Hope Now: The 1980 Interviews

by Jean-Paul Sartre, Benny Levy, Ronald Aronson (Introduction)

In March of 1980, just a month before Sartre's death, Le Nouvel Observateur published a series of interviews, the last ever given, between the blind and debilitated philosopher and his young assistant, Benny Levy. Readers were scandalized and denounced the interviews as distorted, inauthentic, even fraudulent. They seemed to portray a Sartre who had abandoned his leftist convictions and rejected his most intimate friends, including Simone de Beauvoir. This man had cast aside his own fundamental beliefs in the primacy of individual consciousness, the inevitability of violence, and Marxism, embracing instead a messianic Judaism. No, Sartre's supporters argued, it was his interlocutor, the ex-radical, the orthodox, ultra-right-wing activist who had twisted the words and thought of an ailing Sartre to his own ends. Or had he?

Shortly before his death, Sartre confirmed the authenticity of the interviews and their puzzling content. Over the past fifteen years, it has become the task of Sartre scholars to unravel and understand them. Presented in this fresh, meticulous translation, the interviews are framed by two provocative essays from Benny Levy himself, accompanied by a comprehensive introduction from noted Sartre authority Ronald Aronson. Placing the interviews in proper biographical and philosophical perspective, Aronson demonstrates that the thought of both Sartre and Levy reveals multiple intentions that taken together nevertheless confirm and add to Sartre's overall philosophy. This absorbing volume at last contextualizes and elucidates the final thoughts of a brilliant and influential mind.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1906-1980) was offered, but declined, the Nobel Prize for literature in 1964. His many works of fiction, drama, and philosophy include the monumental study of Flaubert, The Family Idiot, and The Freud Scenario, both published in translation by the University of Chicago Press.

Genres: Philosophy

141 pages, Paperback

Published August 15, 2007

About the author

Jean-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.

Reviews

[LPR · Rating 4 out of 5]

Always found Sartre take on what constitutes a Jew interesting. Think that many relate to his concept of the Jew. The conversation regarding Sartre position was interesting to say the least. The idea he came to conclusions of his analysis of Jew without any research or understanding of Jewish history is unconvincing but perhaps reveals his understanding which Sartre says is understood through his encounters. Probably the most interesting aspect of the interview.

[J. F. Vega · Rating 3 out of 5]

No es lo mejor qué hay de Sartre y a menudo Levi quiere llevar el pensamiento de Sartre para su propia corriente. Hay mejores entrevistas y mejores diálogos. No te pierdes de nada si no lo lees. Y antes de él recomendaría muchas otras cosas.

[Anil Kahvecioglu · Rating 4 out of 5]

En fait, je ne suis pas un fidèle lecteur de Sartre, je n’ai lu que La Nausée et L’existentialisme est un Humanisme. Alors il n’est pas possible pour moi d’examiner correctement ce livre. Pour cette raison, je serai éclectique et je le discuterai dans ce contexte.

Dans ce livre, il y a deux points qui m’intéressent beaucoup: la question de l’éthique, et sa relation de l’autre, et la question de fraternité. C’était très intéressant à lire un philosophe d’existentialisme qui priorise l’autre au lieu de l’individu. En général, c’est l’individu qui occupe le centre d’investigation philosophique et existentialiste (Au moins, c’est ce que j’ai lu et compris dans l’histoire de philosophie). C’est intéressant pour Benny Levy aussi, qui ne cache pas sa confusion à propos de réponse de Sartre quand il parle sur l’autre. Par exemple, Sartre dit : « … dans mes premières recherches, comme d’ailleurs l’immense majorité des moralistes, je cherchais la morale dans une conscience sans réciproque ou sans autre (…) et, aujourd’hui, je considère que tout ce qui se passe pour une conscience dans un moment donne est nécessairement lie, souvent même engendre par la présence en face d’elle ou même l’absence dans l’instant, mais l’existence de l’autre » (p. 36) Puis, Sartre raconte comment l’autre participe à des affaires d’autres par les expériences il a avec Levy quand il écrit. Et la liberté est comprise avec la participation de l’autre, qui est très importante, parce que pour autant que je sache, la liberté était représentée comme quelque chose basée sur l’existence d’individu, sur la destine inévitable d’homme comme il existe. C’est pourquoi, Lévy dit : « Reconnais qu’on peut s’étonner de t’entendre… »

La question de l’autre réapparait quand il s’agit cette fois la question de la fraternité. Dans le partie de livre où Sartre réfléchit sur la fraternité, il souligne avec insistance l’argument suivant : nous avons la même mère à partir de les exemples de clans, parfois par Socrate, et il souligne l’Humanité qui peut être réalisée dans le futur. Il dit : « Autrement dit, ils inventent, sans savoir qu’ils inventent, un animal qui les a tous engendres, par conséquent ils sont tous frères. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’ils se sentaient originalement frères. » (p. 55) ou « Quand je vois un homme, je pense : il a mon origine, il est originaire comme moi de la mère-humanité disons, de la mère-terre comme dit Socrate… » (p. 56) Je pense que ce n’est pas un argument solide, comme Lévy le dit, c’est un argument mythologique. Cependant, malgré les aspects mythologiques, ce que Sartre essaye à dire est très significatif en termes de l’espoir sur l’Humanité. Je comprends le titre de livre « L’espoir Maintenant » dans ce contexte. C’est « l’espoir maintenant » qui se contredit « l’espoir hier », l’espoir d’existentialisme originel de Sartre.

[Elliot Ratzman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sartre:“You see, my books are a failure.” Huh? Sartre was blind and addled the last years of his prolific life. Benny Levy, his secretary and interlocutor, a former Maoist philosopher turned observant Jew, conducted these last interviews with Sartre who commented and approved them in the final version. His lifelong collaborator Simone de Beauvoir disliked Levy and maintained that Sartre’s words were manipulated. Here Sartre claims he never himself experienced ‘despair’ or ‘anguish,’ central themes of his early works; that advocacy of revolutionary violence was an excess; that hope is a central theme of human life; and that Judaism’s idea of messianism forms the basis of an ethical revolution, a just alternative to Marxism. Despite being a jerk, Levy’s comments are interesting. Today he is a Hasid living in Jerusalem. Sadly, Sartre never finished his ethics and died as these interviews were being published. Which ideas belong to whom? In any case they are all provocative and insightful.

[Brandon Prince]

I am very surprised, given all the controversy surrounding this interview, to see Sartre yielding virtually nothing to this petty thug, thwarting every attempt of Levy's to manipulate and distort his ideas. It is quite moving to see an ailing Sartre effortlessly hold his own against Levy's aggressiveness, all the more powerful given the fact that Sartre was completely reliant on him for nearly everything (reading, writing etc)

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

Illuminating interviews, though Sartre's interlocutor is clearly pushing his own view and not towards and understanding of the great master's...