You keep repeating yourself.
Examine what you imply: that while Heidegger, a real philosopher, was capable of pithily expressing deep concepts in the public lecture format your hero Sartre, a hack, was only able to present superficial crap.
L'Etre was published three years before he presented Existentialisme - the latter is a summary of the superficial mess that L'Etre is.
"Being for oneself", "being for the other", the problem of "nothingess" - I ask again: supply one conceptual breakthrough that L'Etre represents in comparison to SuZ or even Jaspers' desultory exploration of Existenz.
You can't, because there isn't any. So you are left with your sad strategy of badmouthing Existentialisme in favor of L'Etre without supplying a shred of evidence from L'Etre that it is in any way superior to Existentialisme.
You keep repeating yourself.
__So do you.
Examine what you imply: that while Heidegger, a real philosopher, was capable of pithily expressing deep concepts in the public lecture format your hero Sartre,
___He is NOT my "hero." I simply
respect him as a philosopher. Merleau-Ponty, however, is closer to my preferences.
a hack, was only able to present superficial crap.
____No...he was simply attempting to present his ideas in a wider, more popular forum...
L'Etre was published three years before he presented Existentialisme - the latter is a summary of the superficial mess that L'Etre is.
----"Superficial mess?" Statements like that make me doubt that you read the work.
"Being for oneself", "being for the other", the problem of "nothingess" - I ask again: supply one conceptual breakthrough that L'Etre represents in comparison to SuZ or even Jaspers' desultory exploration of Existenz.
You can't, because there isn't any.
=____Sartre's philosophy captures the confrontation of consciousness with a world out of control and full of terrors (like the Holocaust) and he creates a systematic way of comprehending it.
So you are left with your sad strategy of badmouthing Existentialisme
___I don't "badmouth" it, I simply don't think it can be used as a touchstone for Sartre's thinking.
in favor of L'Etre without supplying a shred of evidence from L'Etre that it is in any way superior to Existentialism.
____Oh, come on....the conceptual detail is far sketchier.