Jean-Paul Sartre: Being and Nothingness - The Pursuit of Being

[@LANCSKID]

How refreshing to have finally discovered an intelligent, sensible and altogether cohesive approach to Sartre’s major work. No silly cartoons, no silly voiceovers, but a much appreciated level of serious insight.

[@robsamartino71]

Thank you very much!

[@kevinbacon1078]

I greatly appreciate the time and effort that goes into creating this content. It’s not a simple or easily explained topic but for those who are interested it is very helpful to have additional commentary to guide and encourage reading and understanding the text.

[@robsamartino71]

Thank you!

[@sambennett8852]

Awesome videos man! It can't be easy to be concise when talking about Sartres abstract philosophy but I think you've found the perfect balance of making his work more accessible without wasting any words/time. Keep up the great work!

[@robsamartino71]

Sam Bennett Thank you, I have a long way to go on this playlist!

[@alantan3541]

Thank you very much! The text itself was so confusing that I have to find a mentor to explain it to me.

[@robsamartino71]

alan tan thank you!

[@Navenanthen]

"Consciousness is born by a being which is not itself."

[@nupursethi4123]

I loved your video. I am not a student of philosophy. But, I am interested in Philosophy. I need to study in depth the concept of « being ». Could you please help me how to go for it, from where to start. Please! Can you make a video on what a being is composed of......consciousness, experience, existence, world, nothingness...... etc.

[@robsamartino71]

Thank you Nupur, I have something along those lines in mind. Being is the most difficult concept in some ways. We grasp it on many levels and in some ways it perpetually escapes us. Being encapsulates all that is, but this is so broad that we are left with nothing specific. Normally we understand concepts in relation to other concepts, with being we cannot quite do that, we have to apprehend it against nothingness.

[@nupursethi9475]

@@robsamartino71 I am glad to receive your reply sir. I completely agree to what you are saying and I am experiencing the same difficulty by researching on it and not able.to find a concrete answer. But, will absolutely take into consideration your kind suggestion and hope to grasp it a day...:) lots of love to you !!! Please dont stop making videos on such ambiguous philosophical concepts....! :)

[@alexcardoza5660]

I just started reading Being and Nothingness and had trouble getting through the first chapter already. I’ve always had a passion for philosophy but it’s not always easy to read. Your video helped a lot. If you have any tips that would help me in my own reading of B&N please let me know!

[@robsamartino71]

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

[@Navenanthen]

Mm.. What meaning or essence do objects that are of no immediate use to us have? F.ex., the sea, the trees, etc. And, is it the reflexive consciousness that makes an existent appear as an object?

[@robsamartino71]

I just noticed this comment, my apologies. Objects that have no immediate use to us are not recognized as such. It is the reflective consciousness that posits an object, hence 'existence precedes essence'. The sea, or the trees, are most often seen as the ground on which objects appear upon. However, Sartre uses the word 'This,' and 'Thises' as a way of referring to objects in a figure/ground relationship independent of the reflective consciousness (non-thetic). One can make an object out of the sea, or out of the trees, thereby recognizing them within a larger situation of which its reflective meaning as 'the trees' or 'the sea' is necessary. Suppose you are thirsty and you see a glass of water on a table in your kitchen. The glass of water is a 'This' on the ground of table/kitchen. To the reflective consciousness, it is a 'glass of water', to the nonthetic or non-reflective consciousness it is 'something to drink.' It is surpassed towards the end of quenching my thirst; existence precedes its essence. It exists as something to pick up, raise, and pour into my mouth. To my non-reflective consciousness, its being is surpassed towards the end of drinking.

[@roset7494]

Thank you for these videos. How is a hammer different to a paper knife? If both have been crafted for their particular purpose, then, for both, mustn't their essence precede their existence? I am fairly new to Sartre, so I'm hoping you can help me clarify this.

[@robsamartino71]

Sorry for the late reply! Yes you are correct, a hammer and a knife are both examples of nothingness. They are defined by their use, not for what they are in themselves. They are examples of nothingness-examples of human reality.

[@shaggyrandy1264]

Good description of a bad trip

[@jimauch94]

Would it be correct to say that Sartre thinks the opposite of Descarte. I think therfore I am vs I am therefore I think?

[@robsamartino71]

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

[@shaggyrandy1264]

Is a work-in-progress a definition?

[@rickmarlow3389]

May I ask where you have studied and where you teach?

[@robsamartino71]

In my bedroom and in my bedroom

[@fernandoorozco5968]

like to learn more please

[@shaggyrandy1264]

Sorry man but it's postmodern ism