A summary of Being and Nothingness in ‘s Jean-Paul Sartre (–). Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of Jean-Paul Sartre. Stephen Wang continues our debate on these essential aspects of being human by considering what Jean-Paul Sartre had to say about them. Being and Nothingness is the major work by Jean-Paul Sartre and can be considered as the most complete work of existentialist philosophy. Published in
|Published (Last):||14 September 2005|
|PDF File Size:||4.53 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.43 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.
Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre.
The central work by one of the century’s most influential thinkers, it altered the course of western philosophy. Its revolutionary approach challenged all previous assumptions about the individual’s relationship with the world. Paperbackpages. Published August 28th by Routledge first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
Being and Nothingness
To ask other readers questions about Being and Nothingnessplease sign up. Do you find this book meaningful? This type of “psychoanalysis” of books, essays, monographs, etc. Although NAUSEA is a brilliant work, a book which any person who yearns to find some connection with the alienation he feels may find a kindred spirit, viz. Antoine Roquentin, the protagonist in NAUSEA; I would be the 1st to admit that, although it is a novel, a work of fiction with didactic overtones and characters who put in practice Sartre’s existentialism, it isn’t and I don’t believe was, written with the intent of creating a novel qua novel, e.
However, if one wishes to learn or understand the singularly breathtaking philosophy of Sartre, NAUSEA would be a great starting point, followed by a reading or, if a you’re lucky enough to be in or near a city where they happen to be staging them any or all of his plays, e.
Jean-Paul Sartre was a genius. If only more Americans weren’t addicted to mass commercialistic media and the whole cult of celebrity, maybe we’d be better able to stop the worsening of our society by realizing the hypocrisy within in order to be better able to spot it from without.
See all 6 questions about Being and Nothingness…. Lists with This Beinfness. An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology French: Jothingness work, an ontological investigation through the lens and method of Husserlian phenomenology Edmund Husserl was Heidegger’s teacherinitiated Sartre’s own philosophical enquiry.
View all 4 comments. One of the more cold-serious works I’ve read, this treatise exerts a strange power that forces readers onward despite the dense subject matter and clunky English translation. The subject is man’s experience of reality.
Here you have a rigorous scouring of the subject resulting in a proof of human freedom so thorough you’ll never fool with hard determinism again. Every aspect of consciousness is traced in all its implications. After reading this there seems little more to be said about the basis i One of the more cold-serious works I’ve read, this treatise exerts a strange power that forces readers onward despite the dense subject matter and clunky English translation.
After reading this there seems little more to be said about the basis in reality of human thought. The unique effect of reading the book, for me, came from exploring my own mind and thoughts for insight as I followed what Sartre said. The scope of the book treats conscious thought in isolation. You need a fairly good philosophical vocabulary to read it, as well as a highlighter. Even then, some of the points are so abstruse you have to pause and think, often on each paragraph. Those considering reading this book may want to read Catalano alongside it.
As with many existential works, this study tends to ignore external influences on thought. Sartre does pose the problem of the “situation limit” to human freedom, but without exploring it in any detail. As a result, the outward, natural necessity that provides the context for human freedom receives scant attention.
Thence comes the sense of a human consciousness unbounded in its freedom. Sartre’s characterization of the human mind possessing “absolute freedom and absolute responsibility” takes on a metaphysical aura; this, as much as anything, accounts for the book’s ability to engage one’s feelings.
The reading of this work is actually more rewarding than what one might learn from it. What an intriguing effect for such and academic work. May 29, Ian “Marvin” Graye rated it it was amazing Shelves: Heidegger writes like someone who is a reader; Sartre like someone who is both a reader and a writer.
This is not to deny that Heidegger is a good writer. Just that Sartre is a better one. Sartre wrote while Heidegger’s ideas were still fresh. He agreed with many, disagreed with some, fine-tuned others, and finished the project that Heidegger set himself, but failed to complete.
Naturally, Sartre accomplished something that was different from what Heidegger had intended at any stage of his career. Two philosophers, at least two opinions.
Sartre described his work as anc essay on nothingneess ontology,” its goal to set down “the basis for a general theory of being. It has the hallmarks of the type of system that Heidegger envisaged but failed to achieve, because he segmented his project, stopped at the first phase which was enough to gain him a professorial poststarted to question and doubt subsequently, revised, and went on to other interests including the reconciliation of his philosophy with National Socialism.
Ontology is an extremely speculative, subjective, arbitrary and even metaphorical study. Sartre doesn’t accord Heidegger any particular privileged status. He is simply one more philosopher trying to address issues posed by philosophy in general and Husserl in particular.
Both are trying to feel their way in the dark, recording their perspectives and impressions as they progress. You might not agree with everything that Sartre or Heidegger, for that matter wrote. At least, unlike “Being and Time”, you can tell from the text of “Being and Nothingness” itself, what ideas and arguments belong to Sartre, what he has adopted from his predecessors who are acknowledgedand what his differences and disagreements are.
Identity and Freedom in Being and Nothingness | Issue 64 | Philosophy Now
This is an argumentative work which tries to tease out the truth, rather than one that simply proclaims its truth imperiously and ex cathedra. Ultimately, I found Sartre’s work to be neingness more honest and accountable study than “Being and Time”.
Notwithstanding its length, it is also a more engaging literary experience for a reader, once if at all you become comfortable with the terminology of phenomenology and ontology.
As a result, it is a source of greater illumination.
Being and Nothingness – Wikipedia
Consciousness is what negates, differentiates, separates, determines, designates. It differentiates the Subject from the Object, nothintness the Self from the Other. In order to identify itself, consciousness in the form of Being-for-itself turns inward and negates the Being-in-itself.
Yet, Being-for-itself is nothing other than Being-in-itself. It is one and the same thing. Being is separated by nothingness. Consciousness identifies and chooses possibilities for being. Freedom is action in pursuit of possibilities. Freedom is the burden or responsibility of making our own choices. Freedom is the recognition and embrace of the possibilities of our own being. Bad faith occurs when consciousness eschews its responsibility to itself.
Heidegger and Sartre were both 38 at the time of publication of their respective works, “Being and Time” and “Being and Nothingness”. The Extreme Radicalisation of a Potentiality ” Sartre’s convictions are really closer to Heidegger’s than to anyone else’s. Indeed, the least inadequate capsule classification is to make of him the extreme radicalisation of a potentiality inherent in Heidegger’s ‘Sein und Zeit’.
Yet, to leave Sartre unspeakable through silence is silently to call attention to him as somehow fundamental; it is to suggest his having been given a reading, and call for a rereading. The For-itself is The nothingness Of the In-itself. Separated by Nothingness Human reality carries Nothingness within itself As the nothing which Separates its present From all its past.
The Future The Future is not, It is possibilised. The Future is The continual Possibilisation Of possibilities. Future Perfect Possibility To be its own possibility, To be defined by it, Is to be defined by That part of itself Which it is not, To be defined by An escape from itself Towards a future possibility. A Certain Coincidence Each for-itself is haunted By the presence of that With which it should coincide In order to be itself.
Something Possible The possible is the something Which the for-itself lacks In order to be itself. To be is to be My own possibilities. It is a mode of being In which I make myself be. Being and Possibility Each being-for-itself Strives towards the possibility Of being what it is not, Which contra Sartre? Is not nothingness, But possibility. It is in time That my possibilities appear On the horizon of the world Which they make mine. Its freedom Is to itself Its own limit.
To be free Is to be Condemned To be free. I am condemned To be wholly Responsible For myself. Instead of directing Its negation outward, It turns it toward itself. This flight Takes place toward An impossible future. Thus the for-itself Is both a flight And a pursuit. I make the Other be In the midst of the world.