SALIR de las ETIQUETAS (Jean-Paul Sartre) - ¿Por qué "El INFIERNO son los OTROS" en su FILOSOFÍA?

Have you ever wondered why you are the way you are? You know, I'm talking about those ten adjectives that best describe your personality. For example, I consider myself curious, methodical, diligent, obsessive, restless, sensitive, and kind, among many other things. Probably the most frequent response from the audience is agreement with some of these traits and, at the same time, dissatisfaction or indifference toward the others. That said, is there any valid reason to classify oneself in this way? Grouping individuals who share similar characteristics into groups of varying sizes is very convenient both for communication and for understanding reality. However, what would be the consequences of using labels in a polarized and excessive way? Do they harbor any dangers worth considering simply by being put into practice? My aim in this documentary is to explore the dilemmas posed by one of the leading figures of existentialism in the 20th century: Jean-Paul Sartre. ⌚ Timeline: 00:00-02:22 - Introduction 02:22-08:23 - Being-in-itself and Being-for-itself 08:23-12:26 - Being-for-others 12:26-18:26 - The Mechanism of Reification 18:26-20:39 - What is Hell? 20:39-21:33 - Subtraction 21:33-23:49 - Adaptation 23:49-27:10 - Dissociation 27:10-30:35 - Bad Faith 30:35-34:16 - Hell Is Other People 34:16-38:50 - Conclusion 🎙️ Support the channel ►   / ramtalks   🤝 You can also support the channel via: PayPal: paypal.me/ramtalks Bitcoin: 1J8tdVXCNGRmhX1AXE43ELrocN3f41kd47 Ethereum: 1LuaK9b8hRf9w4a8dwgYxhStvH9rWX6g2v 📖 Books by Jean-Paul Sartre ► https://amzn.to/3yHI8yv https://amzn.to/3xt3U93 https://amzn.to/3hJAX1W https://amzn.to/3xsH9SU Hey! I do a weekly live stream on my IG page: 💣 Instagram ►   / ramtalks   👨🏻‍💻 Editing ►   / nejemiprodu.  . Don't miss my other social media: 🎱 TikTok ► @ramtalks 💬 Twitter ►   / ramtalksyt   ♣️ Facebook ►   / ramtalksyt   Here's the equipment I recommend for recording videos: 📹 Camera: https://amzn.to/32fu0h0 📽️ Lens: https://amzn.to/2PgfGzy 🎙️ Microphone: https://amzn.to/37JTOmE 🖥️ Computer: https://amzn.to/3bWPsvK If Heidegger considers Dasein as a being-there thrown into the world as an eject, Sartre sees the human being as a being-for-itself, as a project: an unfinished, raw, and incomplete entity that must build itself, that is, "become itself." Put simply, one is not born already a mother, father, physicist, geologist, liberal, or democrat, but rather becomes such things according to the positions one embraces, the decisions one makes, and the actions one performs. Ultimately, Sartre's position argues that human nature is not predetermined: the individual exists beforehand, finds himself, emerges into the world, and, as a result, creates his essence: "The essence of the human being is constructed by him through his actions." Since man is the only being who is not only as he conceives himself, but also as he wills and conceives himself to be after his existence, he will then want to transfer this impulse toward a new way of existing. Thus, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself. The essence of a pencil, a telephone, or a tree is already given by the simple fact that they are what they are; namely, essence resides in the very being of things. However, human beings are nothing to begin with, but rather creators and makers of themselves through designs, choices, and actions. Consequently, we arrive at one of the essayist's fundamental maxims regarding our species: "Existence precedes essence." We are nothing, but we exist to be what we choose. Up to this point, we have established a clear distinction between the in-itself of the object and the for-itself of the subject, that is, between the realm of things and that of persons. However, it is time to go a step further: What if I told you that there is a third category within the types of being, one that I haven't yet mentioned? Indeed, it is necessary to investigate how the different beings-for-themselves interact with each other by virtue of what is called being-for-another. Now, offering a short, concise definition is no longer as simple and practical as before. In this sense, the Frenchman recognizes the existence of a problem with respect to other people's minds: How could I be conscious of the other? It is evident that human beings are not indifferent to one another, nor are we impassive about what we are to ourselves: rather, we tend to question, examine, and judge both our own consciousness and that of others. By being endowed with existence, the person is something more than a thing: it is a point of view of the world, that is, a perspective.