being closer than is often portrayed in the literature. One reason I think that such a comparison has proved so difficult in the past is the continuing strength of the polemics between humanism and structuralism, which, at least in the English literature
A Defense of Lacanian Responsibility
In my book, Sartre’s Anthropology as a Hermeneutics of Praxis (1998), I characterise the standpoint of the later Sartre – initially developed in Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960, hereafter CDR) – as a ‘hermeneutics of praxis’. The primary aim is reconstructive: by means of generalising Sartre’s conception in a certain direction I hope to be able, so to speak, ‘to go beyond Sartre by means of Sartre’. This implies both emphasising the strengths and distinguishing the shortcomings of Sartre’s standpoint, but also a serious attempt to develop it. One of my aims here is to work out the options that are opened up by such a generalisation.
It is one of Sartre's greatest strengths that his declared aim was 'to write for his own time'. From the 1940s onward, he became ever less interested in 'timeless' questions, and ever more concerned to explore the concrete realities of his own age. This engagement with the contemporary makes it particularly tempting to consider what Sartre's responses to the events of our own age would be. Ever since his death in 1980, those of us who have drawn insight and inspiration from Sartre's works have tended to ask how Sartre might have judged particular political developments. And because of the central place given to violence in his thought, as well as his detailed reflections on the Second World War and the wars in Algeria and Vietnam, it is only natural to ask how Sartre would have responded to the appalling events of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent 'war on terror'.
Matthew C. Ally
This essay revisits the question of Sartre's method with particular emphasis on the posthumously published Notebooks for an Ethics, Critique of Dialectical Reason (Volume II), and “Morale et histoire.” I argue that Sartre's method—an ever-evolving though never seamless blend of phenomenological description, dialectical analysis, and logical inference—is at once the seed and fruit of his mature ontology of praxis. Free organic praxis, what Sartre more than once calls “the human act,” is neither closed nor integral, but is rather intrinsically open-ended and integrative. Thus a philosophical method that seeks at once to illuminate human experience and human history must itself be both a reflection and inflection of the essential openness and integrativity of praxis itself. In the conclusion, I argue that the openness and integrativity of Sartre's method are its core strengths and the sources of its continued philosophical worth.
Damon Boria, Thomas Meagher, Adrian van den Hoven, and Matthew C. Eshleman
through tenacious grassroots organizing. She found her strength to fight for social justice not simply in virtue of her own personal courage but also from being part of a larger social movement. To be sure, one may quickly reply that Octasio
A Response to Ronald Santoni on Bad Faith
description of the two varieties of faith. Sartre calls ‘good faith’ the attitude that is sensitive to the content of the evidence, but which holds its conclusion with certainty even though this is not warranted by the strength of the evidence. For the
Thomas Meagher and Farhang Erfani
consciousness” of Black people living in the United States. This orientation toward lived political engagement brings a great number of strengths to the work, while at the same introducing certain shortcomings that may require extra effort from the typical
A Sartrean Analysis of Filmic Violence
- assimilates his human dignity to the counterviolence which maintains it. He dignifies the latter with the name of strength . The upright man must be strong; strength is the proof of his right. The reason is simple: if he is defeated, he is subjected to the
John Gillespie, Kyle Shuttleworth, Nik Farrell Fox, and Mike Neary
that accompanies it. Richard Moran of Harvard's appropriately pitched foreword provides background material on Sartre and his context for those less familiar with it, as well as outlining the volume's strengths and weaknesses. He underlines its impact
Matthew C. Eshleman, Eric Hamm, Curtis Sommerlatte, Adrian van den Hoven, Michael Lejman, and Diane Perpich
organization. The strengths of the book lie both in its overall focus and in the strength of the authors who contributed. Churchill and Reynolds’s bold approach is to offer an idea of Sartre through a kind of patchwork examination of various terms and periods