Imagination & Creativity with Jean-Paul Sartre | Issue 32 (2023)

Imagination & Creativity with Jean-Paul Sartre | Issue 32 (1)

Your free items

they have readoneYour four free items for this month.

You can read four articles per month for free. To have full access to the thousands of philosophical articles on this site, please


(Video) Greatest Philosophers In History | Jean Paul Sartre


Understanding the imagination was central to Sartre's attempts to understand what it means to be human and how we should live.Marie Antoinette Pernathinks he had important insights that are still worth considering.

What is imagination? The word itself seems to be used in at least two different ways, and as this ambiguity is reflected in various studies of the imagination, it needs to be clarified. This is what I will try in the first part of this article. Then I focus on Jean-Paul Sartre's theory of imagination. I believe it offers an insight into our relationship to the world and to each other that deserves renewed attention. The conclusions drawn in the first part of the article will help defend Sartre's position against a common line of criticism.

imagination and creativity

The word "imagination" appears to be used for both (a) the ability to experience or form mental images and (b) the ability to engage in creative thinking, which may or may not involve the presence of mental images. It seems to me that, at least in some contexts, the distinction between these two meanings of the term is crucial, since the word does not refer to one but to two types of activities. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will use the term "imagination" when referring to Imagination (a) and reserve the term "creativity" for Imagination (b).

I propose to begin by tracing a distinction between the verb 'envision' and the verb 'create'. For example, if Mr. X is desperate to own a large sum of money, we might catch him deep in thought, winning the lottery, winning enormous sums in the stock market, successfully robbing a bank, or getting rid of his wealthy wife. Mr.X's activity can be described as follows: he fulfills his wish in pictorial form, or simply he plays with some ideas that arise "in his head". But it cannot be said that he is considering concrete ways of making his wish come true: Mr X does not draw up a plan, he does not weigh up the means at his disposal, he does not weigh up the pros and cons. Using the verb 'create' to describe Mr.X's activity would be inappropriate, but using the verb 'envision' would certainly be correct.

On the other hand, if I were working on a novel whose main character was Mr.X, I would be doing a specific project. Writing a novel requires an approach that obviously differs from author to author. For example, I could go from one purely conjectural phase to another, where I work out an outline of the main plot, then I start individualizing the characters and construct the different scenes, I work out a structure, then, as I continue, Me it's clear that I have to change some of what I had previously planned. This complex sequence of actions need not necessarily resort to imagination (a), and if I were to describe what I do in a single word, the verb "create" rather than "envision" would be most appropriate and exhaustive.

Thus, unlike the verb 'imagine', the verb 'create' refers to a coherent series of acts of an inventive and productive, not simply reproductive, nature aimed at a specific result.

The same reasoning applies to the cases where we attribute imagination or creativity to a person. For example, if I see a child sitting in a chair and mimicking his father's gestures while driving, I might think the child is imaginative, but I'm unlikely to think he iscreative. This does not mean that the activity of the game is not a creative activity; Depending on the type of game, it can be a creative activity in different ways. On the other hand, if the child tells me a story that he made up, I will not be wrong in saying that he is a creative child.

On this basis, I think it fair to say that imagination refers to mental actions that are not necessarily related to the achievement of a concrete result. Creativity can resort to imagination, but the latter is not essential to its activity. What it absolutely must include is a “do” with an end product in mind. In addition, such an end product can be made public either in advance or upon request, ie it can be shown to other people and possibly evaluated by them. (It may well be that a person can compose verse but does not feel like writing it down, but that does not mean that he cannot recite or write down his poetry if he wishes).

(Video) Nausea | Jean Paul Sartre

Another way of showing this distinction is to point out that in terms of novel writing and storytelling, that is, in terms of creative activities, it would be appropriate for the artist to give me, in my opinion, his work to ask; and it would be useful if I asked such questions as "What did you do to achieve that particular effect?"; or else if I made such judgmental statements as "I don't think the character in this scene is believable." But it would be absurd for me to ask such questions or make such observations in relation to Mr. X as he is imagining winning the lottery, or the kid playing driving a car.

This analysis is further corroborated by comparing the imagined object and the created object. For example, Anne tells Mary over the phone that she has dyed her hair blonde and asks her friend if she thinks that is a good idea. Before Mary answers, she remembers Anne's face and imagines it in combination with different shades of blonde hair. What Mary is doing is imagining, and what we mean here by Anne's face as oneBildis a more or less vague thought of Mary that does not really require a confrontation with anything real outside of itself and cannot be experienced by others. The mental image is actually tied to first-person experience; moreover, it is an unsuitable object of any kind of evaluation criteria. In this respect it is similar to the expression of likes and dislikes.

So much for "imagined objects". “Created objects” differ in that they are ideas more or less fully realized with the help of certain materials or tools. For example, consider a writer's description of Anne. To be identified as the novelist's creation, Anne's facial features must meet requirements that the image does not: Anne's face must be capable of evoking different feelings in different viewers, it must be capable of being evaluated against appropriate criteria, and it must be his own Possess an identity that distinguishes it from any other face, even Anne's face as it appears in the real world if the novelist has used the real Anne as a model for his character.

In discussing creative activity, we should not forget one essential feature that distinguishes it from other types of activity: a created object is intended as an artifact that achieves an original synthesis of form and content and is in no way comparable to something already existing in nature or social world. Thus, in the example above, Anne as a fictional character is an entirely different being from Anne as she is in the world that inspired the novelist; only the former is a product of human creativity.

"Creativity" can be contrasted with "repetition", "routine", "habit"; "Creative" can be contrasted with "conventional" and "conformal". The first group of terms refers to specific types of actions or actions, the latter to a person's overall lifestyle. In both cases it can be seen that the words are more or less explicitly value-laden. “Imagination”, on the other hand, does not function as the opposite of the above terms. In fact, by definition, creative action cannot be simultaneously repetitive and predictable, while imagination and repetition can be compatible—I can imagine the same person or situation in the same way an infinite number of times. I would be self-contradictory if I claimed that my boyfriend's lifestyle is rather creative, while at the same time affirming that he is a completely conventional person. On the contrary, it wouldn't be a contradiction in terms to say that my friend is openly conforming to societal conventions while imagining himself to be Jim Morrison of the Doors. Nonetheless, it is arguable that imagination can be part of a person's character and therefore of their way of life, if they often manifest a tendency to escape from the current situation in order to think of possible and impossible situations or to get lost in daydreams. This also lends itself, in certain contexts, to moral considerations that will form part of my discussion of Sartre's position.

Jean-Paul Sartre: Conceit and bad faith

Sartre dedicated two major works to the nature of imagination. InThe psychology of the imagination(1940) he drew a sharp boundary between imagination and perception. He asserted that consciousness can either perceive or imagine, but that the two types of action can never be combined. But, according to his critics, this contradicts our ordinary perception and aesthetic experience, where perceived and imagined elements are often intertwined.

An answer to this criticism requires consideration of Sartre's metaphysics. He uses the term "reality" in at least two ways. First, it denotes the commonsense reality, ie the familiar world made up of trees, houses, streets, people and so on. But he also uses it in a technical sense to refer to "being," that is, the ultimate and fundamental structure underlying what we call "reality" in the everyday sense. Let's use the phrase "first level of reality" to refer to common sense reality and the phrase "second level of reality" to refer to the real in the metaphysical sense. Access to the second level is normally only possible via the first level. The second level consists of two very different ways of being, namely being-in-itself (be in itself) and being for oneself (be for yourself). Being-in-itself applies to everything that is unaware of its own existence and that is simply and completely itself, like a stone or a book. Self-sufficiency is the mode of existence enjoyed by all that is aware of its own existence and capable of making decisions about "what to be". It includes values, meanings and so on, which being-in-itself obviously does not. The two ways of being are structurally related, but cannot merge into one another.

(Video) Sartre's Existentialist Philosophy (Jove S. Aguas)

Based on this rather sketchy picture, the above criticism can be answered as follows. In ordinary experience, the in-itself always appears to be pervaded by the projects of the for-itself, given the necessary interrelationship between the two modes of being: the first level of reality is structured around human meanings, values, and purposes. Through philosophical reflection, Sartre seeks to show that such meaningful relationships are not an integral part of what is fundamentally real (second level). Their being is based on the inner relationship between the in-itself and the for-itself, and they disappear the moment the for-itself decides to receive others. In other words, they are not inherent aspects of the two modes of being, but depend on the For-itself for their existence. This is the status of the imaginary: it has a kind of reality only so long as it is carried by a for-itself, but it can never pass into the in-itself. Look at a portrait of my friend Peter. Sartre would agree that in our ordinary experience of looking at the portrait, theanalogue, that is, the material component of the portrait (the canvas, the frame, the paint) blends with theimaginaryPart of the portrait (i.e. the image of Peter). But, he would say, philosophical reflection can reveal the characteristic ontological status of the various elements: their being depends on a relationship, not a fusion, between in-itself and for-itself. So the above critique does not take into account Sartre's ontology or the way in which he uses philosophy. Sartre does not deny that in ordinary experience the real is always mixed up with the imaginary. On the contrary, hestressedThe point, because in order to rid us of this false view of reality, philosophy can be a guide to action and therefore attain its full importance.

A distinction between imagination and creativity, along the lines of the previous section, may be a key to understanding why Sartre insists on a strict separation between the analogue and the imaginary, bringing us into the terrain of ethics. Just as the imaginative consciousness, from the point of view of common sense, fuses the analogue and the imaginary into a synthetic unity, so it performs a similar synthesis between the in-itself and the for-itself in that existential attitude which inbeing and nothingSartre calls "in bad faith" (bad faith). He gives the example of a café waiter. The waiter carries out his tasks with mechanical precision, thus achieving an imaginary synthesis between what he isintendedsimply being a café waiter, i.e. an in-itself, and what he is, namely a distant (i.e. a self-confident) café waiter. Instead of really being himself, he plays the role of a cafe waiter. Another famous example from the same book involves a similar synthesis. A character Sartre calls the "Defender of Sincerity" attempts to persuade a homosexual friend to openly profess what he is, where "is" means a being-in-itself. But, says Sartre, what the homosexual is effectively asked to do is to synthesize their past actions and gestures into an image with which they identify now and forever. It follows that in order to become one with this self-image, he would have to live his life constantly repeating those attitudes and actions that qualify and validate his way of being homosexual. Not only would this be a monotonous and repetitive way of being, but he would have renounced his own way of being as an individual in order to unreflectively cling to a pattern given to him by the other: to be identified as the "typical" homosexual.

Thus, it can be argued that trying to hide one's true nature (second level of reality, the for-oneself) throughout one's life through an imaginary identification with a self-image ultimately leads to the repetition of the same pattern of behavior. For after identification at the imaginary level, the person concerned mistakenly (hence "bad faith") perceives himself as that imaginary being and consequently unable to act or be anything else in any other way. This includes denying yourself the opportunity to consciously choose what you want to be and how you want to live your life. It involves turning away from the continuous, never-ending creation of one's self.

A possible argument against this conclusion could be the following. The person in bad faith is not just imagining things. To the extent that he identifies with his image, he actually undertakes complex actions and carries out projects, all of which involve creative activities.

This objection, I think, fails on at least two counts. First, not every type of action taken upon the real can be called "creative." The simple fact that the person is acting in bad faith from a model given to himself or given to him by others does not necessarily imply that he is engaging in some creative type of activity. The assembly line worker performs specific work on matter, manipulates tools, follows instructions or models. Nevertheless, one would not say that he acts creatively. On the contrary, his work is limited to the reproduction of sets of objects (or constitutive parts of objects), and his actions are to a large extent predetermined, repetitive, and predictable, as is their end product. Similarly, by conforming to an extrinsic self-image, the malicious person reproduces through their actions a “serialized” lifestyle that makes them a “social product”. It might be helpful to recall that at one point in the previous section I emphasized an essential criterion that the created object should fulfil: In order to be identified as a product of creative activity, the object should have a certain uniqueness, a certain stubborn refusal to be serialized and generalized. I also emphasized the contradiction between creativity and repetitive actions and between being creative and being conventional; and the compatibility or possibility of coexistence between imagination and repeatability and imagination and conventionality. All of this seems consistent with my reading of Sartre's text.

Second, acting in bad faith seems like the child I mentioned earlier playing as an adult by sitting in a chair and mimicking his father's car driving gestures. Therefore, it is an imaginative rather than a creative way of doing things. Consider the similarities: the child and the malicious person both support their imaginations by assuming certain postures and actions, but the reality is far from approaching the image they project onto it and can, given their age of the child in the family in the one case and in Sartre's ontological framework in the other. This transformation of reality, which is impossible for factual or ontological reasons, takes place through an imaginary act that fills the gap between reality and image and leaves the former untouched, at least in relevant points.

However, an important difference between the child and the bad faith person should be emphasized. Play is part of the child's self-development, which could be seen as a creative process. Furthermore, the child plays in different ways and plays different roles in different situations within the spontaneous, childlike universe to which it belongs. Bad faith, on the other hand, infects one's entire existence, shaping it to reproduce and repeat a particular way of being.

(Video) Why Catholics should think about "aliens" or ETIs with Paul Thigpen | Faith Full Podcast

It is our relationships with each other and with society that support bad faith most effectively, and this underscores its moral importance. In fact, it is clear that the malicious syntheses, however conceited, are sustained by certain behaviors and thus have a real and often devastating impact on how people interact and ways of life reproduce together.

What Sartre means by "authenticity," which is the fundamental positive value in his ethical perspective, consists in part in shattering those images, myths, and conventional labels in which individuals lock themselves and thus limit the scope of their freedom, and in which creative construction of the human world, a task always open to the dimension of the 'possible'.

Today's world is often described as an "image culture". If so, then Sartre's theory and its invitation to creative rethinking of reality deserve our appreciation and attention.

© Maria Antoinetta Perna 2001

Maria Perna received her PhD on Sartre from Birkbeck College in London and now teaches at the University of Calabria in Italy.

Further reading
Jeaun Paul Sartre,The psychology of the imagination(1940).
Jeaun Paul Sartre,being and nothing(1943).
Edward S. Casey „Sartre über Imagination“, inThe philosophy of Jean Paul Sartre, (Open Court, 1981). Casey addresses the type of criticism of Sartre's theory of imagination that will be considered in this article.


What is imagination and creativity in philosophy? ›

In a broad sense the creativity of the imagination can be described according to its ability to combine and rearrange the different elements of the data gathered from sensory experience; this ability, an everyday phenomenon, has been noted by almost every philosopher.

What was Jean-Paul Sartre's famous saying? ›

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

What is the synopsis of The Imaginary Sartre? ›

Summary. Sartre argues that while some believe imagining to be like an internal perception, imagination is nothing like perception. Perception is our study over time of a particular object with our senses. It is necessarily incomplete; one can only see one side of a chair at a time, for example.

What is the idea of Jean-Paul Sartre? ›

Sartre believed in the essential freedom of individuals, and he also believed that as free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions. That is, with total freedom comes total responsibility.

What is the role of imagination in creativity? ›

It influences everything we do, think about and create. It leads to elaborate theories, dreams and inventions in any profession from the realms of academia to engineering and the arts. Ultimately, imagination influences everything we do regardless of our profession. Imagination is the key to innovation.

How do we use imagination for creativity? ›

We like these 10 ways to increase imagination for better creative thinking by Operation Meditation:
  1. Open your mind to unexplored paths. ...
  2. Read more. ...
  3. Tell stories. ...
  4. Be curious. ...
  5. Don't be afraid to try something new. ...
  6. Expand your interests. ...
  7. Develop your talents. ...
  8. Spend time with creative people.

What is Jean-Paul Sartre's view of the self? ›

Sartre proposes therefore to view the ego as a unity produced by consciousness. In other words, he adds to the Humean picture of the self as a bundle of perceptions, an account of its unity. This unity of the ego is a product of conscious activity.

What is Jean-Paul Sartre's first principle of existentialism? ›

Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.

Why is Jean-Paul Sartre important? ›

He was a key figure in the existentialism philosophical movement, and his work has had a significant influence on 20th-century sociology, postcolonial theories and general literary studies. Sartre had a lifelong, open relationship with writer, philosopher and feminist icon Simone Beauvoir.

What are the key elements of Sartre's existentialism? ›

Critical Essays Sartrean Existentialism: Specific Principles
  • (1) Existence. Precedes Essence Our acts create our essence. ...
  • (2) Freedom. Man's situation is an unhappy one: what is good? and what is evil? ...
  • (3) Responsibility. Man must be committed, engaged. ...
  • (4) "The others" ...
  • (5) Commitment.

What are the three types of beings according to Sartre? ›

To ground these claims and produce a lexicon for his extremely complex phenomenology, Sartre develops a dense metaphysics that chops up reality into three fundamental types of being: being-in-itself and being-for-itself and being-for-others.

Was Sartre narcissistic? ›

Sartre's was a narcissistic love; Tintoretto was his alter ego.

What does Sartre mean by being? ›

Sartre states that "Consciousness is a being such that in its being, its being is in question insofar as this being implies a being other than itself." Existence: Concrete, individual being-for-itself here and now. Existence precedes essence. The subjective existence of reality precedes and defines its nature.

Can you be creative without imagination? ›

The biggest difference between creativity and imagination is that imagination is thinking of something ‒ whether it's an object, place, time, etc. ‒ that is not present, while creativity is doing something meaningful with your imagination.

What is the meaning of creative imagination? ›

the faculty by which new, uncommon ideas emerge, especially when emergence does not seem explicable by the mere combination of existing ideas. The operations of the creative imagination are sometimes explained by the interaction of dormant or nonconscious elements with active, conscious thoughts.

What are the three types of imagination? ›

You may have heard about three kinds of imagination: descriptive, creative and challenging. Roos & Victor introduced those three types of imagination in their 1999 EMJ paper "Towards a New Model of Strategy-making as Serious Play".

How do you spark imagination and creativity? ›

6 Ways to Spark Your Creativity
  1. Allow time for doing nothing. ...
  2. Get outside. ...
  3. Look around at what you can tweak. ...
  4. Make time to play. ...
  5. Try, try again. ...
  6. Don't be afraid to think small.
May 12, 2017

What is the power of imagination? ›

Imagination allows us to explore the past and to imagine the future. It plays an important role in our mental health, and thanks to imagination, we can give a positive approach to our experiences. It is a great tool for recreating and remodeling our world and our life.

Did Jean-Paul Sartre believe in free will? ›

Jean-Paul Sartre had strong opinions on free will and responsibility. He believed that humans are radically free and thus radically responsible for their actions.

What does it mean to be free according to Sartre? ›

Sartre writes that freedom means “by oneself to determine oneself to wish. In other words success is not important to freedom” (1943, 483). It is important to note the difference between choice, wish and dream.

What is the main idea of existentialism? ›

Existentialism is the philosophical belief we are each responsible for creating purpose or meaning in our own lives. Our individual purpose and meaning is not given to us by Gods, governments, teachers or other authorities.

What are the 3 key terms from Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism? ›

Sartre says that he will next clarify three concepts: anguish, abandonment, and despair. The basic outline of Sartre's argument is now complete: existence precedes essence, so human life should be viewed as a project of creating purpose.

What are the 4 pillars of existentialism? ›

It was Yalom who defined the four “givens” of the human condition—death, meaning, isolation, and freedom, that have formed the cornerstone of modern-day existential therapy, and a method of psychotherapy that enables clients to face these givens head-on and so move towards living a more “authentic” and free existence.

What are the three principles of existentialism? ›

Of this work, there are generally three core principles that emerge as central to existentialist philosophy: phenomenology, freedom, and authenticity.

What are the five main themes of existentialism? ›

  • Contents.
  • Who Am I?
  • The lack of norms, and anxiety.
  • Meaning and absurdity.
  • Self-deception and authenticity.
  • The individual and 'they'
  • Irreligion and religion.

What are the two types of existentialism Sartre? ›

In Existentialism and Humanism Jean-Paul Sartre states that there are “two kinds of existentialists,” the atheistic, in which he includes himself, and the Christian, among whom he includes his fellow countryman Gabriel Marcel.

What are the two basic concepts of existentialism? ›

According to existentialism: (1) Existence is always particular and individual—always my existence, your existence, his existence, her existence. (2) Existence is primarily the problem of existence (i.e., of its mode of being); it is, therefore, also the investigation of the meaning of Being.

What is the conclusion of existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre? ›


As Sartre puts it, “man is condemned to be free.”9 That is, it was never up to us to be free, and we cannot cease to be free. Since we must be free, and because freedom entails responsibility, we can never opt out of being responsible.

What is bad faith for Sartre? ›

Sartre regarded bad faith as a denial of freedom which we all have. He gives an example of a waiter, who tells himself that to wait on tables is his destiny. The takeaway here is that to blame social pressures or others for what we are or what we do may be comforting, but it is a denial of the freedom we have.

What is imagination according to philosophy? ›

Imagination is a speculative mental state that allows us to consider situations apart from the here and now. Historically, imagination played an important role in the works of many of the major philosophical figures in the Western tradition – from Aristotle to Descartes to Hume to Kant.

What is creativity according to philosophy? ›

Creativity is the vehicle of self-expression and part of what makes us who we are. One might therefore expect creativity to be a major topic in philosophy, especially since it raises such a wealth of interesting philosophical questions, as we will soon see.

What does philosophy say about creativity? ›

Creativity is very important to philosophy, and can be manifest in philosophy so many ways, but at the same time it seems less explicitly discussed, celebrated, or taught, in comparison to other important components of good philosophy, such as logical rigor or understanding what is at stake in a dispute.

What is the meaning of creative philosophy? ›

If we define “creative philosophy” as a systematic understanding and collection of beliefs around the nature of creativity, then it stands to reason that virtually every creative person, and certainly every ad agency, ought to have some form of codified creative philosophy written out somewhere, right?

What are the 2 types of imagination? ›

There are two types of imagination. One is known as synthetic imagination and the other as creative imagination. Synthetic imagination consists of the act of combining recognized ideas, concepts, plans, facts, and principles in new arrangements.

What is the purpose of imagination? ›

Humans use imagination for a variety of reasons: to acquire experience and knowledge about the world, to better understand another person's perspective, to solve problems, to create and interact with artistic works, and more.

How human creativity and imagination are expressed? ›

Art is the expression or application of human creativity and imagination. Whether it's a poem, a doodle, or a musical, art – in all its forms – captures ideas, conveys emotion, and unpacks experiences and reveals perspectives reflective of individual and collective circumstances.

What type of thinking is creativity? ›

At its core, creative thinking is intentionally gaining new insights and different ideas through existing information. Often, creative thought involves tapping into different styles of thinking and examining information from different viewpoints to see new patterns. Anyone can foster a creative mind with some practice!

What is the father of creativity? ›

Known around the world as the “Father of Creativity,” Torrance developed the Torrance Test for Creative Thinking as a faculty member at the University of Minnesota. The test became the benchmark method for quantifying creativity and created the platform for all research on the subject since.

What are the four types of creative? ›

According to Arne Dietrich, the four different types of creativity are:
  • Deliberate and cognitive creativity. ...
  • Deliberate and emotional creativity. ...
  • Spontaneous and cognitive creativity. ...
  • Spontaneous and emotional creativity.
Nov 9, 2022

What is the true meaning of creativity? ›

Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others. (page 396)

What is the principle of creative? ›

It is the ability to create or innovate something new, the skill to create something new from nothing. It is also the generation of new and innovative ideas or a unique application of old ideas. Adapting, combining, application of existing ideas also require creativity.


1. How To Unlock your Miracles, Healings, Blessings & All Your Desires Through The Power of Your Mind
(The Real Christianity - Jesus' Global Ekklesia)
2. Rick Rubin: How to Access Your Creativity | Huberman Lab Podcast
(Andrew Huberman)
3. Stephen Asma: Evolution of Imagination and Creativity
(Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology)
4. Taskmaster: A Masterpiece Of Existentialist Philosophy: Sartre, Kierkegaard, Camus & Horne
(Student Of Eleos)
5. Theofanis Tasis on Cornelius Castoriadis: Greece and its Radical Imaginary
(Ancient Greece Revisited)
6. Mark Johnson: Moral Imagination
(Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Msgr. Benton Quitzon

Last Updated: 06/17/2023

Views: 5885

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (43 voted)

Reviews: 90% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Msgr. Benton Quitzon

Birthday: 2001-08-13

Address: 96487 Kris Cliff, Teresiafurt, WI 95201

Phone: +9418513585781

Job: Senior Designer

Hobby: Calligraphy, Rowing, Vacation, Geocaching, Web surfing, Electronics, Electronics

Introduction: My name is Msgr. Benton Quitzon, I am a comfortable, charming, thankful, happy, adventurous, handsome, precious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.