I'm having trouble understand the criticisms of this essay. His completely right isn't he?

Have you read Heidegger's response to this letter? That was a pretty good one.

I hope you find Jesus in your heart, user.

/thread on your own post is faggotry

love philosophy but have a hard time digesting philosophical texts. read it and reading what other people have said about it.

doesn't he reject humanism altogether. I say this because I've been reading Fanon's humanism.

You should read Heidegger's response to Sartre's claims. If you "have a hard time digesting philosophical texts" you shouldn't bother reading them at all, unless you want to improve.

luchte.wordpress.com/heideggers-letter-on-humanism-a-reading/ I've already read it but I'm reading this to get a better grip.

Heidegger, in the Letter on Humanism, gives both a philosophical and an historical critique of the idea. The philosophical aspect of the argument is that, as a normative ethics and/or political philosophy, humanism depends on idealizing an aspect of man's nature at the cost of the totality, and that all existing humanisms are therefore incomplete. Heidegger entertains the idea of a revived humanism, but holds that it would have to be grounded in a proper philosophy of man. The historical critique takes up more of the discussion, but it's worth a read.

Reiterating what Sartre said. In fact the text is a response to people critizicing the first fact and telling him that existentialism is for crybabys with no hope.
He also adresses some points in that we should think all our actions in a "what if the whole world acted this way?" scenario. He then correctes himself by talking about scenarios in which that doesn't apply like choosing cakes and shit.
Also if you're having trouble with this then I suggest you to read it again because is one of the most simple philosophers out there.

nah I'm fine with this text. it's the criticisms of it I'm having trouble finding/understanding (namely Heidegger)
this helped alot.

>it's the criticisms of it I'm having trouble finding/understanding (namely Heidegger)
What don't you understand about Heidegger's critique?

can't get around the language. don't even know what's being said. feel so dumb.

His whole "when you act for yourself you act for all of humanity" thing is garbage--it's like someone who had only a basic acquaintance with philosophy tried to write down the categorical imperative from memory, and then this flawed recollection was watered down to meaninglessness.

Secondly, the fundamental thesis of existentialism a la Sartre is "existence precedes essence". But who says essence ever 'arrives'?

> But who says essence ever 'arrives'?
what do you mean by this?

the statement "existence precedes essence" seems to say that at some point humans do *gain* an essence even though they didn't have it to begin with. But why should we believe that humans do ever gain an essence?

>Christina Hendricks
Nice professor

I hope you find Cthulhu in your heart, user.

Its not saying that the essence ever arrives, simply that existence precedes essence.

Cool thanks! I get it.

idk, sartre and simone banged their students tho so he takes a win in my book

>But who says essence ever 'arrives'?
Literally everyone outside of a few aesthetic traditions. The alternative is to join Parminedes and Zeno in the self-negating pile.

If there's no essence, why are 'you' trying to argue against 'Satre?'

I hope you find Bravonolan (PBUH) in your heart.

youtube.com/watch?v=0j_wfce0WBU

Watch this. Satre's freedom is ill-defined. To perceive is to make the theme of my attention. We percieve the chair and in such perception the world reveals itself to us. Then we perceive a book in the room. But we perceive as a unity. This isn't creative, we are receptive to the world. This is deeper than sartre's freedom. We are condemned to be receptive rather than free.