Anyone familiar with the work of John Paul Sartre, (a French existentialist often quoted)?

[grahamg]

I read a fictional book yesterday where the work of the philosopher John Paul Sartre (an existentialist they tell me), was quoted as having some quite disturbing ideas on the subject of "love", (it doesn't exist for example, if he's been correctly quoted in this book of fiction?).
Quote:
"For Sartre, the joy of love is when we feel secure in our possession of one another and find the meaning of our lives in and through the other person. The problem is that this is just an illusion. There is nothing at all secure about romantic love."

I find this idea hard to accept I must say, though I've really no idea what he might have meant beyond the few words quoted, such as why he might have suggested such things(?).

 

[Pepper]

I prefer Simone de Beauvoir. Read "She Came to Stay" which explains Sartre's ideas of love by describing his actions.

 

[oldlongwalker]

His view of love is wound up with his idea of freedom. All humans are completely free. But when we come into contact with others, our freedom is at risk. The problem is that others see us in a way that we cannot see ourself. This leads to self-alienation. In a relationship of love we try to be the way the other person want us to be. He calls that acting in "bad faith" because we aren't being true to ourselves. This never ends well. Hence, his view that love is doomed.

 

[George1959]

Re

Hence, his view that love is doomed.

Is Sartre right? What do you think?

 

[Jamala]

I lost interest in Sartre while at University when he said “existentialism and Marxism are compatible, even complementary.”

Regarding love he argues that loving relationships are doomed to fail…maybe that’s why he and Simone de Beauvoir remained for so many years in an open relationship.

 

[Sunny]

Sounds like the concept of love that a very young person might have. I wonder how old Sartre was when he wrote that. (Of course, he was way off the mark. We don't, or shouldn't want to,"possess" other people, and the meaning of life should never come from another person.)

 

[oldlongwalker]

Re

Is Sartre right? What do you think?

My general view is that I don't see Sartre's Existentialism as fundamental in a philosophical sense. It is more like psychology. Given that, it has some interesting things to say about relationships. There certainly are power struggles. But he thinks self-sacrifice and doing something for the sake of the other person's happiness is acting in bad faith. I can't agree with that.

 

[Gaer]

In my opinion Existentialism is ignorant and incomplete, fragmented thought.
In the relative, thoughts and values change according to time, surroundings
and circumstances. Psychological opinion, and Wrong thinking comes from this.

 

[oldlongwalker]

In my opinion Existentialism is ignorant and incomplete, fragmented thought.
In the relative, thoughts and values change according to time, surroundings
and circumstances. Psychological opinion, and Wrong thinking comes from this.

Camus had some insightful thoughts:

“Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable.”

“The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.”

 

[grahamg]

Many thanks to all posting on this thread, I'll try to print out your comments and pass them to the group at our local library where I read the work of fiction, (all of us reading this same book mentioned in the OP).

 

[grahamg]

I indicated in the OP I was quoting from a book of fiction containing a brief mention of Sartre's views on love, (or "romantic love"), and hope I conveyed the impression I may not have been given a fair account of his views.

These passages indicate there may be some confusion, quote:
"Sartre claims that his statement “hell is other people” has been commonly misunderstood. In his words:

It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned, that they are invariably hellish relations. But what I really mean is something totally different. I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated [i.e., corrupted], then that other person can only be hell."

If my relations are bad, I am situating myself in a total dependence on someone else. And then I am indeed in hell. And there are a vast number of people in the world who are in hell because they are too dependent on the judgment of other people. But that does not at all mean that one cannot have relations with other people. It simply brings out the capital importance of all other people for each one of us."

Comment:
"According to Sartre, other people’s judgments invariably enter into our thoughts and feelings about ourselves. This isn’t bad in itself, for without these judgments we couldn’t truly know ourselves. What’s bad is when we allow ourselves to become overly dependent on the opinions of other people. This leads to those people being “hell” for us. But although other people can be hell for us (if we relate to them in this way), they needn’t be (if we don’t)."

Sartre continued to think about relationships. In a 1971 interview, when asked about his statement that “hell is other people,” he responds:

"But that’s only that side of the coin. The other side, which no one seems to mention, is also “Heaven is each other.” … Hell is separateness, uncommunicability, self-centeredness, lust for power, for riches, for fame. Heaven, on the other hand, is very simple—and very hard: caring about your fellow beings."

“Hell Is Other People”: Sartre on Personal Relationships – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (1000wordphilosophy.com)

 

[oldlongwalker]

I indicated in the OP I was quoting from a book of fiction containing a brief mention of Sartre's views on love, (or "romantic love"), and hope I conveyed the impression I may not have been given a fair account of his views.

These passages indicate there may be some confusion, quote:
"Sartre claims that his statement “hell is other people” has been commonly misunderstood. In his words:

It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned, that they are invariably hellish relations. But what I really mean is something totally different. I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated [i.e., corrupted], then that other person can only be hell."

If my relations are bad, I am situating myself in a total dependence on someone else. And then I am indeed in hell. And there are a vast number of people in the world who are in hell because they are too dependent on the judgment of other people. But that does not at all mean that one cannot have relations with other people. It simply brings out the capital importance of all other people for each one of us."

Comment:
"According to Sartre, other people’s judgments invariably enter into our thoughts and feelings about ourselves. This isn’t bad in itself, for without these judgments we couldn’t truly know ourselves. What’s bad is when we allow ourselves to become overly dependent on the opinions of other people. This leads to those people being “hell” for us. But although other people can be hell for us (if we relate to them in this way), they needn’t be (if we don’t)."

Sartre continued to think about relationships. In a 1971 interview, when asked about his statement that “hell is other people,” he responds:

"But that’s only that side of the coin. The other side, which no one seems to mention, is also “Heaven is each other.” … Hell is separateness, uncommunicability, self-centeredness, lust for power, for riches, for fame. Heaven, on the other hand, is very simple—and very hard: caring about your fellow beings."

“Hell Is Other People”: Sartre on Personal Relationships – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology (1000wordphilosophy.com)

From the article you cite:
"How does this conditional reading of “hell is other people” fit with Sartre’s pessimistic account of relationships in Being and Nothingness? The key to answering this question lies in a footnote at the end of his discussion of human relationships:

These considerations do not exclude the possibility of an ethics of deliverance and salvation. But this can be achieved only after a radical conversion which we can not discuss here.[8]"

Sartre is being his own revisionist. When the entire view he is now proposing rests on a single footnote that he leaves undiscussed, that does nothing to alter the lengthy discussion of the topic in the body of the text.

 

[grahamg]

From the article you cite: "How does this conditional reading of “hell is other people” fit with Sartre’s pessimistic account of relationships in Being and Nothingness? The key to answering this question lies in a footnote at the end of his discussion of human relationships:
These considerations do not exclude the possibility of an ethics of deliverance and salvation. But this can be achieved only after a radical conversion which we can not discuss here.[8]"
Sartre is being his own revisionist. When the entire view he is now proposing rests on a single footnote that he leaves undiscussed, that does nothing to alter the lengthy discussion of the topic in the body of the text.

I dont wish to defend Sartre, not least because I know so little about him and his thinking, and strongly object to the idea "love" does not exist for example.
However I can acknowledge there is an element of self delusion or wishful thinking involved when we start to think we love someone, and of course anyone "let down in love", (to use an old fashioned phrase), must probably admit the partner who chose to leave may not have loved them, and maybe used psychological techniques to convince them they once did, (and said they did).

Another thought crosses my mind too, and it is the difficulty there is when anyone attempts to define what love might be, (or redefine the meaning of the word love).
Our UK family courts shy away from using the word at all, and neither does any law concerning the family mention the word, and those going to our family court may be told not to mention the word love in relation to their children for fear the courts will feel they are being overly sentimental, (or something like that). Not so the courts in some US states I believe, and how anyone denying one person loved another, (or their child) might go on should they quote Sartre saying it doesn't exist boggles the mind! ).

 

[grahamg]

Another recent thread mentions yet another French existentialist philosopher, this one called Albert Camus, (who I'd not heard of before)>

His views seem more in tune with my own though, quote:
"Love is not just a confrontation with the absurdity of the world; it is a refusal to be broken by it. It is one of the ways we can each of us be stronger than our rocks. There is nothing we can do to change the constraints of our existence."

“The act of love… is a confession. Selfishness screams aloud, vanity shows off, or else true generosity reveals itself.”

"I know of only one duty, and that is to love"

Albert Camus once said "We always deceive ourselves twice about the people we love. First to their advantage and then to their disadvantage"

What did he mean:
What were Albert Camus' thoughts about love? - Quora

Quote: "I think that he means we do not face the truth about those we feel a lot for.
First we may think of them as better or more needy than they actually are, so we either regard them too well, given them too much benefit of doubt, or even sacrifice of ourselves for their pleasure and wellbeing - to their advantage.
But then by doing so we may hold them back from becoming better, since they may not be driven to acknowledge and improve on their flaws, but instead continue being dependent on us to cover for their laziness, or their already often taking us for granted.
This then is ultimately to their disadvantage."

 

[oldlongwalker]

Glad you are enjoying Camus. Stylisitically he is more like Nietzsche. He doesn't do academic philosophy like Sartre. He is also much more positive. Read The Myth of Sisyphus.

 

[Pepper]

I'm partial to The Stranger by Camus. Barely remember it, just remember I read it more than once. My top favorite is anything by Kafka and/or de Beauvoir.

 

[grahamg]

Glad you are enjoying Camus. Stylisitically he is more like Nietzsche. He doesn't do academic philosophy like Sartre. He is also much more positive. Read The Myth of Sisyphus.

I suppose we should remember, influential thinkers those these luminary philosophers might be, they remain human beings capable of error in their own thinking, and not necessarily able to make comments over throwing all previous human thought, (or be accepted as such).

 

[Victor]

I know Sartre. Confusing, inconsistent, brilliant, screwy.
One good rule--do not assume that a character is Sartre himself talking. Or any author.
Except in Nausea (a bad title) he said that he was Roquentin, the main character.
I can answer questions if you PM me.
Regarding ideas on love, in theory at least, it is doomed to "fail", like all inauthentic projects
in bad faith when we are dishonest with ourselves..
In everyday life, thats another story

 

[grahamg]

I know Sartre. Confusing, inconsistent, brilliant, screwy. One good rule--do not assume that a character is Sartre himself talking. Or any author.
Except in Nausea (a bad title) he said that he was Roquentin, the main character. I can answer questions if you PM me.
Regarding ideas on love, in theory at least, it is doomed to "fail", like all inauthentic projects in bad faith when we are dishonest with ourselves..
In everyday life, thats another story

Very kind of you to offer to assist me, (I've got other matters occupying me at the moment but will come back to you if I need to discover more about Sartre).
As you've framed his views concerning love there isn't really too much to object to I feel, though oddly enough I'd suggest marrying for love, even if we've deluded ourselves somewhat, (or been encouraged to delude ourselves as to our partner's feelings), is a good few stages better than ever countenancing the idea of marrying someone we knew we didn't love, or vice versa.