Read اگزیستانسیالیسم و اصالت بشر by Jean-Paul Sartre مصطفی رحیمی Online

اگزیستانسیالیسم و اصالت بشر

این کتاب، خلاصه ای از اصول اگزیستنسیالیسم سارتر است که به همراه انتقادی از آن ترجمه و توسط انتشارات نیلوفر منتشر شده است.به ظن مترجم، این، کتابی صرفا فلسفی و پیچیده نیست، بلکه برای استفاده همگان فراهم آمده است....

Title : اگزیستانسیالیسم و اصالت بشر
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789644480232
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 180 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

اگزیستانسیالیسم و اصالت بشر Reviews

  • Florencia
    2019-03-08 05:36

    Man is nothing other than what he makes of himself. — Jean-Paul SartreIf you are interested in Existentialism, this is the book you should dive into. You will find an energetic Sartre defending his views on many subjects. I was immediately drawn to one opinion in particular: existentialism emphasizes what is despicable about the world. I have read that before. Most people apparently want to read about beauty and bliss and puppies and all those things that are part of one side of our reality. Denying the ugliness of the world does not vanish it at all, unfortunately. It is there, in all its glory while you are closing your eyes. Some authors have been labeled as violent freaks, racists or misogynists because they wrote about those issues—about the cruelty and selfishness that also characterizes human beings—as if they were more than mere narrators. Some people mistake honesty with a defense of whatever the awful subject the book deals with. Speaking about it doesn't justify it. I have already wrote about Sartre's beautiful and accessible writing while reviewing Nausea. This book is no exception. I also found a subtle humor that made the reading experience even more enjoyable.Those who easily stomach a Zola novel like "The Earth" are sickened when they open an existentialist novel. (19)I am quite intrigued by that, now.Sartre felt the need of making a statement in favor of this doctrine. But why do people criticize it? Some because they have read about it and know what it is all about. Others because they have heard about it... And that is much more common than most of us think. We tend to judge what we do not know. And in most cases we do not even bother in getting to know it. We judge and we fear. And we talk. That is why Sartre made and answered the following question: "What, then, is 'existentialism'?" He then started by explaining one of the most important principles of the doctrine: existence precedes essence. That alone might sound confusing, but Sartre's masterful use of metaphors and engaging prose made it all possible. In a universe where there is not a god, man is born empty without a specific purpose. He creates his own essence while making decisions based on the well-known concept of freedom. A thing every man pursuits but few could handle. Freedom without God. Without that sense of protection. Because we do feel safe if we are only acting according to something that has been decided before we were born. Every bad consequence would not be our fault. But, in a world sans God, we become a little, lonely dot with nothing above us but stars. And that's a horrifying thought.The author later affirmed that when man makes a choice, he does not make it just for himself but for all humanity. Those choices reflect on us what we think a man should be. Try not to feel pressured for the great responsibility that represents making choices that concerns all people in the planet.Choosing to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can he good for any of us unless it is good for all. (24)Debatable.There are certain words that people use to arrive to the conclusion that existentialism is a depressing way to look at the world: anguish, abandonment, despair. They are all related to what the author explained about man's existence in a godless world. A man that is aware of the fact that he is responsible for himself and for the rest of humanity. That kind of responsibility surely creates anguish, but it does not prevent men from acting. As for the abandonment issue, it is not as negative as it sounds. He simply meant that if God does not exist, then we are alone without excuses. We are alone and free. That thought led him to one of the most memorable lines of the book:That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. (29)Freedom has been defined as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. From a certain perspective, Sartre made his point. Without God, everything is permissible. However, the freedom (or lack of it) we have to deal with everyday, the freedom that is far away from the abstraction of a concept, that entails earthly matters such as work, people, love, well... that is another issue. The absence of necessity is too rare. Can a person be happy while knowing that he is free because there is no God but, at the same time, not so free because he is a victim of some system? Just like there are several concepts of freedom, there are many factors that restrict them, making the man feel like a powerless individual immersed in a situation he cannot complain about without being replaced in a heartbeat. On one hand, we are condemned to be free; on the other, freedom is apparently nothing more than theory, something we experience by convincing ourselves that we are free while being constrained by political or economical factors (Locke explained it with much more precise words). Yes. There is an answer for every side of the term. We can be free or we can convince ourselves that we are. Birds still sing while they spend their lives in a cage—whether it is because of joy or plea, that is another matter.There is another interesting passage about signs. We often look for them while going through a difficult situation. Sartre skillfully explained that we are the ones that find a particular meaning in those signs. They may mean something different for everybody; in any case, that meaning is determined by us. This is what "abandonment" implies: it is we, ourselves, who decide who we are to he. (34)The last word used to describe existentialism was “despair”. That alone, yes, it does not sound too warm and fuzzy. But add some context to it, and... still, it does not sound good. I had some trouble trying to digest this idea.It means that we must limit ourselves to reckoning only with those things that depend on our will, or on the set of probabilities that enable action... From the moment that the possibilities I am considering cease to be rigorously engaged by my action, I must no longer take interest in them, for no God or greater design can bend the world and its possibilities to my will. In the final analysis, when Descartes said "Conquer yourself rather than the world," he actually meant the same thing: we should act without hope. (35)From a practical point of view, the time we spend hoping for a result is time wasted. Sartre encourages us to act. To do something in order to achieve what we want and not to wait for others to do it for us; people or a superior being, whichever the case may be. Reality exists only in action.By the end of the book, there is a commentary on The Stranger. Do not miss it.If you are new to Sartre's philosophy, then this remarkable essay would be a perfect introduction. It is not only a book that sheds some light on the matter and rectifies many misconceptions, but a book that gently encourages you to do some introspection. Shall we?Okay. Stop for a minute. Breathe. Take a look around. Look back; contemplate your present. Where are you right now? Are you the person you have always wanted to be? "Get up, take subway, work four hours at the office or plant, eat, take subway, work four hours, eat, sleep—Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday-Friday-Saturday—always the same routine..." (77)Do you feel free?April '14* Also on my blog.

  • Amira Mahmoud
    2019-03-05 12:34

    سارتر مش عاجبني يا أم سارتر :DDحسنًا الكتاب عبارة عن تفريغ لمحاضرة كان سارتر قد ألقاهاللرد على الانتقاضات الموجهة للفلسفة الوجوديةفتحدث في الجزء الأول من الكتاب عن الخطوط العريضة للوجوديةالاعتقاد بالوجود قبل الماهيةوأن الإنسان ما هو إلا حصيلة عملهعمل الشخص هو الذي يحدد ماهيته ووجودهبل ويحدد وجود الآخرين أيضًاوكذا اختياراته التي ستشكل وجوده ووجود من حولهوضرب مثال الشاب الذي جاء يطلبه النصح في قضيتههذا المثل الذي استعان به في كل سطر يكتبهوالذي المح نافيل إلى كثرة استعمال سارتر لهوالحقيقة أنه ليس الشيء الوحيد الذي كان سارتر يقوم بتكرارهفهو على صغر مساحة حديثه لم ينفك يردد ثلاثة أشياء بمزيد من التكرار 1-الوجود قبل الماهية2-العمل هو الوجود3-الوجودية مذهب إنسانيوتلك الأخيرة صدقًا لم أفهمها، حاول شرحها لكني شعرت بالتيهكان سارتر هنا رجل ضعيف الحجة، مضطربيبدأ حديثه بهكذا يهاجمون الوجودية، ويقول بعض ناقدي الوجودية إلخربما كثرة الانتقادات حوله ومحاولته الرد عليها اقحمه في جو مشحون مضطربساهم في غياب حجتهوهذا ما سيبدو ليّ صحته من خطأه حين اقرأ أحد أعماله الأخرىالجزء الثاني من الكتاب محاورة بينه وبين الماركسي نافيلالأخير ينقد، وسارتر يردورغم أن الماركسية أيضًا فلسفة بها ما بها من الأخطاءويوجه لها البعض الكثير والكثير من الانتقاداتإلا أنني شعرت أن موقف نافيل وردوده أكثر قوة وإقناعًا من سارترالكتاب نصفه لن تفهمهوالنصف الآخر مكرر أكثر من مرةولا اعتبره حتى يصلح كمدخل للوجوديةتمّت

  • Huda Yahya
    2019-03-17 10:03

    أنا أفكّر إذًا أنا موجودهكذا راح سارتر وجاء يعرض ويفند ويناقشوهذه اللافتة لا تفارق يدهالكتاب في الأساس ترجمة لمحاضرة من محاضرات سارتروقد اهتم كثيرا فيها بالتأكيد على نقطة أن حرية الفرد مسئولية وأن الوجودية ليست فلسفة تأملية فقطبل هي التي تحث الإنسان على أن يصنع ويفعلوالوجودية لا تحرص على الأمل كثيرا وليست ذلك سوداوية فيهاولكن لأن الأمل يؤدي بالفرد إلى التراخي وعدم إنجاز عمله بالجهد والمهارة الكافيينإن هدفي هنا هو الدفاع عن الوجودية ضد كل ما يوجه إليها من انتقادات فهم يتهمونها أولا بأنها دعوة للأستسلام لليأسلأنه ما دامت كل الحلول مستحيلةفإن العمل في هذا العالم مستحيل كذلك ولا جدوي منهوحينئذ تكون الوجودية فلسفة تأمليةومادام التأمل رفاهيه ومن كماليات الحياةفهي لن تكون سوي فلسفة برجوازية تضاف الي الفلسفات البرجوازية الأخري. إنّ الوجوديّة فلسفة متفائلة لأنها في صميمها تضع الإنسان مواجهـًا لذاتهحرًا يختار لتفسه مايشاءفرق سارتر بين الوجودية عند المؤمن الذي يؤمن بأن الماهية سبقت الوجود"و الوجودية عند الملحد الذي لا يؤمن ب"فكرة اللهوعنده الوجود هنا يسبق الماهيةوشرح ذلك بقوله ونحن عندما نفكر في الله كخالقنفكر فيه طوال الوقت علي أنه صانع أعظمومهما كان اعتقادناسواء كنا من اشياع ديكارت أو من أنصار ليبنز فإننا لا بد أن نؤمن بأن إرادة الله تولد اساساأو علي الأقل تسير جنبا الي جنب مع عملية الخلقبمعني أنه عندما يخلق فهو يعرف تمام المعرفة ما يخلقةفإذا فكر في خلق الإنسانفإن فكرة الإنسان تترسب لدي الله كما تترسب فكرة السكين في عقل الصانع الذي يصنعهبحيث يأتي خلقها طبقا لمواصفات خاصة وشكل معينهكذا الله فإنه يخلق كل فرد طبقا لفكرة مسبقة عن هذا الفرفي البدء كان الإنسان وبعده جاءت جميع الأشياءبما فيها فكرة وجود الله وبذلك يكون الإنسان قد صنع نفسه أي أنه يصبح هو الحرية المطلقة إنّ الإنسان يوجد ثم يريد أن يكونويكون ما يريد أن يكونه بعد القفزة التي يقفزها إلى الوجودإنّ الإنسان لن يحقق لنفسه الوجودولن ينالهإلا بعد أن يكون ما يهدف إليه ما يكونهوليس ما يرغب أن يكونه لأنه ما نفهمه عادة من الرغبة أو الإرادةهو أنها قرار واع نتخذه غالبا بعد أن نكون قد صنعنا أنفسنا على ما نحن عليه فقد أرغب أن أنضم إلى حزب من الأحزاب أو أن أكتب كتاباًأو أن أتزوج لكن في حالة كهذه فإن ما يسمى عادة باسم إرادتي إن هو إلا الممارسة الطبيعية لقرار مسبق اتّخذته عفوًا فإذا كان الوجود حقيقة أسبق على الماهية فالإنسان مسؤول عما هو عليهوإذن تكون أوّل آثار الوجودية المترتبة على ذلك هي وضعها كل فرد وصي على نفسه مسئولا عما هي عليه مسئولية كاملة إذن الإنسان عند سارتر مسئول عن كل مايصدر عنه عن عاطفة "لا يمكنه أن يرد ما يفعله إلى غيبيات "توحى إليه ولكنه يؤول هذه الغيبيات الموحاة كما يروق له"والإنسان كذلك ليس سوى "سلسلة مشاريعإنّ الإنسان ليس إلا مشروع الوجود الذي يتصورهووجوده هو مجموع ما حققهوهو نفسه ليس إلا مجموع أفعاله وهو حياتهفي نهاية الكتاب عرض سارتر لمحاورةفلسفية بينه وبين نافيل للفكر الماركسي VS الفكر الوجوديوالحقيقة أنني استمتعت بها كثيرا

  • Rakhi Dalal
    2019-03-10 06:41

    Reading Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism has been as arduous as it has been stimulating, for while I did try to understand his philosophy, I could also acutely discern what challenged my understanding of his work. To begin with Sartre explains Atheistic Existentialism. He says:Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world –and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.The first principle of Existentialism according to him is: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. By this he places the entire responsibility of a human self on himself. In this World where “God is Dead”, we humans are condemned to be free. Condemned because we do not exist out of our choice but our existence is, to begin with, imposed upon us i.e. we are here first and then once we become aware of this existence, are only we free to make out whatever we wish to from it, any action that we will to, in a world which doesn’t offer any objective, guidance or consolation. Sartre speaks of abandonment. The ‘abandonment’ implies that since there is no God to lead the humanity, we are on our own. This abandonment may result in anguish or despair. Anguish, for being aware of the weight of responsibility of our freedom, for if God does not exist we are left without excuses. Despair, for being unable to accept things as they happen outside our control. While explaining existentialism, he strongly opines that there is no human nature because there is no God. By this he means, there is no conception prior to the existence of man, but that man simply is. So, he is responsible for what he is and what he makes of himself. Hence, man is defined by the sum total of actions that he takes and his relation with the world.Answering his critics, he further says:And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Also:Quietism is the attitude of people who say, “let others do what I cannot do.” The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, “Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.”It is here that the question arises: what about the people who cannot take actions according to their will? First, because they may not be free to do so. Second, even if we argue that this cannot be the case, [Sartre gives the example of a coward whose actions determine the way he live his life (cowardly)] still what can be said of people who are not even remotely aware of their freedom i.e. even the freedom to think, let alone to choose or act. In other words, who are not conscious of their will but accede to their circumstances mechanically. Why, aren’t we aware of the oppression of certain classes/ races in the form of slavery? Can we say for sure that when they didn’t oppose, it was because of only cowardliness, a fear of things falling apart from even the tolerable? Couldn’t it be that they were so numbed of the continuous oppression/ exploitation that they were not even conscious of their own will? Also, what can be said of the people whose minds are not as evolved as those of their fellow beings? Those who depend entirely upon a help to even go through their daily routines because they are not conscious of their surroundings or even of their body? What can be said of their life since it is not a life which is a sum total of their actions, because strictly speaking they do not act themselves for they cannot even think. Can we then conclude that their life is not a subjective life but is equivalent to that of a moss or a cauliflower? Surely, we cannot say this because it is not humane and lacks the virtue of kindness or empathy.The humanism that he(Sartre) endorses emphasises the dignity of human beings; it also stresses the centrality of human choice to the creation of all values.[1]But for Existentialism to be truly Humanism, shouldn’t there be an emphasis on right action, rather than just action? How one can justify the individual choices / action which can bring upon wars / anarchies in this world? How can then such individual choices be responsible for whole human kind? And the question which may still arise is who can justify what “right action” is?I think it is time for me to read Kant. Sartre, while publishing this work in translation, had changed the title from “Existentialism is a Humanism” (French) to “Existentialism and Humanism”. I wonder what his reasons were for doing so.Of course I, in no way, possess wisdom or knowledge adequate to justify my thoughts on the subject of Existentialism. Further, it cannot be ignored that Sartre was an eminent philosopher who influenced, and still influences, the views held on this subject by not only literati but also common readers like me. And I do believe that this work is quite important in understanding the philosophy of existence.Should definitely be read.-----------------------------------------------------[1] Source: http://philosophynow.org/

  • Riku Sayuj
    2019-03-04 13:03

    Existentialism is an EssentialismThis is supposed to be the only one of his lectures that Sartre regretted seeing in print. This was primarily because it became accepted as a sort of manifesto piece and thus tended to reduce the original themes. Sartre repeatedly implies that he will not admit to this essay/lecture being considered as an introduction to his philosophy. Again, this is because treating an 'explanation' as an essential component (or worse a summary) of his complex system of philosophy did not sit well with him.However, by framing the core of the philosophy of existentialism as it applies to the most urgent walk of life - human freedom - he does clarify the core purpose of his philosophy: How mankind can live "as if there were no God." And this is extremely valuable for any student of his work.It also redefines Humanism in a very basic way and makes it primarily about human freedom, choice and the dignity therein. So the freedom that attacks the reader as an Anguish in Nausea is reframed here as a great and true liberator of the individuals' truest tendencies. This is absolutely in keeping with the core themes of B&N. He puts your future, your potential and the entire future of humanity in your limitlessly capable hands. That is the freedom we have to deal with. That is the responsibility of this humanism. It is central. It is unbearable. It is glorious. It is the only attribute of a human being. It is an essentialismAnd even if only for this glorious vision of Humanism, this small lecture should stand as an important monument. Any insights into Sartre's philosophy it might provide is only an added bonus.

  • Farnoosh Farahbakht
    2019-03-18 07:59

    اگر بخواهم این کتاب را در یک جمله خلاصه کنم از نظرم هیچ جمله ای رساتر از "بشر محکوم به آزادی است" نمی تواند باشداین کتاب به سه بخش اصلی تقسیم شده است. در بخش اول که مهمترین و جذاب ترین بخش کتاب نیز هست "سارتر" سعی بر این دارد که خلاصه ای جامع و کامل از این فلسفه ارایه دهد همچنین پاسخی دهد به ایراداتی که به آن وارد می کنند و در خصوص انحرافاتی که بر اثر کج فهمی آن ایجاد شده شفاف سازی نماید.در این فلسفه "وجود" انسان مقدم بر "ماهیت" اوست، بدین منظور که در آن پیش از اینکه انسان زندگی کند، زندگی به خودی خود برای او هیچ است; اما به عهده انسان است که به زندگی معنایی ببخشد و "ارزش" چیزی نیست جز معنایی که او برای آن بر می گزینید و در این راه بشر محکوم است به آزادی، محکوم است زیرا خود را نیافریده و در عین حال آزاد است، زیرا همین که پا به جهان گذاشت مسئول همه ی کارهایی است که انجام می دهد. بخش اول به لطف پانویس های مترجم تا حدود زیادی برای من که چندان با مباحث فلسفی آشنایی ندارم قابل فهم بود .مفاهیم این فلسفه در عین سختگیرانه بودن برایم بسیار زیبا و منطقی و ملموس بود و باعث شد به خودم، موقعیتم در زندگی، انتخاب ها وارزش هایم نگاهی دوباره و عمیق تری داشته باشمبخش دوم کتاب شامل پرسش و پاسخ هایی انتقادی با "سارتر" در خصوص اصول اگزیستانسیالیسم است که تا حدود زیادی برای من گنگ و نافهوم بود و بخش سوم که "آنچه من هستم" نام دارد گفتگویی است خواندنی با سارتر به مناسبت هفتاد سالگی او که در آن از وضعیت فعلی زندگی، اندیشه ها، برنامه ها، علایق و سبک و سیاق زندگی خود سخن می گویددر آخر با توجه به اینکه اگزیستانسیالیست ها به دو دسته "مسیحی" و "غیر مذهبی" تقسیم می شوند و در این کتاب به اندیشه "سارتر" که در دسته دوم قرار می گیرد پرداخته شده است،درخصوص جمع مفاهیم این فلسفه با "مذهب" علامت سوال بزرگی برایم ایجاد شده است که حتما به دنبال پاسخ آن خواهم بود

  • Mahsa
    2019-03-22 04:48

    هنگامی که دکارت می گوید: "به جای تسلط بر جهان، باید بر خویشتن مسلط شد" در واقع میخواهد بگوید: عمل کنیم بی آنکه به امید متکی باشیم.اون روز که این کتاب رو خریدم، به خاطر این بود که با مفهوم اگزیستانسیالیسم در روان درمانی مشکل داشتم و امید داشتم رسیدن به یه درک مستقل از اگزیستانسیالیسم، کمکی باشه برای درک بهترش در روان درمانی. حالا که تونستم بخونمش؛ دیگه با این مفهوم در روان درمانی مشکلی نداشتم و بالاخره تقریبا برام جا افتاده بود، اما مشکل اینجاست این کتاب رو خوب نفهمیدم.حتی حس میکنم اینکه بگم خوندمش فعل درستی نباشه، چون خوندن چندباره ی بعضی جملات هم گاهی برای فهمیدنشون کافی نبود. درنهایت اینکه ترجمه ی عجیب و دوری داشت و نتونستم با ریتم کلمات به خوبی ارتباط برقرار کنم. همین.

  • Seemita
    2019-03-08 11:53

    [Please note that the reviewer is a new entrant in the school of existentialism and is attempting to grasp the building blocks. Hence, her inferences can be basic and occasionally, vague too. Those who have spent considerable time in this school can choose to overlook this little account if so deemed fit (although I would love to have them here to elevate my understanding level). For the more tolerant and sagaciously curious, I will go about my way.]Essentially, “Existentialism Is a Humanism” is a lecture that Sartre gave in Paris during 1945. By this time, many of his notable works like The Transcendence of the Ego, Nausea, Being and Nothingness, No Exit, The Roads to Freedom series, etc. had won him a fair amount of loyalists but had also ushered in a frenzied group of detractors. The major bone of contention of the latter was the repugnance, this doctrine created by perennially pushing the Man or the Individual, into wells of anguish, abandonment and despair. They saw this philosophy seeped in negativism, even romanticizing hopelessness.This essay was one of those communiques through which Sartre chose to dispel some of these misconceptions.To begin with, he describes the principle tenet of Existentialism as valuing human life by empowering the individual to make his choices and take actions and holding him accountable for the environment his action creates for himself as well as the human community.He states that there are two types on existentialism: Theistic Existentialism (TE) and Atheistic Existentialism (AE). And he champions for the latter. His mantra: ”existence precedes essence”.. Since AE doesn’t acknowledge the presence of God, there is no divine intelligence from which the essence of the Man (who is to be created), can be drawn. Hence, the Man has to essentially exist first and then, go about finding/ creating his essence in life. Sartre, then, tries to tackle the three primary accusations that bog down heavily AE’s neck.Anguish – He maintains that every action of the individual is not restricted to individual ramification alone but extends to human community as well.He gives this example: ”By undertaking to marry, I am committing not only myself but to all of humanity, the practice of monogamy.” Hence, this enormous sense of collective responsibility is bound to reign in a certain amount of anguish in him. This anguish is not palpable to any other person but is a battle of intrinsic nature. Abandonment – There is no God, no past point of beginning and no future line of reference. In such a scenario, the individual feels abandoned by good measure and is left with the only support of his own choices and interpretations for which he is, solely and completely, responsible. That he is condemned to be free. The tendency of blaming circumstances or making excuses of external forces is non-existent in AE.Despair – Since we are nothing more or less than what our will can afford, there is a sense of despair to limitations of such probability cloud. So, essentially, the individual has to act without hope of a certain outcome but act nonetheless in the best of his minds.Having soothed the frayed veins of the naysayers with his above constructs, he goes on to say that Existentialism is, in fact, akin to Humanism sincethis school of philosophy never objectifies human, always places the power in his hands and doesn’t treat him as an end. In being constantly in making, having the control of his life, making choices, seeking out an outside goal to project himself onto the canvas of liberation, he can realize what it means to be truly human.While, for a beginner like me, this essay has proven to be an effective harbinger to better understanding of this doctrine, I can’t help but have some questions pop in my head. Firstly, what merits the choice of Atheistic Existentialism (AE) over Theistic Existentialism (TE)? How is the fundamental of essence precedes existence (which is the manifested principle of TE) a bad thing? Isn’t the presence of an objective a trigger to action which is the main point of deliberation in AE?Also, if my decision is a collective commitment to the human community, then is my renouncement (or the choice of “not choosing”), a renouncement by the community too? Is there a concept of anguish and “larger” anguish here? At some point in the essay, Sartre says, ’The only way I can measure the strength of this affection is precisely by performing an action that confirms and defines it.Where does AE accommodate recurring acts then? There are many emotions or even events that have a streak of commonality. While taking a fresh call on an existing event, doesn’t the past experience form part of the set of probable choices upon which the subsequent action will be based?This one statement, which finds place in the later part of the essay, really baffled me:”I cannot discover any truth whatsoever about myself except through the mediation of another. The other is essential to my existence, as well as to the knowledge I have of myself.”Now, if knowing myself mandates the presence of another individual, then there is a reference point, a yardstick; which is against the fundamentals of AE doctrine, right? How is this dichotomy addressed then?Alright, I am babbling in either my ignorance or half knowledge. But this essay had been handy in encapsulating the highlights of Existentialism in terse narrative, giving examples from routine life to simplify its heavy garb. There is a lot of reference to past and fellow philosophers like Descartes, Voltaire, Kant, Kierkegaard and Heidegger and reading them in parallel might bring about wider perspectives and clarity. [Thank you. The class is over. For those who are still with me, you love philosophy. Really.]

  • Foad
    2019-03-01 12:48

    تصویر جالبیه. اسمش رو گذاشتم: اگزیستانسیالیسم در یک دقیقه.نوشته های ریزش واضح نیست، گفتم با کیفیت بالاتر بذارم، حجمش بالا میره، ممکنه بعضیا راضی نباشن.تنها چیزی که میتونم بگم، اینه که ترجمه افتضاح بود. فکر کنم سواد فرانسوی مترجم، در حد سواد فرانسوی من بوده. شاید هم سواد فارسیش کم بوده. نمیدونم، خلاصه به قدری جملات رو بد ترجمه کرده بود که با چهار پنج بار خوندن هم نمیشد حدس زد که سارتر چی میخاسته بگه. راجع به نقطه گذاری هم که بگذریم. وسط جمله یه دفعه نقطه میذاشت، آخر جمله نقطه نمیذاشت و خلاصه هر جا علاقه داشت، از علائم استفاده میکرد.این تنها چیزی بود که راجع به این کتاب میتونستم بگم چون به خاطر ترجمه ی بد، نتونستم زیاد متن سارتر رو بفهمم. بعداً که یه ترجمه ی بهتر گیرم اومد و خوندم، این ریویو رو تغییر میدم.

  • Dolors
    2019-03-05 09:49

    “Existentialism Is a Humanism”is the result of a transcribed lecture Sartre delivered in 1945 responding to several critiques to existentialist theories. Communist detractors accused Existentialism of being a contemplative and bourgeois philosophy that led to quietism while Catholics condemned it for emphasizing what was despicable about humanity, which induced to a hopeless and pessimistic notion of human nature. Sartre presents his defense dissecting the concept of Existentialism in a very didactic fashion, avoiding technical jargon or abstract content and using illustrative examples to make his points clear to reply one by one to all the attacks with a well argued discourse in spite of the ongoing contradictions he was struggling with at the time.He proclaims:“Man is nothing other than his own project. He exists only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions…responsible for what he is… free… condemned to be free… committing himself to life.”According to Sartre, the leitmotif existence precedes essence denotes the often misunderstood optimism of the existentialist doctrine, for it places the responsibility of “being” upon mankind, stressing the impossibility of a predefined “human nature” a priori and therefore allowing man to be nothing other than what he makes of himself. Man materializes in the world through his own actions but at the same time he is overburdened with his choices because he commits not only himself but all of humanity. Sentiments of “anguish”, “abandonment” and “despair” might ensue. “Anguish” appears when the individual realizes the profound responsibility and the consequence of his actions on a collective level. Sartre quotes Dostoevsky’s words “If God does not exist, everything is permissible” to address the concept of abandonment. As there is no human nature or moral values to ascribe to a priori, man is condemned to freedom because once cast into the world he is responsible for everything he does without having any values or code of ethics that can legitimate his conduct. Consequently, he is “abandoned” in his present to create a virgin future defined only through his own actions. As the realm of possibilities yet to be transformed into realities and the intersubjectivity of man’s existence can’t be controlled, they can generate hope, expectations and dreams which eventually end up in “despair” and disappointment.In analyzing the cornerstones of Existentialism, Sartre stresses the underlying contradictions in the accusations of its detractors pointing out that a philosophy based on action can’t be accused of quietism the same way that an unequivocal declaration of man as the only actor to dictate his own destiny can’t be labeled as a pessimistic view on existence, rather the opposite.This short essay is a very accessible introduction to Sartre because it is addressed to the general public making use of an instructive tone and a simple yet eloquent language, very appropriate for neophytes on Existentialism like myself.Although I can’t proclaim I fully comprehend the intricate web of reasoning behind Sartre’s viewpoint, the proposition of “freedom” as the foundation of all value, the transcendental belief that true essence lies in man discovering himself and the idea of a morality based on human beings taking responsibility of their own actions resonate within me. At the same time I find comfort in recalling Whitman’s saying “I am large, I contain multitudes”, so I don’t even bat an eye when my quixotic self rebels against a doctrine which discards ideals and dreams for not being based on real foundations or when the romantic in me cringes at art being defined as a mere aesthetic invention in continuous progress instead of the passionate expression of an artist’s understanding of the world. I have to keep reminding myself that Sartre’s world was falling apart in 1945 when he declared his critical defiance against all forms of authority in freeing himself from the weight of history and in urging a new generation to ponder and to reject dogma. I am made myself of many doubts and just one certainty:"the only way to learn is to question”. And that is precisely what I aim to do. Keep questioning.

  • Jasmine
    2019-03-01 07:00

    have you ever noticed that when you are at rock bottom nothing makes you feel better quite as much as Sartre telling you that if your life is screwed up it's your own damn fault.

  • Mobina J
    2019-03-04 06:47

    من از وقتی که با این فلسفه آشنا شدم واقعا راحت تر زندگی میکنم، پذیرش مطالب اگزیستانسیالسم به من حس استقلال بیشتری میده و به فردیت من کمک میکنه و علاوه بر این در تعاملات اجتماعی هم باعث میشه طوری که دیگران هستن رو خیلی راحت تر بپذیرم.به نظر من این کتاب خیلی خوب ترجمه شده بود و سعی شده مفاهیم این فلسفه به صورت مختصر و مفید به خواننده منتقل بشه. '' بشر هیچ نیست مگر آنچه از خود میسازد ''

  • Ahmed Oraby
    2019-02-21 07:54

    الخمس نجوم لأول 70 صفحة (كانوا 70 باين) من الكتاب، بغض النظر عن لعب العيال اللي حصل بعد كده :D

  • Elham
    2019-03-14 08:50

    My first exposure to Existentialism is a Humanism was in our faculty book fair when I was the second year student of engineering. I bought this book and another book Hajj written by Ali Shariati. I was totally a blockhead. I knew almost nothing about literature, philosophy, theology, God and whatever else which wasn't science. All I knew was that I was a Muslim, growing up in a religious family and society, but I always wished to choose my beliefs by myself, I mean I wish to have some well thought and examined ideas based on good books that I needed to read. The very first step for a journey of self discovery was to find someone to help me understand at least from which way I had to start. I needed a motive force; an initial velocity or initial condition. But actually the most difficult part was that. To read an atheistic philosophy or a religious book in order to reinforce the basis of your beliefs. The latter was the one that I used to hear from people around myself. You should first read books about your own religion then read other kind of philosophies in order to critic them by your own reasons. Obviously, that way wasn't correct. If my religious thoughts were correct they shouldn't be changed after reading other kind of books. And now that I think about it, my situation was just like the man in that example of Sartre in this book who wasn't sure about which way he had to choose. And Sartre's suggestion was: "You are free, so choose; in other words, invent. No general code of ethics can tell you what you ought to do; there are no signs in the world". Even, I was free in choosing my guidance. Reading Existentialism is a Humanism or Hajj?! That was the question. It was not actually that simple. For a long time I felt I was a suspended particle, with no special orientation. A point in the Cartesian system with no coordinates with a very random and accidental motion.I chose Sartre.I chose him not that I knew him or the impression of a friend or someone else encouraged me to read him. All I knew about him was that he was a great philosopher of 20th century. His philosophy affected many things in many countries and my own region of world was not an exception. I needed to feel that I was "Free" . My friends kept saying "Do not engage yourself with Sartre, it will plunge you into despair." Indeed it did. It was officially the first time in my life that I was reading a book saying there was no need to consider God in life, it was extremely different from what we had "proudly" been taught at schools. Existentialism is a Humanism was indeed among one of top ten books which change my life. A new window. A new way of thinking. A new way of living.This is the third time that I read it and if I get any time I will read it again. Not that this is too difficult to understand, I think this book needs a general background of philosophy. Surely, I now understand it better that 8 years ago, but still I can't totally connect all the parts and come to one conclusion, for instance I do not know anything about phenomenology, materialism or philosophy of Marx.The first part of the book is a speech about Existentialism, then two Q&As that the first one still very philosophical and the second one is more about Sartre himself in his 70.I have already highlighted every sentence of this book. I think this is a precise explanation of Existentialism, a good start in order to read his other work "Being and Nothingness".

  • Fatma AbdelSalam
    2019-03-16 05:40

    اعتبرت هذا الكتاب مدخل جيد للتعرف على الوجودية عند سارتر من منطلق " اقرأ لهم ولا تقرأ عنهم " وكنت قرأت له مسرحية الجحيم قبل ذلك واعجبتني.هذا الكتاب عبارة عن محاضرة ألقاها سارتر ثم اعاد كتابتها ليتيح الرد عليها من قبل خصومه. في الجزء الأول منه يفند الإداعات التي توجه إليهم ويرد عليها وفي الجزء الثاني منه مناقشة بينه وبين الماركسي "نافيل" حول ما طرحه سارتر.على حد قول سارتر في مناقشته مع نافيل انه ركن إلى التبسيط في محاضرته حتى يفهمه العامة ولا يكون كما كان سائد قديما من محاورات بين الفلاسفة دون ان يفهم العامة ماذا يعنون ! لكني اجد ايضا لفهم هذه الأطروحة المبسطة لابد أن نمتلك خلفية عن الوجوديين من خلال كتابتهم لنخلص منها إلى تعريفات سارتر والتي كانت ردا على الإدعاءات على فكرهم . فمن المنطقي ان نقرأ أولا لنفهم هذه الإدعاءات ثم نجد الرد ليوضح ما اختلط علينا.وكتبسيط لما ورديفرق سارتر بين نوعين من الوجودية الأول عند المتدينين والذين يؤمنون أن الماهية تسبق الوجودبمعنى انها تؤمن بوجود الله والذي كان له تصور وفكرة عن الإنسان ثم انشأهوالنوع الآخر من الوجودية لدى الملحدين والذي يؤمن بها هو وهو لا يؤمن بوجود فكرة اللهلذلك فالوجود عنده يسبق الماهية ، بمعنى في البدء كان الإنسان الأول ثم جاء كل شيء . أي ان الإنسان هو صنع ذاته وما يصنعه فهو لنفسه .وبذلك يتحول الإنسان إلى مطلق في ذاته فهو ليس إنسانا حر بل هو الحرية ذاتها ! وبذلك يحاول ان يتحرر من فكرة الكآبة والعدمية التي تنتقد فكرهم بأنه يخلص إلى أن الإنسان بذاتيه واختياراته الملزمة لنفسه كأنها اختيارات للإنسانية جميعا ويقع على عاتقه هذا الحمل فكيف يكون متوحدا وكئيبا ويركن للعزلة في حين ان مبدأهم هو العمل الدائم لتحقيق ما يريدوا أن يكونوه بخلق صورة للإنسان كما يتصوروها.الفلسفة عند سارتر تقوم على ثلاث كلمات كبرى هي [ القلق ، السقوط ، اليأس ]كون فلسفة سارتر تقوم على أن الإنسان لا يختار لنفسه فقط بل يختار للإنسانية كلها مما يضع الإنسان تحت (قلق دائم) من وعيه التام بأهمية الإختيار وجلالته. أما عن (السقوط) هو إدراك الإنسان لنفسه إدراك تام بحيث انه يحدد إتجاهه تجاه ذاته فإذا اختار أمر فهو ملزم به إلزامية تامة وليس في وسعه بعد ذلك التبرير أو الركون إلى قوة تفوقه دفعته لفعل ما. ففي الوجودية ليس هناك هروب.أما أخيرا عن(اليأس) هو أن يقصر أفعاله في حدود إمكانياته في نطاق المحتمل فليس هناك قوة غيبية تتحكم من خلف ستار ولا تقوم بفعل يفوق المحتمل.لكني اتعجب من نفيه للكآبة والعدمية فكيف يكون تعريف تلك الثلاث كلمات الكبرى بأمر مخالف لما يبدون عليه وهم في الأصل محملين بكل معاني العزلة والفشل والكآبة تلك ! غريب ! تقيمي له جيد يحتاج تدعيمه بالقراءة عنهم كما ذكرت ، في مواطن كثيرة لا يخلو من التعقيد لقارئ مثلي

  • Momina Masood
    2019-03-16 10:47

    This is a very accessible introduction to Sartrean existentialism. Some of the most elementary and basic concepts of Sartre's system have been explained in an easy, approachable way. Basically, Katie Holmes in the super-awesome Batman Begins sums up Sartre's concerns in this book:It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you.Yeah, that's basically it. Existence precedes essence entails the negation of any universal concept or idea of "human nature", and that when we come into this world we simply exist and it is up to what we do thereon that will eventually define who we are. There's a Janus-faced quality to this, though. On one side, it's pretty cool to understand that an individual can become whatever he puts his mind to as long as his actions concord. There are no born heroes or villains in this world, and nothing or nobody has any control over us whatsoever. But then the tricky part comes in when Sartre talks about "anguish", "despair" and on owning up to the consequences of what we do. That explains the word "condemned" in his oft-quoted adage: Man is condemned to be free. Anyway, I strongly recommend this book to all those who are interested in understanding Sartrean existentialism and its basic concepts. Before beginning the dense and heavy Being and Nothingness, this is a good book with which to get started.

  • Nastaran
    2019-02-24 04:47

    مطالب این کتاب برگرفته از مصاحبه و پرسش و پاسخی با آقای سارتر در زمینه رفع ابهام و روشن سازی فلسفه اگزیستانسیالیسم می باشد. چرا که عده ای به اشکال گوناگون، برداشت هایی نادرست از مفاهیم این فلسفه داشته اند.عده ای آن را سراسر آمیخته با عزلت و گوشه گیری می دانند، که برای آنان نتیجه ای جز ناامیدی و گریز از زندگی ندارد.و دسته ای دیگر، این مکتب را بدلیل بیان اینکه "بشر آزاد است"، سراسر بی قیدی و عبث می نامند. یعنی به دلیل آزادی تام بشریت، تنبیه و جزایی شامل اعمال انسانها نمی شود.سارتر به صراحت بیان میکند که "این مکتب بدی ها را نشان میدهد تا آنها را دگرگون سازد". و این عمل صورت نمی پذیرد مگر با شناختی که بشر از خود به عمل می آورد.بنا به گفته ی او "بشر هیچ نیست مگر آنچه از خود می سازد". به عبارت دیگر، "بشر جز مجموعه ای از رفتار و کردار مفهوم دیگری ندارد."اگزیستانسیالیسمِ سارتر معتقد به "تقدم وجود بر ماهیت" و منکر وجود طبیعت بشری و واجب الوجود است.او بشر را وانهاده معرفی میکند. یعنی یار و یاوری در آسمانها ندارد و تنها خود اوست که راهنمای خویش می باشد. ولی ناگفته نماند که از دیدگاه این مکتب، عدم وجود واجب الوجود به منزله ی بی بند و باری بشر نیست. برعکس، اگزیستانسیالیسم بشر را مسئول وجود خود و بشریت می داند و بنابرِ این مسئولیت کلی، انتظار انتخاب های صحیح در زندگی را از تک تک افراد دارد.در ادامه، سارتر معانی و مفاهیم متفاوتی از "دلهره"، "ناامیدی"، "اصالت بشر" و "موقعیت" ارائه میدهد. و از وجود محدودیتهایی سخن می گوید که همیشه و در همه ی اعصار پا برجا خواهند ماند.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~جالب توجه بود که سارتر تلاشی برای بیان مفاهیم فلسفی خود از طریق ایجاد لغات جدید نداشت. تمامی لغات موجود در فلسفه های پیشین را با مفهومی تازه بیان میکرد که این خود یکی از ایرادهای گرفته شده بر این فلسفه بود.

  • M.rmt
    2019-03-24 06:02

    علی رغم میل باطنیم مجبور شدم در نیمه رهاش کنم...ترجمه خوبی نداشت و درگیری روزمره و امتحانا باعث شد خوندنشو به بعد موکول کنم.

  • Ebru
    2019-03-22 10:41

    “İnsan kendini bulmalı, özünü elde etmeli ve şuna da inanmalıdır: Hiçbir şey kişiyi kendinden, benliğinden kurtaramaz. Varoluşçuluk bir çeşit iyimserliktir bu anlamda, bir çeşit eylem, çalışma öğretisidir.“Özgürsünüz, onun için kendiniz seçin, yolunuzu kendiniz bulun. Hiçbir genel ahlak size yapacağınız şeyi söyleyemez. Buna ancak siz karar vereceksiniz.”“İnsan özgür olmaya mahkumdur.”Özgürlük o kadar güzel anlatılmış ki. Bulantı kitabını da okumak şart oldu. Bu tür kitapları sayfa sayfa düz okumak yerine istediğim bölümleri açıp okumak daha iyi geliyor. Söylenmek istenenler daha iyi anlaşılıyor sanki.Bol okumalar, iyi bayramlar dilerim :)

  • Maryam
    2019-02-28 09:47

    پارسال، مهر، شروع به خوندن کتاب کردم. اونقدر کلمه اگزیستانسیالیسم برام جالب بود که دوست داشتم هرچی زودتر بفهمم و ببلعم که این فلسفه و این نگرش چی میخواد بگه. بعد ازینکه فصل اول کتاب تموم شد، مدتی فرصت سرخاروندنم نداشتم و این بار چون حداقل معنی اگزیستانسیالیسم رو فهمیده بودم خوندن بقیه کتاب رو پشت گوش مینداختم! تا اینکه دوباره یکی دو هفته پیش که کتاب دستهای آلوده رو خوندم حس کردم نیازه که به سارتر برگردم! و اینگونه شد که از اول شروع کردم به خوندن کتاب! بخش اول و بخش سوم کتاب برام جالب و خوندنی بود، اما بخش دوم خیلی گنگ بود و از بعضی قسمتاش بی اینکه چیز زیادی فهمیده باشم، گذشتم...

  • Chris
    2019-02-28 11:45

    I have been interested in reading something by Sartre for some time, but was unwilling to waste my time with a meandering, depressing novel like Nausea (which I still might read one day); or a dry, 700-page tome (tomb!) like Being And Nothingness. To be honest, Nothingness seems hardly worth my time. It hardly seems worth anyone’s time.THAT’S why I started this little jewel. This book was a lecture that Sartre gave in defense of existentialism to his non-philosopher auditors. He was attempting to market his views as humanistic’ in nature, or, benefiting humanity in some way. Sartre broke the logic down to bite-sized pieces for the laity, which I think is commendable because there’s a certain amount of risk involved with diluting your ideas so that they can be understood. Sartre made clear this struggle: “Many of the people that interview me are not qualified to do so. This leaves me with two alternatives: refuse to answer their questions, or agree to allow discussion to take place on a simplified level… [but] We must agree to popularize it on the condition that we don’t deform it.” In spite of its simplicity, there are some meatier parts for the initiated, and Sartre’s method and value for disseminating his ideas among the working class is intriguing in itself. Sartre boiled down his ideas in the following propositions:1. Existence precedes essence. Humans are ‘abandoned’, are ‘thrown’ into their situation by forces that are beyond their scope of understanding or control, and can only define themselves moment by moment. “Life is nothing until it is lived.”2. Man is a situation. He cannot defined by his so-called destiny or pre-determined role. 3. Man is responsible. In every act (‘project’), humans are creating a new situation for themselves as individuals, which means a new situation for society with each act. I commit all of mankind with every new act.4. Our situation breeds anguish: knowing I am responsible to determine my meaning, and to determine the meaning of mankind, that produces the ‘anguish’ of the burden that responsibility is, and the ‘despair’ of knowing we are abandoned to our own resources.5. Absolute truth is available, but is subjectively seized by realizing that truth is not ‘out there’, but is here—the “absolute truth of consciousness confronting itself.”6. Intersubjectivity: Subjectivity is not attained in a vacuum. A sense of individuality is developed, refined and reflected by community. “We each attain ourself in the presence of the other…The other is essential to my existence, as well as to the knowledge I have of myself.”Included at the end of this handy volume of philosophical pabulum is an essay on Camus’ “The Stranger.” This was very illuminating. Besides fleshing out more of Sartre’s ideas, it provided a great explanation to Camus’ work, and—something I was delighted to discover—evidenced Sartre’s own bewilderment upon first reading the book. He traces the line of existentialism throughout the story, but also exposes Camus’ literary talent. I feel like I understand the book better than before, and I have a new appreciation for what Camus was trying to impress upon his audience.

  • Zeinab
    2019-03-05 11:43

    خوشحالم که در وقت اضافۀ سال نودوپنج بالأخره خواندمش.بخش اول عالی بود و توضیحات مترجم هم خوب.ایرادات ناویل فهمش سخت بود و جواب سارتر هم به ازسربازکردن شبیه. از آن بخش طرفی نبستم.مصاحبه با سارتر جالب بود، برای شناختن خودش، نه تفکرش و نه اگزیستانسیالیسم.

  • La Petite Princesse :-)
    2019-03-11 09:39

    کتاب به سه بخش اصلی تقسیم شده:1- اگزیستانسیالیسم و اصالت بشر2- گفتگو3- آنچه من هستمبخش اول شامل متن سخنرانی های سارتر درباره موضوع اگزیتانسیالیسم هست که به گمانم بهترین کتابیست که میشه در این زمینه مطالعه کرد و همونطور که خود سارتر هم اشاره کرده این متن برای فهم مخاطب عام هست و بنابراین چندان پیچیدگی خاصی نداره. من به شخصه هرگز اگزیستانسیالیسم رو یه مکتب فکری منفی نمی دیدم اما با خوندن این کتاب خیلی مطالب زیادی در این باره برام روشن شد که واقعا برام تازگی داشت. از نظر ترجمه این بخش ترجمه بسیار خوبی داره و نویسنده با پاورقی های بسیار به جایی که آورده فهم مطلب رو برای خواننده آسان کرده و از به وجود اومدن سوتفاهم های احتمالی پیش گیری کردهبخش دوم سخت خوان ترین بخش کتاب هست که به وضوح در اون مشخصه که خود مترجم هم چندان بر مطلب مسلط نیست به طوری که در چند جا موضوع کاملا مبهمه و چیزی که جالبه اینه که در این بخش مقدار پاورقی هایی که آورده شده بسیار کمتر از بخش اول هست و این به عقیده ی من به این خاطر نیست که این بخش توضیح کمتری میخواسته بلکه به این خاطرهست که خود مترجم هم دقیق متوجه موضوع نشده که اعتماد به نفس این رو پیدا کنه که با آوردن پاورقی های مرتبط موضوع رو روشن کنهمی رسیم به بخش سوم که خوش خوان ترین بخش کتاب و جذاب ترین قسمت اون هست. شامل یک مصاحبه مفصل با سارتر درباره زندگیش و اوضاعجسمی و روحی ایشون در هفتاد سالگی. جالبه انرژی ای که از متن دریافت می کردم کاملا با تصوری که در ذهنم از سارتر داشتم مغایرت داشت. چیزی که حتی ذره ای در این مصاحبه حس نمیشد، ناامیدی و غم بود در حالیکه این روحیه واقعا با تصویری که عموما از یک فیلسوف در ذهن افراد هست تفاوت دارهمن خوندن این کتاب رو حتما و شدیدا توصیه می کنم چون تصورات آدم رو نسبت به خیلی چیزها عوض می کنهیه نکته دیگه هم که کتاب داشت و خیلی برام قابل توجه بود تاثیر مشهود علاقه مترجم به سارتر در ترجمه کتاب بود به طوری که بعضی جمله ها رو به صورت سلیقه ای پررنگ تر کرده بود و در بعضی پاورقی ها کاملا مشخص بود که داره از کتاب حمایت می کنه و من اولین بار بود که این رو به نحوی این گونه آشکار توی ترجمه می دیدم و حس می کردم

  • Sura✿
    2019-03-05 07:46

    اجوبته غير مباشرة .. احتاج لقراءة المزيد لسارتر و عن الوجودية عموما

  • Zoha Trabelsi
    2019-02-24 09:41

    انتقالا من الشيوعية الى الوجودية، الكثير من الناس وبالأخص الشيوعيين يدعون الى الواقعية ويتذمرون من الوجودية ويتهمونها بالتشاؤم، ولكن من منظور سارتر: هل ثمة فكر اكثر تفاؤل من الوجودية؟ ان تعطيك الحرية لتواجه ذاتك، تختار نفسك ما تشاء؟ اي كل فرد وصيا على نفسه ومسؤولا على ماهيته مسؤولية كاملة.فالمذهب الوجودي يعطي للانسان حق اختيار ذاته، ولن يحقق لذاته الوجود ولن يناله حتى يكون ما يهدف ان يكونه، اعني ليس ما يريد ان يكونه بل يكون بالفعل، الارادة هي قرار يتخذ بعدما يصنع الانسان، فالوجودية حقيقة اسبق على الماهية. والانسان مسؤول عما هو عليه.اما عن الوجودية الالحادية التي ذكرها، اعني اصحاب تلك الافكار التي مؤداها ان فكرة الله فكرة لا تفيد من ثم لا داع للاستمرار فيها. هو ان الله و الاديان ليس مجرد معتقدات ولكن الهيكل الاخلاقي لكل المجتمعات، حتى وان اعتقد الملحدين ان الله فكرة لا تفيد لابد وان تبقى الاخلاق الدينية التي تنص اليها الاديان موجودة و الا انهارت المجتمعات كلها.الكتاب ليس الا محاضرة مفرغة نصياً، لذلك لا فصول ولا ابواب ولا شيء. ولا احبذ هذا النوع من الكتب صراحة، لكن افكار سارتر نحو الوجودية كانت جميلة ولم اختلف معه في نقطة.فمثلما قال دستويفسكي: "ان الله، اذا لم يكن موجوداً، فكل شيء مباح"

  • Abeer Abdullah
    2019-03-09 05:38

    I have a very skinny knowledge of western philosophy, I might be able to name important schools of thoughts, but will probably give you a very confused and primitive definition of each of them, so I decided to try and change that. the current meaning (or at at least my inference of the meaning via context) of the word 'existentialism' is something like contemplating your own existence. But Sartre's ideology is actually quite different, and much less pleasant (in my opinion anyway).in this 40 page lecture (excluding the questioner in the end and the pretty lengthy introduction) Sartre tries to accurately convey the concept of existentialism and correct common misconceptions and most importantly defend it against the numerous backlash it got. people viewed it as a very pessimistic and cruel view. and cruel it may be but pessimistic it is not. it's probably the exact opposite.the existentialist sees no evidence of the existence of god, and no clear cut signs for morality, and no universal human guidance and says that man is free. free to chose, the existentialist views the absence of god as disappointing and embarrassing and finds him self without excuses or guidance, the existentialist believes that man is condemned to be free, with the whole weight of responsibility of his own actions, in face the existentialist believes that when one chooses something for himself he choses it for the whole of mankind, and therefor man is always in anguish over the perplexity and responsibility.(I just found a note I wrote next to the line which I found most interesting and poetic "man is condemned to be free" my note said "this freedom refers to loss, the loss of boundaries and by boundaries I think what is meant is guidance and justification, and that's completely true")and now I'm going to mention things that I did not like about this specific ideology:-the existentialist believes that man is born with his existence preceding his essence, meaning there is no human nature and man makes what he makes of him self "there is no human nature because there is no god to have a conception of it" and regardless of wether or not you believe in god human nature is a result of years of evolution of inherited genetic codings that do make a huge difference in a person's actions and preferences. - that if man belongs to a certain religion then "registration is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence a commitment on behalf of all mankind" or if he were to get married then he is "thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy" and I think this sounds ridiculous to a lot of people mostly because we are not a race that is ever truly sure of the correctness of our choices for the exact same reason that he himself noted before, we dont have any guidance, not a universal one at least. but that does not mean that we do not have a human nature, but human nature only serves as instincts, a disposition and desires. and this attitude assumes a certain certainty that no honest man has and should definitely not prevail upon others.-man is nothing else but the sum of his actions and what his life is "man commits himself, draws his own portrait, and there is nothing else but that portrait" although I whole heartedly believe the whole of the human race would evolve immensely in every aspect if we all followed the ideology that we are nothing but the sum of our actions and that our actions effect the whole of mankind I just dont agree with most of this. this assumes that man only exists in relation to his community. and that his existence is only what he gives and what he is remembered by and that is not only a terrible thing to hear but is simply untrue. for one thing there is no concrete evidence that everyone could uphold that proves the specific importance of being remembered or contributing to your society. but the pursuit of joy and happiness and even momentary pleasure seems to be pretty universal. I really dont want to be a part of a human society that only exists to make and achieve more, that is probably an even more miserable one. man exists within himself and his experiences matter very much if only to himself but most importantly to him self, and I don't know, loving somebody is much more important (to me and to a lot of people and that is the point, understanding human variety) than drawing your portrait or the sum of your actions.-another thing that seems to be implied, and I don't know if i misunderstood this, is the complete denial of the effect of heredity and life experiences (nature AND nurture, wow) on a person's actions and only cowards and 'self deceivers' take those as an excuse to not do something. and that the human will is everything.well, I dont know, yes the human will could maybe overcome both nature and nurture, it has in the past, but it's just very unfair to completely dismiss someone's difficulties and equate them with someone perfectly gifted and privileged. people are complex, undeniable combinations of nature, nurture AND will power. and its unfair, ignorant, and cruel to assume that everyone has the same chances to preform a certain task. lastly, existentialism is a very interesting and accomplished ideology that offers many great realistic and optimistic points, like this personal favorite "if, however, it means that whatever man may now appear to be, there is a future to be fashioned, a virgin future that awaits him---then it is a true saying. but in the present one is forsaken"and some fairly noble pursuits that understands the humility of mankind and has pretty big hopes for it. but I think maybe it truly underestimated the great and undeniable power of feelings.(skip to page 66 for relation between existentialism and humanism)

  • Zahra Ali
    2019-02-22 05:34

    يرد جان بول سارتر في كتابه على اتهامات موجهة للوجودية ليثبت أنها ليست فلسفة تأمل وسكون لأنها تدفع الإنسان لما يريد أن يفعله بوعيه هو كإنسان فرد يدخل ضمنه عدّة ذوات , يثبت أيضًا إنها ليست متشائمة وبائسة كما يصفها أعداءهم بل على العكس فهم يغلبون جانب العمل على الأمل لكي يتّقو شرّ الأمل و الأحلام إن رأو النتائج , فعندما تعوّل على الأمل تقل إنتاجيّة العمل و في الأخير لن ترى سوى أضغاث أحلامك أيها البائس الفقير , في أحد الجوانب يتهم الآخرون الوجودية بأنها تتحيز للذات و الأنا الأنانية و يفسّر سارتر معنى أن يكون قد بدأ القول بالذاتية في فلسفتهم , ذلك لأسباب فلسفية وليس هذا يعني إنهم برجوازيون بل لأنهم يريدون أن يؤسسوا منهجم على طريقة حقيقية واقعية بعيدًا عن النظريات الجميلة المليئة بالأمل و الخالية من الأسس الحقيقية سارتر يؤمن بالحقيقة المطلقة فلا مـآل لمبدأ الإحتمال عنده , الحقيقة بالنسبة إليه سهلة بسيطة وموجدة من خلالها يدرك الإنسان ذاتهودائمـًا ما يعلل ويستشهد بمقولة " أنا أفكّر إذًا أنا موجود " . إنّ المبدأ الأساسي الذي تستند إليه الوجودية هو أن الوجود سابق على الماهيّة , أو أنّ الذاتية تبدأ أوّلًا .. أتساءل و أنا أقرأ لسارتر هل المذهب الوجودي مصرّح للجميع لكي يعتنقه ..! إذ إنّ الحقيقة التي يحملها الفرد لا تخلو من اثنين إمّا حقيقة مطلقة لا جدال فيها و لا يختلف عليها أحد و إمّا حقيقة نسبية متشكّله مما استقرّ في اللاوعي من معتقدات و مورّثات مترسبة من المحيط ومهما تداعى الإنسان بأنه تحرر من هذا القيدلن يستطيع أن يتحرر منه كليًّا , و بالتالي كيف يبتدع مثُله بمعونة من الوعي الذي يخوله لذلك ..!مما ورد على لسان سارتر عندما كان يدافع عن الوجودية و كأنّه يرد على سؤالي هذا (( إذا سلّمنا إنّ العالم الموضوعي , عالم الإحتمالات هو عالم واحد , فلا يكون لدينا عندئذ سوى عالم الإحتمالات هذا , وفي هذه الحالة من أين يأتي اليقين إذا كان الإحتمال يستند إلى تحصيلنا لبعض الحقائق ؟! لكن ذاتيّتنا تتيح لنا مع ذلك الحصول على عدد من الحقائق اليقينية )) ..!هل يظن سارتر إنّ الجميع لديهم قدرة الحصول على هذه الحقائق اليقينية مثلما يستطيع هو والفلاسفة الوجوديين أمثاله ..!!كان قد قال في بداية كتابه هذا (( إنما هي فلسفة لا يتقنها سوى المشتغلون في تدريسها , والفلاسفة المعنيون بها )) ..لهذا أظنّ في الأخير إنّه مذهب يليق بطبقة معيّنة من الكتّاب والمفكرين و الفلاسفة ..! هذه بعض الإقتباسات مما ورد في الكتاب ::* إنّ الوجوديّة فلسفة متفائلة لأنها في صميمها تضع الإنسان مواجهـًا لذاته .. حرًّا , يختار لتفسه مايشاء .* إنّ الإنسان يوجد ثمّ يريد أن يكون , ويكون ما يريد أن يكونه بعد القفزة التي يقفزها إلى الوجود . * الإنسان ليس سوى ما يصنعه هو بنفسه .* إنّ الإنسان لن يحقق لنفسه الوجود , ولن يناله , إلا بعد أن يكون ما يهدف إليه ما يكونه , وليس ما يرغب أن يكونه , لأنه ما نفهمه عادة من الرغبة أو الإرادة , هو أنها قرار واع نتخذه غالبا بعد أن نكون قد صنعنا أنفسنا على ما نحن عليه , فقد أرغب أن أنضم إلى حزب من الأحزاب أو أن أكتب كتاباً, أو أن أتزوج , لكن في حالة كهذه فإن ما يسمى عادة باسم إرادتي إن هو إلا الممارسة الطبيعية لقرار مسبق اتّخذته عفوًا , فإذا كان الوجود حقيقة أسبق على الماهية فالإنسان مسؤول عما هو عليه .وإذن تكون أوّل آثار الوجودية المترتبة على ذلك هي وضعها " كل فرد وصي على نفسه مسئولا عما هي عليه مسئولية كاملة " .*يؤمن الوجودي أن الإنسان مسئول عن كل مايصدر عنه عن عاطفة , وأنه لا يمكن أن ينسب ما يصدر عنه إلى غيبيات توحى إليه وإنما هو الذي يفسر ويؤول هذه الغيبيات كما يحلو له ويروقه , وهو يؤمن أن كل فرد محكوم عليه دون أيّة مساعدة تلقى إليه أو ممونة تقدم له , محكوم عليه أن يبدع الإنسان الذي هو نفسه . *إنّ الإنسان ليس إلا مشروع الوجود الذي يتصوره , ووجوده هو مجموع ما حققه , وهو نفسه ليس إلا مجموع أفعاله وهو حياته .* إنّ الإنسان ليس سوى سلسلة مشاريع , وهو مجموع ومنظم وحاصل العلاقات التي تكوّن هذه المشاريع .*الكاتب الوجودي يقول أن الجبان يجعل نفسه جبانًا والبطل يتصرف تصرف الأبطال , لكن الجبان يستطيع أن ينبذ جبنه , و البطل يستطيع أن يتخلى عن بطولته إنّما المهم تصرفك العام , التزامك العام فلا يمكن أن نحكم عليك بالجبن أو البطولة من عمل واحد أو حالة واحدة .

  • Elvin
    2019-03-08 09:03

    Varoluşçuluk insanı eylemle tanımlar, davranışla yargılar. Varoluşçuluğa göre varoluş özden önce gelir. Descartes’in cogito’sunu benimseyen varoluşçuluk, insanın kendini anlaması ve özünü bilmesi gerektiğini savunur. İnsan işaretleri yorumlarken, taşıdıkları anlamları seçerken tek başınadır. ''İnsan özgür olmaya mahkumdur.''Sartre, bu kitapta varoluşçuluğun ne olduğunu, yöneltilen eleştirileri ve ne olmadığını kısaca açıklıyor. Varoluşçuluğu kavramak için güzel bir kitap.

  • عبدالرحمن
    2019-03-10 10:58

    لطالما سألت نفسي عن معنى الوجودية وما الذي يجعل رواية معينة أو مسرحية معينة وجودية. ولماذا تعد الوجودية اتهام عند بعض الناس. ولما كان سارتر أحد آباء الوجودية اتخذت كتابه هذا دليلًا يقودني، فما أشبع ظمأي في معرفتها. غير أنه عرفني أن أغلب الوجوديين يتعاملون مع الإله على أنه فكرة تقبل وترفض. كما أن سارتر أعلن بشكل واضح عدم اعتقاده بإله. يتكون الكتاب من جزء عبارة عن محاضرة ألقاها بول سارتر يشرح فيها فلسفته الوجودية، والجزء الآخر إجابات عن أسئلة وجهت إليه من أحد الماركسيين.

  • Philippe Malzieu
    2019-03-14 10:03

    It is the rosebud of sartre. A conference given in front of a hétérogenous people which he wants to seduce. An assembly very hype like at a seminars of Lacan. There is a certain imposture has to associate humanism and existentialism. This last is naturally individualistic whereas the humanism is a collective project. Manages he to bring closer these two terms. I do not believe. And there is already this obsession to sermonizer. Sartre takes for example the german occupation and the choice of Resistance. He allots the epithet of coward and bastards. However Sartre did not suffer from occupation. His play "The flys" was presented in 1943 with agreement of the German censure.Curiosly, Sartre did everything so that this text wass occulted. When I was at high-school, we could get it only at Swiss Nagel editor without agreement of Sartre. The version proposed here carefully is re-examined and commented on by his daughter.At least, he often quotes Heidegger. In fact the great regret of Sartre is not to be Heidegger. That with undoubtedly thorough with all dogmatic excesses which discredited him. The greatest philosopher of after war is Heidegger.