I Iiked the way you read this. The way you unpacked Sartre's phraseology -- by stressing certain words or syllables -- showed that you understood what you'd read and were attempting to get the Iistener to understand it as weII.
Here. Funny story, I tried listening to "Being in Time" by Heidegger, but the way he writes is somehow worse to listen to than read. My brain kept glazing over.
This is so helpful, I am so glad I found your video. I do not have dyslexia but struggle with reading comprehension especially when trying to read something so long on a computer screen and not in an actual textbook. I listened to this as I read along and it was perfect. Thanks!
Thank you very much for this reading, I found the slight Canadian accent very familiar and easy to follow (also being a Canadian.) I hope you continue uploading more audiobooks, your channel is fantastic 👍
It's funny that while I have been exposed to existentialism for nearly 50 years, I have found truth in the works of Sartre, even if I had to disagree with some of his tenets, but in having listened to this book, I have come realize that I have understood existentialism all along and it was only in the last few minutes of the book that I realized that I have agreed with Sartre all along. We simply express our beliefs in different terms that actually are conceptually the same.
Of Which he clearly states there are no excuses which are the primary tenants of existential philosophy that form its principles within its doctrinal system. Hilarious. Maybe you shouldn't express your beliefs.
Yes, "Existentialism is a humanism" - cemented Sartre in my mind as a great thinker. It's probably due to me rather than him, that I never had an "aha" moment before from reading him. (Albeit a lame effort from me) He is so clear and forthcoming in this address - particularly in his argument that freedom is the foundation of all values.
“Yes, everything’s allowed, but let me lay down this basis for morality.” Idk if I can agree with that. It is easily contemptible by anyone smart or dumb enough to not play by the rule. Humans can easily agree it isn’t good to kill without cause (which itself is an issue), but what about moral issues that we are too stupid to understand?
Yes, "Existentialism is a humanism" - cemented Sartre in my mind as a great thinker. It's probably due to me rather than him, that I never had an "aha" moment before from reading him. (Albeit a lame effort from me) He is so clear and forthcoming in this address - particularly in his argument that freedom is the foundation of all values.
In my opinion, human nature includes some actions based on cause and effect, but the reason for this is the existence of matter in natural laws or laws, and the value given to matter, the existence of man for a reason and his continued existence in terms of his position, I think here also reveals the effect between substances. talks about the importance of the result relationship
I'm really glad you enjoy it! With regards to downloading the audio, I'd suggest searching for "youtube to mp3," or something similar on your favourite internet search engine. Clipconverter[DOT]cc and ytmp3[DOT]cc are two examples of sites that I've had success with in the past. Just paste the video url, and it will convert it to a format of your choice. Just be very aware of fake download links, as sometimes people create download buttons that look legit, but which download bloatware or viruses onto your computer. I'd highly suggest downloading an adblocker and antivirus before downloading anything, just in case. If you don't feel comfortable downloading from websites like that, then dm me and I can see what I can do to help.
Existentialism could still fit in somewhat with the notion that humans have some things evolutionarily 'hardwired', so-to-speak. It seems as though we would have to abandon the 'absolute and unfettered freedom' that Sartre speaks of, but we can keep some of the ideas regarding our choices to act or refrain from acting on impulses being our own, and the idea that we can change ourselves by making conscious choices in changing the way that we behave. I do think you bring up a very good point. It would be interesting to see how different people bring those two conflicting ideas together to form a coherent view.
Fairly recent neuroscience debunks the notion that we make rational choices at all. The rational part of the brain makes up a story that we made a choice some time after the actual choice has been made by the unconscious brain. Although I think Sartre's argument is mostly good, I don't agree that we are free to choose- we merely act as if we are free. We have will, but it isn't free.
@@lambd01d not only that. How can we reconcile Sartre's notion of freedom when we have medical studies proving that even what we eat can affect our mood enough to cause medical conditions like depression. By changing our gut bacteria we can literally change how we think.
@@alexandraquijada2329i think that’s the difference starting from objectivity or subjectivity. Whether I am objectively free or not, I DO feel free. My every experience tells me I am free. This freedom is an essential aspect of human activity.
When you go to sleep at night and dream, a dream and the dream, feel so solidly real But then you wake up and realize it was just a dream. The world we live in is just another layer of a dream.
Your actions define who you are, not your words or opinions of yourself. In Fortnite terms: Imagine a dude flexin to his fam that he's the GOAT, but he be getting Ls every game. He's high-key cappin to hype himself up. It's only once he starts racking up Ws that he can deadass say he's the GOAT.
Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss ideas outright because they contradict religious dogma. Maybe the idea of having a religious 'starting point' is a problem in the first place. You may be interested in reading Kierkegaard. He puts forward a Christian version of existentialism.
@@echobook8513Oh, that's next on my list actually! The question of how to balance reason and faith is an interesting one, and I do sympathize with Kierkegaard's analysis of the story of Abraham on the mount.
Sartre made a mistake by giving this lecture. He stated his position in simple terms so that everyone could understand him - unlike the opaque convoluted language of Being and Nothingness. It was a mistake because without the jargon, it’s obvious that his existentialism is utter nonsense.
@@echobook8513 Sartre’s existentialism ultimately boils down to this: that there is no God, and this it follows that people were not created with any purpose in mind. Therefore, human life has no meaning at all except such meaning that a person might give it, himself. So far, I agree with him. This is basically what Nietzsche argued. But Sartre goes further. He insists that, at least for man, existence precedes essence, that man has no nature at all and is therefore completely free to choose his own way. At first, Man is nothing at all. He merely exists. He has no essence. He will become what he chooses to become by he exercise of free will. And man cannot help but choose; he is condemned to be free. Indeed, Sartre’s radical insistence on free will is the entire point of his philosophy. Sartre argues that if God does not exist, then Man must choose his own path based on his own freely chosen values and that the only thing that matters is that he live authentically, in accordance with his own freely chosen values. This is where I cannot follow Sartre. Merely because there is no God, it does not follow that there is no such thing as human nature. Humans are animals - we are mammals, we are primates - and as such, we are genetically programmed to behave in certain ways. Further, our environments, especially in early childhood, can affect the development of our brains and thus influence our behavior profoundly. Like all animals, we are born with certain instincts and we act in accordance with our instincts. While there is some variation among individual humans, we are none of us “free” to choose our own values or to act however we choose. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and Freud - all atheists - rejected the very notion of “free will”, and with good reason. They sensibly recognized and insisted upon Man’s animal nature. (Schopenhauer wrote a very good essay debunking “free will”. Nietzsche repeatedly cast scorn on the notion of “free will”.) Just because our values are not prescribed for us by God, it doesn’t follow that we are free to choose our own values. Clearly, we are not. Can you choose what you like and don’t like? What you admire and what you despise? I think not. A caring, sensitive person cannot choose to be a psychopath and vice versa. A person who is unmusical cannot choose to value music. A musical person cannot help but to value music. In other words, our values reflect who we are, and who we are is determined by our genetic endowment and our education. Sartre rejects the notion of the unconscious mind. Modern science has proven conclusively that our decision making process is actually unconscious. We do not control our own thoughts - our thoughts, rather, control us. Thoughts just appear in our conscious minds. Our reason is the servant -not the masters - of our emotions and our instincts and our values. We act in accordance with our character. Our character determines how we respond to any given set of circumstances. If you know a man well enough, you can usually predict how he will respond in any given situation. Sartre denies all this. He insists that a coward is free to act bravely. He rejects the notion that people can act in accord with an overwhelming passion. This is contrary to all human experience. There’s a reason why the criminal law recognizes what are commonly called “crimes of passion”. Some people are better able to restrain their violent impulses than others. This ability depends on how well their prefrontal cortex functions. Neurologists have discovered a direct correlation between pre-frontal cortex function and impulse control. Ultimately, all human thought, emotions and behavior can be understood in terms of brain function. The very notion of moral responsibility, which is based on the myth of free will, should be abandoned. Free will seems to originate with Augustine and it is the basis of the very notion of sin, disobedience to the Will of God. But even Augustine admitted that Man left to his own devices was bound to sin and required Gods help not to sin. Free will is just the theologians way to explain why people sin without blaming God for it - after all, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect and He created humans. So if God created Man, isn’t God responsible for Man’s sins? No, say the theologians. God endowed Man with “free will” and therefore if Man disobeys God, then it’s his own fault, not God’s fault. I think it’s ironic that Sartre denies the existence of God but still retains the essential religious notion of “free will” and uses it to hold people morally responsible for their actions.
"Existentialism is a humanism" - cemented Sartre in my mind as a great thinker. It's probably due to me rather than him, that I never had an "aha" moment before from reading him. (Albeit a lame effort from me) He is so clear and forthcoming in this address - particularly in his argument that freedom is the foundation of all values.
5:32 A strictly philosophical view of the power of choice I feel is farcical. All men exist in history. All humans exist in nature and science. And all of us are formed by history and science. Choice must be measured not just with a philosopher, but with an anthropologist, a psychiatrist, a political scientist, an economic mathematician, a journalist, and a doctor for every organ in your body. To exercise the illusions and realities of choice as somehow "pure" is to treat life like a video game where we can all play with the same starting point. Simply put: we do not all start with the same options, abilities, luxuries, or limitations.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Willard Van Orman Quine - On What There Is [Philosophy Audiobook]](/img/n.gif)
I Iiked the way you read this. The way you unpacked Sartre's phraseology -- by stressing certain words or syllables -- showed that you understood what you'd read and were attempting to get the Iistener to understand it as weII.
We need more people to speak the truth as you have just done
Thank you for uploading this! As someone with dyslexia these audiobooks help so much.
I'm really glad I could help!
Have you heard about the meeting of a group of dyslexic existentialist insomniacs? They stayed up all night arguing whether there was a dog or not.
@@carpenter3069 alright, that got a pretty big laugh out of me
You know what happened to my Karma? It ran over my dogma.@@Boselectatribute
well read, well phased and pretty good audio quality as well. Nice work, thank you.
Your reading of Sartre‘s existentialism is a Humanism inspired me to do my own reading. Thanks for putting this out there!
Very few people can read something like this as well as this guy.
Thank you!
Where's my "dyslexic got an asigment to do" gang?
Im here for fun..?
Here. Funny story, I tried listening to "Being in Time" by Heidegger, but the way he writes is somehow worse to listen to than read. My brain kept glazing over.
I wanted to do Project about Sartre and than procrastinated to read this for 2 weeks.
I'm here to prep for my philosophy club
@@rianbrewhhahahaah same
12:37
"Man will only attain existence when he is, what he proposes to be. Not however, what he may wish to be"
Thanks for bringing out this quote
This is so helpful, I am so glad I found your video. I do not have dyslexia but struggle with reading comprehension especially when trying to read something so long on a computer screen and not in an actual textbook. I listened to this as I read along and it was perfect. Thanks!
I'm glad you found it helpful!
Love love love it. Listening to it again. Thanks ❤
Well-done! I’ve sent this to my students! Unlike many UA-cam reads, this is a manageable pace!
Thank you! I'm glad you found it useful.
Thank you very much for this reading, I found the slight Canadian accent very familiar and easy to follow (also being a Canadian.)
I hope you continue uploading more audiobooks, your channel is fantastic 👍
Thank you!!! Beautifully read. Please make more of these.
Dude, your channel has an unbelievably good quality, thanks!!
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoy it!
you have such a talent for narrating, this goes hard asf
We’ll read. Easy to follow because the readers pace was great. Thank you
Thank you! I play these while I drive so that I am always learning :)
This is fantastically well done!
Thank you!
This is fascinating, a great introduction to existentialism
It's finals week and my vision suddenly got distorted, it lasted for about an hour. I couldn't read at all. I'm so thankful I had this!!
Thank you for this clear and compelling reading.
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Where is my reading comprehension gang at
This is beautiful. Thank you for posting. Thank you for taking such care of these ideas.
This was very well done, thank you.
I feel this is the most important essay on modern critical thinking. Thank you echobook!
THANK YOU! I was assigned to read this but didn't have time to do so, now I can just listen to it instead 🤩
Thank you sir for this audiobook
It's funny that while I have been exposed to existentialism for nearly 50 years, I have found truth in the works of Sartre, even if I had to disagree with some of his tenets, but in having listened to this book, I have come realize that I have understood existentialism all along and it was only in the last few minutes of the book that I realized that I have agreed with Sartre all along. We simply express our beliefs in different terms that actually are conceptually the same.
Of Which he clearly states there are no excuses which are the primary tenants of existential philosophy that form its principles within its doctrinal system. Hilarious. Maybe you shouldn't express your beliefs.
@@adaptercrash Are you enjoying your winter break?
@@GradyPhilpott no I hate this shit it ruins people's lives
@@GradyPhilpott I don't take vacations I just keep going, you shouldn't have to
Yes, "Existentialism is a humanism" - cemented Sartre in my mind as a great thinker. It's probably due to me rather than him, that I never had an "aha" moment before from reading him. (Albeit a lame effort from me)
He is so clear and forthcoming in this address - particularly in his argument that freedom is the foundation of all values.
Very well read. You sound like Haley Joel Osment doing his Sora voice it blew my mind.
Thank you so much, you are amazing.
Thank you for the free books echo, they make work go by faster
I'm glad you've found them useful!
at about 45:15 he meant "physiological organism", not psychological
You are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing that out. The video description has been changed to correct that error.
43:01 start of page 38
Nice work on reading, subscribed!
God bless this recording/translation. The copy I have is horrendous.
Awesome, keep up the good work!
I don't think Sartre can hear you. Maybe.
57:40 Actually, I believe it was the great philosopher Neil Peart who stated “If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.”
😂
“Yes, everything’s allowed, but let me lay down this basis for morality.”
Idk if I can agree with that. It is easily contemptible by anyone smart or dumb enough to not play by the rule. Humans can easily agree it isn’t good to kill without cause (which itself is an issue), but what about moral issues that we are too stupid to understand?
You think about them some more
Yes, "Existentialism is a humanism" - cemented Sartre in my mind as a great thinker. It's probably due to me rather than him, that I never had an "aha" moment before from reading him. (Albeit a lame effort from me)
He is so clear and forthcoming in this address - particularly in his argument that freedom is the foundation of all values.
The absolute truth exists in the immediate sense of oneself
In my opinion, human nature includes some actions based on cause and effect, but the reason for this is the existence of matter in natural laws or laws, and the value given to matter, the existence of man for a reason and his continued existence in terms of his position, I think here also reveals the effect between substances. talks about the importance of the result relationship
Blah, blah blah - writing is for clarification, not obfuscation.
Thank you
appreciate it
Great indeed! 👍
Nicely explained
Thank u so much
Very interesting 🤔💯🎖️
Good video nicely read
51:57
god - history/man's greatest scapegoat
quietism ❤ 40:40
Just posting this so I can come back to where I left off
45:15
Helping ne pass my final
Well read
Great.
1:00:00
Thank you!
You're very welcome!
Is there any way to get an .mp3 or Wav version of this? This is exactly what I've been looking for! Thank you very much for this.
I'm really glad you enjoy it! With regards to downloading the audio, I'd suggest searching for "youtube to mp3," or something similar on your favourite internet search engine. Clipconverter[DOT]cc and ytmp3[DOT]cc are two examples of sites that I've had success with in the past. Just paste the video url, and it will convert it to a format of your choice. Just be very aware of fake download links, as sometimes people create download buttons that look legit, but which download bloatware or viruses onto your computer. I'd highly suggest downloading an adblocker and antivirus before downloading anything, just in case. If you don't feel comfortable downloading from websites like that, then dm me and I can see what I can do to help.
1:04:04
01:02:00
Really good
53:00
20:50 He alone chooses.
Hello from Peterson Academy
^_^
33:51 - 34:05 👍
20:00
It is a construct. But then again, all things are.
Physiognomy check
10:46
Is this the entire book?
This is actually the lecture that he gave in 1945. The book he wrote in 1946 was based on this lecture.
Doesn't the existence of evolution and natural selection basically debunks this philosophy? At the very least makes it really incomplete.
Existentialism could still fit in somewhat with the notion that humans have some things evolutionarily 'hardwired', so-to-speak. It seems as though we would have to abandon the 'absolute and unfettered freedom' that Sartre speaks of, but we can keep some of the ideas regarding our choices to act or refrain from acting on impulses being our own, and the idea that we can change ourselves by making conscious choices in changing the way that we behave.
I do think you bring up a very good point. It would be interesting to see how different people bring those two conflicting ideas together to form a coherent view.
Fairly recent neuroscience debunks the notion that we make rational choices at all. The rational part of the brain makes up a story that we made a choice some time after the actual choice has been made by the unconscious brain. Although I think Sartre's argument is mostly good, I don't agree that we are free to choose- we merely act as if we are free. We have will, but it isn't free.
@@lambd01d That sounds very similar to something Schopenhauer would say: we are free to do as we will, but our will isn't free.
@@lambd01d not only that. How can we reconcile Sartre's notion of freedom when we have medical studies proving that even what we eat can affect our mood enough to cause medical conditions like depression. By changing our gut bacteria we can literally change how we think.
@@alexandraquijada2329i think that’s the difference starting from objectivity or subjectivity. Whether I am objectively free or not, I DO feel free. My every experience tells me I am free. This freedom is an essential aspect of human activity.
When you go to sleep at night and dream, a dream and the dream, feel so solidly real But then you wake up and realize it was just a dream. The world we live in is just another layer of a dream.
So _I am_ an existentialist
Apriori
You can read the first 10 pages of 'Being and Nothingness' and have plenty to think about for a very long time lol
So he advocates for Thomas Hobbes.
Can someone explain this in Fortnite terms ?
Your actions define who you are, not your words or opinions of yourself.
In Fortnite terms:
Imagine a dude flexin to his fam that he's the GOAT, but he be getting Ls every game. He's high-key cappin to hype himself up. It's only once he starts racking up Ws that he can deadass say he's the GOAT.
I'm Christian, so most of these ideas are off the table. But I can applaud Sartre for taking his atheistic starting point seriously.
Perhaps you shouldn't dismiss ideas outright because they contradict religious dogma. Maybe the idea of having a religious 'starting point' is a problem in the first place.
You may be interested in reading Kierkegaard. He puts forward a Christian version of existentialism.
@@echobook8513Oh, that's next on my list actually! The question of how to balance reason and faith is an interesting one, and I do sympathize with Kierkegaard's analysis of the story of Abraham on the mount.
That's a lot of "man"
Sartre made a mistake by giving this lecture. He stated his position in simple terms so that everyone could understand him - unlike the opaque convoluted language of Being and Nothingness. It was a mistake because without the jargon, it’s obvious that his existentialism is utter nonsense.
Care to explain why?
@@echobook8513 Sartre’s existentialism ultimately boils down to this: that there is no God, and this it follows that people were not created with any purpose in mind. Therefore, human life has no meaning at all except such meaning that a person might give it, himself. So far, I agree with him. This is basically what Nietzsche argued.
But Sartre goes further. He insists that, at least for man, existence precedes essence, that man has no nature at all and is therefore completely free to choose his own way. At first, Man is nothing at all. He merely exists. He has no essence. He will become what he chooses to become by he exercise of free will. And man cannot help but choose; he is condemned to be free. Indeed, Sartre’s radical insistence on free will is the entire point of his philosophy. Sartre argues that if God does not exist, then Man must choose his own path based on his own freely chosen values and that the only thing that matters is that he live authentically, in accordance with his own freely chosen values. This is where I cannot follow Sartre.
Merely because there is no God, it does not follow that there is no such thing as human nature. Humans are animals - we are mammals, we are primates - and as such, we are genetically programmed to behave in certain ways. Further, our environments, especially in early childhood, can affect the development of our brains and thus influence our behavior profoundly. Like all animals, we are born with certain instincts and we act in accordance with our instincts. While there is some variation among individual humans, we are none of us “free” to choose our own values or to act however we choose.
Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and Freud - all atheists - rejected the very notion of “free will”, and with good reason. They sensibly recognized and insisted upon Man’s animal nature. (Schopenhauer wrote a very good essay debunking “free will”. Nietzsche repeatedly cast scorn on the notion of “free will”.)
Just because our values are not prescribed for us by God, it doesn’t follow that we are free to choose our own values. Clearly, we are not. Can you choose what you like and don’t like? What you admire and what you despise? I think not. A caring, sensitive person cannot choose to be a psychopath and vice versa. A person who is unmusical cannot choose to value music. A musical person cannot help but to value music. In other words, our values reflect who we are, and who we are is determined by our genetic endowment and our education.
Sartre rejects the notion of the unconscious mind. Modern science has proven conclusively that our decision making process is actually unconscious. We do not control our own thoughts - our thoughts, rather, control us. Thoughts just appear in our conscious minds. Our reason is the servant -not the masters - of our emotions and our instincts and our values.
We act in accordance with our character. Our character determines how we respond to any given set of circumstances. If you know a man well enough, you can usually predict how he will respond in any given situation. Sartre denies all this. He insists that a coward is free to act bravely.
He rejects the notion that people can act in accord with an overwhelming passion. This is contrary to all human experience. There’s a reason why the criminal law recognizes what are commonly called “crimes of passion”. Some people are better able to restrain their violent impulses than others. This ability depends on how well their prefrontal cortex functions. Neurologists have discovered a direct correlation between pre-frontal cortex function and impulse control.
Ultimately, all human thought, emotions and behavior can be understood in terms of brain function. The very notion of moral responsibility, which is based on the myth of free will, should be abandoned.
Free will seems to originate with Augustine and it is the basis of the very notion of sin, disobedience to the Will of God. But even Augustine admitted that Man left to his own devices was bound to sin and required Gods help not to sin. Free will is just the theologians way to explain why people sin without blaming God for it - after all, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect and He created humans. So if God created Man, isn’t God responsible for Man’s sins? No, say the theologians. God endowed Man with “free will” and therefore if Man disobeys God, then it’s his own fault, not God’s fault.
I think it’s ironic that Sartre denies the existence of God but still retains the essential religious notion of “free will” and uses it to hold people morally responsible for their actions.
Such a multitudinous analysis! Thanks for this, Steven Yourke.
@@kavanavvasishta4692 Thank you. Do you find my thoughts on Sartre persuasive?
@William Frost You’re welcome. Let me know your thoughts.
Sartre may survive as a novelist but his philosophy will be buried in history .
Neither will survive forever. No piece of art will.
damn bro
"Existentialism is a humanism" - cemented Sartre in my mind as a great thinker. It's probably due to me rather than him, that I never had an "aha" moment before from reading him. (Albeit a lame effort from me)
He is so clear and forthcoming in this address - particularly in his argument that freedom is the foundation of all values.
God is not moral and does not make any forms of moral actions only humans.
I know I was never here but I know I will be at the afterlife alive and then there I... will begin k.
Guess no one can help who likes us 😉🙃☺️. Wonderful i.know I have good tastes and standards. I know I will have dancers dance for em.
5:32 A strictly philosophical view of the power of choice I feel is farcical. All men exist in history. All humans exist in nature and science. And all of us are formed by history and science. Choice must be measured not just with a philosopher, but with an anthropologist, a psychiatrist, a political scientist, an economic mathematician, a journalist, and a doctor for every organ in your body.
To exercise the illusions and realities of choice as somehow "pure" is to treat life like a video game where we can all play with the same starting point. Simply put: we do not all start with the same options, abilities, luxuries, or limitations.
30:00
5:20
27:07
11:43
13:52
23:20