This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Shirleywang97.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The article is as a whole, neutral, but with direct reliance on quotes from the source without explanation. Many, if not all of the viewpoints in the reception section are underrepresented and lack detail. If we could elaborate on each viewpoint, without using direct quotations from the source material, it would make them easier to understand, as the many quotations in close proximity with each other in the short section make it difficult to differentiate between each viewpoint. I also propose to add a new section on the rebuttals Sartre has for other philosophical critiques of Existentialism in this work. While the information summary provided of Existentialism and Humanism is accurate, it is also difficult to interpret the application of Existentialist ideals. Therefore, I believe a section on rebuttals of other philosophical critiques will help readers better understand the ideals of Existentialism in the context of those of other philosophies. Furthermore, the closing statement of the summary, "existentialism, as it is a philosophy of action and one's defining oneself, is optimistic and liberating" also requires further elaboration. How does simply being a philosophy of self-determination make it optimistic? The juxtaposition of the existentialist's despair with the philosophy's statement of optimism without explanation seems hypocritical. In defining the philosophy as well, the sudden interjection of atheism in the dialogue seems unwarranted. Therefore, I propose the addition of a segment on the existentialist's lack of belief in God as a basis for further conclusions. Shirleywang97 ( talk) 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The french title is L'existentialisme est un humanisme. Though this translates very literally to 'The existentialism is a humanism', the english version, translated by Philip Mairet, is known as 'Existentialism and Humanism'. If there are any other versions with a more literal translation of the title available, please let me know. -- Publunch 20:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have known this book as "The Existentialism is a Humanism." It is most known as existentialism is a humanism, and therefore the title of this wiki page should be changed to the more common translation of the book. Rayana fazli 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well if they are both common, then it doesn't really matter which one we use as the title. I thought the "is a" was more common but that might be biased on my side. But it is the French translation and we should probably stick to their translation, not the English translation. Rayana fazli 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I like that idea. I don't know how to redirect articles, I am sort of new to wikipedia. This is the first time I've heard the book translated as "Humanism of Existentialism." I guess it just depends on who is translating the book. Rayana fazli 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Currently the page Existentialism is a Humanism redirects here. I proposed that we create L'existentialisme est un humanisme to hold the article and have both Existentialism is a Humanism and Existentialism and Humanism redirect there. - Seth Mahoney 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised by the use of this word. In my copy it is translated as abandonment, and indeed I assumed this was the traditional term for the idea within the Existentialist movement. It is certainly one I have seen in a number of books on the subject, whilst this is the first time I have encountered "forlorness" as an alternative. Any objections to replacing the term forlorness with abandonment? - Joemanji 22:40, 24 March 2007 (GMT)
Hi, I have recently moved this page back to the English title. I note the !votes above on using the French title but as this was 5 years ago (nearly 6, ancient in wiki terms), I moved in favour of a recent request in line with the the most common conventions for the English Wikipedia. I am not against moving back to the French title if there is a new local consensus, to clarify, I have no strong personal opinion either way but would tend to favour any verifiable evidence of what is the most common terminology used. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 11:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why we're using this translation for the title. It's incorrect. The correct translation is "Existentialism is a Humanism", which is the translation used at the beginning of the article. When using the correct translation, one is redirected to this article. At the very least, the translations used for the title and the text should match. Iridescentlavender ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Of course it's relevant that the translation is wrong. I've seen it translated as "is (est) a (un)" as frequently as "and". I understand your point, but I don't think that we should allow the errors of certain translators to guide us toward what is clearly an incorrect translation. They didn't write the text - Sartre did, and he said "is a", not "and". However, I'm going to leave it for now. I would appreciate hearing from other editors on this issue. Iridescentlavender ( talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. It's also worth noting that one of two translations listed under "Further Reading" lists it as "Existentialism is a Humanism", as well as the link to Yale University Press under "References", and the three, English "External Links", one of which is for Paul Spade, the renowned Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University. Iridescentlavender ( talk) 22:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Does "est un" not mean "is a," He's not defining existentialism and humanism. He is making the case that particularly (atheistic) existentialism is not nihilistic and essentially negative, but is based on humanism, which many people disagreed. Wgfcrafty ( talk) 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The title of this article is indeed incorrect, as any beginning student of French or French native language speaker would know. When I have more time I will start an RfC on the issue. Dlabtot ( talk) 10:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. I am treating myself as an uninvolved editor since this close is falling into the backlog; if there are any objections to this, please let me know. Dekimasu よ! 18:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Existentialism and Humanism →
Existentialism Is a Humanism – The current title is a mistranslation from the original French. The correct title now exists as a redirect. Please see the above discussion.
Dlabtot (
talk)
19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what happened with the template. The request is to move the page to 'Existentialism is a Humanism'. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Dlabtot, in this edit, you removed a sentence from the lead ("Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it and regretted its publication"). Your edit summary read, "tried tagging this and the tag was removed. So instead I'm removing the unsourced and unclear assertion. btw no one said the lede needed more detail." Since you do not appear to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, let me point out that the sentence you removed is not unsourced. The source, as you would have discovered had you taken the trouble to read the article properly, is Mary Warnock's introduction to the 2003 Routledge edition of Being and Nothingness. Experienced editors should know perfectly well that the fact that a citation is not provided in the lead does not mean that the material is uncited. Please familiarize yourself with MOS:CITELEAD: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." This is a basic guideline, and I don't see why an editor who has been editing since 2007 should be unaware of it.
Your claim that the material is "unclear" is also wrong. The material ("Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it and regretted its publication") is perfectly clear as far as it goes. No one able to comprehend normal English would be confused about its meaning or find it unclear. I agree that it would be helpful to add more information somewhere about "which views did he reject? when and where did he express regret for its publication?". It would help the article to add such information. It does not help the article to remove relevant information that already exists. Would you kindly cut it out? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so? Th following assertion is made in the article: Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in the work, and regretted its publication. I have added tags for clarification and citation of this assertion, but another editor has removed the tags. (See the discussion above this RfC.) Rather than continue a fruitless dispute, I encourage the opinion of other editors. Should the article contain this assertion without explaining which views were rejected? Does such an assertion require a citation that says where and when Sartre did this? Should a reader of this article be able to look up the words Sartre allegedly used when expressing this regret? Thank you for your consideration. Dlabtot ( talk) 04:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It has sometimes been suggested that Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy was outlined in the essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," first published in 1946. This essay has been translated several times into English, and it bacame, for a time, a popular starting-point in discussions of exitensialist thought. It contained the doctrine that existentialism was a basically hopeful and constructive system of thought, contrary to popular belief, since it encouraged man to action by teaching him that his destiny was in his own hands. Sartre went on to argue that if one believes that each man is responsible for choosing freedom for himself, one is committed to believing also that he is responsible for choosing freedom for others, and that therefore not only was existentialism active rather than passive in tendency, but it was also liberal, other-regarding and hostile to all forms of tyranny. However, I mention this essay here only to dismiss it, as Sartre himself has dismissed it. He not only regretted its publication, but also actually denied some of its doctrines in later works.
I suggest that the statements be tweaked. The statement in the introduction can easily be interpreted as panning the whole work, and Warnock acknowledges her feeling that the work should be dismissed. And yet those quoted in the Reception section seem to take the essay seriously. Unless you can give more context to Sartre's regret I suggest for the intro: “Sartre later spoke dismissively of the essay, and denied some of its doctrines.” And for the body of the article: “Mary Warnock notes in her introduction to Being and Nothingness that he regretted its publication, denying some of its doctrines, and she believes that he was right to dismiss it.” (A curious point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the lecture occured after the publication of Being and Nothingness, so that Sartre's "regret" may need clarification, and not be a total dismissal.) Jzsj ( talk) 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes when only two people are involved in a editing process, this becomes quite polarized. Both of you have made your points; I would suggest you step back and listen for a while. My own impression is that better citations would help the process -- thanks to @ FreeKnowledgeCreator: for bringing in another source, which should be brought into a citation here. This does seem to make it clear that Sartre really did have concerns about this, and regretted some of his formulations.
I have tried to improve the article's flow. Best wishes! Clean Copy talk 16:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Shirleywang97.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The article is as a whole, neutral, but with direct reliance on quotes from the source without explanation. Many, if not all of the viewpoints in the reception section are underrepresented and lack detail. If we could elaborate on each viewpoint, without using direct quotations from the source material, it would make them easier to understand, as the many quotations in close proximity with each other in the short section make it difficult to differentiate between each viewpoint. I also propose to add a new section on the rebuttals Sartre has for other philosophical critiques of Existentialism in this work. While the information summary provided of Existentialism and Humanism is accurate, it is also difficult to interpret the application of Existentialist ideals. Therefore, I believe a section on rebuttals of other philosophical critiques will help readers better understand the ideals of Existentialism in the context of those of other philosophies. Furthermore, the closing statement of the summary, "existentialism, as it is a philosophy of action and one's defining oneself, is optimistic and liberating" also requires further elaboration. How does simply being a philosophy of self-determination make it optimistic? The juxtaposition of the existentialist's despair with the philosophy's statement of optimism without explanation seems hypocritical. In defining the philosophy as well, the sudden interjection of atheism in the dialogue seems unwarranted. Therefore, I propose the addition of a segment on the existentialist's lack of belief in God as a basis for further conclusions. Shirleywang97 ( talk) 02:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The french title is L'existentialisme est un humanisme. Though this translates very literally to 'The existentialism is a humanism', the english version, translated by Philip Mairet, is known as 'Existentialism and Humanism'. If there are any other versions with a more literal translation of the title available, please let me know. -- Publunch 20:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have known this book as "The Existentialism is a Humanism." It is most known as existentialism is a humanism, and therefore the title of this wiki page should be changed to the more common translation of the book. Rayana fazli 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Well if they are both common, then it doesn't really matter which one we use as the title. I thought the "is a" was more common but that might be biased on my side. But it is the French translation and we should probably stick to their translation, not the English translation. Rayana fazli 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think I like that idea. I don't know how to redirect articles, I am sort of new to wikipedia. This is the first time I've heard the book translated as "Humanism of Existentialism." I guess it just depends on who is translating the book. Rayana fazli 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Currently the page Existentialism is a Humanism redirects here. I proposed that we create L'existentialisme est un humanisme to hold the article and have both Existentialism is a Humanism and Existentialism and Humanism redirect there. - Seth Mahoney 22:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised by the use of this word. In my copy it is translated as abandonment, and indeed I assumed this was the traditional term for the idea within the Existentialist movement. It is certainly one I have seen in a number of books on the subject, whilst this is the first time I have encountered "forlorness" as an alternative. Any objections to replacing the term forlorness with abandonment? - Joemanji 22:40, 24 March 2007 (GMT)
Hi, I have recently moved this page back to the English title. I note the !votes above on using the French title but as this was 5 years ago (nearly 6, ancient in wiki terms), I moved in favour of a recent request in line with the the most common conventions for the English Wikipedia. I am not against moving back to the French title if there is a new local consensus, to clarify, I have no strong personal opinion either way but would tend to favour any verifiable evidence of what is the most common terminology used. Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 11:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why we're using this translation for the title. It's incorrect. The correct translation is "Existentialism is a Humanism", which is the translation used at the beginning of the article. When using the correct translation, one is redirected to this article. At the very least, the translations used for the title and the text should match. Iridescentlavender ( talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Of course it's relevant that the translation is wrong. I've seen it translated as "is (est) a (un)" as frequently as "and". I understand your point, but I don't think that we should allow the errors of certain translators to guide us toward what is clearly an incorrect translation. They didn't write the text - Sartre did, and he said "is a", not "and". However, I'm going to leave it for now. I would appreciate hearing from other editors on this issue. Iridescentlavender ( talk) 21:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. It's also worth noting that one of two translations listed under "Further Reading" lists it as "Existentialism is a Humanism", as well as the link to Yale University Press under "References", and the three, English "External Links", one of which is for Paul Spade, the renowned Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University. Iridescentlavender ( talk) 22:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Does "est un" not mean "is a," He's not defining existentialism and humanism. He is making the case that particularly (atheistic) existentialism is not nihilistic and essentially negative, but is based on humanism, which many people disagreed. Wgfcrafty ( talk) 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The title of this article is indeed incorrect, as any beginning student of French or French native language speaker would know. When I have more time I will start an RfC on the issue. Dlabtot ( talk) 10:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. I am treating myself as an uninvolved editor since this close is falling into the backlog; if there are any objections to this, please let me know. Dekimasu よ! 18:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Existentialism and Humanism →
Existentialism Is a Humanism – The current title is a mistranslation from the original French. The correct title now exists as a redirect. Please see the above discussion.
Dlabtot (
talk)
19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what happened with the template. The request is to move the page to 'Existentialism is a Humanism'. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Dlabtot, in this edit, you removed a sentence from the lead ("Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it and regretted its publication"). Your edit summary read, "tried tagging this and the tag was removed. So instead I'm removing the unsourced and unclear assertion. btw no one said the lede needed more detail." Since you do not appear to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, let me point out that the sentence you removed is not unsourced. The source, as you would have discovered had you taken the trouble to read the article properly, is Mary Warnock's introduction to the 2003 Routledge edition of Being and Nothingness. Experienced editors should know perfectly well that the fact that a citation is not provided in the lead does not mean that the material is uncited. Please familiarize yourself with MOS:CITELEAD: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." This is a basic guideline, and I don't see why an editor who has been editing since 2007 should be unaware of it.
Your claim that the material is "unclear" is also wrong. The material ("Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in it and regretted its publication") is perfectly clear as far as it goes. No one able to comprehend normal English would be confused about its meaning or find it unclear. I agree that it would be helpful to add more information somewhere about "which views did he reject? when and where did he express regret for its publication?". It would help the article to add such information. It does not help the article to remove relevant information that already exists. Would you kindly cut it out? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so? Th following assertion is made in the article: Sartre himself later rejected some of the views he expressed in the work, and regretted its publication. I have added tags for clarification and citation of this assertion, but another editor has removed the tags. (See the discussion above this RfC.) Rather than continue a fruitless dispute, I encourage the opinion of other editors. Should the article contain this assertion without explaining which views were rejected? Does such an assertion require a citation that says where and when Sartre did this? Should a reader of this article be able to look up the words Sartre allegedly used when expressing this regret? Thank you for your consideration. Dlabtot ( talk) 04:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It has sometimes been suggested that Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy was outlined in the essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," first published in 1946. This essay has been translated several times into English, and it bacame, for a time, a popular starting-point in discussions of exitensialist thought. It contained the doctrine that existentialism was a basically hopeful and constructive system of thought, contrary to popular belief, since it encouraged man to action by teaching him that his destiny was in his own hands. Sartre went on to argue that if one believes that each man is responsible for choosing freedom for himself, one is committed to believing also that he is responsible for choosing freedom for others, and that therefore not only was existentialism active rather than passive in tendency, but it was also liberal, other-regarding and hostile to all forms of tyranny. However, I mention this essay here only to dismiss it, as Sartre himself has dismissed it. He not only regretted its publication, but also actually denied some of its doctrines in later works.
I suggest that the statements be tweaked. The statement in the introduction can easily be interpreted as panning the whole work, and Warnock acknowledges her feeling that the work should be dismissed. And yet those quoted in the Reception section seem to take the essay seriously. Unless you can give more context to Sartre's regret I suggest for the intro: “Sartre later spoke dismissively of the essay, and denied some of its doctrines.” And for the body of the article: “Mary Warnock notes in her introduction to Being and Nothingness that he regretted its publication, denying some of its doctrines, and she believes that he was right to dismiss it.” (A curious point, if I'm not mistaken, is that the lecture occured after the publication of Being and Nothingness, so that Sartre's "regret" may need clarification, and not be a total dismissal.) Jzsj ( talk) 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes when only two people are involved in a editing process, this becomes quite polarized. Both of you have made your points; I would suggest you step back and listen for a while. My own impression is that better citations would help the process -- thanks to @ FreeKnowledgeCreator: for bringing in another source, which should be brought into a citation here. This does seem to make it clear that Sartre really did have concerns about this, and regretted some of his formulations.
I have tried to improve the article's flow. Best wishes! Clean Copy talk 16:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)