Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Way back in �64 the Nobel Prize for Literature was to go to Jean-Paul Sartre, but he turned it down on the grounds that �Jean-Paul Sartre� was a different animal than �Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Laureate�. I always thought he was being way too sensitive.

I�ve lately had to reconsider my position. For one example, if a person says, �I�m a Moslem/I�m a Christian�, are they compelled to accept every verse in the Koran/Bible? Is it reasonable to hold them to what you understand those terms to mean? There have always been posters here who would seem to answer that question, �Yes�. It�s my impression that the number of posters with that position is growing. From this view, Sartre was right to turn down his prize. It kind of reminds me of that old medieval view that you were criminally culpable for what you did in other people�s fevered dreams, but maybe the medievalists were right. Given the surge in anti-science attitude, this is not entirely beside the point.

I have to admit being blind-sided by the Right�s adoption of a French atheistic existential philosopher�s views. I never saw that one coming. (French! Atheist! Existential! Philosopher! Yikes!) One of Sartre�s central ideas is that our freedom is �negative� in that we are only free when we say �no�. I think you have to admit that that fits the current Right tighter than OJ�s glove.

This issue is relevant this week because Obama is off to Scandanavia to accept his Nobel. Maybe he should have followed Sartre�s example and refused it, thus keeping his right to define himself. By accepting it, won�t he be required to always and forever act in accordance with how other people define winners of the Peace Prize and be always open to accusations of hypocrisy? Or is that just cheap, cynical political nonsense? Before his Afghan speech last week I tried to imagine the reaction if he declared a withdrawal and what I came up with was blood in the streets with the Faux pundits screaming about European Socialists (Eek! Europeans! Socialists!) running our foreign policy.

In the end, I decided Sartre was free to say �no� to his prize and continue to define himself without the label, but Obama was free to accept his prize and continue to define himself without being guilty of what goes on in other people�s imaginations�and just accept that �hell is other people�.

PS#1: Sartre�s �The Road to Freedom� trilogy (The Age of Reason, The Reprieve, Troubled Sleep) is worth your time. When Isme deliberately rams that knife through her hand in the night club is a high point in lit.

PS#2: I don't know where Obama will go to accept the award, Oslo or Stockholm, but both Norway and Sweden have kings. Will Obama bow to whichever? How many days of poutrage will we have to suffer through this time?

[On the other hand]

I love Sartre's clarity as a writer of technical philosophy. However...

[visitorq]

Well seeing how Obama is wrong as a general rule, and a proven liar... gotta go with Sartre. Sartre was just an intellectual, not a warmongering traitor, selling out his country to criminal bankers like Obama. Also, Sartre wouldn't have been a hypocrite even if he had accepted his award.

[mises]

What did Obama do to deserve the prize? Simple question.

[nathanrutledge]

[mises]

When he won it I felt embarrassed for him. I honestly didn't think he would have the balls and hubris to accept it. While I disagree with him on everything of importance, I didn't dislike him until he accepted it.