A thought

[Adios]

You may be able to save people from hell but you can't save hell from people.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

[Richter]

That works, well said. 

[Adios]

Thanks, I think I should have put it in TFY,S though.

[NWC]

According to an oft misunderstood quote from Sartre, "hell is other people" (l'enfer, c'est les autres).

Can you save yourself from other people? Do you want to?

[Cramulus]

I'm not sure I understand what it means 

[Adios]

I'm not sure I understand what it means 

Who is the machine?
Who is trying to destroy the earth?
People.
Once people are added to the mix the batter is corrupted. I am not saying this isn't the way it's supposed to be, just the way it is.

[Adios]

According to an oft misunderstood quote from Sartre, "hell is other people" (l'enfer, c'est les autres).

Can you save yourself from other people? Do you want to?

First I would have to accept Sartres definition of hell.

[NWC]

For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".

Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).

ETA: apologies if the explanation was not solicited, I couldn't tell. And I've been working on phenomenology for like 7 hours straight now, it's leaking out of my brain.

[Adios]

For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".

Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).

So let's follow the notion that hell is the place where all of our guilt is stored. If we can come to terms with our mistakes during our lives and work to correct them and improve ourselves then we have nothing invested in hell. Our guilt is removed. However if we instead choose to wallow in our guilt and hold it in and do nothing to correct it then we are contributing to the mass that creates hell. Thereby hell cannot be saved from people.

[NWC]

For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".

Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).

So let's follow the notion that hell is the place where all of our guilt is stored. If we can come to terms with our mistakes during our lives and work to correct them and improve ourselves then we have nothing invested in hell. Our guilt is removed. However if we instead choose to wallow in our guilt and hold it in and do nothing to correct it then we are contributing to the mass that creates hell. Thereby hell cannot be saved from people.

Would "People cannot be prevented from choosing hell over non-hell." be an appropriate rephrasal?

[Adios]

For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".

Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).

So let's follow the notion that hell is the place where all of our guilt is stored. If we can come to terms with our mistakes during our lives and work to correct them and improve ourselves then we have nothing invested in hell. Our guilt is removed. However if we instead choose to wallow in our guilt and hold it in and do nothing to correct it then we are contributing to the mass that creates hell. Thereby hell cannot be saved from people.

Would "People cannot be prevented from choosing hell over non-hell." be an appropriate rephrasal?

Possibly, but would it be as thought provoking?

[NWC]

It wouldn't be as attention-grabbing for sure, but I was just asking as a clarification, as your original sentence wasn't directly in clear relation with the meaning you explained. That's not necessarily a bad thing though.

[Adios]

It wouldn't be as attention-grabbing for sure, but I was just asking as a clarification, as your original sentence wasn't directly in clear relation with the meaning you explained. That's not necessarily a bad thing though.

As a metaphor it could cover a lot of things. It could also have as many different meanings as how many people read it.

[Jasper]

Call me a jumped up chat-bot but I saw "hell" and "people" and couldn't help but be reminded of Sartre.