Jean-Paul Sartre's views on animals include:
Consciousness
Sartre believed that animals that can register our presence are conscious, while others are not. For example, clams do not seem to register our presence, and we don't have a strong sense of obligation to them.
Metaphorical use
Sartre sometimes used animals metaphorically to clarify a point in his thesis.
Indifference
Sartre was indifferent to animals, rather than hostile. He was not interested in animals themselves, nor in the moral issues surrounding how we treat them.
Authenticity
Sartre believed that authenticity is central to his moral preconceptions. He believed that some people are more "crab-like" than others, and that this is the opposite of authenticity. — GoogleAI
If God does not exist, brutes also have no nature before they exist (this is especially obvious in the case of species that existed before humans, such as dinosaur species) and therefore they also ought to be free. — Jedothek
That is the purpose and utility of the thing. It has no 'essence' and its nature is determined by its design, the material from from which it was made and the skill with which it was crafted.An artefact such as a letter opener has an essence before it exists, for a human being must have conceived it before it came into existence, and this conception is the essence or nature of the thing. — Jedothek
He has no pre-designated purpose or utility. His nature is determined by the material from which he is made, the environment and evolution that produced him.Since there is no God, there is no one to conceive humanity before it exists, thus the human being has no nature before he ... exists. — Jedothek
They, too are products of environment and evolution; they also have no pre-designated purpose or function.If God does not exist, brutes also have no nature before they exist — Jedothek
Within the confines of his physical nature, his needs, his condition, his environment and his capabilities. Both he and the beast are constrained in the same ways.Therefore, he is free to do has he chooses. — Jedothek
An artefact such as a letter opener has an essence before it exists, for a human being must have conceived it before it came into existence, and this conception is the essence or nature of the thing. It behaves (passively) in a determined manner in accordance with its nature; whereas
Since there is no God, there is no one to conceive humanity before it exists, thus the human being has no nature before he (I write as sexistly as Sartre) exists. Therefore, he is free to do has he chooses.
the existentialism of B&N is not as soft or warm and inviting -- i.e. humanistic -- as the existentialism of EiH. — Moliere
Resistance is the secret of joy — Alice Walker
That is the purpose and utility of the thing. It has no 'essence' and its nature is determined by its design, the material from from which it was made and the skill with which it was crafted. — Vera Mont
I think that the essence of a knife would be the steel used to make it and that the purpose and utility is given it by man. — Sir2u
If it were a food flavouring, yes. I suppose you can apply it to a tool, meaning either its character (function, rather than personality) or its substance (what it's made of and how it's made). But how would that be distinct from purpose or nature?Would that not depend on the definition being used for 'essence'? — Sir2u
I think you have that the wrong way round. the existence of the steel is what precedes the essence (being) of the knife as a sharp edged form thereof. — unenlightened
If it were a food flavouring, yes. I suppose you can apply it to a tool, meaning either its character (function, rather than personality) or its substance (what it's made of and how it's made). But how would that be distinct from purpose or nature? — Vera Mont
Okay. I have no problem with substance, which is just raw material. Everything that has a physical form has substance. Why raise that to some kind spiritual level?High quality steel can be made into a fork, a knife, a plate or even a plow. The steel would be the essence, the substance of the object. — Sir2u
Which is not about substance. Good or bad, a person is made of biomass. But is that what you mean by essence? Is it the person's essence you're discussing or the essence of goodness - which has no physical substance? In that sentence, 'essentially' is used in the sense of 'basically'; at the foundation of his personality - which also has no physical substance. 'Essence' is non-material attribute. I see no reason to stick it on inanimate objects.When we talk about people, "He is essentially a good person", we talk about the things that make him good. — Sir2u
...
The billiard ball which rolls on the table does not possess the possibility of being turned
from its path by a fold in the cloth; neither does the possibility of deviation belong to the cloth; it can be established only by a witness synthetically as an external relation
...
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.