I was watching porn and found this comment

I was watching porn and found this comment.
Sadly I don't understand it.

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/#2
pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1495400875
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

neither does Sartre, he just capitalized the word "Be" and people thought he was deep and smart

I think it has to do with the fact that to find an essence in something, you first have to exist, and also it depends on where you live (values etc.) what you see as the essence of a certain thing, not sure though and probably 100 ways to interpret this.

Link.

So you came to Veeky Forums for an explanation.

I believe he's basically saying that humans are just animals. They don't exist as souls before they're born. They only get an "essence," which could refer to being, personality, life, until they actually begin to exist.

Go back to Descartes
plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/#2

it means he does not avoid women, though he does deny them his essence.

If you don't get that you won't get this either:

>Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, Monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk

In most of traditional Western metaphysics, essences (or natures) exist independently of the objects that instantiate those essences and those essences determine the nature of their instantiations (the most obvious version of this idea is in Plato, but it is found in many of forms throughout the Western tradition). So, the essence of a triangle (or triangularity) exists independently of specific, concrete triangles and it determines that all triangles must have three sides, etc. This was also taken to be true for humans: there is a human nature, or essence of humanity, that determines what people are like and what is best for them (think of Aristotle's account of human flourishing being determined by human function, in turn determined by human nature). In this sense, essence precedes existence--first, essence exist independently of concretely existing individuals and they shape the natures of those individuals.

Sartre reverses this, at least for human beings. In his view, there is no essence of humanity independently of human existence and action--people exist first and then are radically free to create their own nature through their choices and actions. There is no prior essence of humanity that determines how one does and should live. Rather, each individual shapes their own nature through their free action.

I don't know but it has something to do with '''''''''''choice'''''''''''

Just read Existentialism is a Humanism, my dude.

for a board that likes to fling shit at Sartre you guys don't even have a basic understanding of his principal philosophy.
This guy covers it mostly.

Existentialism and Human Emotions probably covers it mostly thoroughly in the shortest page count.

Essentially, before anything can be prescribed a definition or a label or a role in the world, it simply is. This applies to everything.
A chair is not a chair, it's an arrangement of pieces of wood. It's convenient for sitting, but the arrangement of wood does not acknowledge "sitting" or even humans. The upright position of the chair is also not part of the chair's existential composition. Nor is even the idea of chairs, it simply is what it is, singularly, and nothing more.
It's existence(wooden structure) precedes it's essence(upright "chair" meant for people to sit on) because the essence is applied to the existing thing.

apply that concept to your life and it's less mundane.

Holy fuck I thought you people read.

There are no real barriers to posting on Veeky Forums. It is damn disappointing compared to years ago though.

Things "are", everything else is an attempt to understand/describe it.

Good try, but no it goes a fair bit deeper than that.

why isn't existence essence?

Look up theories of real and rational distinction.

holy shit just read his work.

It basically denotes a mixture of "#YOLO" and "LOL, JUST DO WAT U WANT".

Which is actually an accurate summary of french existentialism. Heidegger and Kierkegaard are the real niggas.

Oh jesus the Sartre porn hub guy. I found him a few years back, he posts excerpts from No Exit in the comments of random porn vids. He's totally broses this board

he is speaking of materialism and it's baseness

How can we understand the comment unless we know to which video it was a comment?

it is probably sasha being facefucked again and saying something stupid and putrefactive about the pop philosophy Wikipedia page she's just read

what are some other good babbys first existentialism books after existentialism is a humanism? it's a really good book

Most of Sartre and Camus.

No Exit and Nausea

>Implying existence exists

It's an inversion of the Platonist idea that essence precedes being. If being precedes essence there is no inherent meaning to anything until you decide what that meaning is.

But where does this existence-ness proceed from?

No it isn't. The various theories of forms are not only way more subtle than that, the essence preceding existence thing was about in the medieval philosophies prior to a good translation of the republic. Really, look up Aquinas on this shit and you'll see you're thinking this is like a debate had best part of a millenium prior.

Even if they did, reading and comprehending are not the same.

...

Wasn't this supposed to be about Hegel's dialectics?

Yeah it is, although "classical" is probably a better word than "Platonic" since he go into the hierarchy of forms, just the issue of essence and being. And Aquinas talking about it in the 1200s doesn't preclude Sartre from talking about it in the 1900s.

Heard this one in a Zizek lecture

Yea, but something about thesis and athesis and all that shit idk I'm tired.

This is not hegel.

...

All I got out of this was that people don't fucking listen when you talk

Kek
Idg that one

I like this explanation.

>And Aquinas talking about it in the 1200s doesn't preclude Sartre from talking about it in the 1900s.
Look, most of these things have a level of interpretation right? What I'm saying is that you lack background and are hoping it's simpler than it is. It isn't, or at least it isn't massively convincing. You're also slightly overcomplicating it in other ways at the same time.

Platonic forms are neither essence nor being, and Republic isn't the only book that covers them either. Your hunch that they're all related is correct though, so well done, you have some good instincts. This isn't simple shit, you've done pretty well tbqh, but you can't sub instinct for reading.

Aquinas wouldn't have been able to ever read the Republic, he's alive just as Aristotle is majorly being translated (in many ways Aristotle is more relevant to this) along with a couple of other of Plato's dialogues, but Republic is done in the 15th C and Aquinas is dead in the 13th. The Platonic forms of that period would have been derived from Timaeus, which is to say all things are conscious of themselves (roughly speaking).

Don't get too stuck on the cave allegory, it happens to fit the enlightenment narrative. It is kind of relevant to Descartes though, and he wrote quite a lot on this. I would suggest that you check it out since it's a couple of steps closer to what Sartre is going on about.

Read "Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction", it might be a little Sartre-heavy, but it really is an excellent introduction.

Here is the sauce:
pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=1495400875
plz no ban

Production quality is too high for my taste, only homemade porn deserves existential thought.