What do you think?
Rate this book
Socrates Meets Sartre : The Father of Philosophy Cross-Examines the Founder of Existentialism
This book is one of a series of Socratic explorations of some of the Great Books. The books in this series are intended to be short, clear, and non-technical, thus fully understandable by beginners. Through such Socratic dialogues, Peter Kreeft introduces (or reviews) the basic questions in the fundamental divisions of metaphysics, epistemology, anthropology, ethics, logic, and method. In Socrates Meets Sartre, Kreeft takes the reader through the world of existentialist philosophy, posing questions that challenge the concepts that Sartre proposed. Based on an imaginary dialogue between Socrates and Sartre that takes place in the afterlife, this profound and witty book makes an entertaining and informative exploration of modern philosophy. "Peter Kreeft’s work (1) unfailingly brilliant, (2) intellectually agile, (3) astonishingly perspicacious, (4) gloriously orthodox, (5) Chestertonianly aphoristic." — Thomas Howard Author, On Being Catholic Other titles in this Series * Philosophy 101 by Socrates Socrates Meets Marx Socrates Meets Machiavelli
222 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
8 people are currently reading
215 people want to read
About the author
Peter Kreeft
199 books1,075 followersPeter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 25, 2010
Peter Kreeft is great. I am rereading this now and enjoying it even more the second time. Sarte was obviously brilliant. He assumed that God does not exist and argues his philosophy from that one premise. Of course, if God does not exist then everything is permissible. I respect his brillance but disagree with his conclusions.
August 18, 2012
Socrates Meets Sartre is a brief, lucid exploration of Sartre's atheistic existentialism; however, it must be read with a critical eye so the writing's weaknesses don't interfere with understanding the philosophy.
Kreeft is a Catholic theologian and philosopher, so he is writing about a philosophy that is at odds with his own. Unfortunately, he frequently puts ad hominem criticisms into the mouth of Socrates in his imagined dialogue between the two philosophers. On the first page, Kreeft says Sartre “whines like a sick puppy. He pouts and preens like a bratty teenager.” Kreeft calls him a snob, refers to his blindness as “his ugly eyeballs,” and says he is “almost as humorless as a feminist.”
Personally as a feminist who rejects Platonic ideals of male and female, I was infuriated by Kreeft’s multiple sexist statements. Based on a questionable interpretation of Sartre’s writing, Kreeft accuses Sartre of being the “greatest male chauvinist in the history of philosophy.” Yet it is Kreeft who characterizes men as metaphysically active and women as receptive based on their physical reproductive organs. To his credit however, Kreeft has Sartre counter that view by explaining that in Sartre’s philosophy, masculine and feminine archetypes do not exist metaphysically. This exchange of dialogue ends in a stalemate.
While this book was helpful for getting a better understanding of Sartre’s philosophy, due to its flaws I can recommend it only to thoughtful, careful readers.
Kreeft is a Catholic theologian and philosopher, so he is writing about a philosophy that is at odds with his own. Unfortunately, he frequently puts ad hominem criticisms into the mouth of Socrates in his imagined dialogue between the two philosophers. On the first page, Kreeft says Sartre “whines like a sick puppy. He pouts and preens like a bratty teenager.” Kreeft calls him a snob, refers to his blindness as “his ugly eyeballs,” and says he is “almost as humorless as a feminist.”
Personally as a feminist who rejects Platonic ideals of male and female, I was infuriated by Kreeft’s multiple sexist statements. Based on a questionable interpretation of Sartre’s writing, Kreeft accuses Sartre of being the “greatest male chauvinist in the history of philosophy.” Yet it is Kreeft who characterizes men as metaphysically active and women as receptive based on their physical reproductive organs. To his credit however, Kreeft has Sartre counter that view by explaining that in Sartre’s philosophy, masculine and feminine archetypes do not exist metaphysically. This exchange of dialogue ends in a stalemate.
While this book was helpful for getting a better understanding of Sartre’s philosophy, due to its flaws I can recommend it only to thoughtful, careful readers.
September 27, 2010
Sartre is the father of existentialism. Sartre's ideas follow from his atheism. He admits that if there is no god than there is no law giver and no absolute law. People are, therefor, free to choose their own values and people are the results of the choices they make. He does not prove that god does not exist but chooses to believe that there is no god.
However, unlike Plato's Socrates's which relies on almost entirely on logic Kreeft's Socrates often relies on popular opinion and personal attacks.
However, unlike Plato's Socrates's which relies on almost entirely on logic Kreeft's Socrates often relies on popular opinion and personal attacks.
March 24, 2019
Socrates cross-examines Sartre, who has taken atheism to its logical extreme. Though this ultimately leaves him speechless, Socrates does come to the conclusion that Sartre's atheism might unwittingly send atheists running to the arms of a nearby priest.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 6, 2022
This installment of the Socrates meets great thinker series is on Sartre and, especially, his "Existentialism and Human Emotions". Kreeft illustrates well the methodological contrast between Socratic commonsensical deductive logic and Sartre's existentialist paradoxical logic.
In the former, one finds ones logical path to the most rational and benign conclusion while the latter sets up a reductio argument using stark opposite concepts and accepts the absurd pessimistic conclusion. Kreeft shows Sartre's existentialism is based on the non-existence of God as a premise and admits that it is just an ad hoc preference.
Kreeft also highlights Sartre using the "denial of the consequent" as an ad absurdum argument, but wittingly accepting the consequent instead of denying the premise, I.e. if God does not exist, then x (x=everything is morally permissible); not x; therefore God exists. An atheist would deny the first premise. But Sartre accepts the first premise but denies the second. That is an interesting insight of Sartre's reasoning.
Another interesting argument illustrated in this book is Sartre's ontological argument for atheism based on the idea that God is both perfect, and conscious and free which would combine being-in-itself and being-for-itself into one. For Sartre, that is an ontological impossibility because of his dualism of both beings.
The book also shows the consistency of Sartre's moral views in freedom, responsibility, meaning of life, love, and family regardless of the predictable pessimistic conclusions.
This Kreeft's installment of the series is not as entertaining and engaging as some of the other ones in the series, e.g., Marx and Freud. But it is no less insightful and creative in its execution.
In the former, one finds ones logical path to the most rational and benign conclusion while the latter sets up a reductio argument using stark opposite concepts and accepts the absurd pessimistic conclusion. Kreeft shows Sartre's existentialism is based on the non-existence of God as a premise and admits that it is just an ad hoc preference.
Kreeft also highlights Sartre using the "denial of the consequent" as an ad absurdum argument, but wittingly accepting the consequent instead of denying the premise, I.e. if God does not exist, then x (x=everything is morally permissible); not x; therefore God exists. An atheist would deny the first premise. But Sartre accepts the first premise but denies the second. That is an interesting insight of Sartre's reasoning.
Another interesting argument illustrated in this book is Sartre's ontological argument for atheism based on the idea that God is both perfect, and conscious and free which would combine being-in-itself and being-for-itself into one. For Sartre, that is an ontological impossibility because of his dualism of both beings.
The book also shows the consistency of Sartre's moral views in freedom, responsibility, meaning of life, love, and family regardless of the predictable pessimistic conclusions.
This Kreeft's installment of the series is not as entertaining and engaging as some of the other ones in the series, e.g., Marx and Freud. But it is no less insightful and creative in its execution.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews