Sartre the trial

Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — From Socrates to Sartre by T. A challenging new look at the great thinkers whose ides have shaped our civilization From Socrates to Sartre presents a rousing and readable introduction to the lives, and times of the great philosophers.

Lavine, Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, makes philosophy come alive with astonishing clarity to give us a deeper, more meaningful understanding of ourselves and our times. From Socrates to Sartre discusses Western philosophers in terms of the historical and intellectual environment which influenced them, and it connects their lasting ideas to the public and private choices we face in America today. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages.

Published January 1st by Bantam first published More Details Original Title. Other Editions 9. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about From Socrates to Sartre , please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about From Socrates to Sartre. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order.

Mar 03, Ian "Marvin" Graye rated it really liked it Shelves: reviews , hegel , cul-poli-phil-art , reviewsstars , hume , sartre , read , kant. Monty Python - "Philosophy Football: Germany vs. Thanks to Kris for reminding me about these performances. I never studied philosophy as a discrete subject or course. Instead, my background was in political philosophy and ideology.

Later, I did some undergraduate studies in Semiotics through the French Department, which also gave me some access to Structuralism. I now feel frustrated that I only ever read Hegel through the eyes of Marx. One of the goals of my mission is to better understand Hegel with a different set of eyes. Another is to better understand the implications of Marx turning Hegel on his head. This is half the cost of a good glass of wine or beer, but I gained a lot more pleasure out of this book and I still get to have a drink.

The Form The title of the book says something of its scope. Fans of Philosophy or Monty Python might quibble about the choice or the on-ground time of members of this squad, but ultimately I really enjoyed this primer.

Maybe this analogy is a bit artificial, one that Lavine might not have related to, but her achievement has been to turn what could have been a dry topic into something that a larger audience could relate to. Up until Sartre, she structured each chapter in short succinct paragraphs, often with numbered arguments.

When she arrives at Sartre, the paragraphs are longer, as if she has swallowed, but not digested, and just regurgitated, material that she did not personally relate to. Synthesis So for me, this book is a great overview of philosophy up to Sartre in the sense that he built on both Kierkegaard and Marx, but we will need to supplement it with something else that deals with subsequent movements.

In the beginning, there was a Man. Because there was nothing much else around or in his head, he was surrounded by Empiricism. Just when Man had got his head around Empiricism, a Woman turned up. From his dick, the Man heard a word, and the word was Lust. When asked to put this thing there, the Woman had no logical reason to object. The Man thought he had discovered the Good Life. The next morning, there was a new word, and the word was Love.

The Woman taught Man the meaning of Negation. In a moment of weakness, the Woman later taught Man the meaning of Persistence. Nine months later, a baby girl was born to the Woman. Tragically, three months later, the baby died. After much grieving and blaming, the Man decided that, if there was an Effect, there must be a Cause.

People must be Bad and this other thing must be Good. The Woman objected, because she was a Good Thing and, up until then, the Man had called her a Goddess. The Man consulted other Men, and decided to establish a Church that could defeat the arguments of the Goddesses.

In time, the Church oppressed not just Women, but Men as well. Men started to question the existence of God and the authority of the Church. Some Men wondered whether they should respect and worship Women instead of God. Men started to believe in one thing and one thing only, and that was their Consciousness. I am complete, unto myself. The earlier Philosophers were concerned with ethical questions about how to live a Good Life and how to be Happy.

Possibly because they did their job so well, the concerns of Philosophy appeared to move on. An early concern was the relationship between the Individual and God or the Gods. Similarly, the relationship between the Individual and the State became a concern. Ultimately, the area of Philosophy which has attracted the most academic interest and continued to change or develop the most has been Metaphysics, which concerns the nature of Being and the relationship between the Individual and the World.

One reason for the developments was the influence of scientific theories and discoveries on the concept of Mind. I Have Only My Self to Blame My reading of the Philosophy described by Lavine was that it became increasingly abstract and focused on individual Consciousness, almost to the point of Solipsism the belief that only your own mind is sure to exist.

Within this framework, there is only the Self, and Consciousness reigns. The focus of Philosophy seems to have become the Self, in isolation. Relational Philosophy What has fallen by the wayside is any philosophical interest in relationships between the Individual or Self on the one hand and God, the State and other People on the other hand. Even Ethics seems to have perished, because the Individual has become the source of all value in substitution for Society. I, the Individual, need only act in my own self-interest.

What follows below are some speculative extrapolations on the views of the key Philosophers discussed by Lavine. Descartes While reading Lavine on Descartes, I felt that he was too analytical and was determined to place concepts and things in boxes. At the risk of oversimplifying Descartes, what seemed to be missing was the relationship between the separate concepts or things or boxes.

While he still used a concept of cause and effect, there was no sense of dynamism. There was no sense that sunburn is the reaction of one thing the skin of the Self to another thing the sun. Hume By the time you get to Hume, the sensory takes over. Except that it becomes almost an over-reaction to the lack of relationship in Descartes. The relationship between two concepts or things is all. The sensory is all. Hume almost seems to argue that there is no ongoing "I" or Self or Ego, that we are constantly changing packages or buckets of sensory reactions or relationships.

I am what I feel. I feel therefore I am. Except the "I" is different from the "I" of Descartes. There is no sense of myself with which I can identify with.

So at this point in Lavine, something in me wanted to put the "I" back in the Self or Identity. We are not just an aggregate of reactions or relationships. There is a Self and there is an Other. There is an I and there is a You. In other words, there is Love, but it is Love between two discrete People. Descartes focussed on boxes. Hume focussed on sensory experience. The synthesis is to come up with heart-shaped boxes that relate to each other.

Philosophy must make room for Love. Hegel By the time we get to Hegel, the relation of one Individual to another starts off as a Master and Slave Dialectic, the ultimate Stranger Danger, in which the two engage in a Struggle unto Death. There is no sense of two warriors raising their open hands in a gesture of peace or two people falling in love at first sight.

The relationship is intrinsically suspicious and antagonistic. The two are a Negation of each other. The exception for Hegel is the Family, in which the Individual is a Member, as opposed to an independent person.

This sense of Unity or Oneness is something that the Individual cannot have in the broader Community. Marx Marx describes Love as a passion that undermines Tranquility. Yet, he also seemed to view mutual Love as a condition that should be aspired to: "If you love without evoking love in return — that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent — a misfortune.

In all relationships, we either enslave the Other or the Other enslaves us. The abandoned and trapped man, for whom religion no longer provides answers, must deal with the mediocrity and total ordinariness of his existence. The obsessive focus on the Jews lets the anti-Semite revel in his theoretical greatness; in effect, had the Jew not stolen the country from him, all of France would belong to him. Hatred also provides erotic excitement in the insignificant life of the anti-Semite. Sartre offers a good description of the mixture of sexual attraction and revulsion stirred by the Jew among anti-Semitic women, and discusses the sadomasochist elements of relationships between Jewish men and non-Jewish women.

Sartre sums up the figure of the anti-Semite: The anti-Semite is afraid, not of Jews, of course. But the real reason the book is important is its conclusions about Judaism. To Sartre, Jews, just like non-Jews, are confused when confronting the question of authenticity in the society of the mass society.

They have two paths to choose from: the inauthentic option and the authentic one. The difference depends on the acceptance of Judaism. Since the gaze of the anti-Semite once again reminds the Jew of his Judaism, in order to become a free person, the Jew must accept the Jewish fate. He does not know his judges, scarcely even his lawyers; he does not know what he is charged with, yet he knows that he is considered guilty; judgment is continually put off — for a week, two weeks.

He takes advantage of these delays to improve his position in a thousand ways, but every precaution taken at random pushes him a little deeper into guilt …. And sometimes, as in the novel, it happens that men seize him, carry him off on the pretense that he has lost his case, and murder him in some vacant lot of the suburbs.

Sartre in effect claims that Judaism has no independent content; its entire meaning lies in its defiance of the anti-Semitic gaze. He knows that he is the one who stands apart, untouchable, scorned, proscribed — and it is as such that he asserts his being. In fact, perhaps most Jews would reject the Judaism proposed to them by Sartre the Christian, but clearly the identity politics that he wrote about influence them more than they would admit. Sartre was the first to write about turning Judaism into an identity.

In that spirit, we can compare the Zionist pursuers of anti-Semites to the feminist pursuers of sexual harassers. Patients randomly assigned to sarilumab therapy at baseline progressing to Brescia-COVID will be rescued according to local clinical practice protocols. A final follow-up visit will be conducted for all patients at day 29 from randomization, regardless of initial treatment assignment.

The randomization schedule will be managed through the eCRF in a concealed manner. Blinding masking : All study drugs will be administered as open label. No blinding methods will be used in this trial. Numbers to be randomised simple size : The target sample size will be COVID patients, who will be allocated randomly to control arm and treatment arm Version: 2.