What do you think?
Rate this book
Les Chemins de la Liberté #1
The Age of Reason
The Age of Reason is set in 1938 and tells of Mathieu, a French professor of philosophy who is obsessed with the idea of freedom. As the shadows of the Second World War draw closer -- even as his personal life is complicated by his mistress's pregnancy -- his search for a way to remain free becomes more and more intense.
416 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1945
926 people are currently reading
31810 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Paul Sartre
1,094 books12.9k followersJean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 952 reviews
February 9, 2023
The Age of Reason is an existential comedy of manners…
Men and women… They meet… They talk to each other… They talk about each other… They talk about others… They make love… They exist…
Mathieu – a main character of the novel – learns that his longtime mistress is pregnant… He doesn’t wish to be bounded… He wants to remain free…
Freedom is an abstract concept… And to different persons freedom means different things… Some want to be free to do nothing… Some – to be free to manipulate others… Some – free to think… And some wish to be free to fulfill their secret desires…
Consequently freedom must be restricted by common sense and reason…
For everyone there is as much freedom as one can take.
Men and women… They meet… They talk to each other… They talk about each other… They talk about others… They make love… They exist…
Mathieu – a main character of the novel – learns that his longtime mistress is pregnant… He doesn’t wish to be bounded… He wants to remain free…
Only, he wants to be free, just as other people want a collection of stamps. Freedom, that is his secret garden: a little scheme with himself as sole accomplice... An idle, unresponsive fellow, rather chimerical, but ultimately quite sensible, who has dexterously constructed an undistinguished but solid happiness upon a basis of inertia, and justified himself from time to time on the highest moral grounds.
Freedom is an abstract concept… And to different persons freedom means different things… Some want to be free to do nothing… Some – to be free to manipulate others… Some – free to think… And some wish to be free to fulfill their secret desires…
Consequently freedom must be restricted by common sense and reason…
‘…your life is an incessant compromise, between an ultimately slight inclination towards revolt and anarchy, and your deeper impulses that direct you towards order, moral health, and I might almost say, routine. The result is that you are still, at your age, an irresponsible student. My dear old chap, look yourself in the face: you are thirty-four years old, you are getting slightly bald – not so bald as I am, I admit – your youth has gone, and the bohemian life doesn’t suit you at all. Besides, what is bohemianism, after all? It was amusing enough a hundred years ago, but today it is simply a name for a handful of eccentrics who are no danger to anybody, and have missed the train. You have attained the age of reason, Mathieu, you have attained the age of reason, or you ought to have done so,’ he repeated with an abstracted air.
‘Pah!’ said Mathieu, ‘Your age of reason is the age of resignation, and I’ve no use for it.’
For everyone there is as much freedom as one can take.
March 15, 2007
I had this job one summer at a Dillard's department store. I worked in the linens section. Nobody shops for sheets in the summer, I guess, because I spent a lot of time doing absolutely nothing. My boyfriend used to write me letters and send me to work with them so that I would have something to read. Well that got old so one day when I was poking around the props (you know - how they set up the entire fancy-pants mock bedrooms?) I found a copy of this book on a table. So I parked myself on a stool out of the view of the non-existent customers and started reading. At the end of each day I put the book back on the little mock-bedroom table. I got fired before I finished the book but eventually picked up another copy and completed it. A lot of people think Sartre is heavy but I found it to be a quite enjoyable summer read. Take it to the beach!
March 11, 2011
This is an excellent novel about unpleasant people, with some unforgettable scenes. Here's one of the ones I liked most. Daniel, a strange character who has never managed to establish a normal connection with the world, has been hovering on the edge of suicide for some time. He's finally decided he's going to do it. But he can't just leave his three cats to starve to death, so he puts them in a wicker basket and takes them down to the river to drown them. The basket is too small, and he can hear them fighting and complaining inside. But of course it doesn't matter any more.
When he gets there, he suddenly realises it's impossible. He trudges back home with his heavy basket and opens it. The cats emerge, looking very much the worse for wear. His favourite has a nasty scatch over her eye. In the middle of all the commotion, he's also managed to get himself scatched, and it hurts. He feels utterly miserable.
It's one of the most effective passages I know on the subject of why it generally isn't a good idea to want to kill yourself.
When he gets there, he suddenly realises it's impossible. He trudges back home with his heavy basket and opens it. The cats emerge, looking very much the worse for wear. His favourite has a nasty scatch over her eye. In the middle of all the commotion, he's also managed to get himself scatched, and it hurts. He feels utterly miserable.
It's one of the most effective passages I know on the subject of why it generally isn't a good idea to want to kill yourself.
May 28, 2013
‘Age of Reason’ is all about existentialism. Fiction and philosophy inextricably and ‘entertainingly’ combined almost rendering it a page-turner. I had never previously come across the guile and craft of Sartre, the artist and only knew Sartre, the philosopher whose authoritative philosophical monologues were curt and declarative, sans the resplendence of an artistic canvas. The vivacity and vividness with which Sartre paints each one of his characters amidst their existential exigencies leaves behind their ever-lasting impressions on the fertile mental space. Each name springs up in mind in a color and the association with that color is complete, character and the color inextricable from each other. To me, the biggest achievement of this quite a long tale has to be the control that Sartre exercises over his writing.
His characters are a god-forsaken lot, condemned, abandoned and carrying on their shoulders the ‘burden’ of their freedoms. This abandonment is of their own choosing or unavoidable because they are conscious, disgruntled and bored individuals, committed to denouncement of bourgeois and the lives they lead. The pain and reclusiveness (both self-inflicted and forced) are only but a small price to pay for the freedom they cherish. Or is it? The very disgust and offence they inspire endears them all the same. This book asks more questions than it answers, creates more doubts than it clarifies, precisely, leaves one in the lurch. Those uninitiated with Sartre might just get too engrossed with the plot, when the very essence of this work lies beneath all the love affairs, affairs without love, suicides or attempts, abortions and pregnancies, communism and Zionism, politics and philosophy and the like. ‘Existentialism everywhere’ and no where without ‘existentialism’ where only the seeker is invited. This can very well serve as a rider attached to my recommendation :).
Reluctantly I call Mathieu the chief protagonist, not that he is not a chief protagonist, which he is but the attention that is given to each one of the six, seven or eight characters keeps them all at a vantage point of significance. The story is about Mathieu and his mistress Marcelle whom he had been seeing for seven years with a mutual agreement against marriage and child. Marcelle’s pregnancy causes the turmoil, the havoc, the storm in the life of ‘free’ Mathieu. His desire to get rid of this child, a veritable blot on his freedom and ‘principles’, brings him face to face with his own self, his beliefs and his life.
Sartre’s philosophy is contained in the phrase; ‘existence precedes essence’ meaning that man is not born with an intrinsic value but creates a value with his own will and actions. He is forlorn because he is devoid of God and thus only himself responsible for his actions (as well as inactions, inaction also being an action). He is free to choose and this freedom is his condemnation.
The story revolves around Mathieu in this philosophical background and brings to fore his existential struggles along with those of the characters linked directly or remotely to his life. There are far too many memorable moments that leave an indelible mark along with the questions and reflections to ponder a long time after the last page is turned over.
To put it succinctly, ‘Age of Reason’ moves from,
"Yes - you want to be free. Absolutely free. It's your vice"...
..."Yes, yes - it's your vice."
"it's not a vice. It's how I'm made."
"Why aren't other people made like that, if it isn't a vice?"
"They are, only they don't know it."
Through….,
" 'I have led a toothless life,' he thought. 'A toothless life. I have never bitten into anything. I was waiting. I was reserving myself for later on - and I have just noticed that my teeth have gone. What's to be done? Break the shell? That's easily said. Besides - what would remain? A little viscous gum, oozing through the dust and leaving a glistening trail behind it.' "
To,
"He yawned: he had finished the day, and he had also finished with his youth. Various well-bred moralities had already discreetly offered him their services: disillusioned epicureanism, smiling tolerance, resignation, common sense, stoicism - all the aids whereby a man may savor, minute by minute, like a connoisseur, the failure of a life.
"It's true, absolutely true: I have attained the age of reason."
This was my very first foray into Sartre’s fiction which I found thoroughly engrossing and thought provoking and replete with existential essence of human life. I may not agree with all that Sartre says but I still find synchronization with his efforts at deciphering the question of ‘being human’. Surely have to explore more of him.
His characters are a god-forsaken lot, condemned, abandoned and carrying on their shoulders the ‘burden’ of their freedoms. This abandonment is of their own choosing or unavoidable because they are conscious, disgruntled and bored individuals, committed to denouncement of bourgeois and the lives they lead. The pain and reclusiveness (both self-inflicted and forced) are only but a small price to pay for the freedom they cherish. Or is it? The very disgust and offence they inspire endears them all the same. This book asks more questions than it answers, creates more doubts than it clarifies, precisely, leaves one in the lurch. Those uninitiated with Sartre might just get too engrossed with the plot, when the very essence of this work lies beneath all the love affairs, affairs without love, suicides or attempts, abortions and pregnancies, communism and Zionism, politics and philosophy and the like. ‘Existentialism everywhere’ and no where without ‘existentialism’ where only the seeker is invited. This can very well serve as a rider attached to my recommendation :).
Reluctantly I call Mathieu the chief protagonist, not that he is not a chief protagonist, which he is but the attention that is given to each one of the six, seven or eight characters keeps them all at a vantage point of significance. The story is about Mathieu and his mistress Marcelle whom he had been seeing for seven years with a mutual agreement against marriage and child. Marcelle’s pregnancy causes the turmoil, the havoc, the storm in the life of ‘free’ Mathieu. His desire to get rid of this child, a veritable blot on his freedom and ‘principles’, brings him face to face with his own self, his beliefs and his life.
Sartre’s philosophy is contained in the phrase; ‘existence precedes essence’ meaning that man is not born with an intrinsic value but creates a value with his own will and actions. He is forlorn because he is devoid of God and thus only himself responsible for his actions (as well as inactions, inaction also being an action). He is free to choose and this freedom is his condemnation.
The story revolves around Mathieu in this philosophical background and brings to fore his existential struggles along with those of the characters linked directly or remotely to his life. There are far too many memorable moments that leave an indelible mark along with the questions and reflections to ponder a long time after the last page is turned over.
To put it succinctly, ‘Age of Reason’ moves from,
"Yes - you want to be free. Absolutely free. It's your vice"...
..."Yes, yes - it's your vice."
"it's not a vice. It's how I'm made."
"Why aren't other people made like that, if it isn't a vice?"
"They are, only they don't know it."
Through….,
" 'I have led a toothless life,' he thought. 'A toothless life. I have never bitten into anything. I was waiting. I was reserving myself for later on - and I have just noticed that my teeth have gone. What's to be done? Break the shell? That's easily said. Besides - what would remain? A little viscous gum, oozing through the dust and leaving a glistening trail behind it.' "
To,
"He yawned: he had finished the day, and he had also finished with his youth. Various well-bred moralities had already discreetly offered him their services: disillusioned epicureanism, smiling tolerance, resignation, common sense, stoicism - all the aids whereby a man may savor, minute by minute, like a connoisseur, the failure of a life.
"It's true, absolutely true: I have attained the age of reason."
This was my very first foray into Sartre’s fiction which I found thoroughly engrossing and thought provoking and replete with existential essence of human life. I may not agree with all that Sartre says but I still find synchronization with his efforts at deciphering the question of ‘being human’. Surely have to explore more of him.
November 5, 2015
“I have led a toothless life … a toothless life. I have never bitten into anything. I was waiting. I was reserving myself for later on – and I have just noticed that my teeth have gone.”
Reading The Age of Reason felt like navigating the dark recesses of my subconscious and coming face-to-face with my innermost anxieties. If that sounds awful, that’s because it kind of was. I don’t think I’ve ever finished a book on such a low note. I also don’t think I’ve ever finished a book feeling so understood.
I could talk about the plot, but the plot doesn’t matter, it’s the subtext that does – this nagging regret of a life not lived; a life that has amounted to nothing because of a protagonist who bases every life decision on excessive forethought, a habit that steers him away from making any decision on a whim.
This whole book is about our freedom to make the choices we want to make but never do; about our deep need for change but secret desire to stay the same. This constant battle between how things are and how we want them to be causes us to lead a life of limbo, always in between things but never picking a side, until we find ourselves at the “age of reason” – that pivotal moment where making a radical decision could alter our lives forever. But do we take that risk?
It takes an incredible talent to be able to write a thought-provoking novel with so many multi-dimensional characters in so few pages. It also helps that the plot itself is interesting, and Sartre doesn’t use words lightly. Each word is chosen deliberately, and each sentence packs a punch. This is a book that was written modestly but with absolute confidence in the message it was putting across, and it’s a book I definitely won’t be forgetting any time soon.
Reading The Age of Reason felt like navigating the dark recesses of my subconscious and coming face-to-face with my innermost anxieties. If that sounds awful, that’s because it kind of was. I don’t think I’ve ever finished a book on such a low note. I also don’t think I’ve ever finished a book feeling so understood.
I could talk about the plot, but the plot doesn’t matter, it’s the subtext that does – this nagging regret of a life not lived; a life that has amounted to nothing because of a protagonist who bases every life decision on excessive forethought, a habit that steers him away from making any decision on a whim.
This whole book is about our freedom to make the choices we want to make but never do; about our deep need for change but secret desire to stay the same. This constant battle between how things are and how we want them to be causes us to lead a life of limbo, always in between things but never picking a side, until we find ourselves at the “age of reason” – that pivotal moment where making a radical decision could alter our lives forever. But do we take that risk?
It takes an incredible talent to be able to write a thought-provoking novel with so many multi-dimensional characters in so few pages. It also helps that the plot itself is interesting, and Sartre doesn’t use words lightly. Each word is chosen deliberately, and each sentence packs a punch. This is a book that was written modestly but with absolute confidence in the message it was putting across, and it’s a book I definitely won’t be forgetting any time soon.
November 10, 2025
This is the first book I have read by Jean-Paul Sartre. His reputation precedes him. Although the main themes concerning personal freedom were interesting, I found this book rather lacklustre. It primarily examines the paradox of desiring freedom while being compelled to act within constraints to attain it. I also think something was lost by deploying a primarily male lens throughout the book. This may have been a deliberate literary ploy, but including a more substantive female character, particularly in relation to the possibility of dying in a back-room abortion, would have added depth to the story. Still, it has not put me off Sartre.
November 29, 2015
سن الرشد ..... جان بول سارتر
الكتب لم توضع كي نؤمن بما تقوله، ولكن كي نتحرى فيها، لا يجب أن نتساءل أمام كتاب ماذا يقول، ولكن ماذا يريد أن يقول.
هذه الرواية لم تُخلق ليُكتب عنها، بل وُجدت لتٌقرأ وتُقرأ فقط لنعيش في أجواءها.
ملحمة من العلاقات الإنسانية شديدة التعقيد والتداخل تدور أحداثها في فترة فوضوية انعكستفوضويتها على شخوصها.
هي رواية عن الحب والرغبة والجبن، رواية عن الإنسان في كافة مراحل حياته.
روايةتشعر أمامها انها تتحدث عنك انت، لا غيرك.
رواية صعب تكتب عنها، أو تتحدث حتى عنها لانها ببساطة هي من تتحدث.
الكتب لم توضع كي نؤمن بما تقوله، ولكن كي نتحرى فيها، لا يجب أن نتساءل أمام كتاب ماذا يقول، ولكن ماذا يريد أن يقول.
هذه الرواية لم تُخلق ليُكتب عنها، بل وُجدت لتٌقرأ وتُقرأ فقط لنعيش في أجواءها.
ملحمة من العلاقات الإنسانية شديدة التعقيد والتداخل تدور أحداثها في فترة فوضوية انعكستفوضويتها على شخوصها.
هي رواية عن الحب والرغبة والجبن، رواية عن الإنسان في كافة مراحل حياته.
روايةتشعر أمامها انها تتحدث عنك انت، لا غيرك.
رواية صعب تكتب عنها، أو تتحدث حتى عنها لانها ببساطة هي من تتحدث.
March 25, 2008
This is basically a soap opera with brains and direction, which is my favorite kind of book ever. The character development is EXTRAORDINARY. I recommend this book on that facet alone. I didn't read this as an exemplification of Sartre's philosophy, but rather as a study of the philosophy of the characters in the story. None of these people are truly likable, but they are all the more human because of that. Even the most agreeable people think disagreeable thoughts. This is something most of us realize, at least on some level, but I don't think I've ever seen it rendered so well in fiction. I am pretty much still sitting here in awe at the complexity of Sartre's understanding of human motivation. I could also relate to Mathieu, sort of how I identified somewhat with Hamlet. Yes, he is a bit of a Hamlet-- actually, he's Hamlet in the extreme. It's unfortunate for him, but fortunate for the sake of the story.
It is a little long though, especially near the end. The plot is also rather average, but it serves its purpose. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't have been able to make such a mundane plot so engaging. I really give this a 4.5, but I rounded up....
It is a little long though, especially near the end. The plot is also rather average, but it serves its purpose. I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't have been able to make such a mundane plot so engaging. I really give this a 4.5, but I rounded up....
September 19, 2023
Sartre’s sharp and restless probing into the nature of freedom beguiles and infuriates at every turn yet ‘The Age of Reason’ remains compulsively readable. It’s also heartbreaking and occasionally hilarious.
July 19, 2024
🔵Для цієї історії потрібен пролог. Він простий, але без нього ніяк. Цього літа я вирішив влаштувати інтелектуальну битву Камю та Сартру. І якщо Камю я читав як в школі (Чума), так і в університеті (Сторонній, Калігула), то з Сартром не склалось. Наче й стояв томик на полиці, а от читати не хотілося. Хіба одне оповідання про злочинця, який мимоволі виказує товариша поліції. В Сартрі мене огидив надмір натуралістичних деталей, які до сюжету мали дуже віддалений стосунок.
🔵Але цього літа - очікуючи книгу Джадта про французьких інтелектуалів 1944-1956 рр., яка має вийти в Човні - я вирішив таки розібратися з творчістю Сартра. І мій вибір впав на тетралогію Шляхи свободи, бо тут і цикл романів, і французьке суспільство 1938-1940 рр. От дуже доречно: як Сартр описав та осмислив ці трагічні та вирішальні роки?
ℹ️Шляхи свободи - тетралогія, яка складається з трьох романів. Знаєте, чому?
🔵Одразу зізнаюся: навіть цей том я був готовий кинути читати
❓Патологічний натуралізм?
✅Є! Здається, Сартр описав в цьому романі більшість рідин, які може виділяти тіло людини: піт, сльози, сечу, блювотиння
❌Але Сартр не зупиняється! Замість сюжету ми отримуємо суцільну інтроспекцію! Сартр занурює нас в духовний світ головних героїв. І нас чекає розчарування! Адже герої Сартра знаходяться десь між посередностями та нікчемностями. Викладач філософії Матьє. Його коханка Марсель. Його друзі Борис, який проводиться як учень, таємно закоханий в Матьє, або ж як член персональної секти Матьє Деларю. Івеж, сестра Бориса, в яку закоханий Матьє. Обоє - нащадки російських емігрантів, обоє молодші від Матьє. Співачка Лола, коханка Бориса, старшою від нього на 20 років. А також гей Даніель і комуніст Брюне.
🔵Серед цієї компанії тільки Брюне справляє враження адекватної людини. Що не може не насторожити
‼️Роман видано 1945, а написано в 1943. Сартр вірить в Сталіна і виправдовує Великий терор 1937.
🤢Ясно, що за таких умов комуніст виявляється нормальною людиною - не те що всі ці дрібнобуржуазні елементи! О, вони страждають дурницями - і це коли війна на порозі! Адже дія роману відбувається протягом двох днів липня 1938 року! Скоро буде Мюнхенська змова, а через рік - Друга світова війна! Лише товариші комуністи знають, що скоро війна! Всі решта вірять в замирення Гітлера...
❓Цікаво, як Сартр буде виправловувати пакт Молотова-Ріббентропа? І позицію французьких комуністів в 1940 році? Адже тоді Москва дала команду дружити з ІІІ Райхом, а тому капітулювати і не чинити опір. І французька компартія слухняно виконувала цю вказівку - до 22 червня 1941 року...
🔵Але вернімося до Матьє, в основі якого - реальний Сартр!
🧐У нього криза дрібнобуржуазного середнього віку. Щоправда, вона маскується під пошук свободи. Власне, цей "пошук" виглядає як "горе з розуму": Матьє прикладає абстрактні теоретичні принципи до свого життя. Виходить так собі. Але, на жаль чи на щастя, герої Сартра не вміють діяти (пам'ятаємо, що це імпотентні дрібнобуржуазні елементи, які не здатні на справжню дію - на відміну від справжніх комуністів!), то філософією Матьє можна не перейматися: він її нікуди не прикладає, а лише "ниє" весь роман. І не лише він! Інші герої (крім комуніста Брюне!) тільки те і роблять, що думають, думають, думають...
🤨І думки їхні прості як дошка: а що він мав на увазі? чи він на мене не нагнівався? чи ця любов є вираженням мене, чи це лише мої фізичні бажання?
🤢Деколи Сартр кидає філософські афоризми:
«Життя, — подумав Матьє, — включає у себе майбутнє, як тіло включає у себе порожнечу»
❓Що це має означати? Сартр вважає нижче своєї гідності пояснювати. Тому ми просто сидимо з озадаченим виразом обличчя... І читаємо далі!
🧐Власне, роман виглядає пародією на французький середній клас. Мовляв, забивають голови дурницями. А могли вступити до компартії - і боротися за світле майбутнє робітників! І я не перебільшую! Ось цитата про комуніста Брюне:
«Він прилучився, він відмовився від своєї свободи, тепер це тільки солдат. І йому все повернули назад, навіть його свободу. «Він має більшу свободу, ніж я: він у злагоді з самим собою і з партією». Він був тут, такий достеменний, з достеменним присмаком тютюну в роті, барви і форми, які він бачив, були набагато достеменніші, ніж барви і форми, котрі міг бачити Матьє, і водночас він обіймав усю земну кулю, страждаючи й борючись разом із пролетаріями всіх країн»
🤮Це ж прямо Орвелл якийсь!
1⃣Брюне зрікається свободи, ставши гвинтиком партії (є в Сартра і такий зворот), - і цим здобуває вищу свободу! Та це ж Орвелівське "Свобода - це рабство"!
2⃣І тепер Брюне бачить дійсність краще, ніж дрібнобуржуазний Матьє. І кольори яскравіші, і різкість більша...
🤮І цим роман люто нагадує соцреалізм: такі ж шаблонні персонажі, які мають донести таку ж шаблонну ідею
🤢Просто в соцреалізмі не можна стільки уваги приділяти буржуазному стилю життя
🤢Але в загальному типова критика капіталізму з рубрики"Их нравы"
🧐Власне, в "поєдинку" з Камю Сартр програє. Зі свободою в його творі не склалося. В принципі, очікувано. Але попереду ще дві частини! Хто знає, як вся історія обернеться
🔵Сартр описує дві концепції свободи:
1⃣дрібнобуржуазну, яку сповідує Матьє: свобода - це незалежність від світу, коли ніхто та ніщо не впливає на людину, не творить з нею зв'язків і не вибудовує відносин
2⃣революційну, яку сповідує Брюне: свобода - це відповідальність за свої вчинки
🤢Матьє є вільним, бо він не одружується, йому байдуже до людей довкола, він не ставить собі цілей в житті, але й не залежить від інших людей. Але його свобода, як показує Сартр, фальшива! От Брюне віддає свою свободу партії, але не стає рабом: він вільний, бо відповідає за всі свої вчинки, які здійснює за наказом партії
🤮Свобода - це рабство?
🔵Але тут можна провести іншу аналогію. Брюне діє за принципом Meine Freiheit heißt Treue! Так, я свідомо перефразував гасло СС: Моя честь - це вірність. Тільки в Брюне це "Моя свобода - це вірність"
❓А не засильно? Так, Брюне відданий партії, але хіба це робить з нього такого аморального нелюда?
❗️На щастя, Сартр нам допомагає розібратися! Адже до революційної свободи приходить і гей Даніель!
🔵Даніель настільки ненавидить свою гомосексуальність, що хоче себе ща неї покарати - і одружитися з жінкою!
🔵Він обирає коханку Матьє, яка завагітніла від Матьє, але не хоче робити аборт. А Матьє не хоче з нею одружуватися. Патова ситація?
🤢Ні, бо тут з'являється Даніель!!! Він одружується з Марсель. Тепер Матьє щасливий: йому не треба дбати за свою дитину (він зберігає свою дрібнобуржуазну свободу). Марсель щаслива, бо збереже дитину і одружиться. Вона навіть вірить, що Даніель її з часом покохає! Причина проста: вона не знає, що Даніель - гей
🤮І Даніель знає це! Але каже: вона зненавидить мене - коли зрозуміє, що кохання між ними не буде. І як чинить Даніель? Він каже: Але я готовий відповідати за це!
🤮Непогана свобода! Чистий егоїзм, який нехтує іншими людьми. Даніель і Матьє навіть на мить не задумуються, що про це думає Марсель. Вона лише засіб для втілення їхньої свободи... Для Матьє - задоволення сексуальних бажань, для Даніеля - покарання за власні сексуальні бажання...
⚫️Сартр пропонує концепцію свободи, якій байдуже до людей довкола. Але тут постає питання: чи Матьє (дрібнобуржуазна свобода) аж так відрізняється від Даніеля/Брюне (революційна свобода)? Обом байдуже на людей довкола, обоє зациклені на собі
🤢Але найогидніше в цьому романі - повний набір упереджень від Сартра. Тут і ейджизм: людина, старша 25-30 років - стара! І сексизм: жінки описуються тільки через їхні тіла (на відміну від чоловіків), і ніколи не думають про щось інше, ніж чоловіки. І їхнє поєднання: жінок, яким більше 30 років, Сартр називає старими, а жінок віком за 40 таврує "бабусями". Звісно, є і расизм... До речі, щодо корінних народів Алжиру. Через 15 років Сартр буде з піною захищати право алжирців на насильство щодо французів. Але в 1945 алжирці для нього не повністю люди
🔵Але цього літа - очікуючи книгу Джадта про французьких інтелектуалів 1944-1956 рр., яка має вийти в Човні - я вирішив таки розібратися з творчістю Сартра. І мій вибір впав на тетралогію Шляхи свободи, бо тут і цикл романів, і французьке суспільство 1938-1940 рр. От дуже доречно: як Сартр описав та осмислив ці трагічні та вирішальні роки?
ℹ️Шляхи свободи - тетралогія, яка складається з трьох романів. Знаєте, чому?
🔵Одразу зізнаюся: навіть цей том я був готовий кинути читати
❓Патологічний натуралізм?
✅Є! Здається, Сартр описав в цьому романі більшість рідин, які може виділяти тіло людини: піт, сльози, сечу, блювотиння
❌Але Сартр не зупиняється! Замість сюжету ми отримуємо суцільну інтроспекцію! Сартр занурює нас в духовний світ головних героїв. І нас чекає розчарування! Адже герої Сартра знаходяться десь між посередностями та нікчемностями. Викладач філософії Матьє. Його коханка Марсель. Його друзі Борис, який проводиться як учень, таємно закоханий в Матьє, або ж як член персональної секти Матьє Деларю. Івеж, сестра Бориса, в яку закоханий Матьє. Обоє - нащадки російських емігрантів, обоє молодші від Матьє. Співачка Лола, коханка Бориса, старшою від нього на 20 років. А також гей Даніель і комуніст Брюне.
🔵Серед цієї компанії тільки Брюне справляє враження адекватної людини. Що не може не насторожити
‼️Роман видано 1945, а написано в 1943. Сартр вірить в Сталіна і виправдовує Великий терор 1937.
🤢Ясно, що за таких умов комуніст виявляється нормальною людиною - не те що всі ці дрібнобуржуазні елементи! О, вони страждають дурницями - і це коли війна на порозі! Адже дія роману відбувається протягом двох днів липня 1938 року! Скоро буде Мюнхенська змова, а через рік - Друга світова війна! Лише товариші комуністи знають, що скоро війна! Всі решта вірять в замирення Гітлера...
❓Цікаво, як Сартр буде виправловувати пакт Молотова-Ріббентропа? І позицію французьких комуністів в 1940 році? Адже тоді Москва дала команду дружити з ІІІ Райхом, а тому капітулювати і не чинити опір. І французька компартія слухняно виконувала цю вказівку - до 22 червня 1941 року...
🔵Але вернімося до Матьє, в основі якого - реальний Сартр!
🧐У нього криза дрібнобуржуазного середнього віку. Щоправда, вона маскується під пошук свободи. Власне, цей "пошук" виглядає як "горе з розуму": Матьє прикладає абстрактні теоретичні принципи до свого життя. Виходить так собі. Але, на жаль чи на щастя, герої Сартра не вміють діяти (пам'ятаємо, що це імпотентні дрібнобуржуазні елементи, які не здатні на справжню дію - на відміну від справжніх комуністів!), то філософією Матьє можна не перейматися: він її нікуди не прикладає, а лише "ниє" весь роман. І не лише він! Інші герої (крім комуніста Брюне!) тільки те і роблять, що думають, думають, думають...
🤨І думки їхні прості як дошка: а що він мав на увазі? чи він на мене не нагнівався? чи ця любов є вираженням мене, чи це лише мої фізичні бажання?
🤢Деколи Сартр кидає філософські афоризми:
«Життя, — подумав Матьє, — включає у себе майбутнє, як тіло включає у себе порожнечу»
❓Що це має означати? Сартр вважає нижче своєї гідності пояснювати. Тому ми просто сидимо з озадаченим виразом обличчя... І читаємо далі!
🧐Власне, роман виглядає пародією на французький середній клас. Мовляв, забивають голови дурницями. А могли вступити до компартії - і боротися за світле майбутнє робітників! І я не перебільшую! Ось цитата про комуніста Брюне:
«Він прилучився, він відмовився від своєї свободи, тепер це тільки солдат. І йому все повернули назад, навіть його свободу. «Він має більшу свободу, ніж я: він у злагоді з самим собою і з партією». Він був тут, такий достеменний, з достеменним присмаком тютюну в роті, барви і форми, які він бачив, були набагато достеменніші, ніж барви і форми, котрі міг бачити Матьє, і водночас він обіймав усю земну кулю, страждаючи й борючись разом із пролетаріями всіх країн»
🤮Це ж прямо Орвелл якийсь!
1⃣Брюне зрікається свободи, ставши гвинтиком партії (є в Сартра і такий зворот), - і цим здобуває вищу свободу! Та це ж Орвелівське "Свобода - це рабство"!
2⃣І тепер Брюне бачить дійсність краще, ніж дрібнобуржуазний Матьє. І кольори яскравіші, і різкість більша...
🤮І цим роман люто нагадує соцреалізм: такі ж шаблонні персонажі, які мають донести таку ж шаблонну ідею
🤢Просто в соцреалізмі не можна стільки уваги приділяти буржуазному стилю життя
🤢Але в загальному типова критика капіталізму з рубрики"Их нравы"
🧐Власне, в "поєдинку" з Камю Сартр програє. Зі свободою в його творі не склалося. В принципі, очікувано. Але попереду ще дві частини! Хто знає, як вся історія обернеться
🔵Сартр описує дві концепції свободи:
1⃣дрібнобуржуазну, яку сповідує Матьє: свобода - це незалежність від світу, коли ніхто та ніщо не впливає на людину, не творить з нею зв'язків і не вибудовує відносин
2⃣революційну, яку сповідує Брюне: свобода - це відповідальність за свої вчинки
🤢Матьє є вільним, бо він не одружується, йому байдуже до людей довкола, він не ставить собі цілей в житті, але й не залежить від інших людей. Але його свобода, як показує Сартр, фальшива! От Брюне віддає свою свободу партії, але не стає рабом: він вільний, бо відповідає за всі свої вчинки, які здійснює за наказом партії
🤮Свобода - це рабство?
🔵Але тут можна провести іншу аналогію. Брюне діє за принципом Meine Freiheit heißt Treue! Так, я свідомо перефразував гасло СС: Моя честь - це вірність. Тільки в Брюне це "Моя свобода - це вірність"
❓А не засильно? Так, Брюне відданий партії, але хіба це робить з нього такого аморального нелюда?
❗️На щастя, Сартр нам допомагає розібратися! Адже до революційної свободи приходить і гей Даніель!
🔵Даніель настільки ненавидить свою гомосексуальність, що хоче себе ща неї покарати - і одружитися з жінкою!
🔵Він обирає коханку Матьє, яка завагітніла від Матьє, але не хоче робити аборт. А Матьє не хоче з нею одружуватися. Патова ситація?
🤢Ні, бо тут з'являється Даніель!!! Він одружується з Марсель. Тепер Матьє щасливий: йому не треба дбати за свою дитину (він зберігає свою дрібнобуржуазну свободу). Марсель щаслива, бо збереже дитину і одружиться. Вона навіть вірить, що Даніель її з часом покохає! Причина проста: вона не знає, що Даніель - гей
🤮І Даніель знає це! Але каже: вона зненавидить мене - коли зрозуміє, що кохання між ними не буде. І як чинить Даніель? Він каже: Але я готовий відповідати за це!
🤮Непогана свобода! Чистий егоїзм, який нехтує іншими людьми. Даніель і Матьє навіть на мить не задумуються, що про це думає Марсель. Вона лише засіб для втілення їхньої свободи... Для Матьє - задоволення сексуальних бажань, для Даніеля - покарання за власні сексуальні бажання...
⚫️Сартр пропонує концепцію свободи, якій байдуже до людей довкола. Але тут постає питання: чи Матьє (дрібнобуржуазна свобода) аж так відрізняється від Даніеля/Брюне (революційна свобода)? Обом байдуже на людей довкола, обоє зациклені на собі
🤢Але найогидніше в цьому романі - повний набір упереджень від Сартра. Тут і ейджизм: людина, старша 25-30 років - стара! І сексизм: жінки описуються тільки через їхні тіла (на відміну від чоловіків), і ніколи не думають про щось інше, ніж чоловіки. І їхнє поєднання: жінок, яким більше 30 років, Сартр називає старими, а жінок віком за 40 таврує "бабусями". Звісно, є і расизм... До речі, щодо корінних народів Алжиру. Через 15 років Сартр буде з піною захищати право алжирців на насильство щодо французів. Але в 1945 алжирці для нього не повністю люди
February 20, 2019
بسیار جالب و خواندنی می یابم کتاب های سارتر را. هر داستانی بگوید در متن داستان نظر نویسنده را درک میکنی. سن عقل، مرگ زودرس. سن عقل برهه ای از زندگی است که دست نگه میداری و تازه می فهمی چه خبره یک کامل رو با فکر میگذرونی ودر آخر سعی میکنی بی حس بشی. هر چی عاقل تر بی حس تر. هر چی بی حس تر کثیف تر. درود بر مترجم با سواد و ماهر، حسین سلیمانی نژاد.
سْپويلِرْزْ:
•مارسل: حسرت زندگی نداشته ام را میخورم.
•مارسل خم چنان میگه: بیشتر میل داشت ذوب شدن این روح سرکش و زمخت را مانند یک تکه زیر آفتاب، ببیند.
•این ها افکار بی رنگ و رو بودند، افکار ساعت چهار صبح.
• یه جاهایی مخالفتش بر هر دینی معلومه: ۱. اگر از سارا بورسی حتما یک یهودی معرفی میکنه برای سقط بچه
۲. دهان مسخره اش عین دهان کشیش هاست.
• میگه از مرد ها بیشتر از زن ها خوشم میاد با این حال دلم نمیخوام کنار یک مرد بخوابم. (تصورش خوبه ولی در واقعیت دلچسب نیست)
• سارا همه کارهای گومز را بخشیده بود خیانت هایش را فرارهایش را از خانه، معتقد بود که زندگی بشر مقدس است.
• ص۶۱/ خودم را می چشم، مزه ی من. من مزه ی خودم هستم. من وجود دارم وجود داشتن همین است سی و چهار سال است که خودم را می چشم.
• داره از گلدون ۳ هزار ساله حرف میزنه در صورتی که خود اون منشا نوری که باعث وجودیت existentialism اش میشه هزاران میلیارد شال قدمت داره( خورشید).
• ص۶۴/ فکر عزیمت به روسیه به سرش افتاده بود، این که ترک تحصیل کند و کار عملی یاد بگیرد. اما چیزی که هر بار در آستانه ی این دل بریدن های وحشتناک جلوش را می گرفت این که برای چنین کارهایی دلیل کم داشت بدون دلیل ندانم کاری بود، پس به انتظار کشیدن ادامه داد.
•ص۸۴/ وقتی کسی صبح با حالت تنوع از خواب بلند می شود و میبیند که باید پانزده ساعت را بیهوده بگذارند تا دوباره بتواند بخوابد، آزاد بودن به چه دردش میخورد؟ آزادی به زندگی کمکی نمیکند!
• تمام شخصیت های داستان از پروتاگونیست تا خنگا تا باهوشا یک فکر فلسفی تپ کله شونه.
• خود آزادی از طریق آزردن بقیه هرگز نمیتونی مستقیما به خودت آسیب برسونی.
• ص۱۵۰/ میگه من سالهای سال ازاد بودم برای هیچ و پوچ و حاضره تا با یک باور دیگه تاخت بزنه احتیاج داره یه کم خودشو فراموش کنه.
•همیشه در انتهای نایژه هات مشکلی وجود داشت و باعث تنگی نفس میشد.
• زیبایی ترجمه: دور پنجره ها دودی و سیاه است، انگار زبانه های حریق آنها را لیسیده.
«««دلم میخواد ۶ ماه پیرتر بشم»»»
•ص۲۷۲/ چقدر جالب که عاشق و معشوق ها خودشونو بعد مرگ اون یکی دیگه توی یک سارو و ناراحتی میبینند ولی توی این کیس، بوریس بعد از اینکه میفهمه لولا نمرده و توی تخت زنده است، ناراحت میشه و دیگه نمیخوام باور کنه که اون زنده است این باز چه نوع از عشق است یا کلا همه عشق ها اینجوریه؟!؟
Sorry for not typing it in English or Spanish, can use the great google translation! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
سْپويلِرْزْ:
•مارسل: حسرت زندگی نداشته ام را میخورم.
•مارسل خم چنان میگه: بیشتر میل داشت ذوب شدن این روح سرکش و زمخت را مانند یک تکه زیر آفتاب، ببیند.
•این ها افکار بی رنگ و رو بودند، افکار ساعت چهار صبح.
• یه جاهایی مخالفتش بر هر دینی معلومه: ۱. اگر از سارا بورسی حتما یک یهودی معرفی میکنه برای سقط بچه
۲. دهان مسخره اش عین دهان کشیش هاست.
• میگه از مرد ها بیشتر از زن ها خوشم میاد با این حال دلم نمیخوام کنار یک مرد بخوابم. (تصورش خوبه ولی در واقعیت دلچسب نیست)
• سارا همه کارهای گومز را بخشیده بود خیانت هایش را فرارهایش را از خانه، معتقد بود که زندگی بشر مقدس است.
• ص۶۱/ خودم را می چشم، مزه ی من. من مزه ی خودم هستم. من وجود دارم وجود داشتن همین است سی و چهار سال است که خودم را می چشم.
• داره از گلدون ۳ هزار ساله حرف میزنه در صورتی که خود اون منشا نوری که باعث وجودیت existentialism اش میشه هزاران میلیارد شال قدمت داره( خورشید).
• ص۶۴/ فکر عزیمت به روسیه به سرش افتاده بود، این که ترک تحصیل کند و کار عملی یاد بگیرد. اما چیزی که هر بار در آستانه ی این دل بریدن های وحشتناک جلوش را می گرفت این که برای چنین کارهایی دلیل کم داشت بدون دلیل ندانم کاری بود، پس به انتظار کشیدن ادامه داد.
•ص۸۴/ وقتی کسی صبح با حالت تنوع از خواب بلند می شود و میبیند که باید پانزده ساعت را بیهوده بگذارند تا دوباره بتواند بخوابد، آزاد بودن به چه دردش میخورد؟ آزادی به زندگی کمکی نمیکند!
• تمام شخصیت های داستان از پروتاگونیست تا خنگا تا باهوشا یک فکر فلسفی تپ کله شونه.
• خود آزادی از طریق آزردن بقیه هرگز نمیتونی مستقیما به خودت آسیب برسونی.
• ص۱۵۰/ میگه من سالهای سال ازاد بودم برای هیچ و پوچ و حاضره تا با یک باور دیگه تاخت بزنه احتیاج داره یه کم خودشو فراموش کنه.
•همیشه در انتهای نایژه هات مشکلی وجود داشت و باعث تنگی نفس میشد.
• زیبایی ترجمه: دور پنجره ها دودی و سیاه است، انگار زبانه های حریق آنها را لیسیده.
«««دلم میخواد ۶ ماه پیرتر بشم»»»
•ص۲۷۲/ چقدر جالب که عاشق و معشوق ها خودشونو بعد مرگ اون یکی دیگه توی یک سارو و ناراحتی میبینند ولی توی این کیس، بوریس بعد از اینکه میفهمه لولا نمرده و توی تخت زنده است، ناراحت میشه و دیگه نمیخوام باور کنه که اون زنده است این باز چه نوع از عشق است یا کلا همه عشق ها اینجوریه؟!؟
Sorry for not typing it in English or Spanish, can use the great google translation! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
April 6, 2015
Introduction
--The Age of Reason
--The Age of Reason
March 15, 2021
"او ميان سكوتي خوفناك تنها بود،آزاد و تنها،بدون كمك و بدون بهانه،محكوم به تصميم گيري بدون استمداد،محكوم به آزاد بودن تا ابد."
سن عقل اثر ژان پل سارتر يك رمان فلسفي با تم اگزيستانسياليستي هست،داستان حول محور مفهوم آزادي و وجود ميگرده،بر پايه اين مفاهيم نقل ميشه و با اضافه شدن كاركتر ها خواننده يك هستي مشخص مجزا از هركدوم از كاركتر ها رو درك ميكنه.كاركتر هاي داستان براي خودشون ماجرا هاي ناخوشايند و تا حدي غير اخلاقي دارن،هركدوم داراي ويژگي هاي منفي خودشون هستن.
شخصيت اصلي داستان "ماتيو" هست كه استاد فلسفه است و در به در دنبال حفظ آزادي آرماني خودشه و كلاا اين باور به آزادي و آزاد بودن در نوع رفتارش با بقيه و كارايي كه ميكنه تاثيرات ناخوشايندي داره.براي آزادي دست و پا ميزنه ولي بيشتر در هستي مسموم اين آزادي غرق ميشه.
سن عقل اثر ژان پل سارتر يك رمان فلسفي با تم اگزيستانسياليستي هست،داستان حول محور مفهوم آزادي و وجود ميگرده،بر پايه اين مفاهيم نقل ميشه و با اضافه شدن كاركتر ها خواننده يك هستي مشخص مجزا از هركدوم از كاركتر ها رو درك ميكنه.كاركتر هاي داستان براي خودشون ماجرا هاي ناخوشايند و تا حدي غير اخلاقي دارن،هركدوم داراي ويژگي هاي منفي خودشون هستن.
شخصيت اصلي داستان "ماتيو" هست كه استاد فلسفه است و در به در دنبال حفظ آزادي آرماني خودشه و كلاا اين باور به آزادي و آزاد بودن در نوع رفتارش با بقيه و كارايي كه ميكنه تاثيرات ناخوشايندي داره.براي آزادي دست و پا ميزنه ولي بيشتر در هستي مسموم اين آزادي غرق ميشه.
October 23, 2019
The Essence of Freedom
25 November 2013
This is probably one of the first Sartre books that I have read, and while I am not tearing through the bookshops (and libraries) looking for more of his work, I must say that it was an interesting read. I guess there are a couple of reasons it took me so long to get to Sartre and one of them would be that since a lot of my friends were either Christians (or basically didn't read) then all I would hear is how evil and bad Sartre is, and that by reading Sartre you are playing a very delicate game with the devil. Hey, I've played Dungeons and Dragons, Magic the Gathering, and a bucket load of computer games through most of my adult life (as well as being involved with other things) so I probably ask myself what on Earth could reading a bit of Sartre do to me.
To answer that simply – absolutely nothing.
Anyway, this is what Sartre looks like:
and here's another picture of him:
He doesn't look all that scary to me.
Anyway, this is one of those philosophy novels, you know the type where philosophers write a novel that contains a lot of their philosophy and that the main characters in the book sprout his philosophy – you know, the way that Plato would do with Socrates (even though Plato's philosophy and Socrates' philosophy tended to be two different things). This novel is set over two days during the lead up to World War II and is about how a guy named Matthieu is trying to get 4000 francs because he has accidentally got his girlfriend pregnant, and he doesn't want to either grow up or become a father (which generally entails growing up anyway). It is also about this guy name Daniel who realises that he is a homosexual, but still wants to marry a woman whom he is in love with because she wants to have children (strange attitude for a homosexual to take – I thought that would be what we would consider bi-sexual, but then again this is 1945 so the intricacies of the modern sexual system sort of did not exist back then).
The story explores the concept of freedom, but also the concept of coming of age. This is not one of those rite to manhood type stories because with Sartre the coming of age, or in his words, the age of reason, is when one reaches that stage in life (if they ever reach that stage in life) when they realise that it is time for them to take charge of their life and to take responsibility for their actions. Sometimes an event occurs (such as in Matthieu's case, with him getting his girlfriend pregnant) which forces one to accept the responsibility and, as some suggest, grow up. Other times it simply never happens, and the person simply ends up drifting around the world living in some sort of dream, never actually defining themselves, and never having a purpose or a point.
This is the idea of existentialism (and remember that Sartre is considered the father of secular existentialism) in that it is the definition of who we are. It has two effects in that in one case existentialism is us making a concerted effort to define ourselves (such as me being the straight guy that pretends he knows nothing about brothels and sits in the Crown Casino reading a book) and the outward effects of that definition, in that people see who you are and respond to this. However, the catch is that while we may define ourselves, in many cases we are the only people who understand and respond to that definition because everybody else perceives reality differently, and in perceiving reality differently, we respond to reality differently. Each of us has our own perception of ourselves, and everybody around us has their own perception of who we are.
This does have a potential to backfire though because the idea of defining oneself can apply only to that which can be perceived, and there are times when we try to create a perception that does not work. For instance, the person who takes out a massive loan for an impressive car and spends money on things that they cannot afford can find that when the money runs out or the creditors come knocking on their door, they discover that the friends that they thought they had are no longer around. In essence, they have not defined themselves as a member of the high life but rather defined themselves as a fraud.
So too with the person that talks themselves up. There is a limit to parading yourself around in front of people because it gets to a point where when somebody does that too much, and the stories become ever more unbelievable, they are not at all impressive, but rather more like a septic tank. For instance, the phrase 'I can do that if I really wanted to, but I am too much of an ethical person to do that' says absolutely nothing about who you are, other than somebody who is basically full of shit. If you do not want to do that because you are too ethical, you do not need to tell people that you do not want to do that, but rather let your ethical nature come out based upon your actions, and not upon the statements you make about what you do not want to do.
Now, there is another essence to this book, and that is the essence of freedom. The question that comes about is what is freedom? Can one be free yet live in a totalitarian dictatorship? My answer to that question would be yes. While the totalitarian dictatorship may attempt to stifle your thoughts and actions, it is the knowledge that no matter what they do, they cannot really control your thoughts, and they cannot take away your joy.
In a high school essay I used the opening line 'freedom is a state of mind, freedom is a lie'. The first statement is true, because we may live in a country that considers itself free, but we may put ourselves in chains through the belief that we must behave in a certain way, and in behaving in that certain way we are chaining ourselves to society's traditions. While there are restrictions on what we can do (such as killing somebody) in many cases we will restrain ourselves for fear of bringing the wrath of the state upon us. The same goes with a totalitarian dictatorship were we will self-censure ourselves for fear that if we do not we may bring the wrath of the state upon us. However, the question of freedom is always a question of our mindset, knowing that nobody can truly control what we think and how we think and that if we act in a certain way it is because we want to define ourselves as such as opposed to only acting in that way out of fear.
As such, the statement about freedom being a lie is a statement made by an immature person (me) who was restricted in what he could do because he did not truly understand the nature of freedom. Economic slavery is a term that probably does not relate to this, but it is defining our freedom based upon the amount of money that we have. We believe, in a way, that the more money that we have (and the finance industry loves to float those ideas) the more we believe that we are able to do and in doing so the more joy we believe that we have. However, as I have said, freedom is not defined by how much money we have (because if we believe that freedom only comes through wealth, then we are in fact enslaving ourselves to wealth because we believe that we can only have freedom if we have wealth).
Sartre also explores the idea that marriage, and the family, is a form of slavery, and this is something that Matthieu feared. I can relate to that, especially with what happened when I was walking to church last night. As I approached the church I saw this young lady (and a rather intelligent one at that because we have talked about post-modernism, and not in a 'post-modernism is evil and bad' sort of way) carrying a baby. Now, this young lady is single so what that tells me about this lady is that she wants to get married and have a family which immediately puts her off the list of a potential wife (if I ever chose to get married, which I don't). My thinking here reflects that of Matthieu in that I see marriage and a family as being a form of slavery (and in essence a form of economic slavery since raising a single child, let alone a whole family, is incredibly expensive, especially if you want them to go to a good school). However, my view of this, that is getting married and having children, is that it is also a form of ordinariness which in a way repugnates me. I have walked into churches where I see these happy couples with their little baby (in a way showing it off to everybody) and I am repugnated by it. Previously it was because of jealousy that I was repugnated, but now, with my new church, in my new city, I am a lot more circumspect. To me I may not feel joy for them (because I generally do not base my happiness upon other people's joy, but rather upon my own state of mind, and the freedom that I give myself through having control over my mind and over my thoughts) but I understand that is their choice, and that is to live the ordinary life. There is nothing wrong with living an ordinary life, however, if there is one thing that I know about myself, and that is that I am not interested in living an ordinary life, which probably has something to do with having played Dungeons and Dragons for much of my adult life.
Here is a picture of a baby:
25 November 2013
This is probably one of the first Sartre books that I have read, and while I am not tearing through the bookshops (and libraries) looking for more of his work, I must say that it was an interesting read. I guess there are a couple of reasons it took me so long to get to Sartre and one of them would be that since a lot of my friends were either Christians (or basically didn't read) then all I would hear is how evil and bad Sartre is, and that by reading Sartre you are playing a very delicate game with the devil. Hey, I've played Dungeons and Dragons, Magic the Gathering, and a bucket load of computer games through most of my adult life (as well as being involved with other things) so I probably ask myself what on Earth could reading a bit of Sartre do to me.
To answer that simply – absolutely nothing.
Anyway, this is what Sartre looks like:
and here's another picture of him:
He doesn't look all that scary to me.
Anyway, this is one of those philosophy novels, you know the type where philosophers write a novel that contains a lot of their philosophy and that the main characters in the book sprout his philosophy – you know, the way that Plato would do with Socrates (even though Plato's philosophy and Socrates' philosophy tended to be two different things). This novel is set over two days during the lead up to World War II and is about how a guy named Matthieu is trying to get 4000 francs because he has accidentally got his girlfriend pregnant, and he doesn't want to either grow up or become a father (which generally entails growing up anyway). It is also about this guy name Daniel who realises that he is a homosexual, but still wants to marry a woman whom he is in love with because she wants to have children (strange attitude for a homosexual to take – I thought that would be what we would consider bi-sexual, but then again this is 1945 so the intricacies of the modern sexual system sort of did not exist back then).
The story explores the concept of freedom, but also the concept of coming of age. This is not one of those rite to manhood type stories because with Sartre the coming of age, or in his words, the age of reason, is when one reaches that stage in life (if they ever reach that stage in life) when they realise that it is time for them to take charge of their life and to take responsibility for their actions. Sometimes an event occurs (such as in Matthieu's case, with him getting his girlfriend pregnant) which forces one to accept the responsibility and, as some suggest, grow up. Other times it simply never happens, and the person simply ends up drifting around the world living in some sort of dream, never actually defining themselves, and never having a purpose or a point.
This is the idea of existentialism (and remember that Sartre is considered the father of secular existentialism) in that it is the definition of who we are. It has two effects in that in one case existentialism is us making a concerted effort to define ourselves (such as me being the straight guy that pretends he knows nothing about brothels and sits in the Crown Casino reading a book) and the outward effects of that definition, in that people see who you are and respond to this. However, the catch is that while we may define ourselves, in many cases we are the only people who understand and respond to that definition because everybody else perceives reality differently, and in perceiving reality differently, we respond to reality differently. Each of us has our own perception of ourselves, and everybody around us has their own perception of who we are.
This does have a potential to backfire though because the idea of defining oneself can apply only to that which can be perceived, and there are times when we try to create a perception that does not work. For instance, the person who takes out a massive loan for an impressive car and spends money on things that they cannot afford can find that when the money runs out or the creditors come knocking on their door, they discover that the friends that they thought they had are no longer around. In essence, they have not defined themselves as a member of the high life but rather defined themselves as a fraud.
So too with the person that talks themselves up. There is a limit to parading yourself around in front of people because it gets to a point where when somebody does that too much, and the stories become ever more unbelievable, they are not at all impressive, but rather more like a septic tank. For instance, the phrase 'I can do that if I really wanted to, but I am too much of an ethical person to do that' says absolutely nothing about who you are, other than somebody who is basically full of shit. If you do not want to do that because you are too ethical, you do not need to tell people that you do not want to do that, but rather let your ethical nature come out based upon your actions, and not upon the statements you make about what you do not want to do.
Now, there is another essence to this book, and that is the essence of freedom. The question that comes about is what is freedom? Can one be free yet live in a totalitarian dictatorship? My answer to that question would be yes. While the totalitarian dictatorship may attempt to stifle your thoughts and actions, it is the knowledge that no matter what they do, they cannot really control your thoughts, and they cannot take away your joy.
In a high school essay I used the opening line 'freedom is a state of mind, freedom is a lie'. The first statement is true, because we may live in a country that considers itself free, but we may put ourselves in chains through the belief that we must behave in a certain way, and in behaving in that certain way we are chaining ourselves to society's traditions. While there are restrictions on what we can do (such as killing somebody) in many cases we will restrain ourselves for fear of bringing the wrath of the state upon us. The same goes with a totalitarian dictatorship were we will self-censure ourselves for fear that if we do not we may bring the wrath of the state upon us. However, the question of freedom is always a question of our mindset, knowing that nobody can truly control what we think and how we think and that if we act in a certain way it is because we want to define ourselves as such as opposed to only acting in that way out of fear.
As such, the statement about freedom being a lie is a statement made by an immature person (me) who was restricted in what he could do because he did not truly understand the nature of freedom. Economic slavery is a term that probably does not relate to this, but it is defining our freedom based upon the amount of money that we have. We believe, in a way, that the more money that we have (and the finance industry loves to float those ideas) the more we believe that we are able to do and in doing so the more joy we believe that we have. However, as I have said, freedom is not defined by how much money we have (because if we believe that freedom only comes through wealth, then we are in fact enslaving ourselves to wealth because we believe that we can only have freedom if we have wealth).
Sartre also explores the idea that marriage, and the family, is a form of slavery, and this is something that Matthieu feared. I can relate to that, especially with what happened when I was walking to church last night. As I approached the church I saw this young lady (and a rather intelligent one at that because we have talked about post-modernism, and not in a 'post-modernism is evil and bad' sort of way) carrying a baby. Now, this young lady is single so what that tells me about this lady is that she wants to get married and have a family which immediately puts her off the list of a potential wife (if I ever chose to get married, which I don't). My thinking here reflects that of Matthieu in that I see marriage and a family as being a form of slavery (and in essence a form of economic slavery since raising a single child, let alone a whole family, is incredibly expensive, especially if you want them to go to a good school). However, my view of this, that is getting married and having children, is that it is also a form of ordinariness which in a way repugnates me. I have walked into churches where I see these happy couples with their little baby (in a way showing it off to everybody) and I am repugnated by it. Previously it was because of jealousy that I was repugnated, but now, with my new church, in my new city, I am a lot more circumspect. To me I may not feel joy for them (because I generally do not base my happiness upon other people's joy, but rather upon my own state of mind, and the freedom that I give myself through having control over my mind and over my thoughts) but I understand that is their choice, and that is to live the ordinary life. There is nothing wrong with living an ordinary life, however, if there is one thing that I know about myself, and that is that I am not interested in living an ordinary life, which probably has something to do with having played Dungeons and Dragons for much of my adult life.
Here is a picture of a baby:
June 5, 2020
Prvi deo trilogije, u kojoj Jean-Paul Sartre pokušava da progura svoju filozofiju egzistencijalizma, pre svega temu slobode u našim životima i odlukama. Ovako jedan od glavnih likova (koji su svi, prema vlastitom mišljenju, pomalo propali) na početku objašnjava svoj pogled:
- Ja bih hteo da budem samo svoj.
- Da budeš slobodan, potpuno slobodan. To je tvoja mana.
- To nije mana, reče Matje. To je... Šta bi drugo htela da čovek čini? Kad ja ne bih pokušavao da svojim životom raspolažem kako ja hoću, život bi mi izgledao potpuno besmislen.
Glavne osobe u romanu redom prolaze kroz različite krize. Marsela je trudna i sprema se na abortus (koji ne želi). Danijel se na jedan komičan način trudi da izvrši samoubistvo ("Kad čovek nema hrabrosti da se ubije odjednom, onda to mora da čini na parče"). Boris sa 25 godina smatra da će živeti još malo, a sa 30 će da si prosvira kuršum kroz glavu (pošto si "sa 30 suviše mator za život"). A Iviš... ah, Iviš.
Ali u centru naše pažnje je ipak 34-godišnji profesor filozofije Matje, koji takođe smatra da je mator - i propao. Matje se bori sa svojim shvatanjem slobode, i pokušava da je objasni sebi i drugima.
Da bi razumeo ono u šta se zarekao, trebalo je da bude potpuno svestan sebe. Ali svakako nije: uzalud je sebi ponavljao reči koje su ga nekad ushićavale:
- Biti slobodan. Biti svoje sopstveno delo, moći reći: postojim zato što ja tako hoću; biti svoj sopstveni početak.
Na trenutke se Matje pita:
- Moja sloboda? Ona mi je teška: već godinama sam džabe slobodan. Umirem od želje da je jednom zamenim za nešto sigurno. A sem toga mislim kao i ti da čovek nije čovek sve dok nije našao nešto radi čega bi pristao da umre.
I tako dalje i tako dalje.
Ono što sam mislio o Mučnina, može se primeniti i ovde. Dobar je ovo način da se predstavi filozofija. Sviđa mi se način pripovedanja, detalji iz sveta pred početak 2. svetskog rata (1938), stvari koje snađu te ljude u toku tri opisana dana. A sviđa mi se i njihov unutrašnji dijalog, ima tu pomalo Dostojevskog.
S druge strane, Sartr je bio poznat po tome da nije voleo da se zadržava na sređivanju svojih dela. Bio bi ovo bolji roman da je bio disciplinovaniji pisac. Možda čak toliko dobar koliko je dobra priča Zid.
- Ja bih hteo da budem samo svoj.
- Da budeš slobodan, potpuno slobodan. To je tvoja mana.
- To nije mana, reče Matje. To je... Šta bi drugo htela da čovek čini? Kad ja ne bih pokušavao da svojim životom raspolažem kako ja hoću, život bi mi izgledao potpuno besmislen.
Glavne osobe u romanu redom prolaze kroz različite krize. Marsela je trudna i sprema se na abortus (koji ne želi). Danijel se na jedan komičan način trudi da izvrši samoubistvo ("Kad čovek nema hrabrosti da se ubije odjednom, onda to mora da čini na parče"). Boris sa 25 godina smatra da će živeti još malo, a sa 30 će da si prosvira kuršum kroz glavu (pošto si "sa 30 suviše mator za život"). A Iviš... ah, Iviš.
Ali u centru naše pažnje je ipak 34-godišnji profesor filozofije Matje, koji takođe smatra da je mator - i propao. Matje se bori sa svojim shvatanjem slobode, i pokušava da je objasni sebi i drugima.
Da bi razumeo ono u šta se zarekao, trebalo je da bude potpuno svestan sebe. Ali svakako nije: uzalud je sebi ponavljao reči koje su ga nekad ushićavale:
- Biti slobodan. Biti svoje sopstveno delo, moći reći: postojim zato što ja tako hoću; biti svoj sopstveni početak.
Na trenutke se Matje pita:
- Moja sloboda? Ona mi je teška: već godinama sam džabe slobodan. Umirem od želje da je jednom zamenim za nešto sigurno. A sem toga mislim kao i ti da čovek nije čovek sve dok nije našao nešto radi čega bi pristao da umre.
I tako dalje i tako dalje.
Ono što sam mislio o Mučnina, može se primeniti i ovde. Dobar je ovo način da se predstavi filozofija. Sviđa mi se način pripovedanja, detalji iz sveta pred početak 2. svetskog rata (1938), stvari koje snađu te ljude u toku tri opisana dana. A sviđa mi se i njihov unutrašnji dijalog, ima tu pomalo Dostojevskog.
S druge strane, Sartr je bio poznat po tome da nije voleo da se zadržava na sređivanju svojih dela. Bio bi ovo bolji roman da je bio disciplinovaniji pisac. Možda čak toliko dobar koliko je dobra priča Zid.
February 7, 2017
Over the course of two days in Paris during a hot summer in 1938, philosophy teacher Mathieu Delarue has a crisis on his hands, he needs to raise funds for an abortion so his life can retain the total freedom that he so dearly clings to, all the while there is a circulating tension with the threat of war looming. 'The Age of Reason' captures this period in time very well, but the overall narrative left me cold.
Expertly written?, yes, but drags along in places, Matthieu himself was a deeply studied character, and felt like a man stuck between a rock and a hard place in his attempts to straighten his life out.
An influential work rather than an enjoyable one, it's probably a masterpiece.
I have nothing against Satre, he was great friends with Simone de Beauvoir (one of my favourite writers), but when it comes to the writings of existentialism I much prefer Camus.
Expertly written?, yes, but drags along in places, Matthieu himself was a deeply studied character, and felt like a man stuck between a rock and a hard place in his attempts to straighten his life out.
An influential work rather than an enjoyable one, it's probably a masterpiece.
I have nothing against Satre, he was great friends with Simone de Beauvoir (one of my favourite writers), but when it comes to the writings of existentialism I much prefer Camus.
December 30, 2020
The Age of Reason (L'âge de raison) is a 1945 novel by Jean-Paul Sartre. It is the first part of the trilogy "The Roads to Freedom". The novel, set in the bohemian Paris of the late 1930s, focuses on three days in the life of a philosophy teacher named Mathieu who is seeking money to pay for an abortion for his mistress, Marcelle. Sartre analyses the motives of various characters and their actions and takes into account the perceptions of others to give the reader a comprehensive picture of the main character. The novel is concerned with Sartre's conception of freedom as the ultimate aim of human existence; the existentialist notion of ultimate freedom through presenting a detailed account of the characters' psychologies as they are forced to make significant decisions in their lives. As the novel progresses, character narratives espouse Sartre's view of what it means to be free and how one operates within the framework of society with this philosophy.This is one of many rather brief synopses that I found on this novel. When first encountering these, I wondered why they were so nondescriptive. I now know why. It really is not about much more than Mathieu parading around town, meeting his friends, looking for somebody to loan him the four thousand francs he needs for his mistress Marcelle's abortion. However, this is one of those books that you need to actually read in order to appreciate. Because most of the book is actually about the inner workings in the minds of all the different characters, their thought processes, and psychological complexes. Other interesting characters include:
Jaques Delarue, a lawyer & his brother, who most notably offers him 10,000 francs to marry the girl.
Daniel, a suicidal and homosexual friend to Mathieu's who Marcelle has secretly been seeing ("My secrets from [Mathieu] are all I have"). His response to his lack of identity and still esteem is masochism, trying to drown his cats which he loves, male prostitutes which he secretly hopes will hurt him, eventually agreeing to marry Marcelle whom he hates in her pregnancy (some wonderfully worded descriptions of his deep feelings of despise by Sartre). In one of my favorite scenes (which is actually the final scene), Daniel confesses that he is a homosexual to Mathieu to "see the effect it would produce on a fellow like you" and returns the five thousand francs from Marcelle, pronouncing that he will marry Marcelle so that she may keep the child. Understandably confused, Mathieu finally deduces that Daniel is doing this to serve as a martyr. He envies his position, realizing that he has given up Marcelle for nothing, that he is nothing that he can respect.
"Mathieu watched Daniel disappear and thought, "I remain alone." Alone but no freer than before. He had said to himself last evening, "If only Marcelle did not exist," but was deceived... "No one has interfered with my freedom, my life has drained it dry." The scent of Ivichn still hovered in the air. He inhaled the scent and reviewed that day in tumult. "Much ado about nothing," he thought. For nothing; this life had been given him for nothing; he was nothing and yet he would not change; he was as he was made. Various tried and proved rules of conduct had already offered their services disillusioned epicureanism, smiling tolerance, resignation, flat seriousness, stoicism; all the aids whereby a man may savor, minute by minute, like a connoisseur, the failure of a life. "It is true, it is really true; I have attained the age of reason."
Boris, Mathieu's disciple (although he hates being referred to as such) in Philosophy. Preoccupation with his age, feels old, running out of time; concerned that he has no future.
Lola, his lover, whom Mathieu "forces to lend" him the 5,000 francs.
Ivich, who Mathieu really loves, is a young girl from a wealthy family convinced she has failed the final examinations. She seems to have a preoccupation with denying herself touch, food, water, and other such desires. She claims to have being touched, yet acts recklessly with her body. Her definition of freedom seems to include denying any touch from Mathieu, denying any discussion regarding any affinity for each other, as if she is afraid this will lead to being "owned".
Gomez, off fighting in Spain which makes Mathieu question his decision not to do the same; he feels guilty.
Brunet, once his best friend, but since devoting himself to the Communist Party, has grown apart from him. Mathieu seems to admire and aspire to be like him, yet admits to not feeling good enough to do as such. He tries to convince Mathieu to sign the paperwork, but Mathieu is more concerned about his notion of personal freedom.
This novel is essentially an exhibition of Sartre's philosophies. Here is a great summary I found from Sonoma State University:
Sartre's PhilosophiesThe Good: Fascinating look into mindsets, loved reading about Sartre's philosophies. On a broad scale, I do agree with existentialism.
1. Existence precedes essence. "Freedom is existence, and in it existence precedes essence." This means that what we do, how we act in our life, determines our apparent "qualities." It is not that someone tells the truth because she is honest, but rather she defines herself as honest by telling the truth again and again. I am a professor in a way different than the way I am six feet tall, or the way a table is a table. The table simply is; I exist by defining myself in the world at each moment.
2. Subject rather than object. Humans are not objects to be used by God or a government or corporation or society. Nor we to be "adjusted" or molded into roles --to be only a waiter or a conductor or a mother or worker. We must look deeper than our roles and find ourselves.
3. Freedom. The central and unique potentiality which constitutes us as human. Sartre rejects determinism, saying that it is our choice how we respond to determining tendencies.
4. Choice. I am my choices. I cannot not choose. If I do not choose, that is still a choice. If faced with inevitable circumstances, we still choosehow we are in those circumstances.
5. Responsibility. Each of us is responsible for everything we do. If we seek advice from others, we choose our advisor and have some idea of the course he or she will recommend. "I am responsible for my very desire of fleeing responsibilities."
6. Past determinants seldom tell us the facts. We transform past determining tendencies through our choices. Explanations in terms of family, socioeconomic status, etc., do not tell us why a person makes the crucial choices we are most interested in.
7. Our acts define who we are. "In life, a man commits himself, draws his own portrait, and there is nothing but that portrait." Our illusions and imaginings about ourselves, about what we could have been, are nothing but self-deception.
8. We continue to make ourselves. A "brave" person is simply someone who usually acts bravely. Each act contributes to defining us as we are, and at any moment we can begin to act differently and draw a different portrait of ourselves. There is always a possibility to change, to start making a different kind of choice.
9. The power to create ourselves. We have the power of transforming ourself indefinitely.
10. Our reality. Human reality "identifies and defines itself by the ends which it pursues", rather than by alleged "causes" in the past.
11. Subjectivism. The freedom of the individual subject, and that we cannot pass beyond subjectivity.
12. The human condition. Despite different roles and historical situations, we all have to be in the world, to labor and die there. These circumstances "are everywhere recognisable; and subjective because they are lived and are nothing if we do not live them.
13. Condemned to be free. We are condemned because we did not create ourselves. We must choose and act from within whatever situation we find ourselves.
14. Abandonment. "I am abandoned in the world", in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help.
15. Anguish. "It is in anguish that we become conscious of our freedom. ...My being provokes anguish to the extent that I distrust myself and my own reactions in that situation." 1) We must make some choices knowing that the consequences will have profound effects on others (like a commander sending his troops into battle.) 2) In choosing for ourselves we choose for all humankind.
16. Despair. We limit ourselves to a reliance on that which is within our power, our capability to influence. There are other things very important to us over which we have no control.
17. Bad faith. This means to be guilty of regarding oneself not as a free person but as an object. In bad faith I am hiding the truth from myself. "I must know the truth very exactly in order to conceal it more carefully. (There seems to be some overlap in Sartre's conception of bad faith and his conception of self-deception.) A person can live in bad faith, implying a constant and particular style of life.
18. "The Unconcious" is not really unconscious. At some level I am aware of, and I choose, what I will allow fully into my consciousness and what I will not. Thus I cannot use "the unconscious" as an excuse for my behavior. Even though I may not admit it to myself, I am aware and I am choosing. Even in self-deception, I know I am the one deceiving myself, and Freud's so-called censor must be conscious to know what to repress. Those who use "the unconscious" as exoneration of actions believe that our instincts, drives, and complexes make up a reality that simply is; that is neither true nor false in itself but simply real.
19. Passion is not an excuse. "I was overwhelmed by strong feelings; I couldn't help myself" is a falsehood. Despite my feelings, I choose how to express them in action.
20. Ontology. The study of being, of what constitutes a person as a person, is the necessary basis for psychoanalysis.
The Bad: Too Much Philosophy. Nothing that much occurs, with, in Mathieu's words, "much ado about nothing".
The Ugly: Interestingly, the worst thing about this novel was not the excess of philosophy, which I could handle by taking some time reading something else in between, but Sartre's punctuation and formatting choices. I am specifically referring to how he put characters thoughts in quotations. This made it highly confusing to decipher between dialogue unless one read it all very slowly, with distinct pausing in between to register the transition. A characters "thoughts" will be imbedded in between what they "say" out loud, and with it all formatted the same, it is very easy to read them as the same. Surprisingly distracting and frustrating.
#existentialism #French #philosophy #TheGoodTheBadThe_Review
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 17, 2014
Soap opera with brains. Yes, I can agree with this. Caring about other people while watching their little lives and dramas is so much more fulfilling when they prove themselves to have complex despair behind their everyday actions. It never ends, really. The constant proving to oneself that this life is worthwhile, that the hopes of the past and the dreams of the future won't go to waste. Mathieu keeps to his belief of freedom, to be capable of anything, no matter what constraints have been laid across his living by emotional bonds and societal dictations and past history. In the end he achieves this freedom, and finds that he no longer believes in it. He has reached the age of reason, when he sees that the ideas that once characterized him can no longer be applied to him, unless he wishes to be a hypocrite. In achieving his freedom, he sacrificed for nothing, a nothing that provides a clean a break from everything that had been forcing him into a situation that was no longer; and for what? He may have found a small satisfaction in not being free, now that he had realized that he was waiting for a moment of a lifetime that would never come. Everyone around him either spins out delusions of the future or chases desires that had died long ago, joining him in his everlasting goal of not sinking into regret and despair. A satisfyingly realistic portrayal of the tightrope walk that daily life really is.
June 1, 2017
“إنهما يت��بثان بشبابهما كما يتشبّث محتضرٌ بالحياة”. | سارتر
التشبُّث بالشباب كان وظيفة كل شخصيات الجزء الأول من ثلاثية سارتر “سن الرشد”، إذ تمسّكت به مارسيل الفتاة العليلة حبيسة المنزل لأن الموت يترصدها خارجه عبر التمسك بحملها الذي لم يكن مخططًا له، ولا مرغوبًا من قِبل شريكها، بينما تمسكت به إيفيش عبر العبث والإهتمام المبالغ فيه بنفسها، أما لولا فقد كانت تحافظ على شبابها عبر حب شابٍ أصغر منها، لتثبت لنفسها في كل يومٍ لا يهجرها فيه بأنها ما تزال في شبابها. في حين تمسّك دانيال بشبابه عبر التلاعب بحياوات من حوله، كان يخلق الأحداث لئلا يشعر بقلتها في حياته. ومن ثم يجيء ماتيو، حبيس سن الرشد الذي ما كان ليمانعه لولا خشيته من فقد كنزه الأعظم: الحرية. وهذا ما جعله يتهرّب من أي التزامٍ يفرض عليه من قِبل علاقاته جميعًا.
أكثر ما أثارته فيّ الرواية من تساؤل هو ما معنى أن يكون المرء حرًا؟ أن يتخلّص من كل القيود كيفما كانت؟ أم أن يختار قيوده طواعية لا أن يتم اختيارها له؟
التشبُّث بالشباب كان وظيفة كل شخصيات الجزء الأول من ثلاثية سارتر “سن الرشد”، إذ تمسّكت به مارسيل الفتاة العليلة حبيسة المنزل لأن الموت يترصدها خارجه عبر التمسك بحملها الذي لم يكن مخططًا له، ولا مرغوبًا من قِبل شريكها، بينما تمسكت به إيفيش عبر العبث والإهتمام المبالغ فيه بنفسها، أما لولا فقد كانت تحافظ على شبابها عبر حب شابٍ أصغر منها، لتثبت لنفسها في كل يومٍ لا يهجرها فيه بأنها ما تزال في شبابها. في حين تمسّك دانيال بشبابه عبر التلاعب بحياوات من حوله، كان يخلق الأحداث لئلا يشعر بقلتها في حياته. ومن ثم يجيء ماتيو، حبيس سن الرشد الذي ما كان ليمانعه لولا خشيته من فقد كنزه الأعظم: الحرية. وهذا ما جعله يتهرّب من أي التزامٍ يفرض عليه من قِبل علاقاته جميعًا.
أكثر ما أثارته فيّ الرواية من تساؤل هو ما معنى أن يكون المرء حرًا؟ أن يتخلّص من كل القيود كيفما كانت؟ أم أن يختار قيوده طواعية لا أن يتم اختيارها له؟
February 17, 2021
آشنایی اولیهام با ژان پل سارتر به نقل پدرم از وی و اندیشهاش برمیگردد. وقتی که پنجم دبستان در راه برگشت به سوی منزل پدرم از اگزیستانسیالیسم و نقش ژان پل سارتر برایمان سخن میگفت و به دو اثر درخشان سارتر اشاره میکرد؛ دست های آلوده و کار از کار گذشت که سالها بعد یعنی تابستان ۸۶ ترجمه تازهای از آن را به من هدیه کرد و مشتاقانه به مطالعهاش نشستم. پس از آن دیوار را خواندم و ادبیات سارتر را بیش و بیشتر پسندیدم. و امروز بعد از سالها اثر دیگری از سارتر را تمام کردم: سن عقل. یک اثر استثنائی با نقبی عمیق به احساسات و روحیات و ادراک کاراکترها از خود و محیطشان که برابر چشم خواننده به بهترین گونهای حاضر میگردد. طرح مسائل و کلنجار برای یافتن پاسخ درخورشان تلاش موفق سارتر را نمایان میسازد در عین دستیابی به فرم خواندنی و لذیذی برای خواننده لذتجویی مانند بنده!
و باز هم مرهون آموزههای ارزنده پدرم هستم که علاقه به سارتر را در من تشویق نمودند ...
December 14, 2017
The Age of Reason constantly debates what the idea of freedom is for a man. Whether growing old means one should make every decision with reason or simply reconciliation. Set in the backdrop of Second World War, the characters seem completely oblivious, choosing to live their insular lives with their selfish ambitions - chasing their own version of freedom. Seen from an individual's perspective, freedom seems justified but not entirely when contrasted to humanity. Sartre's thinking makes for a timeless read. His ideas still feel so relevant even in this age.
September 29, 2019
An existentialist read at its finest.
November 6, 2023
تقييمي ٣.٥ / ٥
September 28, 2015
خمیازه کشید، روزش را به پایان رسانده بود. با جوانی اش خداحافظی کرده بود. از هم اکنون اصول اخلاقی آزمایش شده بآرامی خدمات خود را به او عرضه میکردند، در میان آنها، اصول بهره گیری صحیح از لذایذ زندگی ،اغماض توام با لبخند، طرز فکر جدی، مقاومت و پایداری در برابر شداید، همه چیزهایی که اجازه میدهد دقیقه به دقیقه بعنوان یک متخصص طعم یک زندگی ناموفق را چشید، وجود داشت، کتش را درآورد و شروع به باز کردن گره کرواتش نمود.در حالیکه خمیازه میکشید بخود
میگفت :"درست است ، واقعا درست است، من به سن عقل رسیده ام
(آخرین بند کتاب)
میگفت :"درست است ، واقعا درست است، من به سن عقل رسیده ام
(آخرین بند کتاب)
March 19, 2023
L’unico mezzo per salvare la propria giovinezza è dimenticarla
In poche pagine il curatore dell’introduzione fa un ritratto ben definito di Sartre e della sua influenza su filosofia, teatro e politica. Sicuramente è stato un personaggio di spicco del ‘900 (non solo francese) un intellettuale che ha partecipato alla resistenza e non ha avuto timore a schierarsi più tardi, contro il partito comunista a cui era affiliato. Ma con la letteratura come la mettiamo? Il protagonista de “L'età della ragione” è un trentaquattrenne che a me è venuto naturale immaginare come alter-ego dell’autore. Si chiama Matteo è innamorato di una donna russa più giovane di lui, ma ha una relazione amorosa con una donna francese più vecchia. È un professore liceale che simpatizza per la lotta repubblicana spagnola ma non ha avuto il coraggio di partire alla ventura per dare il proprio supporto ai combattenti. Viene considerato un uomo completamente libero e in nome della libertà rifiuta la tessera del partito comunista e l’assunzione di qualsivoglia responsabilità. Io ho letto un libro che per lunghi tratti mi ha ricordato un diario. La trama più che sugli eventi, davvero scarsi, si regge sulle elucubrazioni dei personaggi, soprattutto su quelle di Matteo, diaristicamente spietato nei propri confronti. Le pezze d’appoggio letterarie di Marìas sono totalmente assenti in Sartre, non ci sono le frasi ad effetto del Bardo, si procede per tormenti che quando non son quelli di Matteo, riguardano Boris (il fratello dall’amata russa) o Daniele. Quest’ultimo è forse il personaggio più interessante del libro: uno psicopatico che non accetta le proprie tendenze sessuali, un invidioso, un rancoroso, uno sleale; insomma tutto ciò che Sartre non sembra essere mai stato.
Il romanzo verte sull’interazione fra i personaggi citati testé e tre donne di crescente spessore: Ivic, Marcella e Lola. Nonostante la vicenda si svolga nel periodo pre bellico (nell’introduzione si scoprirà che Sartre dovette interrompere il romanzo per lo scoppio della seconda guerra mondiale e la prigionia in Germania) riguarda quasi esclusivamente la sfera privata dei personaggi e non ci sono tracce o condizionamenti visibili del fatto che Sartre riprese e portò a termine il romanzo dopo la sua prigionia. In pratica il romanzo non mostra le cicatrici dello scoppio della seconda guerra mondiale.
In generale, si può dunque intendere per “età della ragione” il superamento del rifiuto giovanile, della bohème, della “gratuità” gidiana. Mathieu è arrivato all‘“età della ragione” dopo essersi reso conto, appunto, della gratuità fondamentale di ogni vita, o, come scriveva Sartre nell’Essere e il nulla, della “fatticità” di ogni coscienza: ma gli è difficile diventare davvero libero perché è troppo ingombro di se.
Con la letteratura di Sartre la mettiamo che a me può bastare così; la nausea mi è passata da un pezzo, l’ho sperimentata trent’anni fa e non ricordo più neanche come fosse.
In poche pagine il curatore dell’introduzione fa un ritratto ben definito di Sartre e della sua influenza su filosofia, teatro e politica. Sicuramente è stato un personaggio di spicco del ‘900 (non solo francese) un intellettuale che ha partecipato alla resistenza e non ha avuto timore a schierarsi più tardi, contro il partito comunista a cui era affiliato. Ma con la letteratura come la mettiamo? Il protagonista de “L'età della ragione” è un trentaquattrenne che a me è venuto naturale immaginare come alter-ego dell’autore. Si chiama Matteo è innamorato di una donna russa più giovane di lui, ma ha una relazione amorosa con una donna francese più vecchia. È un professore liceale che simpatizza per la lotta repubblicana spagnola ma non ha avuto il coraggio di partire alla ventura per dare il proprio supporto ai combattenti. Viene considerato un uomo completamente libero e in nome della libertà rifiuta la tessera del partito comunista e l’assunzione di qualsivoglia responsabilità. Io ho letto un libro che per lunghi tratti mi ha ricordato un diario. La trama più che sugli eventi, davvero scarsi, si regge sulle elucubrazioni dei personaggi, soprattutto su quelle di Matteo, diaristicamente spietato nei propri confronti. Le pezze d’appoggio letterarie di Marìas sono totalmente assenti in Sartre, non ci sono le frasi ad effetto del Bardo, si procede per tormenti che quando non son quelli di Matteo, riguardano Boris (il fratello dall’amata russa) o Daniele. Quest’ultimo è forse il personaggio più interessante del libro: uno psicopatico che non accetta le proprie tendenze sessuali, un invidioso, un rancoroso, uno sleale; insomma tutto ciò che Sartre non sembra essere mai stato.
Il romanzo verte sull’interazione fra i personaggi citati testé e tre donne di crescente spessore: Ivic, Marcella e Lola. Nonostante la vicenda si svolga nel periodo pre bellico (nell’introduzione si scoprirà che Sartre dovette interrompere il romanzo per lo scoppio della seconda guerra mondiale e la prigionia in Germania) riguarda quasi esclusivamente la sfera privata dei personaggi e non ci sono tracce o condizionamenti visibili del fatto che Sartre riprese e portò a termine il romanzo dopo la sua prigionia. In pratica il romanzo non mostra le cicatrici dello scoppio della seconda guerra mondiale.
In generale, si può dunque intendere per “età della ragione” il superamento del rifiuto giovanile, della bohème, della “gratuità” gidiana. Mathieu è arrivato all‘“età della ragione” dopo essersi reso conto, appunto, della gratuità fondamentale di ogni vita, o, come scriveva Sartre nell’Essere e il nulla, della “fatticità” di ogni coscienza: ma gli è difficile diventare davvero libero perché è troppo ingombro di se.
Con la letteratura di Sartre la mettiamo che a me può bastare così; la nausea mi è passata da un pezzo, l’ho sperimentata trent’anni fa e non ricordo più neanche come fosse.
June 14, 2020
Metų iššūkio sąraše užims vietą: "knyga autoriaus, kurio pagrindinė profesija ne rašytojas".
Mažiausiai patikusi Sartre knyga, niekaip nepavyko ne tik kad susitapatinti, bet bent jau suprasti kurio nors iš veikėjų kančių pagrindą.
Mažiausiai patikusi Sartre knyga, niekaip nepavyko ne tik kad susitapatinti, bet bent jau suprasti kurio nors iš veikėjų kančių pagrindą.
October 4, 2012
I found this book on a much neglected dusty shelf in a back-alley-esque section of my local library and decided to take it home with me. I had never read anything written by Jean-Paul Sartre before (purely due to Sartre's intimidating reputation) but something about The Age Of Reason demanded to be read. Needless to say, I soon found myself swimming in the erratic seas of Mathieu Delarue's chaotic existence, completely in awe of Sartre's understanding of human impetus.
We meet Mathieu, a philosophy teacher living in a bohemian Paris that is between wars and in the midst of a heat wave. The world about him is in a tumultuous state and his own life begins to follow suite when he discovers that his reclusive lover Marcelle is pregnant. Seeking money for an abortion whilst fighting his own indecision and insecurities, the novel plunges us into three days of Mathieu's life, which is not only a life that brings him deep dissatisfaction, but is also a life that he is rapidly losing control of.
Like Ian Curtis bellowing out the prolific Joy Division song Heart And Soul, (lyric: 'Existence well what does it matter/I exist on the best terms I can/the past is now part of my future/the present is well out of hand') Mathieu seems to be a man without a past or a future, a man living between parenthesis who is so fearful of "existing too much" that he ceases to exist at all.
Through the narrative of this man, a single voice is heard, and that is the voice of Sartre himself. This is Sartre challenging the reader to explain Mathieu's anomalous motives, whilst highlighting the pointlessness of existence itself. This is Sartre forcing you to analyze your own life, which is essentially why this novel is an absolute must read.
We meet Mathieu, a philosophy teacher living in a bohemian Paris that is between wars and in the midst of a heat wave. The world about him is in a tumultuous state and his own life begins to follow suite when he discovers that his reclusive lover Marcelle is pregnant. Seeking money for an abortion whilst fighting his own indecision and insecurities, the novel plunges us into three days of Mathieu's life, which is not only a life that brings him deep dissatisfaction, but is also a life that he is rapidly losing control of.
Like Ian Curtis bellowing out the prolific Joy Division song Heart And Soul, (lyric: 'Existence well what does it matter/I exist on the best terms I can/the past is now part of my future/the present is well out of hand') Mathieu seems to be a man without a past or a future, a man living between parenthesis who is so fearful of "existing too much" that he ceases to exist at all.
Through the narrative of this man, a single voice is heard, and that is the voice of Sartre himself. This is Sartre challenging the reader to explain Mathieu's anomalous motives, whilst highlighting the pointlessness of existence itself. This is Sartre forcing you to analyze your own life, which is essentially why this novel is an absolute must read.
July 13, 2022
Jean-Paul Sartre's The Age of Reason combines the author's existentialist investigations along with an analysis of human relations, continuing the philosophical intensity of Dostoevsky's complex melodramas. However, instead of an emphasis on religious morality and redemption, Sartre opts for a colder, more atheistic tone all under the threatening heat of the impending war. Sartre's novel is tightly structured and alternates between stream of consciousness style and heavy dialogue which works well in order to showcase his rather blunt but well observed viewpoints on freedom and human motives, even if at times it reads like a play. The Age of Reason features some brilliant set pieces, characterization and scenes that resonate long after putting the book down.
April 16, 2015
A middle-classed white man finds life difficult, because annoying unattractive women either don't fall in love with him, or fall in love too easily, or just go and get pregnant as soon as you fuck them. Life is so damn unfair because one can't just do whatever one likes without consequences. Oh, and life beyond 30 is pointless.
December 7, 2017
نظریات اگزیستانسیالیستی سارتر در قالب رمان.
شخصیت دانیل شباهت داشت به استاروگین داستایوسکی.
شخصیت دانیل شباهت داشت به استاروگین داستایوسکی.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 952 reviews