Ever since Marx, philosophy must lead to action. Otherwise it is irrelevant …. Philosophers must be angry, and, in this world, stay angry. Jean-Paul Sartre (1972) 1 I. The Quarrel On June 30, 1952 Albert Camus sent a seventeen-page letter to the
A Defense of Lacanian Responsibility
period—from the Frankfurt school in Germany to Sartre and his successors in France—one can see how any significant overhaul to Freudian theory, such as Jacques Lacan’s proclaimed “return to Freud,” might also be of concern to contemporary philosophical
« On parle dans sa propre langue, on écrit dans une langue étrangère », 1 nous dit Sartre dans Les Mots . Quelle langue Sartre a-t-il dès lors utilisée pour écrire la parole ? À cette question, Sartre donne une réponse détaillée dans son article
Jean-Paul Sartre and Ronald Aronson
In early 1945, with the war not yet over, Sartre travelled to the United States for the first time. He travelled with a group of correspondents who were invited in order to influence French public opinion favourably towards the United States.1 Sartre was sent by his friend Albert Camus to report back to Combat, the leading newspaper of the independent left. Once invited, he arranged also to report back to the conservative newspaper, Le Figaro. Simone de Beauvoir reports that learning of Camus’ invitation in late 1944 was one of the most exciting moments of Sartre’s life.
Ronald Aronson praises Jean-Paul Sartre’s existential Marxism in an essay in the Boston Review. I argue that existential Marxism is a case of a contradictio in adiecto. Sartre was never recognized as a Marxist by his contemporaries. He not only failed to show any interest in the question of economic exploitation, but most of the answers he gave in the Critique even contradicted Marxist theory. His expression of Marxism as the philosophy of our time seems to have rather been more an act of courtesy than the expression of deep conviction. As Sartre himself later said, Marxism and existentialism are quite separate philosophies.
It is widely held that philosophy and literature are closely connected in Sartre, a view naturally suggested by the breadth of his writings and the prevalence of philosophical themes in his literary writing. The precise relation between the two
This is an extract from “Une défaite,” an unfinished novel which, according to Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre wrote in 1927. Apparently, Sartre was inspired by Charles Andler's biography of Nietzsche and the triangular relationship of Nietzsche, Wagner and Cosima Wagner. The latter, Franz Liszt's daughter, was initially married to Hans von Bülow with whom she had two daughters, and then she married Wagner with whom she had two more daughters. Nietzsche admired her greatly. Sartre became fascinated by this ambiguous, complex and conflictual triangle. Sartre also identified with Nietzsche and “the destiny of the solitary man.” The protagonist, Frédéric, who is one year older than Sartre, is also an ironic self-portrait of Sartre, while Cosima is a prototype for Anny in Nausea; both are modelled on Simone Jollivet. Cosima plays both mother and sister to Frédéric. The triangular relationship is often repeated in Sartre's affective existence. The fairy tale is the best written chapter in the novel.
petite critique de la raison journalistique
Après quelques autres (Idt, Hollier), je voudrais reprendre la question des relations entre l’écriture du Sursis et les techniques du reportage – que Sartre a pratiqué, à Paris, lors de la Libération (avec l’aide de Beauvoir), puis aux États
Les Temps modernes is publishing here for the first time a film script written by Sartre during the winter of 1943-1944. We thank Daniel Accursi for generously passing it along and Michel Contat for preparing it for publication. Sartre’s article entitled “A film for the postwar period,” which appeared [unsigned] in L’Ecran français and was incorporated into the Lettres françaises [clandestine], no. 15, April 1944, clearly indicates the purpose of this project: “On screen—and only on screen—is there place for a panic-stricken, a furious or a serene crowd. The novelist can evoke the masses; if the dramatist wants to represent them on stage, he must symbolize them by using half a dozen characters who assume the name and function of the chorus; only films show them. And it is to the masses themselves that they do so: to fifteen million or twenty million spectators. It is in this manner that film can speak about the crowd to the crowd. That is what the great pioneers of film, such as Griffith, Cecil B. de Mille and King Vidor understood so well. This does not mean that films cannot show love stories or conflicts between individuals. Far from it. But they must reinsert them into their social setting. The speed with which the camera can move from place to place also permits it to situate a story in the whole universe. The wellknown rule of theatrical unity in French classical drama does not apply at all to film. One can even introduce several plots simultaneously, have them unfold in different settings and have their very diversity contribute to the creation of a complete social situation. The film’s unity therefore emanates from its profound meaning, from the epoch it restores, and not from the concatenation of the circumstances that make up a minuscule and unique anecdote.
Noel N. Sauer
“Image in the mind” is only a round-about way of saying “imagination.” But to infer from this that there is really an image in the mind … is to be misled by an analogical expression. — Thomas Reid 1 Sartre’s theory of mental imagery has long been