Customer Reviews

Socrates Meets Sartre : The Father of Philosophy Cross-Examines the Founder of Existentialism

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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?

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.

Kreeft applies the Socratic method to Satre's existentialim and helps one untangle some of Satre's very difficult thinking. No walk in the park, but well worth the read!

Too many harsh reviews on here in my opinion: I have read them all, and this is my second favorite in the "Socrates Meets" series, second only to Socrates Meets Hume, which is stellar.

We find Socrates here psychologizing almost as much as we find him philosophizing, leading Sartre to more than once or twice label him 'Dr. Fraud.' It is all in good fun and entirely within the existentialist tradition of melding psychology and philosophy. There is simply no other way to analyze a philosopher who takes a conclusion for a premise, and then claims that nearly all pre-modern philosophers are simply avoidant and fearful of his manly premise.

E.g. Sartre's stubborn emphasis on responsibility is seriously undercut here, when Kreeft has his Socrates suggest that what Sartre really suffers from, is a fear of gratitude. Especially divine gratitude. This makes a lot of sense, and makes me want to read Gabriel Marcel, who pointed this out apparently. It makes a lot of sense for a philosopher to say that everyone is irresponsible if they accept any higher ontological grounding for morals or existence outside themselves, if that philosopher is wildly concerned with avoiding gratitude. Otherwise, there is no way of understanding the emphasis on the premise, other than the fact that it is more "manly" or "tough-minded." Just because a notion is more dark or depressing does not make it more true. The fact that I fear that cockroaches will rain out of the sky does not make it likely. Nor are cockroaches more reliable because they do not engage in wishful thinking... the proposition "there is a tunnel beneath this prison" may be true or not, but the fact that it is wishful, or relies on outside sources for hope and truth, does not make it less likely to be true. Those prisoners that doubt it's truth, because of its wishful quality, may themselves be psycho-analyzed as fearful of disappointment in the event that it turns out to be untrue. Their fear drives their disbelief, instead of facts, and reason, driving it.

Christopher Hitchens says that the doctrine of the atonement is immoral. This reflects a lot of Sartre's thought. But receiving a gift from another person, whether from a friend or as a grace from God, does not lessen responsibility but increases it. It is precisely by allowing oneself to receive such gifts that one entwines oneself in increasing responsibility (debt) to others. Sartre himself sees this, but in a twisted way: "by giving to others I destroy by appropriating." The whole point of the Brother's Karamazov, as Kreeft points out, is that by sharing responsibility collectively, (whether that of original sin, or that of redemption) we increase our individual responsibility exponentially. Thus Dostoevsky not only pre-figured Sartre, but surpassed him.

Great introduction to the philosophy of existentialism. Kreeft argues via Sartre and Socrates that an acceptance of atheism leads logically to many conclusions that almost everyone will find reprehensible, and hence existentialism serves as a proof by contradiction for the existence of God.

Sartre is the father of existentialism. Sartre's ideas follow from his atheism. He admits that if there is no god than there is no law giver and no absolute law. People are, therefor, free to choose their own values and people are the results of the choices they make. He does not prove that god does not exist but chooses to believe that there is no god.

However, unlike Plato's Socrates's which relies on almost entirely on logic Kreeft's Socrates often relies on popular opinion and personal attacks.

First, this work is not meant to explore or to refute existentialism as a whole. Nor is it meant to critique Sartre's philosophy as a whole. Rather, it is simply a Christian introduction to one of Sartre's essays, namely, 'Existentialism and Human Emotion' under the guide of a Socratic dialogue.

Second, this is not one of Kreeft's best works. If you are familiar with Kreeft's other Socratic dialogues you will be disapointed with this one. The Socratic wit, logic, and refutations of non-Christian thought are simply not here. In this dialogue, Socrates is portrayed as being rather subdued, not willing to engage in the socratic method as much, allowing Sartre to dig his own grave, as it were.

Third, the point of the book seems to be that Sartre's atheism, along with his conclusion that life is meaningless, is entirely consistent. If God does not exist, then life is meaningless. God does not exist, so life is meaningless. Not even Socrates can find a 'chink' in Sartre's armour. However, since most people will find Sartre's conclusion (that life is meaningless, or that life is hell) odious and unacceptable, they will be forced to conclude that God must exist. So: if God does not exist then everything is morally permissible. But obviously not everything is morally permissible. Therefore God exists. And so Socrates wonders whether Sartre is really a Christian prophet in disguise meant to scare atheists into the arms of their local priest.

I am not an expert in existentialist philosophy, let alone Sartre's philosophy, so I cannot judge whether or not Kreeft has accurately represented his views, or whether this book serves as a good introduction to the topic. I suspect that people looking to understand Sartre will want to turn elsewhere. People wanting an introduction to Kreeft will also want to turn elsewhere. And fans of Kreeft will only want this book for completeness' sake,

If you want to gain a fair understanding of Sartre's philosophy, don't bother reading this breathtakingly bad book. You'd do better reading virtually any other book, or better yet, reading an anthology of Sartre's own works and forming your own opinions. There have been countless published critiques of Sartre's philosophy, some favorable, some unfavorable, but it would be difficult, I think, to find one that so readily dispenses with objectivity, and so eagerly resorts to distortion and personal attacks. Yet Kreeft cleverly seeks to mask his bias, and lend some legitimacy to his shameless axe-grinding, by posing as Socrates. The informal, dialogue format allows Kreeft to say virtually anything he wants, without being held accountable. It is a consummate hatchet job.

You should be aware, up front, that Kreeft's whole book is focused on a single lecture Sartre gave early in his career,in 1945, which was then published as a small book/essay entitled "Existentialism and Human Emotion" (the publication of which Sartre himself later regretted). This is akin to explaining Picasso's entire career by examining an early, tossed-off sketch. That Kreeft calls it Sartre's "best book" is simply stunning. However, since Sartre's lecture does have introductory merit, is easy to read, and is much shorter than Kreeft's book, why not go to the source and read Sartre's book instead? Kreeft blissfully (or maliciously) ignores virtually the entire vast body of Sartre's works, even his major works. In fact, it's apparant Kreeft has never read Sartre's major and massive "Critique of Dialectical Reason", or "Notebooks for an Ethics", or even books about them, for if he had, he wouldn't have been able to write this book, unless he was being dishonest or willfully ignorant.

Unquestionably, the root of Kreeft's malice is that Sartre was an unabashed atheist, whereas Kreeft (and his artificial Socrates!)is avowedly Christian. However, many Christians have written books about Sartre (and there are, indeed, Christian existentialists)and have still managed to present reasonably open-minded and fair criticisms.

Here is a typical sample of the philosophical exchanges in this book.

Socrates: "No one who values wisdom, virtue, or happiness will accept [your philosophy]: neither Christians nor Buddhists nor Muslims nor agnotics nor humanists, nor even most atheists. Neither progressives nor conservatives, neither capitalists nor communists. Not poets or scientists or farmers or garbage collectors or professors..."

Sartre: "If humanity is so set against me, why was I the most popular philosopher of the twentieth century? I was adored. Millions turned out for my funeral."

Socrates: I was speaking of humanity. You are speaking of France."

Here's another cute insult "Socrates" levels at Sartre: "You could have been Jean-Paul the Great. But that name will be given to another, with whom you will never be confused. You are Jean-Paul the Small."

Probably the most appallingly unjust insult Kreeft makes about Sartre is that he "despise"(d) "the masses." It's appalling because there have been few philosophers in history who have written so much, and been so politically active, on behalf of oppressed peoples (Sartre was a socialist). In fact, his apartment was twice bombed in 1960 for his support of Algerian independence from France. I suggest reading any biography of Sartre to see how gross Kreeft's comment is.

As I said, if you are interested in a reasonably objective introduction to Sartre's work, don't waste your time and money on this one.

Note to Ignatius Press, the book's publisher: There is a confusing misquote on page 19, line 22. The last word in that line is "existence", not "essence".

Author James Schall argues that in a culture driven by pragmatism and falsehoods the most profound and counter-cultural thing we can do is waste time. We can waste time doing something as useless as reading. If you want to understand existentialism from a Socratically examined perspective then you should waste your time and money on this book outstanding.