Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Jean Paul Sartre

Superpowers and western nations will tremble from the rage of the third world masses

What Jean Paul Sartre was convinced of was that the western societies will tremble from the mass uprising of the third world for all the damages and plunders they effected upon these people.

The Western nations will have to pay dearly for repairing the indignities they committed. At the end the reparation will be in blood.

After these pseudo-independent States recognized by the UN didn’t stop the former colonial powers to desist in their onslaught of the natural wealth of the third world countries and treating them as vassals and chattels in governing their nations.

The western and modern superpowers (politically or economically), even those ruling by relying on their shadow power for centuries, assumed that the real danger is the unity of the third world States.

For that aim, they did their best to dismantle whatever unity could be formed and re-applied the colonial strategy  of “Divide to rule“.

They split the new independent States into religious sects, ethnic identities, former allegiances…

Currently, civil wars are raging in the 5 continents of the world and nothing can stop the wildfire spreading from every corner.

It is becoming a guerrilla warfare. Mostly within the states.

The best: Stories of the strife of individuals confronting, fending off and challenging frequent low blows

Of this terribly cruel reality.

And on sex pleasure disadvantages between genders.

Writing about your ideas, position, concepts, world view model… should not cover many pages.

Actually, if you have a fascistic or communist tendency of considering history from a mass perspective, the reality of the world is disgustingly simple and straightforward and should not cover blackening many pages.

De Gaulle said:  We pretended to fight confused passions. We struggled for a cohort of denied and refused principles. And we strove to pay back a very cruel reality.

What is most impressive and worthwhile is writing about individuals on how they confronted and fended off the frequent low blows that everyone of us suffered and experienced with various degrees of long-term dysfunctional consequences.

Serious authors implicitly want to believe in the free-will of people (against demonstration to the contrary) and how they challenged the bitter and cruel reality by elevating their spirit and acquiring valued habits to sustain the long haul.

Otherwise, materials for writing will be dry and totally unpleasant to read.

And the purpose of writing will be confused since barely anyone is interested in lifeless topics and stories.

We don’t think of changing our life unless and before we canvass a satisfactory model of how we want the world to be changed.

What is terribly human is that rare are the people who remember or find the courage to tackle the second phase in their life: Mainly changing their behaviours, one at a time, in order to be faithful to their quest for a better quality of life to all.

Jean Paul Sartre told de Gaulle: When I read what I published decades ago, I don’t understand much of what I meant. It is as my double was dictating to me. All these lucubration trying to affirm the free-will of individuals and encouraging them to stand fast. It is my double who is the clever one and I have been carrying him all along.

As all reputations, mine was also build on misunderstanding.

The most interesting topics that touch our deepest chords are how we describe, feel about, and comprehend the other gender. (Why is it always the Other?)

In this case, male authors had a field day in the history of literature, since they imagined they knew a lot about females.

Female authors knew, at a certain age, that they had not much rich and worthy materials to write about male: They reverted to talk about the other females, shedding new insight on female psychic, early training for acquired habits and skills and behaviour.

What was lacking is male taking seriously female works to read and appreciate.

Evidences show that females have overwhelming advantages over males, particularly on reaching a certain age, say over 30.

Females have a natural endowment for taking great pleasure in sex. And they can do it with other beautiful, younger and fresh females.

And they can design a personalized dildo that perform wonderfully, anytime and anywhere.

What man has but his hand? Even a thousand hands will not make any difference in results: despair and depressive periods for not being that endowed to enjoy sex.

This relic of passive partner, as aging diminishes his strength and endurance.



The secret meeting of The Being and the Giant: Jean Paul Sartre and Charles De Gaulle

Jean Paul Sartre and Charles De Gaulle met in secrecy on May 18, 1969 between 11 pm and 2 am in the town of Sneem in Ireland, in the province of Kerry, close to Heron’s Cove where his wife Yvonne and him were settled during their vacation.

De Gaulle had resigned a year ago from power and refused to meddle in the presidential campaign that was raging in France.

Maurice Clavel arranged for this secret meeting by whisking Sartre clandestinely to the meeting place. The two men wanted that the conversation to be kept secret and not to talk about the conversation to anyone and no one was with them to record the communication.

Sartre had written “ L’Etre et le Neant” (The being and the void) and had declined the Nobel of literature for his book “Les Mots“. A decision that frustrated President de Gaulle because it touched the honor of France.

Bernard Fauconnier asked Sartre to write about the meeting and he was to submit the draft to Sartre. The latter died before reading the manuscript.  Fauconnier published his book in 1989.

Did Sartre divulged anything? Did De Gaulle transmit any thing from the conversation?  Or this conversation is a fiction gathered from the literature and stories of these two men?

Apparently, de Gaulle was worried about the Future and wanted to listen to the input of Sartre on the future. Probably, de Gaulle wanted to influence Sartre to convey his worries since the philosopher fascinated the new generations, was considered the godfather of the recurring upheavals and de Gaulle admitted that Sartre was doing well in his mission.

Jean Paul Sartre (this 150 cm and very ugly French philosopher) crossed all the red lines confounding the common sense consensus in the French and European communities.

When Sartre entered the room, de Gaulle was taking a nap and he didn’t stand up to meet Sartre.

De Gaulle was curious: Did you understand anything from the May 1968 upheaval by the youth? My first impression was that these rich kids organized a vast carnival but I had to take action.

Sartre: The movement has taken me by surprise. I met with the youth and followed their discussions but I remained clueless as to their purposes. It was an important symptom, but Not an event. The youth didn’t want to change the world: They wanted to change their traditional life, a path course that was determined by their parents and the community.

De Gaulle was upset that Sartre had signed on a letter that encouraged killing for a cause…

Jean Paul Sartre wrote: When we transcend our pen for a sword, we inevitably end up signing on calls for murder.

De Gaulle said:  We pretended to fight confused passions. We struggled for a cohort of denied and refused principles. And we strove to pay back a very cruel reality.

Jean Paul Sartre told de Gaulle: When I read what I published decades ago, I don’t understand much of what I meant. It is as my double was dictating to me. All these lucubration trying to affirm the free-will of individuals and encouraging them to stand fast. It is my double the clever one and I have been carrying him all along.

Sartre poured some whiskey in the glass of de Gaulle who reacted obfuscated. Sartre said: Come on. This time it is a little for France.  De Gaulle laughed internally and had tears. He said: If Yvonne could see me laughing. I have been told you are the Devil.

Sartre retorted: That would make you the Good God? You see, we always end up talking about our women.

Simone de Beauvoir is far more intelligent than I: She see everything and comprehend everything. For me, I am this hard working writer, and nothing comes easily to me.

De Gaulle: Why you never married Simone?

Sartre: I proposed to her long time ago but she didn’t care for marriage. It is better that way: I wouldn’t have been that prolific in my writing. I wonder what I would have done if I had kids.

De Gaulle: I couldn’t imagine you having children. It is like Flaubert, Stendhal, Balzac, Chateaubriand… You writers are like religious clerics, you live an apostolic style, churning out book after book

Sartre: Apparently I have a daughter.

De Gaulle: That is refreshing to know and I’m glad for you. You can consider yourself among the normal people after all.

De Gaulle was feeling slightly tipsy after two shots, even though Sartre had already emptied half the bottle. He said:

A person is but two dates: When he is born and the other date is inscribed without his consent. Do you believe in the role of the individual?

Sartre: Yes, I do. A game of dupes.

De Gaulle: You wouldn’t have tackled all these problems if you didn’t believe in the individual. Otherwise, you would have behaved as a fascist or a true Communist who care only for the masses.

De Gaulle resumed: If I couldn’t write and talk and converse, I would have let go of all these struggles for power. Reasonably, you should not have kept any friend siding with him, but you have been the conscious of Europe for many decades.  Simply, save the grain. Avoid inciting or fomenting further useless catastrophes and killing.

Sartre didn’t regret what he wrote: It was too late to back track and regurgitate many of the non-sense that circumstances cornered him into taking dubious positions.

What Sartre was convinced of was that the western societies will tremble from the mass uprising of the third world for all the damages and plunders they effected upon these people. The Western nations will have to pay dearly, but at the end the reparation will be in blood.

Note 1: Andre Malraux also had a final conversation with de Gaulle and published “Les chenes qu’on abat” in 1971 (after de gaulle passed away). Malraux is to have commented “After Auschwitz, all tragedies are insignificant”. If Malraux lived long enough he would have witnessed the genocides in Cambodia by the Red Khmer, Rwanda, Congo, kid soldiers, food embargo on Iraq. De Gaulle considered Mao of China as the biggest criminal in history who let millions of his people die of hunger.

Note 2: De Gaulle wanted to visit Ireland because his grandmother was Irish. He insisted on visiting Derrynane to pay a tribute to Daniel O’Connell who joined the Irish brigade during the French revolution. Daniel returned to Ireland totally disgusted with the excesses committed by the revolution and preferred exile to joining confrontations with the British in Ireland.

Note 3: During the conversation, de Gaulle reminisced of his stay in Lebanon in the 30’s and said that the girls in Lebanon were more beautiful than anywhere else. (Currently, it is Brazil ranked #1 for beautiful women. Probably, the beautiful girls of Lebanon had immigrated to Brazil since then)

How have you been “existing”? (Jan. 25, 2010)

            The main philosophy of the last century was called “Existentialism” that Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) disseminated after WWII with the cooperation of Simone de Beauvoir who published “The second sex”.  What differentiated Sartre’s existentialism from Kierkegaard, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger is that Christianity is no longer a crutch to lean on for processing the concept to its final outcome.

            In that philosophy, man and woman have no innate “nature” to fall back on.  They just have to create themselves, their “natures” (their “essence”).  The feeling of alienation is that mankind was created without his will and yet, he is condemned to be free for taking responsibility of his actions knowing that there are no eternal values or norms for guidance and directions.  The individual has to create his set of values and his nature from actions among choices, even default choices.

            That Sartre’s existentialism allied to Marxist movement (Sartre never accepted to be a member of a political party) is part of this century struggle for enjoying the freedom that we never asked for; but “man is condemned to be free” in taking responsibility of his actions simply because he is created to be conscious of his existence and his death: mankind is not “in itself” but “for itself” and an individual relies on his existence to be whatever he might otherwise be “his nature”.

            For example, Stephen Hawkins, this crippled astrophysicist, grabbed the question of his interest (nature) “How the universe was created”.  That Hawkins offered the Big bang theory is irrelevant to the universe or to everyday man is important philosophically.  What is most important is that Hawkins must have enjoyed “the meaning of his life”.  The Big Bang proposition may be accompanied by all kinds of mathematical formulas it does not make it more believable than a childish storytelling in Bibles that are so funny to kids.  For example, why just one Big Bang? Is it because God must be one and only one?  Anyway, how many of us seriously engaged on his journey for discovering the meaning of his life existence?

            Current nuclear physicists are fundamentally pre-Socratic in their quest for the elemental matters; they want to be able to offer a satisfactory explanation of “what is matter?” This problem is thus a vital part of their “life’s philosophy”, the “essence” or an answer to the question “what is my nature”?

            Existentialism was the source of modern style in writings called the “absurd”.  For example, when you show the lack of coherence or meaning in life, then the reader or audience is forced to cultivate his “own meaning” of the story.

            Things have changed.  The world can be felt as reduced to a Town Square; instant audio-visual communications around the world is discouraging people to move out and investigate “his universe”.  The Renaissance man had to travel on horses for long distances to educate his curiosity and talents.

            Arne Naess disseminated the eco-philosophy which stated that western paradigm line of thinking is taking the wrong direction for a sustainable earth: Man is not in the upper chain of evolution and he has no right to destroy the other living creatures for his perceived universe.

            The new wave of occultism, New Age, alternative lifestyle, mysticism, spiritualism, healing, astrology, clairvoyance, and telepathy are consequences of collecting mass “coincidental” happenings among the billion of people and which are relayed instantly on the Internet.  These coincidences can be explained rationally, especially if we believe in the power of the subconscious for erratic behaviors.

            The worst part is that millions are still brandishing old Books or Bibles claiming every word for “truth”; as if we are in the Dark Ages.  Sciences and technologies have done serious empirical attempts to answering most of the dialectical problems in philosophy such as how the universe was started, how knowledge developed and progressed.  What is outside the realm of sciences is in the domain of faith which should not be confounded with religious philosophical belief systems.

            The “meaning of life” is not a solution: it is the trip, the journey to answering a single definite bothering question, a question that interest you mostly among hundreds of other pretty much non answerable questions.  This trip means working toward a resolution to the question “What is my nature?”  It is hard work, relentless, and tricky journey but nothing has meaning if we don’t feel the obstacles and hardships.




June 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,132 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 769 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: