Geburtstag: 1915-12-16
Todestag: 2008-03-18
Geschlecht: female
Nationalität: USA
Geburtsort: Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, USA
Sterbeort: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Wohnorte: Boulder, Colorado, USA
Ausbildung: Yale University
Wilson College, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Berufe: philosopher
translator
author
autobiographer
philosophy professor
Beziehungen: Sartre, Jean-Paul (translation)
Organisationen: University of Colorado at Boulder
Preise und Auszeichnungen: Guggenheim Fellowship (1977)
Kurzbiographie: Hazel Barnes was born in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. She earned her bachelor's degree from Wilson College in Chambersburg, and her doctorate in Classics from Yale University in 1941. She taught at several colleges and universities before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1953, where she worked until her retirement in 1986. In 1979, Prof. Barnes became the first woman to be named Distinguished Professor at CU-Boulder. She was a prominent philosopher and an expert on French existentialism who wrote 12 books on the subject. She became widely known for her 1956 translation of Jean-Paul Sartre's classic work Being and Nothingness. The translation helped bring Sartre's ideas to the English-speaking world. In 1962, Prof. Barnes hosted a television series, "Self Encounter: A Study in Existentialism," which ran for 10 episodes on PBS.

She published her autobiography, The Story I Tell Myself: A Venture in Existentialist Autobiography, in 1997. In her honor, CU-Boulder established the annual Hazel Barnes Prize that is its highest faculty recognition for teaching and research.

Mitglieder

Rezensionen

Sartre von Hazel Estella Barnes

This book is a nice introduction to Sartre. The chapters lead us through Sartre's thought on certain topics, discussing the relevance of his books and plays, explaining what his ideas were and what he meant by them. The main ideas that really interested Sartre were Time, the Self, Others, the subject and the object, and Freedom. Some of his fictional work has a lot in common with the writings of Camus, both being existentialist, but Sartre is the more rigorously philosophical of the two. I agreed with a lot of this book, there were several moments when I thought "Yes, that is exactly how it is", but there was also a fair bit I did not agree with. For one thing, Sartre's concept of the self extends only really as far as the conscious, and he more or less denies that any unconscious exists in the human individual, as part of the self or otherwise. Tangentially bearing on this is a quote from the book: "If love and hate are present together, says Sartre, the result might be compared to a coffee thoroughly mixed with cream, but not to pure coffee with a layer of cream on top". Modern neuroscience, traditional and contemporary psychology, and anatomy, all support the idea that the brain can contain conflicting and separate thoughts, drives, and emotions, which arise from separate parts. Whether these come from different physical locations in the brain, or from different pyschologically defined areas such as the Id, Ego, and Superego is irrelevant, it is evident that we are not one unified self, but a number of interacting and conflicting subsystems. Sartre's conception of self does not seem to acknowledge this. This isn't to say that Sartre doesn't describe our being as being of more than one type. He describes us as "Being-in-itself", which is the type of being we share with animals, and a "Being-for-itself", which is the human reflective type. But he more or less denies the existence of the unconscious, as far as the author of this book would lead us to believe.
Secondly, there seems in certain places to be an implicit denial of absolute truth, of the kind that Plato discusses.
The last chapter discusses Sartre and Marxism. Sartre was a huge Marxist, and sought to integrate Existentialism into the Marxist philosophy. Sartre changed his opinion a lot, but towards the later years said that role of the philosopher was to aid the worker and support the revolution. Without reading his works, or those of Marx, I don't understand the justification of this, but this seems roughly equivalent to Plato saying that the philosopher should contribute to the good governance of society, if you take the ideas of Marx as given.
This book is a good introduction to Sartre, and covers a lot of his work. A problem that will always be encountered with works like these is that one does not know if the author is misrepresenting the views of the philosopher who is being analysed, without having read the original works. I disagreed with a lot of what she claimed that Sartre was saying, but without reading the original works it is not possible to know who is to blame for this.… (mehr)

Gekennzeichnet

P_S_Patrick | Aug 11, 2012 |

Mehr Rezensionen ansehen