Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism

Support Overthink on Patreon here: / overthinkpodcast
Professor Ellie Anderson, co-host of Overthink philosophy podcast, introduces some key ideas from existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre's 1945 lecture Existentialism is a Humanism.
This video was created just for our KZbin subscribers (thank you for your support!) based on Professor Anderson's Existentialism course at Pomona College.
For more from Dr. Anderson, check out Overthink podcast available on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen (including previous episodes here on KZbin!)
Overthinkpodcast.com

[@antrikshchauhan8741]

Now this is called articulation. Not a word is wasted. She speaks how Bacon used to write.

[@Aman-qr6wi]

Wish we could develop our indian languages to be as articulate as her english. Many can't even speak a hindi sentence without 10 english words. 😭😭

[@entelektuel.yolculuk]

Or how Hegel used to write. Not a single letter is wasted. Or in Kant. Or in İbn Rushd or in Ibn Sina

[@meilstone]

@@Aman-qr6wi That could also be considered an enrichment...

[@Aman-qr6wi]

@@meilstone what? no. We̍ve hindi equivalent for english words, just that it is not taught, used and writing philosophy. I'm not anti-english but hindi is endangered. For example, the hindi word for existentialism is Astitvavāda(अस्तित्ववाद).Infact, sanskrit has high compounding ability to generate new vocabulary like no other language. For example, Hindi has five words for "Phenomenology" like Saṃvṛtiśāstra (संवृतिशास्त्र) , Praghatanāvijñan,(प्रघटनाविज्ञान), Pratibhāsvād(प्रतिभासवाद) Dṛśyaprapaṃcaśāstra(दृश्यप्रपंचशास्त्र) Ghatnāśāstra(घटनाशास्त्र).

[@meilstone2711]

@@Aman-qr6wi By enrichment, I mean one language enriching another through the merging of vocabulary and generation of new terminologies, expressions, and even grammar. I think languages have evolved over the millennia mostly through interaction of people speaking different languages and coming to terms with each other. It still happens today, constantly with most languages. English and Hindi are both Indo-European languages and thus distant relatives anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem to use some words of one language in the sentence of another. ;-)

[@alexmechnik2465]

Can't stop watching these videos, they are excellent. I am getting more and more interested in things that I have always considered too complicated.

[@fredkrissman6527]

Almost 30 yrs ago I went into uni as a philosophy student largely due the Myth of Sisyphus (Camus' Stranger also helped!), and fled the same department after being force-fed the inscrutable tome Being & Nothingness... I went on to by a Cult Anthro prof for 25 yrs, so I don't despair, but DO wish I'd a resource like Overthink to help me figure it all out!

[@pabjdp]

I love your videos! They are simple yet not oversimplified. Thank you!

[@Caspyonce]

I didn’t meet any human beings who can explain some crucial ideas in the good way for perception like you! Thanks

[@GeilerDaddy]

really?

[@denglish5275]

I read Sartre's existentialism is a humanism a long time ago when I was younger and while some things definitely stuck with me most of it I felt I didn't grasp into as much. Hearing this now and being exposed to it again just makes me realize how aligned with his ideology I am.

[@perfectfutures]

Your videos are really helping me to understand philosophers I’ve either heard about or tried reading, thinking I understood. But listening to you, I’m realizing I often missed the point, or at least how they stand in a wider context. Thanks so much, I really appreciate having such a considerate teacher this way.

[@lanmu738]

Thank you so much for opening this channel and sharing your knowledge

[@reidwhitton6248]

I'm currently reading Sarah Bakewell's excellent book, At The Existentialist Cafe. She's a wonderful writer who tells the story of the history of this school of philosophy. Of course its earlier roots go back to the 19th century but existentialism got its wheels when Satre and Beauvoir discovered the writings of Edmund Husserl in the early 1930s by way of introduction from their friend, Raymond Aaron. Husserl is the father of phenomenology.

[@louremjohn5328]

Loving the overthink lectures, gave me a clear point of departure on my studies in philosophy

[@paulpierlott8461]

Wow, I’m excited. You explain it so well. Can’t wait until I listen to more of your videos

[@gee6887]

Professor Ellie, we have the gift to create our own meaning. Thank you

[@taasinbinhossainalvi9173]

You’re a legend. As a Bangladeshi this is a goldmine for me. Your articulation of philosophical concepts are very good. Sorry for the bad English.

[@maxonmendel5757]

your English is perfect

[@acousticmotorbike2118]

Nothing wrong with your English apart from a couple of commas. It's more important to be understood than to be perfect.

[@najifaanjum3324]

Oh yes, the way she talks, hearing that is like reading a textbook and instantly understanding everything.

[@Ericwest1000]

You did it, again, Ellie! I'm deeply impressed by your insights into Sartre's concept of "Existentialism" and its larger implications for human life!

[@7gibbens]

Thankyou so much for making this topic completely understandable. I always shyed away from existentialism thinking it too complex but have followed your other topics with enthusiasm. This too was intelligently and succinctly encapsulated. Brilliant 😃🇦🇺

[@pipersolanas3322]

Again, very precise and educational!

[@arlingtonprintco1086]

Dr Anderson is so intelligent and easy to listen to . I’m grateful that I found this channel

[@fredbongiorno6980]

Love the channel. Keep making videos.

[@alokdi1]

My philosophy teacher!! Thank you!

[@RPSartre01]

Excellent overview - this is one of my favorite books/essay by Sartre.

[@abeguy7981]

Fabulous presentation.. One of the best commentaries on sartre

[@sonya1912]

Thanks for this helpful and fascinating video. I'm foreigner who interested in these studies. It gives me pleasure to watch topics I love and listening to this distinct gorgeous accent. Besides, a speech here is simple that I can understand the main meaning of topic

[@Kmurphyvcom50]

You have an effective and awesome way of conceptually describing and explaining a complex concept while maintaining the particularities of the concepts and language used in the original texts. Wish I had someone like you when I was studying Heidegger in grad school. Would have helped demystify the sheer overwhelming information in his writings. Dr. Sipiora was excellent at quoting the original text, but tended to enjoy the confusion that arose instead of showing a path to reconciling that confusion to improve understanding. Your strength is the bridge that connects information with understanding.

[@DjTahoun]

Thank you Dr. Ellie , i love your videos , Greetings from Egypt 😇

[@anthonyshea6048]

I’m not a philosopher, but I read this lecture and it was amazing !! Big fan of existentialism and your podcast! I appreciated the video, because even though the lecture of was easier to read, it still didn’t completely make sense to the untrained reader. Could you please make a video on what a humanist is?? He gave two definitions and I honestly don’t understand either

[@jacobyocum9785]

I read to the 3rd point and found myself quite lost. Thank you for the simplification.

[@Quidividilake]

Brilliant summary. Instant sub!

[@surajsood1258]

i read this work alone as an undergrad (uni. philosophy curriculum was exclusively analytic, at the time). it's nice that you've created a space for people to learn and engage with your interpretation, here!

[@dylangreyluxe]

As a current undergrad about to graduate - it mostly still is! It can vary from professor to professor, but a majorty of my classes have been.

[@mu.makbarzadeh2831]

Thank you so much!

[@shimaalcarrim7949]

My Philosophy professor was a genius. I never really understood what he was saying. You're the Philosophy Professor of my dreams ❤️

[@fredkrissman6527]

I wonder if your prof's "genius" was in something other than actually teaching his students... I started uni as a philosophy major, shifted to psychology due to the incomprehensibility of the philosopher profs, and finally picked up cultural anth as a second, double, major. Then I went on to an eventual phd in anth, and taught for 25 yrs before retirement. Students had several important criticisms of my teaching, but not understanding what I said was not one of them! No excuse for that IMO.

[@shimaalcarrim7949]

@@fredkrissman6527 I think it was a classic situation where REALLY smart people struggle to relate to slightly more average people. This dude also taught Latin. I'm not very smart but I also can't help feeling like most people are not very smart in general (so I think I'm less likely to be impressed by some joe). In this guys case he spoke really fast & bombarded you with information. I couldn't help feel like I wasn't getting it because he was too sophisticated for me. But I probably would have liked & understood you more 👍🏼 but I also carry a humble admiration for people with superior mental faculties 😕

[@domenictersigni999]

again thanks fellow being for sharing awareness

[@georgepalmer5497]

This helped clarify for me the whole "does being precede essence" question for me.

[@gabrielburgess4981]

YES I loved that book. Short but sweet :)

[@israelbuenrostrosanchez3470]

I´m your fan, such a great videos!. keep on doing your stuff. :-)

[@mikelipschitz7281]

Thanks great lectures .I wonder how Sartres ‘we choose ‘ relates to aspects of neuroscience as it relates to the self .I wonder in general as well the relationship to neuroscience and many of the great philosophers ?

[@markring40]

My favorite video, so far.

[@sensor.mellow]

This channel is so great 🤍💙

[@michaelcollins7192]

Very nicely explained 👌🏻.

[@Krishnendulaha]

Wish these lectures were available when I was doing masters in literature

[@asoulist4829]

Thank you

[@BIKASHKUMAR-gh7cz]

Very helpful. Thanks

[@robinkershaw]

Great video.

[@Apollo_Archives]

“We are the beings for whom things matter” I had heard this idea before and agreed with the notion that meaning is constructed by humans, but something about that just made it click on new level😂. Thanks for these!

[@jsguitargeek1432]

So freaking brilliant... amazing.

[@alberg6290]

excellent as usual-----would love to hear the professor's view of Sartre/Camus split

[@donthurtanyone]

inshaAllah

[@jti107]

fantastic articulation.

[@esdet105]

Good job! Your hair looks great too. Philosophiphile from Antwerp, Belgium.

[@boscoboasdad6562]

Thanks!

[@shaigluskin1225]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@tahirzaman832]

I read the lecture several time time buy could not understand, thank you 😊

[@aayushkhatiwada8468]

Such a strong character.

[@Redrios]

my introduction to existentialism was that big fat Story of Philosophy (1998 edition) by Bryan MaGee, filled with pictures and quotes in huge font size: it's the Scream by Edvard Munch the first time I saw that picture, I was 11? 12? maybe a year later the book came out, and is the one that stuck with me until I was In high school and decided to read Sartre, specifically this text, my philosophy teacher recommended. I still draw that picture first reaction when hearing existencialist/ism

[@Elpensamientoenllamas]

Hi! Your channel is amazing! What you think about the discussion between Sartre and Camus? PS. Greethings from Mexico!

[@alquinn8576]

Al Quinn thinks Camus > Sartre (and Camus's _The Fall_ is his best novel)

[@wolfcake1643]

I love uuuu

[@acousticmotorbike2118]

The Prof is 🔥

[@RogerMillerInVA]

This is my first encounter with this channel, but if I were the Philosophy Department Head at any of the twenty best schools in the world, I'd be writing you letters of love and beseechment. I'm thinking Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Princeton may be in your future. Maybe you're already there, or been there; like I said, first encounter. Either way, you're a born teacher of the highest order.

[@shawnmuench]

ugh I just love Sartre! I got my start on Sartre from Betty Cannon's book on psychotherapy. I'm reading Sartre from the back forward. I don't get the transcendence stuff and the negations etc. But starting from the concrete end of Being and Nothingness seems helpful. I like Sartre because he retains the subject. Heidegger thinks out to our initial relatedness, but I see such thinking as happening already from the subject as lived. ie. I don't "believe" Heidegger goes deeper than Sartre to a more fundamental description of how things are. Maybe I'm making shit up and I apologize. Philosophers are always trying to refer past each other to a more fundamental thing. I get that Heidegger would object to me saying he's doing thinking, but he is. He is thinking about prethinking, which is a simulated idea. Sartre on reflection captures that mechanism more. I'm being careful about recognizing whether Heidegger's pointing to fundamental ontology is acceptable or not. idfk I wish I had real training in philosophy! Someone help

[@michaeldillon3113]

Nice cup 🙂!

[@WestPicoBlvd]

Great presentation, personally I think it absurd existence precedes essentia.; but enjoy understanding his ideas

[@williamkraemer8338]

Is Sartre's "Art and The Banality of Life" a chapter in one of his books? If so, which book. If not, where does it appear?

[@peetthefeet]

There is an argument to say that essence precedes existence for hominoids. But I like the lecture, and the related ones. So thanks.

[@saiganeshmenon2946]

On point

[@Tuxumino]

I listened to this while watching the Lucille Ball and Harpo Marx mirror scene.

[@motimes6727]

You bring joy to the pronunciation of the letter 'S' ... it's proud of you :).

[@Hani.Karimi.8]

it hurts my ears every time she pronounces 'S' 😖

[@RBDawg]

Do you have a class on existential nihilism?

[@Phi1618033]

This may seem like an over simplification, but to me German Idealism was a last ditch effort to save Platonic metaphysics, and existentialism was the first attempt to create a post-Platonic metaphysics. I hope that makes sense.

[@devonashwa7977]

It does but there’s a new metaphysics now

[@vinayarun2287]

Lol definitely not. The rigor of German idealist thinkers destroys Sartrean existentialism. If you align existentialism w/ phenomenologists like Husserl + Heidegger or post-structuralists (which would be false), then I must remind you that those latter thinkers are not trying to create a metaphysics at all

[@joew8438]

As a mathematician, the implications of chaos theory and the butterfly effect have long bothered me when it comes to existentialism and humanism. The presumption Sartre is making that we are choosing amongst our actions based on some ethical framework of the outcomes according to humanism. What if the outcomes aren't predictable? Chaos theory studies large systems of interacting equations, so called non deterministic systems, in which the equations interact with each other in ways that appear random. Very large and complex systems like hurricanes may be chaotic, but also relatively small systems like predator-prey relationships may also exhibit chaotic behavior, meaning that they don't simply oscillate in easily predictable ways. One of the features of a chaotic system is sensitivity to initial conditions. For example one of the early experiments in chaos theory math was in regard to how weather simulations could vary wildly depending on tiny discrepancies in the initial conditions, the initial numbers input into the simulation. That's how we get the term "butterfly effect", the authors concluded the flapping of a butterfly wing could drastically change the course of hurricanes with their weather simulation. The implications for humanism seem at first blush grim, then, because if outcomes are non deterministic, ethical decision making becomes non deterministic. To describe a concrete example, you choose to feed a pigeon. You observe you've made a pigeon briefly happy. Will this pigeon be happier in a day? A month? A year? Will your actions lead to the pigeon staying too long and freezing to death in the coming winter? Or overpopulating and starving next season? What about the predator population, will it be better or worse off in the near or long term? Even when attempting your most humanistic choices, our actions have largely unknowable outcomes, aside from a fairly short window of time. This analysis applies to any chaotic systems, great and small. Bill Gates investing billions in vaccine research, may yield positive short term outcomes but since he's operating in a chaotic system of many competing forces (eg medical research, politics, vaccine hesitancy, human and viral evolution), the long term consequences are non deterministic. This poses quite a quandary I think for humanism. I suppose one solution is religion. If we operate with a set of religious dictates, no idols, obey the Sabbath, then outcomes don't matter as our only ethical framework comes from the religious. Another solution is to embrace the illusion of the now. We can attempt to do good works, and have an illusion that our works are good and having a positive impact on those immediately in our vicinity, but we can never know, in fact we can't be said, to have had a positive impact in the long term. Indeed, the flapping of a butterfly wing has as much impact as Bill Gates' billions in charity. Still, Bill can pretend he's doing something good for a little while. Just to be clear on on one other point, I'm not attempting to describe a nihilistic philosophy. This is mathematics. It's a physical and mathematical consequence of certain non deterministic systems. If it poses a challenge to humanism, that's not a hypothetical presupposition, it's a mathematical property of the system. As you can see, non determinism seems to present certain problems for humanism and existentialism.

[@taku8751]

People think a lot to avoid making choice.

[@robertb1138]

Even if you can differentiate the kinds of actions in good faith / bad faith terms there doesn't seem to be a way to prove that "good faith" or "honesty" is good, but that, if you can buy into the entire Sartrean / existentialist view, that authenticity is what we should want or what is desired. So for all of us to live more authentically would be the ground for "honesty" and "good faith" because we do, in fact, desire it?

[@xaviercrain7336]

It would be great to state how the human condition of Sartre conjoins with Arendt’s

[@MrBelial16]

Great content. I’m truly happy your channel showed up in my feed. 🤍

[@HigherPlanes]

I think one of the biggest things that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our awareness of death.

[@michaelcox8506]

I was wondering how animals fit in to this, as they exist prior to essence as well. The only seeming difference is our position on the food chain. From our perspective, the essence of an animal is their function in an ecosystem (which benefits us) or their direct use to us. (Food, clothing, pets, hunting aid etc) We seem like we are in the same boat as all living organisms in regards to existing first, but since there is not a species above us in the food chain, who would then have power to determine our essence, it seems we are unique.

[@HigherPlanes]

@@michaelcox8506 There are probably a handful of people out there who will argue that we are not the highest on the food chain, and that title is reserved for bacteria. The 100's of different bacteria within our own body alone outnumbers the human population on the planet. Do we serve the bacteria or does the bacteria serve us? The awareness of death is a big one though because it dictates how we structure our lives. I can't recall who it is, but someone once said that everything we do in our daily lives has a direct connection to our awareness that death is coming one day.

[@michaelcox8506]

@@HigherPlanes good thoughts. Sounds like something Ernest Becker said.

[@marshhellow]

The example with the boy, having a moral dilemma. I am questioning it, because of course the usually given moral value cannot do the decision for him, since the moral itself cannot be quantified. Because if you start specifying this situation, which I think is necessary since Satre is talking about the value, which cannot be merely reduced to the moral, it also contains, our rational or pragmatic judgement about values, the context gets a little different. Lets say, of course morally he cannot make the "right" decision, since its morally equal, both to help his mum or to fight for the resistance, so in the end its about the specific condition. His mum is already 90 years old and has been ill for the last 10 years and on the other side his brother has already chosen to fight in the resistance. So now its not merely the moral value which is relevant for his decision making, its also the pragmatic, because yeah if he decidees to help his mum, whether or not, the possibility for surival for his mum wont be high, while the possibility that the war will last longer than eeeeeeeh whawtever I confused myself

[@adriansavastian8774]

Descartes presented it as dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("| doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am") in similar way Sartre try to relfect as existentialism ! Because is this can be controlled by ourselves, we are define by who we are … the mirror of ourselves is described by the action and the way we think.

[@alexandersumarokov5901]

obviously yes

[@SK-le1gm]

action as contrasted with behavior

[@Isimud]

That meme was hilarious lol 😂😂😂

[@TheCommuted]

No parent for society. Growing up without rules. Human sexuality illustrates this point. Socially unsettled. Society may shun, kill or reward sexual behavior depending on where you live. This is puberty disruption rippling out. Human society is just entering puberty. I agree with Sartre on this point. What a logical way for evolution to execute human creation, but also a good way to combine punitive judgment and creation in the same moment. We are made of our choices. I have spiritual experiences that cause me to be skeptical but it must be very close because of the weight of evidence.

[@roshananoor3066]

❤

[@belgees1410]

you are amazing

[@HigherPlanes]

Meaning is subjectively assigned.

[@lane99]

This is good.

[@god8020]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what's the distinction between condition and nature. If l say; it is a fact that humans feel pain, is that describing human condition or nature? Did I come to that conclusion historically?

[@elimaurer9491]

Calculus is my basis for action. I used to be agnostic, and I'm now an atheist - as someone told me that atheism is 'to not consider the question of a higher being'.

[@brokenrecord3523]

There are a lot of ways to interact with KZbin, but this felt like a conversation where I can't interact. Does that mean I don't exist?

[@zahseeh]

Mantap salam dari indo

[@paulasir6471]

The essence of existence/living/born as a human being is to bring out the exact purpose of 'EXISTENCE AS HUMAN' , i may not agree the very existence itself make one human, If we break it even more, bringing up elevated thoughts, purity, and spirituality are some of the HUMAN Aspects - PAUL

[@Jersey-towncrier]

I've increasingly become convinced that existentialism is just another species of empiricism--a species that does more to muddy the waters than to clarify ideas about reality.

[@daveg686]

👍

[@michaeldillon3113]

Was Sartre talking about himself when talking about a boy with choices ? I believe he lived with his mother till he was 48 ?

[@wisedupearly3998]

Existentialism rejects the external morality and replaces it with the need to determine what actions, private and public, are rational and which are irrational. Rationality here is determined by the survival of the individual in the individual's context. Since existentialism is grounded on the individual's existence, and said existence has inestimable value to the individual, existentialism denies self-harming and the harming of others or the environment. This is a far more practical "morality" and is encapsulated in the maxime "Do unto yourself as you would have your loved do unto themselves."

[@edwarbenavidesguerra8451]

so I got really stuck on KAnt, it's like I dont understand the world anymore

[@benahiliojeme8294]

i like her

[@benahiliojeme8294]

or them

[@ZainZain-oh5iq]

Dear teacher, what is the difference between existence and essence ? How can I understand my existence ? Why I am not bother about my hair greying in its process if iam conscious about my essence exist?

[@duongngo602]

Dear stranger, i would like you to imagine a scissor. So before it was created, the maker must imagine all the characteristics of a scissor, like its shape, sharpness, color and especially its use, which is to cut. We call these things "essence". So in a way, we must have these essences in mind before we actually create one i.e "existence". In short, inanimate objects have their essences come before their existence. But humans dont, we exist first and then we create our essence. Thats basically the motto of existentialism "existence precedes essence".

[@ZainZain-oh5iq]

@@duongngo602 we are not strangers, I am in you as you. It is essence of humanity . Do you believe scissors have essence of its creator? Or scissors merely exists bcz of it exists with shape . Can you understand your existence with conscious exist in your existence. Or are you merely a physicality with some physical legs eyes etc... it's time, space duration cannot be controlled with your consciousness. How you feel you have existence, you living on this earth.

[@LeopardKing-im4bm]

We must not use design and nature interchangeably. Inanimate objects can only have a design. They are not conscious or sentient preventing any expression of nature. We are not biologically designed to breath under water like fish. However that does not qualify as a challenge to nature. Our behaviors are guided by a sex drive, pain aversion, social cohesion, and risk management. That is a type of mammalian nature. To make that stretch into a specifically human nature, there must be an exclusive element with us not available to other warm blooded creatures. The very things existentialist think obliterate a nature argument, actually cement it. Imagination, whim, abstraction, and language are the composite seal of a universal human nature. Designed is predetermined, but it does not preclude freedom in conscious beings they way it monopolizes essence in still objects or machinery. With conscious beings, design accomplishes more in structure than it does in operation. Our design sets the parameters of operations it enables, but it does not compel operation. A libido does not compel me to have sex. A hunger drive does not compel me to eat beyond a powerful signal of felt depravation. Our nature is that we are weirdos with an alphabet.

[@brokenrecord3523]

It does seem like that the major criticisms are just fear of choice. So many (the vast majority) just want to be told what to do. (Oddly, these are often people who consider themselves Nietzsche's wolves. 🤷🏻) I was also raised to be compliant. I took the first step a few years ago, after my second divorce, to be honest with myself. It's harder than you think.

[@danjameson1572]

Aquinas, etc.: essence precedes existence.

[@richardrumana5025]

I think you could do a little bit more to point out the contradictions in this essay. (Not repeated S's Philosophical works. I'm not the first to point this out). If you start with human Existence precedes Essence, you are saying that I have nothing in common with others. You can't, then, claim to choose for all Mankind. "Mankind" would be an essentialist term indicating that there is something I share with others. Same with Freedom. I can know that I am free, but how can I know that others are free without knowing something essential about them.

[@MrStifleras]

These glasses remind me of Nicole Kidman in eyes wide shut.

[@canopus78]

😎🤩🤓

[@mac2phin]

Professor Anderson, reading suggestion: In the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch.

[@ralphparker4757]

Ooooo

[@lenny108]

Sartre argues that man is condemned in the sense that we cannot escape from our situation. We are caught by destiny against our will. However, according the law of karma, we are responsible for our karma. Our present destiny is not accidental. We are not accidentally responsible. Karma means we performed either good or bad actions in our past life. Thus we experience either good or bad conditions in our present life. When a man decides to act wrongly and ends up in prison he cannot expect to have a nice living after he was released from prison. He has to come to terms with and tolerate having a lower quality life than someone else who went to college. Sartre's philosophy is not sound.