Jean Paul Sartre on the Anti Semite
Describe the anti-semitic person's attitude toward reason. How does his attitude toward reason reflect or reveal his general attitude toward life, the human condition and even himself? How does his attitude toward reason compare to the attitude of the rational man?
Sartre explains that an Anti-Semite is "impenetrable", and it is actually something he strives to achieve. By gaining impenetrability, the Anti-Semite strengthens his beliefs because another person is not capable of reasoning with him. Sartre believes the Anti-Semite's "reason" is based on the passion for hatred that he holds for the Jew. Sartre uses the word "monoideism" to explain the irrational Anti-Semite's passion which is driven by love for his race and jealousy of the Jew. The Anti-Semite chooses to be impenetrable without consideration of different options.
Sartre believes that the Anti-Semite gains strong conviction because he prefers to be "impervious to reason". The Anti-Semite's view on life is distorted by his impenetrability. Through his life, the Anti-Semite believes that his beliefs are rational and even valid. His perception is effected; his hate for the Jew often consumes him. This consumption does not allow him to admit when he is wrong, or even consider other reasoning. His idea of others, besides those that belong to his race, becomes false. He begins to label others as inferior, evil, greedy, etc. These ideas are based on fear and misconceptions. He believes that all Anti-Semitic views are fact with no exceptions. This causes a distorted view on the human condition. Sartre believes that the Anti-Semite views himself as pure, without flaw. On the other hand, everyone else ...
... middle of paper ...
...a does not just discriminate against the Jews, but anyone outside of their race.
In conclusion, Sartre believes that the passion an Anti-Semite holds for hating the Jew could not be an opinion. According to Sartre, an opinion is reasonable and forthright. The Anti-Semite's reasons for disliking a Jew are based on economic fear and beliefs of past Anti-Semitic leaders. The same hatred an Anti-Semite holds for a Jew, can be compared to a racist's views on African Americans and other minority groups; the Anti-Semite's beliefs and hatred, however, are more focused.
Bibliography:
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotions. Kensington: New York, 1985.
Anti-Semite and Jew. Schoken Books: New York, 1995.
Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Grove Press: New York 1967.
Sartre then proceeds to take this theory and applies it in an attempt to find a solution to anti-Semitism. The author writes that a plausible idea to get rid of anti-Semitism is to have a National Socialist revolution. In that way, all citizens are on the same footing and there is no need for the anti-Semite to "create the Jew" as a form of managing the anti-Semite’s aggression. In hind sight, it can be seen that it is not a feasible solution and that National Socialism does not work. So in that sense Sartre's work is probabl...
According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, anti-Semitism is hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group. There are two main types of anti-Semitism: classical anti-Semitism and modern anti-Semitism. Classical anti-Semitism is the hatred and intolerance towards Jews because of their religious differences. According to remember.org,
Anti-Semitism is the hatred and discrimination of those with a Jewish heritage. It is generally connected to the Holocaust, but the book by Helmut Walser Smith, The Butcher’s Tale shows the rise of anti-Semitism from a grassroots effect. Smith uses newspapers, court orders, and written accounts to write the history and growth of anti-Semitism in a small German town. The book focuses on how anti-Semitism was spread by fear mongering, the conflict between classes, and also the role of the government.
Through previously analysing examples of early Christian anti-Judaism, this chapter provides an insight into the connection between early Christian anti-Judaic attitudes and the Nazi understanding of the Jews. As Ruether contends that Christian anti-Semitism originates from the ‘left hand of Christology’, it will become apparent through analysing Nazi ideology and propaganda how early Christian anti-Judaism is repeated in the Nazi depiction of the Jews. Conversely, it is counter argued by Langmuir that Nazi anti-Semitism differed from early Christian anti-Judaism and therefore was not a continuation of anti-Judaism. He contends that despite the medieval church referring to the Jews as blind to the truth and the symbol of disbelief, medieval authorities did not condone the slaughter of the Jews. Therefore, it can be argued that there is not a direct connection between anti-Judaism and the racial anti-Semitism adopted by the Nazis. In response to Langmuir’s argument, the racial hatred for the Jews expressed by the Nazis, as with any hatred, has to have an origin and a trigger point which generates the feelings of contempt. For example, Christian contempt for Jews originates from the idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. Taking this into account, Langmuir’s argument is problematic and this chapter will reveal the repetition of early Christian anti-Judaism in Nazi propaganda. Although the Nazis interpreted the Jews from a racial discriminative standpoint, which was distinct to the early Church Fathers portrayal of the Jews, they used Christian anti-Judaic accusations and stereotypes of Jews to contribute to their portrayal of the Jewish race. This leads to the conclusion that the Nazis were influenced by the...
However, the one counter-argument to that idea would be the individuality of a person and their ability to think freely. Personally, if I lived in a society based on hatred, I would be a freethinker who questions the "why" while still figuring out the "how."
We choose, act, and take responsibility for everything, and thus we live, and exist. Life cannot be anything until it is lived, but each individual must make sense of it. The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it. To argue that we are the victims of fate, of mysterious forces within us, of some grand passion, or heredity, is to be guilty of bad faith. Sartre says that we can overcome the adversity presented by our facticity, a term he designs to represent the external factors that we have no control over, such as the details of our birth, our race, and so on, by inserting nothingness into it.
“It is better to encounter your existence in disgust, then never to encounter it at all.” What Sartre is saying is that it is better to determine who you are in dissatisfaction, rather than never truly discovering yourself. Sartre’s worst fear in life would be to realize that you have never truly lived. For example, if you were to land a career that you were not interested in and you were just going through the motions of everyday life, Sartre would say that life was not a life worth living. Sartre’s goal in life was to reach the ultimate level; he said life was “Nausea” , because we are always trying to reach the next level, we are always in motion. Sartre had two theories that determine our way of life, Being-In-Itself and Being-For-Itself. Being-In-Itself is the ultimate level, if you reach this level you have fulfilled yourself completely, you have lived your life to the fullest. Being-For-Itself is where we as human beings are, we are always trying to work to become perfect. Our goal in life is to find an authentic existence, and we get there by saying no. Sartre’s philosophy of freedom is obtained by saying no, when we say no we are giving ourselves the option of what we do in our life. By saying no, we receive freedom of our life. “You should say no about every belief if there is a doubt about it.” Sartre also says our human existence is always in
Literary anti-Semitism is as old as Western culture itself. A full listing of writers who have expressed hostility toward Jews and/or Judaism--from Shakespeare to T.S. Eliot, from Pushkin to Pasternak, etc.--would add up to a Who's Who of Western literature.1 Undoubtedly, Dostoevsky follows in this tradition.
For thousands of years, the Jewish People have endured negative stereotypes such as the "insects of humanity." As Sander Gilman pointed out, the Nazi Party labeled Jews as "insects like lice and cockroaches, that generate general disgust among all humanity" (Gilman 80).1 These derogative stereotypes, although championed by the Nazis, have their origins many centuries earlier and have appeared throughout Western culture for thousands of years. This fierce anti-Semitism specifically surfaced in Europe’s large cities in the early twentieth century, partially in conjunction with the growing tide of nationalism, patriotism, and xenophobia that sparked the First World War in 1914. Today, one often learns the history of this critical, pre-WWI era from the perspective of Europe’s anti-Semitic population, while the opposite perspective—that of the Jews in early twentieth-century European society—is largely ignored. Questions like: "How did the Jews view and respond to their mistreatment?" and "How were the Jews affected mentally and psychologically by the prejudices against them?" remain largely unanswered. Insight into these perplexing social questions, while not found in most history books, may be discovered in a complex and highly symbolic story of this era: "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka. Through the use of an extended metaphor, "The Metamorphosis" provides both a basic summary of the common views held against Jews and offers an insight as to what may be the ultimate result of Europe’s anti-Semitism. This work serves as a social commentary and criticism of early twentieth-century Europe. It fulfills two main functions: first, it provides an outline of the s...
“This bronze. Yes, now’s the moment; I’m looking at this thing on the mantelpiece, and I understand that I’m in hell. I tell you, everything’s been thought out beforehand. They knew I’d stand at the fireplace stroking this thing of bronze, with all those eyes intent on me. Devouring me. What? Only two of you? I thought there were more; many more. So this is hell. I’d never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the “burning marl.” Old wives’ tales! There’s no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS-OTHER PEOPLE!”
As Sartre explains, "the Jew whom the anti-Semite wishes to lay hands upon is not a schematic being defined solely by his function, as under administrative law; or by status or acts, as under the Code. He is a Jew, the son of a Jew, recognizable by his physique, by the colour of his hair, by his clothing perhaps, and, so they say, by his character." To the anti-Semite, the Jew's character is oily, tactless, intriguing, selfish and greedy. He believes that all Jews are this way, and therefore treats them all the same, with hatred and repulsion. While a Jew might be a successful business man, a doctor, lawyer, or teacher etc. he is also a Jew, and that is all he is recognized for in the eyes of the anti-Semite.Furthermore, Sartre argues that "if the Jew did not exist, the Anti-Semite would invent him." This is self explanatory by the fact that Jews have been used as scapegoats and will continuously be used as such in the future.
In the book by Elie Wiesel, the young Elie Wiesel describes his life in the concentration camps. The injustice he faces was anti semitism, on the extreme side. Many of the sighet jews who “not only refused to believe his tales, they
...vious objections. In this paper argued that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I did this first by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
...e’s theory relies upon his belief that because there is no creator, human beings have no essence, and so they are “left alone, without excuse” and “born without reason.” He says that people realize this “the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal.” Similarly, White too admits to Black that he has always hated life and that when he realized that religion was just a “guise,” his hatred turned into boredom (138). White’s skepticism about life and God echoes throughout the play and through the suicidal choice that White makes even before the dialogue begins. Comparably, Father Vincent Minceli voices similar concerns about Sartre, concluding that Sartre’s philosophy leads directly to despair and suicide. McCarthy’s comparison of White and Sartre is remarkable, as both are not only atheists, but also convey life’s useless nature through using synonymous phrases.
ABSTRACT: Historical research was one of Jean-Paul Sartre's major concerns. Sartre's biographical studies and thought indicate that history is not only a field in which you gather facts, events, and processes, but it is a worthy challenge which includes a grave personal responsibility: my responsibility to the dead lives that preceded me. Sartre's writings suggest that accepting this responsibility can be a source of wisdom. Few historians, however, view history as transcending the orderly presenting and elucidating of facts, events, and processes. I contend that Sartre's writings suggest a personally enhancing commitment. A lucid and honest response to the challenges and demands of history and the dead lives that preceded my own existence is an engagement that requires courage, wisdom, and thought. The consequences of this commitment for teaching history is discussed.