5 ms·

"Hell is other people" has always been misunderstood. It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned

"Hell is other people" has always been misunderstood. It has been thought that what I meant by that was that our relations with other people are always poisoned, that they are invariably hellish relations. But what I really mean is something totally different. I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated, then that other person can only be hell. Why? Because … when we think about ourselves, when we try to know ourselves … we use the knowledge of us which other people already have. We judge ourselves with the means other people have and have given us for judging ourselves." ~ Jean-Paul Sartre As you can see, this does not mean other people are the worst and you should hide yourself in a dark, lonely room so that you don't have to put up with them. It's because of how we are unable to escape the watchful gaze of everyone around us, whether you work from home or not. "By there mere appearance of the Other," says Sartre in Being and Nothingness, "I am put in the position of passing judgment on myself as on an object, for it is as an object that I appear to the Other." Side note, the Economist is a rag.

nickthemagicman 5y ago
I mean isn't that kind of the same thing just a little bit more specific? It seems to me that he basically clarifies why other people are hellish. We absorb the critiques and judgements of others into our psyche and use them to forge our own identity. Which by definition is limiting our own self-actualization and freedom and torturous if that person we're influenced by is dysfunctional. Then you start to think of this in a modern mass media world where the scale of influence is global and things get even more insane.
- amouat 5y ago
  So I largely agree, but it's not that "other people are hellish", it's that they are, in fact, hell. Satre is using the word hell to mean "the afterlife" i.e. we live on in other people's minds and opinions whether we like it or not. Also people don't have to be dysfunctional for it to be a form of torture, we are trapped in their minds (gaze?) no matter what.
  - weatherlight 5y ago
    exactly!
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    > "other people are hellish", it's that they are, in fact, hell. I think you may have been distracted by the semantics over the ideas. I'm talking about hellish people, not hellish relations. Hell is other people. People who are hellish. How I'm using hellish is correct. > we live on in other people's minds and opinions whether we like it or not. I don't think Sartre really cared if we lived on in others minds at all. The issue is that the way in which our own minds were affected by 'the others' gaze. The hellish part to Sarte is the affect other have on our own psyche. > Also people don't have to be dysfunctional for it to be a form of torture According to Sarte's clarification it looks like that was his intention, however, I still agree with you, just the presence of the other can be hell. From Sartre: "I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated, then that other person can only be hell."-Sartre
- mistrial9 5y ago
  yea agree, but further: We absorb our own interpretation of the critiques and judgements of others into our psyche because how can we know other than through our own thoughts and feelings many inquiries into an "eternal mirror" are possible from there..
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Ha yes. That's even crazier. There's another level of interpretation to the message. A person could interpret being called a nerdy programmer in a complimentary way, or they could interpret it in an insulting way. That makes one wonder what portion of our interpretations, thoughts, and feelings are internal and what portion are external. It is a nature vs nurture discussion at that point.
im3w1l 5y ago
To what extent does he own the quip he coined? I don't find the message he intended very compelling. But the "wrong" interpretation I do agree with. In fact, I think the saying is popular precisely because of the "wrong" interpretation. Us other people will keep using it however we want thank you. That's hell for ya.
WhereIsSweden 5y ago
Suck. Dick. Idiot.
BayAreaEscapee 5y ago
> Side note, the Economist is a rag. Many years ago, before there was so much news on the Internet, I used to subscribe to The Economist. It was kind of expensive for a magazine: it was about $150 a year if I remember correctly. I used to devour it every week, and considered it to be a highbrow, accurate and unbiased version of the news from a European perspective. Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?"
- hkmurakami 5y ago
  Is the reporting bad or just the columns?
- weatherlight 5y ago
  The publication epitomizes the interests of those who they think are, "High brow." When I read the Economist, I often feel that they are citing past me to those who have Capital, those who legislate, those who might pull the strings of society.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?" This mirrors my experience with Hacker News. I ask myself what changed -- me, or Hacker News? I suspect the former.
  - pmdulaney 5y ago
    panta rei - everything flows
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- nineplay 5y ago
  The Economist is one of the few places that report international news, and specifically international news separate from 'here is how other nations are affected by US/European policies' which is the only story that tends to pop up in other publications There are still biases of course. Friends from Asia used to joke that there are two kinds of news - American news and European news. I'll agree that their headline stories are rarely insightful. They cover issues that have been talked about all over other media with a kind of snotty, holier-than-though attitude. They had a recent headline on the 'illiberal left' which was the exact same pearl clutching that has appeared in every other media source about the intolerant leftist who shut down any voice that strays from the 'approved' story points. I'm not even going to give an opinion on whether they are right or wrong, only that it is a tired story at this point. We hash it out once a week here on HN. There is nothing more to say.
Asooka 5y ago
That seems like an awfully verbose way of saying "I have social anxiety". Seems Sartre had it pretty bad, hence his intended meaning of the phrase, but most people don't feel that way, so they interpret it a bit differently.
NikolaeVarius 5y ago
I have no idea what you are talking about The Economist is one the last few vestiges of decent journalism.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

I mean isn't that kind of the same thing just a little bit more specific? It seems to me that he basically clarifies why other people are hellish. We absorb the critiques and judgements of others into our psyche and use them to forge our own identity. Which by definition is limiting our own self-actualization and freedom and torturous if that person we're influenced by is dysfunctional. Then you start to think of this in a modern mass media world where the scale of influence is global and things get even more insane.

amouat 5y ago
So I largely agree, but it's not that "other people are hellish", it's that they are, in fact, hell. Satre is using the word hell to mean "the afterlife" i.e. we live on in other people's minds and opinions whether we like it or not. Also people don't have to be dysfunctional for it to be a form of torture, we are trapped in their minds (gaze?) no matter what.
- weatherlight 5y ago
  exactly!
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  > "other people are hellish", it's that they are, in fact, hell. I think you may have been distracted by the semantics over the ideas. I'm talking about hellish people, not hellish relations. Hell is other people. People who are hellish. How I'm using hellish is correct. > we live on in other people's minds and opinions whether we like it or not. I don't think Sartre really cared if we lived on in others minds at all. The issue is that the way in which our own minds were affected by 'the others' gaze. The hellish part to Sarte is the affect other have on our own psyche. > Also people don't have to be dysfunctional for it to be a form of torture According to Sarte's clarification it looks like that was his intention, however, I still agree with you, just the presence of the other can be hell. From Sartre: "I mean that if relations with someone else are twisted, vitiated, then that other person can only be hell."-Sartre
mistrial9 5y ago
yea agree, but further: We absorb our own interpretation of the critiques and judgements of others into our psyche because how can we know other than through our own thoughts and feelings many inquiries into an "eternal mirror" are possible from there..
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Ha yes. That's even crazier. There's another level of interpretation to the message. A person could interpret being called a nerdy programmer in a complimentary way, or they could interpret it in an insulting way. That makes one wonder what portion of our interpretations, thoughts, and feelings are internal and what portion are external. It is a nature vs nurture discussion at that point.

im3w1l 5y ago

To what extent does he own the quip he coined? I don't find the message he intended very compelling. But the "wrong" interpretation I do agree with. In fact, I think the saying is popular precisely because of the "wrong" interpretation. Us other people will keep using it however we want thank you. That's hell for ya.

WhereIsSweden 5y ago

Suck. Dick. Idiot.

BayAreaEscapee 5y ago

> Side note, the Economist is a rag. Many years ago, before there was so much news on the Internet, I used to subscribe to The Economist. It was kind of expensive for a magazine: it was about $150 a year if I remember correctly. I used to devour it every week, and considered it to be a highbrow, accurate and unbiased version of the news from a European perspective. Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?"

hkmurakami 5y ago
Is the reporting bad or just the columns?
weatherlight 5y ago
The publication epitomizes the interests of those who they think are, "High brow." When I read the Economist, I often feel that they are citing past me to those who have Capital, those who legislate, those who might pull the strings of society.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> Now, I agree with you that it's just a rag full of drivel. Whenever I read The Economist now, I wonder, "did I change, or did The Economist change?" This mirrors my experience with Hacker News. I ask myself what changed -- me, or Hacker News? I suspect the former.
- pmdulaney 5y ago
  panta rei - everything flows
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nineplay 5y ago
The Economist is one of the few places that report international news, and specifically international news separate from 'here is how other nations are affected by US/European policies' which is the only story that tends to pop up in other publications There are still biases of course. Friends from Asia used to joke that there are two kinds of news - American news and European news. I'll agree that their headline stories are rarely insightful. They cover issues that have been talked about all over other media with a kind of snotty, holier-than-though attitude. They had a recent headline on the 'illiberal left' which was the exact same pearl clutching that has appeared in every other media source about the intolerant leftist who shut down any voice that strays from the 'approved' story points. I'm not even going to give an opinion on whether they are right or wrong, only that it is a tired story at this point. We hash it out once a week here on HN. There is nothing more to say.

Asooka 5y ago

That seems like an awfully verbose way of saying "I have social anxiety". Seems Sartre had it pretty bad, hence his intended meaning of the phrase, but most people don't feel that way, so they interpret it a bit differently.

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

I have no idea what you are talking about The Economist is one the last few vestiges of decent journalism.