20 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Sartre meets his match, August 16, 2005
This review is from: Socrates Meets Sartre : The Father of Philosophy Cross-Examines the Founder of Existentialism (Paperback)
Existentialism was a leading expression of Western philosophy in the 20th century. And Jean-Paul Sartre was a major figure in the existentialist movement. His non-fiction was influential, but his non-fiction impacted millions.
A solid Christian introduction to his life and thought is certainly needed, and this volume admirably does the job. Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft writes in the form of an imaginary dialogue between Socrates and Sartre, set in the afterlife. This technique Kreeft has used before with great success, in a series of books on the great thinkers and the great books.
In this volume he introduces us to the main tenets of Sartre's existentialism, critiquing the man and his philosophy by means of the Socratic method in particular, and the biblical worldview in general. From both vantage points, Sartre and his thinking are found to be seriously wanting.
Sartre was of course a French philosopher who along with Albert Camus and others championed the movement known as existentialism, which emphasised choice and freedom, but in Sartre's case, denied God and value. (There is such a beast as Christian existentialism, as best represented by Kierkegaard.)
Sartre was a fairly consistent atheist, who recognised that if God does not exist, then neither does good and evil, or love, or truth, or value. Life in the end is absurd and meaningless. He did seem to mind the very grim consequences of his worldview. But most people would be bothered. Sartre may have been consistent, but his consistency demonstrates that atheism so lived is really unlivable.
For example, Sartre famously said that "hell is other people". Well, if one really believes that and tries to live that, then life becomes unlivable. Certainly society, relationships, community, love and commitment become unlivable. Not many people really want to live in a world like that.
Of course as Kreeft rightly notes, it will only be in hell that Sartre will find what he really seems to be looking for: the eternal loneliness and absence of love. Indeed, he would not be able to enjoy heaven even if he did make it there: it would be the polar opposite of everything his philosophy stands for.
Kreeft notes that this consistent but repulsive atheism is perhaps only matched in Nietzsche, whose life was equally tragic. Indeed, Sartre's creed was really quite ugly. If choice is the highest good (if one can speak of goods in his worldview), and the act of choosing, not the object of choosing, is all that matters, then to choose to be a Hitler as opposed to a Mother Teresa matters not at all. What does matter is that choice was exercised.
For Sartre fighting with the Nazis or against them is all of a piece. Try telling that to a Jew in Auschwitz, Kreeft (through Socrates) reminds Sartre. Of course Sartre did take up various (leftwing) causes, but there was certainly no ethical justification for doing so, according to his own system.
With no values except raw choice, human society really becomes unworkable. And in such a world if any two people can find common ground and get along, it would just be dumb luck. In the end, the life-denying worldview of Sartre leads to isolation, fragmentation and death. It does not lead to life, community, love or anything that makes life worthwhile.
Kreeft has done a very good job of not just analysing the worldview of Sartre, but of showing its many and profound deficiencies as well. One eagerly awaits his cross-examination of other great thinkers and their thoughts.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A somewhat different Socrates ..., July 29, 2005
This review is from: Socrates Meets Sartre : The Father of Philosophy Cross-Examines the Founder of Existentialism (Paperback)
takes on J-P Sartre and Existentialism. Kreeft's Socrates, seeming to anticipate the problems he is going to confront in challenging Sartre, engages in a much more aggressive form of argument, almost from page 1.
This was a difficult read for me: I had not previously done an investigation of existentialism as a philosophy, although I was familiar in broad outline with it. The most difficult aspect was realizing how unlikely a good argument with an existentialist could be, given the extraordinary failure of even a common metaphysical basis. And this seems to be Prof. Kreeft's theme as well: the conclusion that his Socrates comes to is painful, heart-breaking.
Because I *recognize* these arguments -- I have friends and associates who would find nothing at all amiss with them, although perhaps they do not realize the logical extension of their positions, as is brought home explicitly in this volume.
I hope this series of "Socrates Meets ..." continues; I'd like to see Kant (another reviewer of a Kreeft book suggested this), but even more, I'd like to see "Socrates Meets Kreeft" -- how would the professor defend the Socratic commonsense philosophy as if Socrates were to play devil's advocate?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good philosophy, bad rhetoric, September 25, 2006
This review is from: Socrates Meets Sartre : The Father of Philosophy Cross-Examines the Founder of Existentialism (Paperback)
Sartre is an interesting fellow in that while his philosophy as a philosophy is coherent and consistent, he himself is thoroughly inconsistent. Kreeft does an amazing job, praising Sartre at the proper points while pointing out his inconsistencies. This book is based off of Sartre's book "Existentialism and Human Emotions."
One glaring inconsistency of Sartre's (which Sartre probably didn't miss) is that he says that an atheist existentialist is deeply disturbed at there being no God, yet later on he says that God's existence is irrelevant. The latter comment came at the end of his speech "Existentialism and Human Emotions" and (I think) it was probably more of a rhetorical device.
Not only does Kreeft expose these flaws, but he makes a point at how frightening such a philosophy would be if true. But this leads me to my criticisms and the reason why I gave the book only 3 stars:
-too often he resorts to personal and needless attacks on Sartre.
-he is unfair to Sartre in the section regarding collective responsibility and war
-there are a few typos that can create significant confusion (this is probably due to an inadequate copy editor)
-And finally, Socrates often appeals "ad populum" and seems to value happiness over truth. By that I mean that it seems as if Socrates would rather believe a false philosophy of objectivity even if it means believing a falsehood. This is not the Socrates of Plato, or for that matter, of Kreeft's other books. It doesn't even seem like the Kreeft of the classroom who advocates being "tough-minded," that is, believing the truth even if it makes us absolutely miserable.
I enjoyed the book, but I felt too much of it was unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion of Sartre's work to give it more than 3 stars.
As for the comment in another review about "Existentialism and Human Emotions" being a work Sartre rejected, Sartre did his best to live the philosophy presented in that book. He said too many things to take them all seriously.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
