Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
I've been reading some Simone de Beauvoir, and I've noticed what seem to be rather large inconsistencies between her books.
There's a rather significant passage within the Ethics of Ambiguity in which Beauvoir describes children as the epitome of a subject. They have no control over anything in their lives and as such are not moral actors (as they lack freedom). She then contrasts this to women, who she states are free, moral actors, and either choose or consent to their present state (though in the past, she admits, women may have been subjects).
One of the next books she writes, then, is the Second Sex, in which she seems to backtrack on this significantly, and considers women to be an oppressed class (or second sex, as it were).
Then she writes Lolita Syndrome, in which she describes (at least some) children as free, moral, agents, who in fact are able to manipulate grown men into sleeping with them against their will. Backtracking again are her original sentiment.
Ethics of Ambiguity was one of her earlier works, so it's possible her position just evolved between books, but it seems like such a large shift in opinion that I'm not sure how to explain it.
>>
>>8765846
>a person changes his or her mind
really makes you shit out of ass
>>
You might want to trace the evolution of her views in the books alongside her intellectual and political biography. She was extremely dominant in contemporary French political activism and the development of her existentialist philosophy is tied very closely to Sartre's, and I know Sartre (with her in tow, often literally as in their trip to the Soviet Union I think) underwent major revolutions in his thought as he variously approached Marxism and tried to couple it to existentialism etc.
Can't say anything specific, but if you're reading her in that much depth (which is pretty cool) you would definitely enjoy reading a brief bio of her. If you have access to a university library, she probably has an Oxford Bibliography page that will tell you what the best biographies are.
>>
>>8765855
She also calls for the slaughter of your oppressors, and even their children (she's weirdly specific about this), in Ethics of Ambiguity, and then doesn't even mention killing all men in the Second Sex. She actually seems to advocate more or less working together (though I'm still working on that book, maybe the slaughter is coming).
Is it even possible to change your opinion that much in two years?
>>
>>8765869
>Sartre and Beauvoir
The hackiest philosophers that ever existed in the closest proximity. What is it about the French during this period that created these dregs?
>>
>>8765880
They're a bit douchey, yeah. Very arrogant in a very French way, at the peak of faggoty French "ah oui I am an intellectual, now photograph me smoking and looking quixotic" phase. Kind of prefigured it.
If you want a fun read that makes Beauvoir look really bad, google for Edward Said's account of his disappointing meeting with them.
But if you can see past that and see them as victims of their own douchey era, they both have some gems of insight that (as usual) subsequent generations tossed to the floor wholesale with the rest of their philosophy. Sartre was a lot of things but he was sincerely invested in certain ideas, like freedom, that disappeared too much from his successors' views.
>>
>>8765880
It's weird how often she cites him too. Like, we get it, you're banging.
>>
>>8765874
>She also calls for the slaughter of your oppressors, and even their children (she's weirdly specific about this)
Good girl. Sounds based, what can you recommend of her?
>>
French academia always was more about posturing than coherent thought. "There's nothing wrong with that" is the way you're supposed to approach it.
>>
>>8765892
Does that really apply to Beauvoir though? She seems to call out that stance quite strongly, condemning academia for taking a detached view during the Nazi occupation. She explicitly said they were as bad as the Nazis by not saying anything.
>>
>>8765883
There are gems from every age, that much I understand. Sartre's arrogance however is simply unmatched in the history of philosophy, especially when he decided to back Stalinism out of pure conceit.
>>
>>8765908
Which is ironic coming from her, considering she went to the USSR, which was essentially a slave-labor economy and was at least as fucked as the Nazis, if not worse, and yet not a word about that.
>>
>>8765933
She also agreed with them though, so it'd have been weird if she did call them out.
>>
>>8765883
>look really bad, google for Edward Said's account of his disappointing meeting with them.
What an ass: "It was early in January 1979"
Sartre died: 1980
was likely understandably a crotchety old man
>>
>women need liberation
>They should be forced to work because if they aren't they'll just be housewives if given a choice
yeah shes trash
>>
>>8765986
Complete psycho
" I thought it would be a major achievement to coax Sartre into making a pro-Palestinian statement at such a ‘hot’ moment of our deadly rivalry with Israel."
"and harangued him about the dramas of Algeria for (it was claimed) 16 non-stop hours, until Simone made him desist. Gone for ever was that Sartre."
"I was shocked at how old and frail he seemed."
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1