should be if you came away from your reading with such a take on Sartre
Translation: one should always come away from reading a philosophical work with an attitude of slavish obeisance and author-worship.
A critical attitude is an embarrassing trait for a student of philosophy.
Unbelievable.
__YYour critical terminology in dealing with Sartre---who won the Nobel Prize even though he refused it...is juvenile and crass.
O am not a worshiper of Sartre...I am a Christian conservative and he was an atheist Marxist...but I respect his talent, his intellect,
and I am glad he is being reappraised after a period of neglect.
Whether or not he won a Nobel Prize is immaterial - the Nobel Prize is often awarded to forgettable authors who accomplished little in real terms.
My terminology is "crass" and "juvenile" - I'd call it blunt and unpretentious, but to each his own.
Here's your hero Sartre's assessment of Camus:
Your combination of dreary conceit and vulnerability always discouraged people from telling you unvarnished truths… . Tell me, Camus, for what mysterious reasons may your works not be discussed without taking away humanity’s reasons for living? How serious you are, and yet, to use one of your old words, how frivolous! And suppose you are wrong? Suppose your book simply attested to your ignorance of philosophy? Suppose it consisted of hastily assembled and secondhand knowledge? … Are you so afraid of being challenged? … But I don’t dare advise you to consult Being and Nothingness. Reading it would seem needlessly arduous to you: you detest the difficulties of thought.
I see you have begun your rhetoric with your master's.
Camus' offense, like mine, was to disagree with the trite, faux-profonde pretensions of L'Etre - but, in Sartre's mind (like yours) anyone who called Sartre on his thought's derivativeness and failure to address fundamental issues rigorously must not have read or must be incapable of reading his magnum opus.
Anyone who fails to be impressed by Sartre's self-indulgent posing is simply unintelligent.
Pardon me, you seem like a nice lady but you're way out of your depth on this thread. Sartre was a jackass who made zero, zip, nada contributions to philosophy. Anything that may have appeared novel with him was actually just re-packaged stuff from Kierkegaard. His impenetrable prose was seldom worth parsing. He was a longwinded, coke-bottled glasses, excessively weak and self-centered man who added only to the confusion of his age.
He will be forgotten.