I am currently studying philosophy in college. These videos have been the best way by far to understand core concepts and teachings! Thank you, Dr. Gregory, for posting these. You're helping me through my very tough classes!
This clears up a lot of common misuses of the term Existentialism. One big point is simply rebelling or being a social deviant. Here, you hit home that Sartre says "Sure, you can choose to act like that, but you will deal with the consequences" - And, you can't simply do something immoral and say "that is just me" - He asks that you consider everyone acting in that way. This makes the choice a little less reckless and simple.
Indeed. And I agree with this interpretation, however does this not appear to be a reiteration of Kant's practical ethics? When one relates, they should act as though others are ends in themselves and not as means toward something else? In a similar vein, when one decides to act in a certain way, they are implicitly advocating others do the same.
Thanks for this. The thing I like so much about sartre's existentialism is the power it has to motivate you as a person. I used to find myself in the category of complacency that you mention. Potential doesn't exist and its this type of thought that really drives me to self improvement, instead of waiting for a chance to prove myself.
Yes, I can see that as a problem. It's interesting -- educators get under pressure from the pedagogy "experts" not to lecture. They call it "chalk and talk", say that it turns students off, is boring, unengaging ,etc. So, we're supposed to do a lot of activities instead. .. As it turns out, the "experts" don't really know what they're talking about a good part of the time, but they've got a line to push, and they do. Students over and over tell us they want - and need - traditional lecture
You're very welcome. Yes, its a great, classic piece of Existential philosophy, one which I assign to my students every semester, precisely for the reason you mention -- if it's taken seriously, it makes us examine our own commitments and actions
Well, Sartre saying that, in deciding for ourselves, we decide for all human beings doesn't mean a few things. Right -- it doesn't mean everyone will act that way -- after all, they're free too. Right -- in choosing something, one is saying that thing chosen is right, is good, is what one ought to do -- it might be inconsistent, though, or one might oneself be inconsistent
Yes, that would be one way in which it would become a more momentous choice. The real confusion here, however, is this: Sartre is not saying that your individual choice "affects" everyone else on the planet (and for all time, as well, remember), in the sense of making them also choose that way. He is saying that, in every significant choice, you are choosing a kind of model for what "human being" ought to look like, be like, do.
Just wanted to thank you for uploading this, it's been invaluable in writing my essay (especially since my own professor, in her infinite wisdom, decided to entirely forgo the lecturing component of our class this semester).
Those are all relevant factors you're pointing out -- accessibility of material, , delivery, time of life. One reason why it's tough to get a lot of participation on the part of typical college students in the service classes I teach!
you're welcome -- in a sense it can also be liberating to realize that what one previously thought or imagined to be one's potential, something that would then confine one's actuality and action, is not necessarily fixed in stone
Yes, Sartre has a work in fact called "Existentialism and Human Emotions", which pulls together various essays. He also discusses these matters in some other works, not least Being and Nothingness. Your basic idea is right -- some emotions result from choice. Some we have come over us (they are part of our facticity). They CAN drive choice -- if we choose to let them
Great lecture! I wanted to ask if you could clarify a point for me: Sartre criticizes "essence", but he does seem to acknowledge that he is a "sexual being", so he does seem to acknowledge that there are some things, some predispositions that come with being a human, e.g. in contrast to being a bird or a piece of paper. This latter idea, that humans in general & specific individuals grow up with some dispositions, including those that are likely to sway them towards some behaviours rather than others, seems to be the position bared out by contemporary psychological evidence. But many contemporary psychologists would also agree with Sartre, in a sense, that this does not mean that behaviour is therefore completely deterministic or that people are excused from making choices or that they should just give in to whatever emotional or cognitive dispositions they have. Most wouldn't agree with any normative understanding of evolution either (e.g. "Survival of the fittest is a moral imperative!") So I wonder, do you think that Sartre is actually that far off from contemporary, scientifically-informed views on human nature and the nature of morality? It seems to me that much of it actually seems compatible, given a nuanced definition of the terms involved.
I agree with you -- it would be great if more profs started doing what we call "lecture capture". Tough to get them into the idea -- me included. It took my then-fiancee (now wife) arguing for it for me to give it a shot, and more arguing for me to put my lectures into TH-cam.
Greg uploading all of your videos is extremly honourable and I want to thank you again, helping me through my lectures here in Montreal. I aspire to be a Philosopher myself and hope we meet some day. Cheers!
It's not being too black and white -- it's wanting things too simple, I think. Emotion can drive a choice because one chooses (a different choice, which gets integrated with the emotion and the subsequent choice) to allow emotion to drive things. Some choice is still at the bottom. Fundamental choices are different precisely by that -- by being fundamental, determining how other choices are going to be made, what their basis will be, etc.
I don't have any on Hegel yet -- though he is actually one of my favorite philosophers -- but I'll be producing some vids on him and other "continental" thinkers over the coming academic year. For the time being -- after I finish my vacation -- I'm concentrating on Existentialism videos
Or, rather, what you're asking, if I understand it correctly, is this: Which is it: A) motivation or awareness bear on one same, single choice, and affect what the essence of the person resulting from the choice will be? B) OR, having awareness of something involved in the choice, or having some particular motivation makes the choice a different choice. You'll need to clarify a few things. When doesn't one have awareness and motivation? And, a different choice, different in respect to what?
It depends very much on the "humanism" you're talking about. The word actually has a number of different meanings. First off, there are in fact religious humanists. Humanism as such is not incompatible with a religious stance. If we're talking about explicitly secular humanism, you might want to check out some of the humanist manifestos that are out there, where -- at least in the early ones -- humanism is to basically replace religion and provide what religion offers.
Dr. Sadler, thank you for your response and also your approachability! Your videos have assisted me a lot grasping some main ideas. I'm currently writing my (interdisciplinary) bachelor thesis at my uni in Germany about the feasibility of implementing existentialist approaches when managing service personnel. Especially Sartre's concepts of responsibility, choice and freedom can have major implications for personnel management practices.
I hope you know how incredibly skilled you are at lecturing sir. You were not born awesome, awesomeness was not the ingredient that made you, but you have become it, you have embodied it. Existence may precede essence, but for yourself, awesomeness precedes your existence lol.
Thank you for responding to my questions. I appreciate it very much. I do have one more question - Sartre, outlines that we are determined to make choices ( even not making a choice is a choice) & he identifies three emotional states that result from our being "condemned" (despair, anguish, & abandonment). Beyond, addressing that passion is not an excuse for acting criminal & acknowledging cowards can choose to be otherwise it seems that choice is an intellectual activity that is independent
Peter Drucker for instance said that "Responsibility - not satisfaction - is the only thing that will serve. […] It does not matter whether the worker wants responsibility or not. The enterprise must demand it of him. The enterprise needs performance; and now that it can no longer use fear, it can get it only by encouraging, by inducting, if need be by pushing, the worker into assuming responsibility."
I almost always watch your lectures on philosophical works that I'm reading in order to deepen my understanding of the material. Thanks a lot for helping me cultivate my interest in philosophy. I was curious if you would be willing to do some analyses on Foucault at some point. I've been really interested in his work lately and it would be wonderful if you did a series on him at some point. Thanks again! Best, AJ
If acting sets a standard on how every human being should act, then wouldn't that mean Sartre set an example that we should all be writers and philosophers? Or does he mean it in a was like "If you were me, faced with the same facticity of my life, you should do what I do"? Thank you for these videos, btw. You've helped way more people than just your actual students by posting these.
It's more the latter interpretation -- and you could add to it that the claim being made is that when in a similar situation, one ought to do/choose similarly. . . .
Thank you so much for this video! I am currently pulling my hair out while writing a final essay, I just couldn't understand it at all. As soon as I watched this, I suddenly got it from your clear explanations. Thank you, Dr Sadler!
I would that in response to the first question, if two people choose A (in some momentous choice), they are both choosing that essence for humanity, so, yes, they're making the same choice. If you want to know what their motivation for making that particular choice is, you'd need to see what they actually do choose to make their decisive motivation from situation to situation. As to the second, if C was something better, and the first person really didn't know it, maybe not the same then
Well, from Sartre's perspective, I think he'd tell the worker it's his/her choice whether to adopt someone else's (the manager of the enterprise's) notion of management. Incidentally, there is a former colleague of mine you ought to look up and contact -- Michelle Darnell. She has a strong background both in Sartre and in Business
Well, Sartre was, yes -- but we were talking about the young would-be-member of the Resistance, weren't we? In this essay, Sartre recounts telling him: you have to make your own choice about this. So, I don't see how Sartre's own leanings towards the Communists have anything to do with the young freedom fighter. Was being anti-Nazi/fascist a common motivation for leaning communist? Not really. There were plenty of political positions against both of those movements.
This reminded me of the Rush song Free Will. "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill; I will choose a path that's clear- I will choose Free Will."
Yes, if you have in min the later, 20th century Phenomenological movement -- so people like Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, etc., the terminology is a real barrier. Even for Max Scheler, I would say. Dietrich von Hildebrand (a student of Scheler's) is particularly good in that respect -- he uses philosophical terminology, but is careful to explain himself. I think what would really be needed is three series: German Idealism, post-Hegelian dialectical philosophy, Phenomenology
Well, there is that difference. Kant also thinks morality MUST be a priori (though willed along a priori structures), and provides some argument for that. Sartre argues that morality -- in the full sense, what is actually chosen, taken on as one's project -- MUST be non-apriori in that sense. Yes, a series of clips comparing different philosophers on some key points like that would be a good idea
You're welcome - yes, I can see the structure of the responses in my TH-cam interface. The issue of humanism and religion is a tricky one -- if you're really interested in it, I'll see if I can dig up some of the resources from when I used to teach a unit about it in my Religion in American Culture course (from quite some time ago)
There are always some limitations -- what Sartre in other places calls "facticity" -- the parameters of the situations one finds oneself within and within which one can choose.
I'm an adjunct philosophy professor teaching two sections of intro to ethics for the first time ever, and your lectures have been really helpful in giving me some ideas of how to explain these concepts. Particularly helpful was your discussion of Kant's categorical imperative, and this as well! So, thank you sir. Also, on that note, how would you compare Sartre's morality with Kant's? Obviously Kant believes in a priori principles, but some of Sartre's thoughts about our choices being choices for all of mankind seem to align closely with the categorical imperative.
Glad that the videos have been proving useful for you - and keep in mind, as you teach, that those service classes are the most important classes one gets to teach! So, yes, there is something like Kant's universalizing going on in Sartre's idea of choosing for all mankind. But, it's on a very different basis, and there's nothing like the categorical imperative as a sort of decision procedure to help out, in Sartre's view
Question: Sartre refers to the fundamental human condition which I understand to be that our essence is arbitrary and created via choice - we are "condemned" to be free - and that our existence precedes our essence. I understand Sartre to ultimately say that humans do not have an innate nature. It seems that perhaps what Sartre is describing is a HUMAN NATURE & an essence - (a universal and defining characteristic" - and that by our nature we must by NECESSITY create our essence.
Radicalism means something different in a French context -- not really that "radical" from our standpoint. French Enlightenment thought overlapped with radical thought. Neither of these are views of Existentialism, which, at least according to Sartre, rejects their views of human nature just as much as it rejects Christian views of human nature. According to Sartre, yes, only if God does not exist can we really be products of our own making. Key terms there: according to Sartre.
Back when you let the locks loose #freethelocks. Watching this after listening to the essay, solidifying my knowledge. Thank you so much for your lectures.
+Gregory B. Sadler Do you have any criticism of this essay? Aside from Heideigger attacking the notion of Humanism is there any other concerns that can be raised against this essay? Any papers you can recommend?
Well, not only theist philosophies, but also most atheist philosophies as well, which he sees as just substituting something else (nature, evolution, pick what you like) in place of God
Thank you for your post. This is a great lecture since it makes us rethink and question our very basic, may I say, exsistential concerns. Thanks again.
Well, it would -- but it would definitely have to include Schopenhauer as well, and perhaps some other figures like Jacobi. A tall order, so it will be some time before I take that particular sequence on. First, I need to do justice to the Existentialism sequence, which will likely include about 40-50 vids
Well, we have a 'tutorial' session which ordinarily would be held in addition to rather than instead of the lecture. We're supposed to ask questions and have group discussions to get a grasp of the finer points. But without having had a lecture to first elucidate the broader themes, these sessions end up being more confusing than enlightening. So to answer your question: not much.
That makes me wonder about the relationship between Sartre and Kant. The only difference is that Kant says that morality is a priori, while Sartre suggests that by doing/choosing/acting morality is established, is that correct? Maybe a short clip on Sartre's and Kant's morality and ethics would be very interesting...
The young freedom fighter is deciding whether to fight against the Nazis. So, no, it's not the much later fight against colonialism that defines Sartre's earlier philosophy. It's perfectly reasonable to focus on Sartre's earlier philosophy and set aside his later stuff -- not indiscriminately mix them up together -- particularly when we're discussing his early work
+1bgrant (lets see if this comment actually gets to you) -- sure, certain psychological traits can be regarded as facticity, though probably less than people use for excuse or rhetorical purposes! I tend to think that both extreme sides in discussions of sexuality are basically peddling ideology. Sexual orientation, in some cases, might be mainly a matter of choice, in others culture and history, in others genetics -- I doubt it is ever just one of these factors in most cases. You're right, expression of it is more a matter of choice.
yes that's why I was never criticizing the lecture which was great just when it comes to discussing young freedom fighters his later actions are important
Simply put, No. Even if it was, it would have nothing to do with Libertarianism as such. I'd suggest you go check out my video discussing Existentialism as a movement -- it's called Dr. Sadler's Chalks and Talk: What is Existentialism. You'll discover it's quite a bit wider than what you're taking it to be, and includes a number of religious thinkers
great explanations, but I'm still not sure about a thing. just because I choose to do A makes A good? but A must always end up being the best decision that someone would have to do against B? in a sense, A must be universally good? how did we come up with the understanding that something is bad? we assess how the choice will impact the world (eg. if everyone cheats on tests, we can deduce that 1. you're not actually forced to learn anything 2. even if you do learn but still cheat, we can't be evaluated on our actual knowledge so this would result in a chaos since no one is prepared enough) and if we decide that cheating is bad, it must be always bad since otherwise it would be inconsistent with our choice. it seems that cheating is universally bad, but is there something that would always be the right choice? edit: typo
Ok. So, for Sartre a person chooses what he or she does with their awareness, and in many cases even whether they are aware, or whether they conceal their awareness from themselves. That's part of what he means by "bad faith" "is the choice not a comparable choice" -- comparable to what? The way you're phrasing these questions makes them rather difficult to answer, since I'm not sure what you're asking
Well, in my understanding, choosing tea instead of coffee could have different implications, for instance you could choose tea, because you do not agree with the way that the coffee growers are being exploited and your choice can have an impact. Sartre mentions the example of getting married. You do not only make a choice for your personal life, but in the end you also support the institution of marriage and bring mankind closer to monogamy. Hope this helps...
Mr. Sadler, in the notion of Sartre regarding existential freedom, is there any limitation? If so, what are these limitations? Or is it just limitless? If it is limitless, why and how come?
Nah -- the autodidact not only thinks that if its in a book, its true, good, real, etc, but that if something isn't already in a book, it's therefore not (like for instance the maxim he comes up with himself). I will indeed be covering Camus. I'm planning on, at the least, talking about the Myth of Sisyphus, The Stranger, the Plague, and the Rebel
Excellent video as usual for Professor Sadler. I did not know that much about Sartre's ideas but it sounds like he took some ideas from Consequentialism, Kant's deontology, Locke and maybe even Aristotle and then modernized them in his own fashion!
Thanks very much! Well, if I had to say Sartre is closet to any of those thinkers/theories, I'd say Kant. The focus on acting as involving a sort of universalizing claim is pretty Kantian in some respects
of emotion. I guess that emotions perhaps result from choice but do not drive choices. I guess what I more clearly mean is that he acknowledges the phenomena of human emotions but does not clearly address the role they play or do not play in how human beings make choices. Are their other writings where he explicitly addresses the role human emotions play in humans making choices. Or, how emotional states affect the choices people make? Thank you very much for reading and responding.
Well, I suppose it might take that form in many cases, for Sartre. But, it might just as well be something that one does all by oneself, with nobody else to witness it -- just oneself.
I do agree with many of Sartre's idea's of radical freedom being the source of choice. It's almost impossible to find any instance where one does not make a choice. However, can certain psychological traits be regarded not as choice but facticity? This came to my mind when he mentions sexual choices. It is generally regarded by many people now that sexuality is not a persons choice, although some would deny this. Specific sexual behaviour is determined by choice, but I don't choose my sexuality.
This was really great. I'm just confused about one part, is Sartre saying we can never do evil thing because of the universality and our responsibility towards other human beings or because since we exist before we have essence, there is no right or wrong because anything could be that - and what we choose is essentially what is always better?
The one thing I'm not sure I understand is how we project our choices onto everyone. Like, if I steal, I acknowledge that it would be wrong if everyone were to steal, but that acknowledgement in itself doesn't make it so that everyone will steal. People will choose to steal or not regardless of my choice not to, and because there's no a priori morality, it seems to me that choosing not to steal is just an arbitrary act of symbolism and an act of bad faith in itself. Thanks again.
It's important, though, to recognize that this young "freedom fighter" need not have been a leftist of any sort, or gotten mixed up in later anti-colonialism. There were effectively two French resistances -- the Communist one and the everyone-else one. Plenty of "freedom fighters", when the freedom is for France and against Nazism, would later become Gaulists.
Thank you so much very helpful! I think more Professors should make online lecture videos. It allows students to playback parts they do not understand. Thank you!
You're very welcome! Glad that the videos are useful for you. Perhaps you'd like to support the work I'm doing - if so, here's my Patreon page - www.patreon.com/sadler
But if I steal, I recognise it isn't good, but its of benefit to myself. That doesn't mean im lying to myself if I choose the bad does it? I think I need to read it again..
Well, it's really neither the same nor entirely different. Motivation and awareness -- you're not using them synonymously, right? As far as awareness goes, the more conscious one is of one's own being, one's history, one's patterns and habits, the better chance they have to change them if needed, i.e. if they determine they want to. But, Sartre holds people responsible for what they make of themselves, even if they're not consciously thinking that through
That was all quite a bit later on. I'd focus on this particular piece in the comments on this video -- or at least the works most closely connected with it -- Nausea, Being and Nothingness. Yep, Sartre had connections to Fanon. Later on. No intrinsic connection to what is being discussed here. In fact, you might say that the later Sartre stuff is Sartre himself not measuring up to his own earlier standards, and acting in bad faith
I have to say that I really have no idea what you're asking here. The sentence you're asking about seems pretty clear. And, the context is where you're getting it from the in text, right? Why does he use these specific words? I suppose he thinks they're the ones he wants to communicate?
I am currently studying philosophy in college. These videos have been the best way by far to understand core concepts and teachings! Thank you, Dr. Gregory, for posting these. You're helping me through my very tough classes!
You're very welcome
This clears up a lot of common misuses of the term Existentialism. One big point is simply rebelling or being a social deviant. Here, you hit home that Sartre says "Sure, you can choose to act like that, but you will deal with the consequences" - And, you can't simply do something immoral and say "that is just me" - He asks that you consider everyone acting in that way. This makes the choice a little less reckless and simple.
Indeed. And I agree with this interpretation, however does this not appear to be a reiteration of Kant's practical ethics? When one relates, they should act as though others are ends in themselves and not as means toward something else? In a similar vein, when one decides to act in a certain way, they are implicitly advocating others do the same.
Thanks for this. The thing I like so much about sartre's existentialism is the power it has to motivate you as a person. I used to find myself in the category of complacency that you mention. Potential doesn't exist and its this type of thought that really drives me to self improvement, instead of waiting for a chance to prove myself.
Yes, I can see that as a problem. It's interesting -- educators get under pressure from the pedagogy "experts" not to lecture. They call it "chalk and talk", say that it turns students off, is boring, unengaging ,etc. So, we're supposed to do a lot of activities instead. ..
As it turns out, the "experts" don't really know what they're talking about a good part of the time, but they've got a line to push, and they do.
Students over and over tell us they want - and need - traditional lecture
You're very welcome. Yes, its a great, classic piece of Existential philosophy, one which I assign to my students every semester, precisely for the reason you mention -- if it's taken seriously, it makes us examine our own commitments and actions
Well, Sartre saying that, in deciding for ourselves, we decide for all human beings doesn't mean a few things. Right -- it doesn't mean everyone will act that way -- after all, they're free too. Right -- in choosing something, one is saying that thing chosen is right, is good, is what one ought to do -- it might be inconsistent, though, or one might oneself be inconsistent
Yes, that would be one way in which it would become a more momentous choice.
The real confusion here, however, is this: Sartre is not saying that your individual choice "affects" everyone else on the planet (and for all time, as well, remember), in the sense of making them also choose that way.
He is saying that, in every significant choice, you are choosing a kind of model for what "human being" ought to look like, be like, do.
You helped me understand 'Existentialism as a Humanism' better the day before I have a Existentialism exam, thank you very much
You're welcome -- I actually have a whole playlist of Existentialism videos, if you're still interested in the topic after the class is done
Just wanted to thank you for uploading this, it's been invaluable in writing my essay (especially since my own professor, in her infinite wisdom, decided to entirely forgo the lecturing component of our class this semester).
You're welcome. Glad you found it enjoyable or useful
Those are all relevant factors you're pointing out -- accessibility of material, , delivery, time of life. One reason why it's tough to get a lot of participation on the part of typical college students in the service classes I teach!
you're welcome -- in a sense it can also be liberating to realize that what one previously thought or imagined to be one's potential, something that would then confine one's actuality and action, is not necessarily fixed in stone
Yes, Sartre has a work in fact called "Existentialism and Human Emotions", which pulls together various essays. He also discusses these matters in some other works, not least Being and Nothingness.
Your basic idea is right -- some emotions result from choice. Some we have come over us (they are part of our facticity). They CAN drive choice -- if we choose to let them
Great lecture! I wanted to ask if you could clarify a point for me:
Sartre criticizes "essence", but he does seem to acknowledge that he is a "sexual being", so he does seem to acknowledge that there are some things, some predispositions that come with being a human, e.g. in contrast to being a bird or a piece of paper.
This latter idea, that humans in general & specific individuals grow up with some dispositions, including those that are likely to sway them towards some behaviours rather than others, seems to be the position bared out by contemporary psychological evidence. But many contemporary psychologists would also agree with Sartre, in a sense, that this does not mean that behaviour is therefore completely deterministic or that people are excused from making choices or that they should just give in to whatever emotional or cognitive dispositions they have. Most wouldn't agree with any normative understanding of evolution either (e.g. "Survival of the fittest is a moral imperative!")
So I wonder, do you think that Sartre is actually that far off from contemporary, scientifically-informed views on human nature and the nature of morality? It seems to me that much of it actually seems compatible, given a nuanced definition of the terms involved.
I agree with you -- it would be great if more profs started doing what we call "lecture capture". Tough to get them into the idea -- me included. It took my then-fiancee (now wife) arguing for it for me to give it a shot, and more arguing for me to put my lectures into TH-cam.
Greg uploading all of your videos is extremly honourable and I want to thank you again, helping me through my lectures here in Montreal. I aspire to be a Philosopher myself and hope we meet some day.
Cheers!
It's not being too black and white -- it's wanting things too simple, I think.
Emotion can drive a choice because one chooses (a different choice, which gets integrated with the emotion and the subsequent choice) to allow emotion to drive things. Some choice is still at the bottom.
Fundamental choices are different precisely by that -- by being fundamental, determining how other choices are going to be made, what their basis will be, etc.
That tie is psychedelic
I don't have any on Hegel yet -- though he is actually one of my favorite philosophers -- but I'll be producing some vids on him and other "continental" thinkers over the coming academic year. For the time being -- after I finish my vacation -- I'm concentrating on Existentialism videos
Or, rather, what you're asking, if I understand it correctly, is this:
Which is it:
A) motivation or awareness bear on one same, single choice, and affect what the essence of the person resulting from the choice will be?
B) OR, having awareness of something involved in the choice, or having some particular motivation makes the choice a different choice.
You'll need to clarify a few things. When doesn't one have awareness and motivation? And, a different choice, different in respect to what?
It depends very much on the "humanism" you're talking about. The word actually has a number of different meanings.
First off, there are in fact religious humanists. Humanism as such is not incompatible with a religious stance.
If we're talking about explicitly secular humanism, you might want to check out some of the humanist manifestos that are out there, where -- at least in the early ones -- humanism is to basically replace religion and provide what religion offers.
Dr. Sadler, thank you for your response and also your approachability! Your videos have assisted me a lot grasping some main ideas. I'm currently writing my (interdisciplinary) bachelor thesis at my uni in Germany about the feasibility of implementing existentialist approaches when managing service personnel. Especially Sartre's concepts of responsibility, choice and freedom can have major implications for personnel management practices.
I hope you know how incredibly skilled you are at lecturing sir. You were not born awesome, awesomeness was not the ingredient that made you, but you have become it, you have embodied it. Existence may precede essence, but for yourself, awesomeness precedes your existence lol.
Thank you for responding to my questions. I appreciate it very much. I do have one more question - Sartre, outlines that we are determined to make choices ( even not making a choice is a choice) & he identifies three emotional states that result from our being "condemned" (despair, anguish, & abandonment). Beyond, addressing that passion is not an excuse for acting criminal & acknowledging cowards can choose to be otherwise it seems that choice is an intellectual activity that is independent
Peter Drucker for instance said that "Responsibility - not satisfaction - is the only thing that will serve. […] It does not matter whether the worker wants responsibility or not. The enterprise must demand it of him. The enterprise needs performance; and now that it can no longer use fear, it can get it only by encouraging, by inducting, if need be by pushing, the worker into assuming responsibility."
I almost always watch your lectures on philosophical works that I'm reading in order to deepen my understanding of the material. Thanks a lot for helping me cultivate my interest in philosophy. I was curious if you would be willing to do some analyses on Foucault at some point. I've been really interested in his work lately and it would be wonderful if you did a series on him at some point. Thanks again!
Best,
AJ
Down the line, I'd like to get to him
Glad to hear it -- you're very welcome!
These long lectures in front of the board are awesome
Glad you enjoy them
That some very high praise! -- I'm glad you enjoy the video and the channel
If acting sets a standard on how every human being should act, then wouldn't that mean Sartre set an example that we should all be writers and philosophers? Or does he mean it in a was like "If you were me, faced with the same facticity of my life, you should do what I do"?
Thank you for these videos, btw. You've helped way more people than just your actual students by posting these.
It's more the latter interpretation -- and you could add to it that the claim being made is that when in a similar situation, one ought to do/choose similarly. . . .
And, I will grab the "Existentialism and Human Emotions" to read after final exams! :) Thanks so much!
Thank you so much for this video! I am currently pulling my hair out while writing a final essay, I just couldn't understand it at all. As soon as I watched this, I suddenly got it from your clear explanations. Thank you, Dr Sadler!
Glad that the video was helpful for you!
Glad to read it. You're welcome!
I would that in response to the first question, if two people choose A (in some momentous choice), they are both choosing that essence for humanity, so, yes, they're making the same choice.
If you want to know what their motivation for making that particular choice is, you'd need to see what they actually do choose to make their decisive motivation from situation to situation.
As to the second, if C was something better, and the first person really didn't know it, maybe not the same then
Great lecture, thank you. I was hoping to find something on youtube to give me a quick refresher before I start this essay and this was perfect.
Yes, you can put it that way -- that our nature is precisely that we have to create/determine our nature.
Well, from Sartre's perspective, I think he'd tell the worker it's his/her choice whether to adopt someone else's (the manager of the enterprise's) notion of management.
Incidentally, there is a former colleague of mine you ought to look up and contact -- Michelle Darnell. She has a strong background both in Sartre and in Business
Well, Sartre was, yes -- but we were talking about the young would-be-member of the Resistance, weren't we? In this essay, Sartre recounts telling him: you have to make your own choice about this. So, I don't see how Sartre's own leanings towards the Communists have anything to do with the young freedom fighter.
Was being anti-Nazi/fascist a common motivation for leaning communist? Not really. There were plenty of political positions against both of those movements.
This reminded me of the Rush song Free Will.
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will."
Yes, if you have in min the later, 20th century Phenomenological movement -- so people like Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, etc., the terminology is a real barrier. Even for Max Scheler, I would say. Dietrich von Hildebrand (a student of Scheler's) is particularly good in that respect -- he uses philosophical terminology, but is careful to explain himself.
I think what would really be needed is three series: German Idealism, post-Hegelian dialectical philosophy, Phenomenology
I recently read existentialism and human emotions. This video helped to clear up a few things I didn't quite understand. Thanks!
I really enjoy your lectures and talks Dr. Sadler. You do a great job! Thanks for all your hard work
You're welcome
This was great Gregory! Thank you for taking the time :)
You're welcome -- and Yep, that's her. She was at FSU for two of the years I was there -- how we met.
Thanks for this. It's nice to see more depth explanatory videos
You're welcome!
1) Sartre's answer is precisely that it's his choice
2) for Sartre, yes
Well, there is that difference. Kant also thinks morality MUST be a priori (though willed along a priori structures), and provides some argument for that. Sartre argues that morality -- in the full sense, what is actually chosen, taken on as one's project -- MUST be non-apriori in that sense.
Yes, a series of clips comparing different philosophers on some key points like that would be a good idea
You're welcome - yes, I can see the structure of the responses in my TH-cam interface.
The issue of humanism and religion is a tricky one -- if you're really interested in it, I'll see if I can dig up some of the resources from when I used to teach a unit about it in my Religion in American Culture course (from quite some time ago)
There are always some limitations -- what Sartre in other places calls "facticity" -- the parameters of the situations one finds oneself within and within which one can choose.
This beats the wiki articles by far. Fantastic.
This video I shot on campus at Marist College. No actual students there, though -- just me, a blackboard, and a flipcam
I'm an adjunct philosophy professor teaching two sections of intro to ethics for the first time ever, and your lectures have been really helpful in giving me some ideas of how to explain these concepts. Particularly helpful was your discussion of Kant's categorical imperative, and this as well! So, thank you sir. Also, on that note, how would you compare Sartre's morality with Kant's? Obviously Kant believes in a priori principles, but some of Sartre's thoughts about our choices being choices for all of mankind seem to align closely with the categorical imperative.
Glad that the videos have been proving useful for you - and keep in mind, as you teach, that those service classes are the most important classes one gets to teach!
So, yes, there is something like Kant's universalizing going on in Sartre's idea of choosing for all mankind. But, it's on a very different basis, and there's nothing like the categorical imperative as a sort of decision procedure to help out, in Sartre's view
Question: Sartre refers to the fundamental human condition which I understand to be that our essence is arbitrary and created via choice - we are "condemned" to be free - and that our existence precedes our essence. I understand Sartre to ultimately say that humans do not have an innate nature. It seems that perhaps what Sartre is describing is a HUMAN NATURE & an essence - (a universal and defining characteristic" - and that by our nature we must by NECESSITY create our essence.
Radicalism means something different in a French context -- not really that "radical" from our standpoint. French Enlightenment thought overlapped with radical thought. Neither of these are views of Existentialism, which, at least according to Sartre, rejects their views of human nature just as much as it rejects Christian views of human nature.
According to Sartre, yes, only if God does not exist can we really be products of our own making. Key terms there: according to Sartre.
Glad you found the video useful
Back when you let the locks loose #freethelocks. Watching this after listening to the essay, solidifying my knowledge. Thank you so much for your lectures.
+Patrick Sherlock You're welcome -- and that was back before the locks had grown so much!
+Gregory B. Sadler Do you have any criticism of this essay? Aside from Heideigger attacking the notion of Humanism is there any other concerns that can be raised against this essay? Any papers you can recommend?
Here's a start - th-cam.com/video/0j_wfce0WBU/w-d-xo.html
are you serious? you do everything! thank you so much for being quality content creator!
Well, not only theist philosophies, but also most atheist philosophies as well, which he sees as just substituting something else (nature, evolution, pick what you like) in place of God
Thank you for your post. This is a great lecture since it makes us rethink and question our very basic, may I say, exsistential concerns. Thanks again.
Well, it would -- but it would definitely have to include Schopenhauer as well, and perhaps some other figures like Jacobi. A tall order, so it will be some time before I take that particular sequence on. First, I need to do justice to the Existentialism sequence, which will likely include about 40-50 vids
Well, we have a 'tutorial' session which ordinarily would be held in addition to rather than instead of the lecture. We're supposed to ask questions and have group discussions to get a grasp of the finer points. But without having had a lecture to first elucidate the broader themes, these sessions end up being more confusing than enlightening. So to answer your question: not much.
Thank you Professor Sadler! These videos are an autodidact's dream!
That makes me wonder about the relationship between Sartre and Kant. The only difference is that Kant says that morality is a priori, while Sartre suggests that by doing/choosing/acting morality is established, is that correct? Maybe a short clip on Sartre's and Kant's morality and ethics would be very interesting...
This is a really good video! Thank you for uploading it. Your whole channel is what I've been looking for recently! Subscribed.
The young freedom fighter is deciding whether to fight against the Nazis. So, no, it's not the much later fight against colonialism that defines Sartre's earlier philosophy.
It's perfectly reasonable to focus on Sartre's earlier philosophy and set aside his later stuff -- not indiscriminately mix them up together -- particularly when we're discussing his early work
+1bgrant (lets see if this comment actually gets to you) -- sure, certain psychological traits can be regarded as facticity, though probably less than people use for excuse or rhetorical purposes!
I tend to think that both extreme sides in discussions of sexuality are basically peddling ideology. Sexual orientation, in some cases, might be mainly a matter of choice, in others culture and history, in others genetics -- I doubt it is ever just one of these factors in most cases. You're right, expression of it is more a matter of choice.
yes that's why I was never criticizing the lecture which was great just when it comes to discussing young freedom fighters his later actions are important
My book club is about to read this book so it will be good to use this video as a reference point
Glad it’s useful for you. You might check out the 6 core concept videos on the work as well
Simply put, No.
Even if it was, it would have nothing to do with Libertarianism as such.
I'd suggest you go check out my video discussing Existentialism as a movement -- it's called Dr. Sadler's Chalks and Talk: What is Existentialism. You'll discover it's quite a bit wider than what you're taking it to be, and includes a number of religious thinkers
Glad you found it useful!
great explanations, but I'm still not sure about a thing.
just because I choose to do A makes A good? but A must always end up being the best decision that someone would have to do against B? in a sense, A must be universally good? how did we come up with the understanding that something is bad? we assess how the choice will impact the world (eg. if everyone cheats on tests, we can deduce that
1. you're not actually forced to learn anything
2. even if you do learn but still cheat, we can't be evaluated on our actual knowledge so this would result in a chaos since no one is prepared enough)
and if we decide that cheating is bad, it must be always bad since otherwise it would be inconsistent with our choice. it seems that cheating is universally bad, but is there something that would always be the right choice?
edit: typo
No
You're very welcome
Ok. So, for Sartre a person chooses what he or she does with their awareness, and in many cases even whether they are aware, or whether they conceal their awareness from themselves. That's part of what he means by "bad faith"
"is the choice not a comparable choice" -- comparable to what? The way you're phrasing these questions makes them rather difficult to answer, since I'm not sure what you're asking
Glad you found it useful.
Well, in my understanding, choosing tea instead of coffee could have different implications, for instance you could choose tea, because you do not agree with the way that the coffee growers are being exploited and your choice can have an impact. Sartre mentions the example of getting married. You do not only make a choice for your personal life, but in the end you also support the institution of marriage and bring mankind closer to monogamy. Hope this helps...
Mr. Sadler, in the notion of Sartre regarding existential freedom, is there any limitation? If so, what are these limitations? Or is it just limitless? If it is limitless, why and how come?
Nah -- the autodidact not only thinks that if its in a book, its true, good, real, etc, but that if something isn't already in a book, it's therefore not (like for instance the maxim he comes up with himself).
I will indeed be covering Camus. I'm planning on, at the least, talking about the Myth of Sisyphus, The Stranger, the Plague, and the Rebel
You're welcome!
Excellent video as usual for Professor Sadler. I did not know that much about Sartre's ideas but it sounds like he took some ideas from Consequentialism, Kant's deontology, Locke and maybe even Aristotle and then modernized them in his own fashion!
Thanks very much! Well, if I had to say Sartre is closet to any of those thinkers/theories, I'd say Kant. The focus on acting as involving a sort of universalizing claim is pretty Kantian in some respects
of emotion. I guess that emotions perhaps result from choice but do not drive choices. I guess what I more clearly mean is that he acknowledges the phenomena of human emotions but does not clearly address the role they play or do not play in how human beings make choices. Are their other writings where he explicitly addresses the role human emotions play in humans making choices. Or, how emotional states affect the choices people make? Thank you very much for reading and responding.
Thanks! Yeah, the digital camera occasionally seems to have problems with certain patterns
Well, I suppose it might take that form in many cases, for Sartre. But, it might just as well be something that one does all by oneself, with nobody else to witness it -- just oneself.
Yep. I actually reference that song in one of my Core Concept videos on this essay
Thank you for this great lecture.. very interesting and easy to follow, it really helped me get a grasp on this concept
I do agree with many of Sartre's idea's of radical freedom being the source of choice. It's almost impossible to find any instance where one does not make a choice. However, can certain psychological traits be regarded not as choice but facticity? This came to my mind when he mentions sexual choices. It is generally regarded by many people now that sexuality is not a persons choice, although some would deny this. Specific sexual behaviour is determined by choice, but I don't choose my sexuality.
This was really great. I'm just confused about one part, is Sartre saying we can never do evil thing because of the universality and our responsibility towards other human beings or because since we exist before we have essence, there is no right or wrong because anything could be that - and what we choose is essentially what is always better?
The one thing I'm not sure I understand is how we project our choices onto everyone. Like, if I steal, I acknowledge that it would be wrong if everyone were to steal, but that acknowledgement in itself doesn't make it so that everyone will steal. People will choose to steal or not regardless of my choice not to, and because there's no a priori morality, it seems to me that choosing not to steal is just an arbitrary act of symbolism and an act of bad faith in itself. Thanks again.
It's important, though, to recognize that this young "freedom fighter" need not have been a leftist of any sort, or gotten mixed up in later anti-colonialism. There were effectively two French resistances -- the Communist one and the everyone-else one. Plenty of "freedom fighters", when the freedom is for France and against Nazism, would later become Gaulists.
Glad to hear it!
Glad it was useful for you.
Thank you so much very helpful! I think more Professors should make online lecture videos. It allows students to playback parts they do not understand. Thank you!
Hi Greg. Thanks for this - it was my choice to watch and am so glad I decided to. Well explained, interesting and simplified. Have a great day.
Your tie is tripping me out. Great video!
Thank You Sir
This was a great content , so much value and wisdom
I am happy that you are making this for us .
You're very welcome! Glad that the videos are useful for you.
Perhaps you'd like to support the work I'm doing - if so, here's my Patreon page - www.patreon.com/sadler
Thank you so much for your videos! It helped me so much in my readings and studiyng philosophy.
Glad to read it
But if I steal, I recognise it isn't good, but its of benefit to myself. That doesn't mean im lying to myself if I choose the bad does it? I think I need to read it again..
Well, it's really neither the same nor entirely different.
Motivation and awareness -- you're not using them synonymously, right?
As far as awareness goes, the more conscious one is of one's own being, one's history, one's patterns and habits, the better chance they have to change them if needed, i.e. if they determine they want to.
But, Sartre holds people responsible for what they make of themselves, even if they're not consciously thinking that through
That was all quite a bit later on. I'd focus on this particular piece in the comments on this video -- or at least the works most closely connected with it -- Nausea, Being and Nothingness.
Yep, Sartre had connections to Fanon. Later on. No intrinsic connection to what is being discussed here. In fact, you might say that the later Sartre stuff is Sartre himself not measuring up to his own earlier standards, and acting in bad faith
No idea. This is all very interesting -- what's it got to do with Sartre?
I have to say that I really have no idea what you're asking here. The sentence you're asking about seems pretty clear. And, the context is where you're getting it from the in text, right? Why does he use these specific words? I suppose he thinks they're the ones he wants to communicate?