![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article, while appearing to be written with a fairly competent grasp of the philosophical and psychological concepts, looks as if it needs a major NPOV clean-up and is performing quite a lot of original research - it's phrased in a way that draws conclusions and also appears to read very biased against Sartre's "bad faith" in particular and possibly Sartre's viewpoint in general.
I don't see any neutrality issues until the end of the "Freudian Framework" section. After that, there is the criticism section, where criticisms lie. Maybe move the Freud criticism towards the "Criticism" section.
--
A response: Agreed. The Freudian critique of Sartre's bad faith is interesting and perhaps even valid (although I don't think so), but it has no place on this page in the sense that it's used.
For instance: "It is with the Superego that Sartre lodges his chief complaint". This is clearly an argument to invalidate Sartre and is thus a subjective matter rather than a statement of fact or theory.
This section is two paragraphs long and still does not explain what bad faith is. It doesn't even mention the term in the body. This needs fixing. - dbsanfte 04:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a logical fallacy here. With the mugger example, the writer gives a number of possible choices. But one has the choice "to die?" That seems to me to be not a free act, or in any case the free act is that of the mugger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.72.104 ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved the following text here:
Because (even if it isn't) it reads like original research. If these criticisms can be attributed to a philosopher's work, great - it needs to be done and I'd be glad to see it returned to the article with citations. If not, it is original research and doesn't belong in the article. - Seth Mahoney 04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This article needs citations. I added {{ Fact}} tags to places where citations would be handy for further research (like the waiter and the date examples), and I can add some citations myself. But they need to be there. Went ahead and added four sources I had handy. - Seth Mahoney 04:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that Sartre, for a time, held the position given in the first few lines of the introduction. Yet, after his experience in World War II, he changed some of that, noting that "life had taught him the 'Power of Things'", as he put it. Should the opening sentence be changed to
Jean-Paul Sartre at a time held the position that human beings always have the capability to make rational, conscious decisions.
or is there no sufficient indication that this changed fundamentally later on? -- 84.186.189.156 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This rambling article needs to be pruned to concision.
Perhaps someone should add a few examples of bad faith from literature? Say, The Metamorphosis or The Stranger?
It is important to note that Sartre is neither the first nor only existentialist philosopher. Furthermore, Sartre's notion of bad faith relies on the existence of radical free will, which not all existentialists grant the existence of. Insofar as there are similar notions in the philosophies of other existentialists, that should be noted. But we should not pretend that Sartrean bad faith is central to non-Sartrean existentialist projects. 67.237.160.175 ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the article there are some tags for missing citations to Freud. But my impression is that the whole discussion is basically Freud as seen through Sartre's eyes, in Being and Nothingness, Bad Faith chapter. With some slight modification, the mentions of Freud could be turned into "According to Sartre, Freud believes..." and all could cite directly to BN straightforwardly. In case anyone wants to do the legwork. 96.25.72.119 ( talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
St. Thomas Aquinas dsicussed bad faith before Sarte, in an almost identical sense. Perhaps this article should be merged into a larger article on bad faith in all of philosphy. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 17:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This article should be merged with other bad faith articles into one, since "bad faith" was part of philosophy long before Sartre. The use in law overlaps that in philosophy. This article can be a section in a more general article, which includes bad faith in ethics, in theology, in law, and elsewhere. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bad faith (existentialism). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article, while appearing to be written with a fairly competent grasp of the philosophical and psychological concepts, looks as if it needs a major NPOV clean-up and is performing quite a lot of original research - it's phrased in a way that draws conclusions and also appears to read very biased against Sartre's "bad faith" in particular and possibly Sartre's viewpoint in general.
I don't see any neutrality issues until the end of the "Freudian Framework" section. After that, there is the criticism section, where criticisms lie. Maybe move the Freud criticism towards the "Criticism" section.
--
A response: Agreed. The Freudian critique of Sartre's bad faith is interesting and perhaps even valid (although I don't think so), but it has no place on this page in the sense that it's used.
For instance: "It is with the Superego that Sartre lodges his chief complaint". This is clearly an argument to invalidate Sartre and is thus a subjective matter rather than a statement of fact or theory.
This section is two paragraphs long and still does not explain what bad faith is. It doesn't even mention the term in the body. This needs fixing. - dbsanfte 04:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a logical fallacy here. With the mugger example, the writer gives a number of possible choices. But one has the choice "to die?" That seems to me to be not a free act, or in any case the free act is that of the mugger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.72.104 ( talk) 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved the following text here:
Because (even if it isn't) it reads like original research. If these criticisms can be attributed to a philosopher's work, great - it needs to be done and I'd be glad to see it returned to the article with citations. If not, it is original research and doesn't belong in the article. - Seth Mahoney 04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This article needs citations. I added {{ Fact}} tags to places where citations would be handy for further research (like the waiter and the date examples), and I can add some citations myself. But they need to be there. Went ahead and added four sources I had handy. - Seth Mahoney 04:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that Sartre, for a time, held the position given in the first few lines of the introduction. Yet, after his experience in World War II, he changed some of that, noting that "life had taught him the 'Power of Things'", as he put it. Should the opening sentence be changed to
Jean-Paul Sartre at a time held the position that human beings always have the capability to make rational, conscious decisions.
or is there no sufficient indication that this changed fundamentally later on? -- 84.186.189.156 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This rambling article needs to be pruned to concision.
Perhaps someone should add a few examples of bad faith from literature? Say, The Metamorphosis or The Stranger?
It is important to note that Sartre is neither the first nor only existentialist philosopher. Furthermore, Sartre's notion of bad faith relies on the existence of radical free will, which not all existentialists grant the existence of. Insofar as there are similar notions in the philosophies of other existentialists, that should be noted. But we should not pretend that Sartrean bad faith is central to non-Sartrean existentialist projects. 67.237.160.175 ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the article there are some tags for missing citations to Freud. But my impression is that the whole discussion is basically Freud as seen through Sartre's eyes, in Being and Nothingness, Bad Faith chapter. With some slight modification, the mentions of Freud could be turned into "According to Sartre, Freud believes..." and all could cite directly to BN straightforwardly. In case anyone wants to do the legwork. 96.25.72.119 ( talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
St. Thomas Aquinas dsicussed bad faith before Sarte, in an almost identical sense. Perhaps this article should be merged into a larger article on bad faith in all of philosphy. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 17:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This article should be merged with other bad faith articles into one, since "bad faith" was part of philosophy long before Sartre. The use in law overlaps that in philosophy. This article can be a section in a more general article, which includes bad faith in ethics, in theology, in law, and elsewhere. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Bad faith (existentialism). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)