sartre

He wants to be able to write as Jean-Paul Sartre, not Jean-Paul Sartre the Nobel Prize winner.

Sartre also said that existentialism is humanism, which is a load of crap, so what Sartre said of existentialism isn't necessarily what it is.

The two people who ever declined to accept the award where both socialist revolutionaries; Sartre and Le Duc Tho.

The board of the Nobel Foundation bestowing awards on those it deems worthy, or Sartre for not playing along with it all?

In the last week, I've read a great young adult book as well as a Sartre novel.

Watch Notch did was the intellectual equivalent of Sartre selling the copyrights of one his books to someone wanting to buy them, nothing more.

It seems from the quote that Sartre simply finds flashbacks uncinematic.

If all I had ever read from Sartre was this excerpt from his review of 'Citizen Kane', I would think him simple-minded.

I just don't see the situation where you suddenly have some existential crisis because your dishwasher is starting to discuss Sartre with you.

It's so well written, in fact, that a more playful Swedish Academy might have awarded the prize to Sartre in a subsequent year, citing this essay itself...

A little correction though, although Sartre found inspiration for his writing from his mescaline experiences (especially for Nausea) he did not write on mescaline, he rather preferred amphetamines.

Remember that Sartre was an existentialist.

But to paraphrase Shakespeare: "There are more things in cinema, O Sartre, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Sartre, one of the most renowned of all Existentialists, was famous for holding that, "existence preceeds essence." This is an anti-essentialist position.

Was it Sartre who said "it is what it is not"?

Love the line: "Sartre reviewed the film in 1945, meaning he took four years even to bother seeing it." One would think German occupation of Paris and wartime censorship might have contributed to that delay.

He therefore defines cinema to be an existentialist thing, and then criticizes Kane for not fitting into Sartre's definition.

Sartre said that the great philosophical question is, why is there something instead of nothing?

He was about the same age as Sartre, de Beauvoir, and Simone Weil.