront her potentiality so as not to be obliged to reinvent herself in freedom? would you say? Is it because freedom appears as anguish?
Can the archetypes identified by Jung be interpreted by Sartre as what he refers to as being essence? Now if existence precedes essence, but essence is limited to essentially one of twelve archetypes, doesn't this imply that existence must be profoundly limited?
true that. Im trying to grasp a lot of sartres concepts. I think Im starting to undestand them correctly. Freedom is anguish because we are faced with our possibilities. Is how I understood that part of being and nothingness.
Is being and nothingness a serious work or is it a joke. Or is it supposed to create an impressionistic sense of approximation- not certainty. Or is this something i cant ask but must determine by will. What is your idea of this book
It's a serious work of philosophy, grounded in previous French and German philosophy. It's also flawed in many respects, but many works are. It should be approached as a complex, systematic work.
Thank you so much for uploading this video. I was wondering about rationality in the essence of human being especially that it has a purpose. Do you think that purpose and reason from human choices are exactly the same thing for human life to come across the living problems or are they absolutely the different things? Because some reasons for solving problems differ from the way human chooses for only one answer. Could it possibly be 'Motivation' or 'Desire' in this case which is different from doing something rational?
Sorry about the previous complicated questions. I mean about human condition in Existence Precedes Essence. I'm still confused about the way that human chooses to do something with reason. Like for example, a man is walking on the footpath when a ball suddenly bounces in the same way he walks, and he suddenly catches it with panic because of instinct, not because of his choice or any reasons left for choosing to catch a ball. He does not have any purposes or motivations to catch it, but the existence of the ball at that moment makes him have to catch it for safety. Is instinct also another form of human choice to precede his essence?
Well, we don't always reason. And, choice, for Sartre, has a foundation deeper than reasoning or rationality. Also keep in mind that some decisions are more momentous than others. You're not really determining your essence as a human being by catching a stray ball
Gregory B. Sadler thank you for all Dr l did watch all videos required and it is useful to understand the ethics subject l am also looking for video on Global Economics Juctice
In the ancient view, Actuality precedes potentiality, ends are fixed. Acorns become oak trees, never spontaneous carnivorous mushrooms capable of locomotion and sensation.. Potentiality is always fixed by its intrinsic term .For Sartre this is not the case. There are no final ends, no term. Existence is termless, indefinite, with perhaps the only certainties being death and taxes. There is no essence to humanity...I almost want to say there are no essences at all, if an essence is a metaphysical reality identifying objective classes and species by which a living thing's form is identified and fixed. Each person ( who may or may not earn their humanity...whatever it means to be human. I guess that is each individuals choice) simply surges forward, and defines themselves by the choices they make. Thus I may choose to be a brutal being of unintelligible concrete immediate sensation , who cares not for either pleasure or pain but only the intensity of the sensation to celebrate that they are vitally alive, and this goal is as good as "the life of the mind". I wonder if Sartre could choose to be a rationalist and fulfil both the existentialist and the essentialists agenda at once ( metaphysical freedom and arbitrary rationalism). "Will reason!". That would be much different from an essentialist saying that reason was "always already" prior to any choice or growth on a persons part. The first puts an infinite metaphysical onus on us....a meritocracy of being...."make yourself human" ( its not a given)...to even exist one must choose....whereas acorns do not have to research what an oak tree is, decide upon being an oak tree, and repeatedly and persistently choose and act upon the means of shaping themselves over and over again to more closely resemble an oak tree...( as there is no nature, no physis, no natural growth...)
Yes you’re right there was no need in saying that, thank you for your videos. I was having trouble understanding this topic fully, your deconstruction helped me a lot.
So according to Aristotle's account of reality, your height, hair, skin color, eye color, are accidents which only exist in the substance or essence that is you. And you (man) are essentially a rational animal. Does that mean that a person who has not acquired or actualized the potential for rationality is not a human being? No it just means that his rationality has not been reduced to actuality, just as the essence of an acorn is acorn tree-ness even if its potential to be an acorn tree has not be reduced to actuality. According to Aristotle whatever exists is either an accident or a substance. An accident exists in a substance and not on its own for example the color blue doesn't exist except in a substance. Hair in relation to a dog is an accident and dog-ness is the substance. The Scholastics believe that all created beings are contingent beings since they do not bring themselves into existence and are caused to exist. The uncaused causer is what we call God who is ipsum esse subsistens "the sheer act of to-be itself". Sartre claims there is no God and therefore his existence precedes his essence which doesn't make any sense since his substance existed in its entirety when he was conceived. One doesn't become human. One is human from the very instance one comes into existence. Your potential to age is accidental to your being a human being.
would Starte say Popeye is living in bad fwith when he say, "I am what I am and that's all that I am?" because Popeye imprisons himself in what he is because he is afraid to escape from it?
"Isn't your personality part of your essence?" If it is, then essence and existence come into being simultaneously, meaning Sartre is, on a very fundamental level, wrong.
So, you think that for every person, personality comes into being as a completely finished thing? That's what it would take to make Sartre wrong on that -- assuming, of course, that personality would be the only thing that matters (which he doesn't hold). By the time a person starts to seriously consider and be able to adopt reflexive stands on their personality it is part of their existence, in Sartrean terms. They then can determine what kind of personality they really intend to have -- which could include saying "well, I'm just this kind of person, so I'll stick with this" -- which is deciding upon one's essence
Gregory B. Sadler Yes, I do think we are more or less born with our personalities. Of course, our early environment does make a difference. Like Freud, I feel that, alas, so much is determined by the first few years of our lives. A big part of my problem with Sartre--and I'm not even going to mention the eyes--is that, except for "Nausea", I have so far found him to be, like Hegel, unreadable. However, I do admire the way he lived his life, putting ideas before money. He was obviously a man in possession of a titanic will. Couple that with the frigid labyrinth of his intellect---it's forbidding. All shall not enter. Thanks for responding. I know you're busy.
If you decide you want to take another stab at Hegel, here's a link to my Half-Hour Hegel playlist: th-cam.com/play/PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2.html I'm going through the entire Phenomenology, paragraph by paragraph, making it accessible
I don't think there is a 1 to 1 correlation to habits and essence, habits change your behavior and can with time change your mindset but not your essence parse, your essence is to my view and using Freud lingo here, your ego, super ego and id mixture, that could conceptualize in a way your essence, but they are not habits because it was you, the real you, the one who make the choice to change your habits you are condemn to be free in the same way you are condemn to be yourself. So this is like Satre for starters in philosophy and if that is the case I would start with Socrates or Plato. Since it was plato, I think the first who thought about essence, so when we have essence cleared in the philosophical sense, and existence in the philosophical sense, (for existence go to Descartes) then you can talk about Satre otherwise it create this confusion of terms... that make students make irrational connections with habits and essence. I still like you and your way of teaching is fun! also, so cool you are so happy with yourself! you are very nice!
@@GregoryBSadler Maybe I doubt I great deal, nevertheless you did say something in the lines of your essence changing whether you decide to change your habits like exercising, my argument is that your essence don't change with habits because you were yourself when you make the choice to change, so even if you change you are still you, it is not even lost (your own essence) when your (ship of Theseus) namely your body have shed the last cell you were born with... you are condemned to be you fat or slim or fit... or whatever. It just mean that human essence can evolve or "de-evolve" by society standards which are arbitrary... being fat good or being fit good are arbitrary, it influence not your essence! which is cool by the way! because at least we love wisdom! By the way, I am honored that you answered me, being a collage professor and all, I just a Venezuelan guy from a poor family... I wish I could visit the university were you teach one day!
@@GregoryBSadler if you want to swap knowledge I can teach you Spanish, otherwise I just got fired because my company doesn't have my shift anymore bc of the pandemic
The most important issue that underpins the idea of essence, is mentioned at the very end when a student mentions, purpose. Just like the knife has a distinct purpose our essence is defined by understanding our own purposes. Really ended this video at the wrong time.
I think Sartre was terribly wrong in this. You can’t make your own essence because by definition essence is something that doesn’t change. If it changes it is not your essence.
Why not call it BEINGNESS instead of ESSENCE ? Its much simpler. Essence is YOU. Who and what you ARE (BE) .Basically you are the quintessence. That term comes form the time when people believed there were only 4 essences (the basic component of things). There were Earth, Fire, Air and Water. Then they used the term QUINTESSENCE, meaning FIFTH ( Quintus, from Latin), the FIFTH ESSENCE, or SPIRIT. Thats why you say a certain something is the quintessence of a thing. Ex: " Confussion is the quintessence of western philosophy'. Thats why it's so hard to study these things by using western philosophies. Because they are confusing. Read an eastern philosophy and see how much simpler it is. It explains ideas in simple terms. The only word people have trouble with is SPIRIT and thats because they either dont believe in it or there hasnt been a clear explanation of it. But you are a spirit. Youre not a body. There are plenty of instances to prove this. Many, many people have experienced Out of Body. Thats exactly what it is : The person (the spirit/ soul / being = all the same word) has moved out of the body. People who have this experiece realize that they are not the body and feel much better about themselves and life and sometimes realize that when the body dies, they themselves dont die. This is a very simple concept, but people have been conditioned through being in the body all their lives and by being constantly told by others that these ideas are nonsense, to believe that this is impossible. That it's not true. Well, it IS true and the eastern religions have known this for thousands of years. I dont know why this got buried in the confusion when philosophy came west, but it did and now it's the hardest thing of which to convince human BEINGS ! Use the analogy of a car : You can have a car and get in it and control it. It goes and turns and stops and when you turn it off, it stops moving (sleeps.) With time, like all material things, the car deteriorates and eventually craps out (dies)and you leave it and eventually get another. Losing the car doesnt end your existenece, right? Well it's the same with bodies. Think of the body as similar to a car. Its something you have which will eventually break down and die. But it is the body which dies (ceases to function). YOU still exist and will continue to BE. There are two schools of thought regarding what comes next : 1. You eventually get another body and start a new life or 2. You go to a place called heaven (or hell). Of course there is a third idea 3. You are the body and when the body dies, you cease to exist ( go to sleep forever.) Well, the evidence has shown that YOU exist, independent of the body, so, here is where you can pick one or the other. I go with the fact that I AM a BEING and am not the body. What do YOU think ?
Cry, sure, or at the very least present as sad, lament, etc. Laugh, in the real sense, perhaps. Display basic religious activities? That's quite a stretch.
Thank you for such an informative video. I, myself, and my essence will not stand with Sartre on this issue. I believe Sartre speaking like a heretic. David says in Psalm 93,verse 5, "Your decrees are firmly established..." This means that essence came first by divine decree of God and it is firmly established forever. I will bare witness for the Lord on this matter.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 80 | คู่เอก "รักษ์ vs ยอดนำชัย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ckLMRorsMeY/mqdefault.jpg)
So, two answers:
1) as I said, I'm currently planning on shooting videos on Being and Nothingness this Fall. So, no, I've not got videos on material specifically from that books yet.
2) yes, the fundamental cause of anguish/anxiety/Angst is awareness of the fact that our being is not determined in the way that things are -- that we are free to determine our being. This is what Sartre calls having being "for-itself" rather than "in-itself"
I'm glad you find the videos helpful. Not sure what you expect me to elaborate -- you've got an hour-long video here which does that
My math teacher makes videos on everything that he teaches, and he loves it when kids comment compliments so...
I would like to thank you for doing it for philosophy, you are very good at creating examples. It allowed me to really grasp this concept, thanks a ton!
Thanks! Yes, we got our hears together and decided it was time to start producing some videos of this sort -- will still be producing full hour-length course videos as well, though
omg. i'm so glad that YOU exist. awesome video
Thanks!
But how do you know he actually exists maybe this is just a dream
It's rather a waste of a dream if you're watching videos in it, rather than actually doing things
Watching a video is something I am doing :D It doesn't involve physical movements but it does involve mental action.
Gregory B. Glad-ler
You're welcome -- yes, I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised that there aren't more professional/academic philosophers out there doing this.
Two I've been particularly impressed by are the guys I have listed in "Interesting Channels" on my main channel page: Professors Anton and Campbell -- both clearly committed to producing lots of good videos
Glad it was helpful for you. I'll be shooting some videos specifically on Being and Nothingness this fall, as part of the Existentialism series
Indeed! That's another one I probably ought to cover in this Existentialism series
Hahaha! I'm sooo glad to get a response like that. Often when I bring up Hegel, either people haven't heard of him, or their eyes glaze over. A LOT of great stuff in his thought though.
That makes sense -- we consolidate our knowledge or understanding of things the more ways in which we grasp them
Well, a Camusian answer would be that one makes there be something that seems like it could be permanent. Keep in mind that something might outlast one's existence and not be permanent, though
new Core Concept video
You're very welcome. Glad the video was useful
This is excellent! I love the idea of "Core Concept" videos. I can't wait for more!
I enjoy these shorter videos on core concepts. Great idea! I find you to be one of the more practical and down-to-earth philosophy instructors currently teaching. I am still not really clear on what a person's essence (I have a vague notion) is but the video was enjoyable nonetheless. I know I would certainly appreciate more of these short videos so I can watch them quickly in between doing other things.
This was really helpful for a class I'm taking. Thanks!
Glad you found it useful
It certainly can't hurt to get a philosophy degree. If you particularly enjoy it, I'd advise to do it -- but also major in minor in another discipline as well
thank you for the video. I am currently taking an online course...and it was one of the biggest mistake of my college career. what was i thinking...taking a philosophy class online?? however i watch your video on every subject on existentialism and you break it down really simple and easy to understand. By reading the textbook and listening to your lecture, I can combine what I read and relate it to your lecture. Thanks again and please dont stop what you r doing. :) ps: i love your shorter versions...so much easier and time saving!
Well, online courses can be done well. I teach online courses in Philosophy for Marist College, and am developing an online course about Existentialism (in which I'll use this and other videos as a resource) for Oplerno
Glad the videos have been helpful for you
glad I found this video, I'm currently in my 2nd year of college and have been really into philosophy within the past year. Been getting into Nietzsche, Hume, and Kant lately. And philosophy's quickly becoming something that I really enjoy. Would love to see more videos! I'm debating on getting my bachelors in philosophy after I transfer from my community college
Well. . . here it stars to get pretty tricky. So, first, consciousness, yes, involves a kind of nothingness, not being any determinate thing, the way a stone or an animal is -- that's the difference between being in-itself and being for-itself.
Now, one is stuck with that ontological condition as a human being -- one doesn't choose that. But, one can choose what shapes, forms, directions one's consciousness takes -- the determinate face of humanity, you could say - in thought, choice, action
Well, you're in luck then -- we've got plans to do a LOT of these Core Concepts videos, quite possibly in the hundreds. In the next month or so, you can look forward to some Aristotle, Epictetus, Thomas Aquinas, Jeremy Bentham, and Immanuel Kant.
I'm going to keep on doing the longer lecture videos as well -- right now, the Existentialism ones, and then after that I'm thinking about perhaps a sequence on Thomas Aquinas, and another on Hegel's Phenomenology -- but, we'll see.
Yes, that's a different kind of something-outside-my-own-choices, isn't it -- something that precedes me and the spectrum of my choices, with which I could align myself or go against?
That's part of what Sartre, in his works, calls "facticity"
We;re faced with our possibilities, and have only ourselves in the end that can decide between then, that bears responsibility for them. And since we haven't got a nature like a thing in-itself, we simply have to make the decision -- that's more or less Sartre's view on anxiety and choice
Thank you so much Dr. George B. Sadler I appreciate this a lot!!
Glad it was helpful for you
This one really helped me understand sartres philosophy. I have been reading being and nothingness and it has been grueling its hard to understand the way he writes. this video really broke down this concept for me. Well taught.
Thank you so much for this video. I learned more in these 18 minutes than i did the whole week. If you were my teacher id enjoy going to philosophy.
Glad you enjoyed it -- you know, I actually have an entire Sartre playlist over in my channel
Essence is definition. Reclaim your own authorship.
Should a be a few more on Existentialism coming out this next week.
It seems to me that the tricky thing about teaching modern philosophical concepts is that they often seem obvious from our contemporary point of view. It may have been natural in the past to look at ourselves in an essentialist way, but it's clear that the students in this video already naturally think in the Sartrean existentialist way. And the notion that we assign our own meaning to our existence is also often taken for granted. I think ironically enough this makes it hard to teach. What do you believe is the best way to deal with that problem?
There's no best way to teach.
It's all in the appearances!
There are many conceptions available of "human nature". In some, it's something rather static. That would be the sort of thing you seem concerned about here. In other cases, its much more dynamic, involving movement from potentiality to actuality -- as in Aristotle.
The art question? I'd say that "art" is an equivocal term. In extended senses, anyone can call anything art these days. But, in any real, meaningful, get-past-sonsumerism sense, there has to be more to it
human nature... lame
I really enjoyed the video Dr. Sadler. definitly cleared up a few points for me. thanks prof!
+Andrew Foster (TheVaultDweller) You're welcome! Glad it was helpful
Oh shoot...then im definitely checking those out. these videos make the texts easier to understand.
american student feedback : " like .... like .... like ... like ...like.." lol
Yes, that is indeed common over here
I suppose he would, as far as that goes -- if it's being used as a sort of excuse. I don't know if we could attribute fear to Popeye as his motive for that though. It could be laziness as well, being comfortable with his present existence, etc.
I guess Sartre would probably be able to say all of the characters of that cartoon -- Bluto the bully, Wimpy the mooch, Olive the girl who always seems to get herself caught in the middle (and has a closet of identical outfits!) exist in bad faith
I look forward to more hour-length videos as well!
choosing, making....our own essence.
To me it implies a mind that realizes that "I can choose, I can change".."i can re-write" the script that's made by the interactions of countless things outside my choice or control". And then he or she starts the years-long journey of realizing his/her existence. In post ww2 France it all sounded good.
And after all...what else could be the purpose of life than returning to yourself?
Great video...great explanation
Yes, I suppose that one of the insights that would come from that is this: whether we regard the things that are (to some degree) "out of our control" as entirely so is also up to us. .. .
Not for Sartre.
It's not as if positivism of various sorts hadn't been around for over half a century when Sartre was thinking and writing
My understanding is that the notion of essence answers the question "what" something is. If that is correct, then it would necessarily precede existence because "what" I am is a human. According to Sartre, it would seem, I would have to exist minus an essence for many years in order to begin to have an essence, but one which is constantly changing according to the choices I make, which empties the notion of essence of all its meaning. Even the notion that I am fundamentally free to determine my essence itself serves as an essence, i.e. the one who is free to choose. If my essence was not one of freedom, how could my existence at some point produce this freedom if it were not already "essential" to my existence? If that is the case, then I just can't help but see Sartre as radically incorrect/inconsistent in his argument. Am I missing something here?
You're using "essence" in multiple senses of the term in your objection.
Are you missing something here? Well, I would take a look at the text itself that the video is a commentary on, and you're probably answer your own question that way
Thank you .. I have a question though .. Would Sartre say that humans make the choice to be humans? .. I mean that in someway they exist first as "a conscious nothing" (Since nothing is something for Sartre) And then they decide in someway that they want to be this or this, would he say that?
Yes, to Hegel's Phenomenology!....another somewhat difficult concept to completely grasp.
Well, sort of what he's saying. . .there might be a good bit of groundwork required before all that. And, one's essence is a bit more than just mere definition, thankfully
THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE DOING！
I've been thinking this past few days about the concept of human nature. Is it nonexistent, as Sartre suggests? Camus, on his book "The rebel", says that in the moment a man rebels against a force that is oppressing him in some way, willing to even die instead of taking said oppression any longer, that man is standing up not only for himself, but for something else, something that outlasts his existence. "Why rebel at all if there's nothing permanent inside this man to preserve?"
Howdy, you are the man. I don't like making a criticism here but a better sound quality to your lectures would take you to the next level of awesomeness and Internet glory! Perhaps Santa should hook you up with a kick ass mic.
+2cents This video is from over three years ago
But if accepted, one could hardly go against human nature. Where does it start, and where does it end? If I cannot identify this, how would I deny it in action? At the same time, would accepting this limit (no matter how little) men's freedom? Not in a determinism sort of way, of course, but certainly in some way, wich takes me back to my first question.
In a completely unrelated topic, what do you think defines art? Is intention enough, is acceptance necessary? Is "accidental art" possible?
What is the relationship of essence and meaning?
Read the text and see
Let's take a second to question this from the point of view of a realist positivist.
Do evolutionary desires and instincts prevail as essences, defining the existence of he who inhibits them?
Yes, a poor choice of words on my end on that point. The permanent thing that I'm addressing here is something that precedes the existence of this man, therefore contradictory of Sartre's thoughts, as he denies human nature. Of course, this man's rebellion also aims at a future purpose -- but is this action caused by what we might call human nature, or is it something else? ... Thanks for your fast response, vous êtes très aimable.
Heiddeger has some disagreement with Sartre on this in his Letter on Humanism.
I originally took essence as something aligning with the concept of purpose. However, from the examples provided, I am known inclined to believe essence is anything resulting from our ability to choose. Since freedom, responsibility, and choice are of the utmost importance to Sartre, would this be an accurate interpretation of the mantra, or am I missing something? Do we have multiple essences?
I'd read the text the video is discussing. You'll find that clears up quite a bit
Well. . . we don't really know -- we're just guessing, since she's an imaginary being. I suppose we could look at all of her dialogue and actions. But, who's got the time for that?
awesomeness!! I think Im beginning to understand now. thanks!
Well, any of the great philosophies are going to take a while to assimilate, bit by bit. . . so, don't get discouraged, but keep plowing away at the texts
Good!
Thanks. I guess im sort of getting it little by little.
ill be avidly waiting your Sartre videos.
So basically, Sartre believes values are invented? He believes that existence is basically what we are and essence is who we become? Please help elaborate.
- Also, i would like to mention: Your videos are so helpful!!
Thanks, Dr Sadler.
You're welcome!
That would be great because I'm not sure I understand that. Thank you for the videos. There are not many professional philosophers doing this.
Do you have a video that explains starters concept of the causes of anguish?
I am at the part in the book where he is talking about anguish caused by the future and anguish caused by the past.
I guess is the cause of anguish, according to sartre, this being for itself conscious of the total freedom of nothingness being in itself?
Thank you so much sir.
You're welcome!
Thank you for uploading! Appreciated! :-)
You're welcome!
hahaha! I get it!
So olive oil is trying to regiment her life so as not to confront her potentiality so as not to be obliged to reinvent herself in freedom? would you say?
Is it because freedom appears as anguish?
Can the archetypes identified by Jung be interpreted by Sartre as what he refers to as being essence? Now if existence precedes essence, but essence is limited to essentially one of twelve archetypes, doesn't this imply that existence must be profoundly limited?
"Can the archetypes identified by Jung be interpreted by Sartre as what he refers to as being essence? " No. So that's a non-starter
But the Jungian archetype, like essence would be a result of existence?
You're not going to successfully blend Jung and Sartre
How is this not a paradox?
true that. Im trying to grasp a lot of sartres concepts. I think Im starting to undestand them correctly. Freedom is anguish because we are faced with our possibilities. Is how I understood that part of being and nothingness.
What are your thoughts on this? -- Excuse any mistakes I might have made, English is not my first language.
Is being and nothingness a serious work or is it a joke. Or is it supposed to create an impressionistic sense of approximation- not certainty. Or is this something i cant ask but must determine by will. What is your idea of this book
It's a serious work of philosophy, grounded in previous French and German philosophy. It's also flawed in many respects, but many works are. It should be approached as a complex, systematic work.
Thanks for taking the time to reply sir
Did you change your essence or are you still replying to posts here?
The essence I chose, I chose way back, and keep on choosing. That's what you can call remaining committed
Thank you so much for uploading this video. I was wondering about rationality in the essence of human being especially that it has a purpose. Do you think that purpose and reason from human choices are exactly the same thing for human life to come across the living problems or are they absolutely the different things? Because some reasons for solving problems differ from the way human chooses for only one answer. Could it possibly be 'Motivation' or 'Desire' in this case which is different from doing something rational?
I'm not sure what you're asking here
Sorry about the previous complicated questions. I mean about human condition in Existence Precedes Essence. I'm still confused about the way that human chooses to do something with reason. Like for example, a man is walking on the footpath when a ball suddenly bounces in the same way he walks, and he suddenly catches it with panic because of instinct, not because of his choice or any reasons left for choosing to catch a ball. He does not have any purposes or motivations to catch it, but the existence of the ball at that moment makes him have to catch it for safety. Is instinct also another form of human choice to precede his essence?
Well, we don't always reason. And, choice, for Sartre, has a foundation deeper than reasoning or rationality. Also keep in mind that some decisions are more momentous than others. You're not really determining your essence as a human being by catching a stray ball
nice explanation and simple l am taking Sartre for class ethic 2020.
I'll be shooting some additional videos for an Existentialism class I'm teaching this summer
Gregory B. Sadler thank you for all Dr l did watch all videos required and it is useful to understand the ethics subject l am also looking for video on Global Economics Juctice
Thank you Sir, I really enjoyed your lecture.
Glad to read it!
@@GregoryBSadler #love from India 🇮🇳😊
Wonderful! Thank you
You're welcome
In the ancient view, Actuality precedes potentiality, ends are fixed. Acorns become oak trees, never spontaneous carnivorous mushrooms capable of locomotion and sensation.. Potentiality is always fixed by its intrinsic term .For Sartre this is not the case. There are no final ends, no term. Existence is termless, indefinite, with perhaps the only certainties being death and taxes. There is no essence to humanity...I almost want to say there are no essences at all, if an essence is a metaphysical reality identifying objective classes and species by which a living thing's form is identified and fixed. Each person ( who may or may not earn their humanity...whatever it means to be human. I guess that is each individuals choice) simply surges forward, and defines themselves by the choices they make. Thus I may choose to be a brutal being of unintelligible concrete immediate sensation , who cares not for either pleasure or pain but only the intensity of the sensation to celebrate that they are vitally alive, and this goal is as good as "the life of the mind". I wonder if Sartre could choose to be a rationalist and fulfil both the existentialist and the essentialists agenda at once ( metaphysical freedom and arbitrary rationalism). "Will reason!". That would be much different from an essentialist saying that reason was "always already" prior to any choice or growth on a persons part. The first puts an infinite metaphysical onus on us....a meritocracy of being...."make yourself human" ( its not a given)...to even exist one must choose....whereas acorns do not have to research what an oak tree is, decide upon being an oak tree, and repeatedly and persistently choose and act upon the means of shaping themselves over and over again to more closely resemble an oak tree...( as there is no nature, no physis, no natural growth...)
I'd say that's all about right
Gregory B. Sadler I would like to learn more, and in more detail. Thank you for your lectures.
thanks so much for your info
so much help
The Essence of Human Being is to make your Essence self...
very helpful video
Existence precedes essence which is preceded by existence which precedes essence... into infinity
The way you have it written, it's pretty much a tautology, not an infinite progression
I like the conversation but I wished that they would listen and ask questions when need be
Not much to be done about that now, 7 years later
Yes you’re right there was no need in saying that, thank you for your videos. I was having trouble understanding this topic fully, your deconstruction helped me a lot.
@@emersonthedude9951 Glad it was helpful for you!
Um. . . probably not.
have you ever did videos on Nietzsche?
An entire playlist. You can use the search function
So according to Aristotle's account of reality, your height, hair, skin color, eye color, are accidents which only exist in the substance or essence that is you. And you (man) are essentially a rational animal. Does that mean that a person who has not acquired or actualized the potential for rationality is not a human being? No it just means that his rationality has not been reduced to actuality, just as the essence of an acorn is acorn tree-ness even if its potential to be an acorn tree has not be reduced to actuality. According to Aristotle whatever exists is either an accident or a substance. An accident exists in a substance and not on its own for example the color blue doesn't exist except in a substance. Hair in relation to a dog is an accident and dog-ness is the substance. The Scholastics believe that all created beings are contingent beings since they do not bring themselves into existence and are caused to exist. The uncaused causer is what we call God who is ipsum esse subsistens "the sheer act of to-be itself". Sartre claims there is no God and therefore his existence precedes his essence which doesn't make any sense since his substance existed in its entirety when he was conceived. One doesn't become human. One is human from the very instance one comes into existence. Your potential to age is accidental to your being a human being.
th-cam.com/video/xgf2jztjaF4/w-d-xo.html
would Starte say Popeye is living in bad fwith when he say, "I am what I am and that's all that I am?"
because Popeye imprisons himself in what he is because he is afraid to escape from it?
Well, I suppose the video didn't help then
Thank you
You're welcome!
"Isn't your personality part of your essence?" If it is, then essence and existence come into being simultaneously, meaning Sartre is, on a very fundamental level, wrong.
So, you think that for every person, personality comes into being as a completely finished thing? That's what it would take to make Sartre wrong on that -- assuming, of course, that personality would be the only thing that matters (which he doesn't hold).
By the time a person starts to seriously consider and be able to adopt reflexive stands on their personality it is part of their existence, in Sartrean terms. They then can determine what kind of personality they really intend to have -- which could include saying "well, I'm just this kind of person, so I'll stick with this" -- which is deciding upon one's essence
Gregory B. Sadler Yes, I do think we are more or less born with our personalities. Of course, our early environment does make a difference. Like Freud, I feel that, alas, so much is determined by the first few years of our lives. A big part of my problem with Sartre--and I'm not even going to mention the eyes--is that, except for "Nausea", I have so far found him to be, like Hegel, unreadable. However, I do admire the way he lived his life, putting ideas before money. He was obviously a man in possession of a titanic will. Couple that with the frigid labyrinth of his intellect---it's forbidding. All shall not enter.
Thanks for responding. I know you're busy.
Fawn Howard Probably: "Not all shall enter". I hate those red marks.
If you decide you want to take another stab at Hegel, here's a link to my Half-Hour Hegel playlist: th-cam.com/play/PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2.html
I'm going through the entire Phenomenology, paragraph by paragraph, making it accessible
IT SEEMS LIKE SARTRE THINK ESSENCE JUST DOES NOT EXIST AND HE JUST USE THE WORD TO MEAN THE SELF. IN MY THOGHT, ESSENCE IS KIND OF UNIVERSAL.
No, Sartre clearly thinks there are essences.
You probably don't need all caps
I don't think there is a 1 to 1 correlation to habits and essence, habits change your behavior and can with time change your mindset but not your essence parse, your essence is to my view and using Freud lingo here, your ego, super ego and id mixture, that could conceptualize in a way your essence, but they are not habits because it was you, the real you, the one who make the choice to change your habits you are condemn to be free in the same way you are condemn to be yourself. So this is like Satre for starters in philosophy and if that is the case I would start with Socrates or Plato.
Since it was plato, I think the first who thought about essence, so when we have essence cleared in the philosophical sense, and existence in the philosophical sense, (for existence go to Descartes) then you can talk about Satre otherwise it create this confusion of terms... that make students make irrational connections with habits and essence.
I still like you and your way of teaching is fun! also, so cool you are so happy with yourself! you are very nice!
I don't think anyone said there was a " a 1 to 1 correlation to habits and essence", so you're kinda arguing with yourself here
@@GregoryBSadler Maybe I doubt I great deal, nevertheless you did say something in the lines of your essence changing whether you decide to change your habits like exercising, my argument is that your essence don't change with habits because you were yourself when you make the choice to change, so even if you change you are still you, it is not even lost (your own essence) when your (ship of Theseus) namely your body have shed the last cell you were born with... you are condemned to be you fat or slim or fit... or whatever.
It just mean that human essence can evolve or "de-evolve" by society standards which are arbitrary... being fat good or being fit good are arbitrary, it influence not your essence! which is cool by the way! because at least we love wisdom!
By the way, I am honored that you answered me, being a collage professor and all, I just a Venezuelan guy from a poor family... I wish I could visit the university were you teach one day!
@@TheAidenSanders I provide online classes. I don't often teach on campuses if I can help it
@@GregoryBSadler oh right this is the world we live in now...
@@GregoryBSadler if you want to swap knowledge I can teach you Spanish, otherwise I just got fired because my company doesn't have my shift anymore bc of the pandemic
bad faith i mean.
The most important issue that underpins the idea of essence, is mentioned at the very end when a student mentions, purpose. Just like the knife has a distinct purpose our essence is defined by understanding our own purposes. Really ended this video at the wrong time.
Thanks for your feedback. You know, you can always shoot the video you'd rather have seen
Gregory B. Sadler "people are hell"
Some of them certainly are
I think Sartre was terribly wrong in this. You can’t make your own essence because by definition essence is something that doesn’t change. If it changes it is not your essence.
Well, lucky you straightened that out for us!
Why not call it BEINGNESS instead of ESSENCE ? Its much simpler. Essence is YOU. Who and what you ARE (BE) .Basically you are the quintessence. That term comes form the time when people believed there were only 4 essences (the basic component of things). There were Earth, Fire, Air and Water. Then they used the term QUINTESSENCE, meaning FIFTH ( Quintus, from Latin), the FIFTH ESSENCE, or SPIRIT. Thats why you say a certain something is the quintessence of a thing. Ex: " Confussion is the quintessence of western philosophy'. Thats why it's so hard to study these things by using western philosophies. Because they are confusing. Read an eastern philosophy and see how much simpler it is. It explains ideas in simple terms. The only word people have trouble with is SPIRIT and thats because they either dont believe in it or there hasnt been a clear explanation of it. But you are a spirit. Youre not a body. There are plenty of instances to prove this. Many, many people have experienced Out of Body. Thats exactly what it is : The person (the spirit/ soul / being = all the same word) has moved out of the body. People who have this experiece realize that they are not the body and feel much better about themselves and life and sometimes realize that when the body dies, they themselves dont die. This is a very simple concept, but people have been conditioned through being in the body all their lives and by being constantly told by others that these ideas are nonsense, to believe that this is impossible. That it's not true. Well, it IS true and the eastern religions have known this for thousands of years. I dont know why this got buried in the confusion when philosophy came west, but it did and now it's the hardest thing of which to convince human BEINGS ! Use the analogy of a car : You can have a car and get in it and control it. It goes and turns and stops and when you turn it off, it stops moving (sleeps.) With time, like all material things, the car deteriorates and eventually craps out (dies)and you leave it and eventually get another. Losing the car doesnt end your existenece, right? Well it's the same with bodies. Think of the body as similar to a car. Its something you have which will eventually break down and die. But it is the body which dies (ceases to function). YOU still exist and will continue to BE. There are two schools of thought regarding what comes next : 1. You eventually get another body and start a new life or 2. You go to a place called heaven (or hell). Of course there is a third idea 3. You are the body and when the body dies, you cease to exist ( go to sleep forever.) Well, the evidence has shown that YOU exist, independent of the body, so, here is where you can pick one or the other. I go with the fact that I AM a BEING and am not the body. What do YOU think ?
th-cam.com/video/GH5PhyPThpo/w-d-xo.html
Some animals *do* indeed laugh and cry, and display at least basic religious activities.
Cry, sure, or at the very least present as sad, lament, etc. Laugh, in the real sense, perhaps. Display basic religious activities? That's quite a stretch.
Gregory B. Sadler Haven't you seen the picture on the internet of the dog praying? That certainly qualifies has a basic religious activity.
Cartoons would work
Thank you for such an informative video. I, myself, and my essence will not stand with Sartre on this issue. I believe Sartre speaking like a heretic. David says in Psalm 93,verse 5, "Your decrees are firmly established..." This means that essence came first by divine decree of God and it is firmly established forever. I will bare witness for the Lord on this matter.