Product Description

Being and Nothingness is without doubt one of the most significant books of the twentieth century. The central work by one of the world'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. Known as 'the Bible of existentialism', its impact on culture and literature was immediate and was felt worldwide, from the absurd drama of Samuel Beckett to the soul-searching cries of the Beat poets. Being and Nothingness is one of those rare books whose influence has affected the mind-set of subsequent generations. Sixty years after its first publication, its message remains as potent as ever - challenging the reader to confront the fundamental dilemmas of human freedom, responsibility and action.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #7553 in Books
• Published on: 2003-08-28
• Binding: Paperback
• 688 pages

Synopsis
This monumental book, regarded by many as Sartre's greatest achievement, is one of the most influential philosophical works of the 20th century. In it Sartre set out his fundamental views on philosophy and laid the foundations of existentialism.

Customer Reviews

Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!!
I would recommend this "existentialism Bible" to only two types of believer-

a)the serious philosophy student who has to read it because their tutor said so

b)prisoners of war or similar, as a method of torture.

This is tedium incarnate. What Jean-Paul does is spend 650 cursed pages rambling aimlessly and vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" and (too) many other frankly useless anecdotes.

For something bordering on relevance, I'd urge those still compelled to explore existentialism to instead read something by Camus, a superior writer who doesn't suffer verbal diarrhoea (J-P seems to repeat himself over and over without really adding anything to his highly suspect and largely fatuous non-arguments). Try "The Outsider" or "A Happy Death" by Camus- they bring the ideas of existentialism into something resembling clarity of perspective.

Anybody with a serious interest in their own existence will avoid this at all costs, unless they are a perverse sadist suffering from insomnia, or are planning to be stranded on a desert island, where this lump will doubtless serve as an aid to starting fires.

Speculative? System-building? Abstract? Gut-wrenching!
Sartre builds up a big, abstract, speculative system, apparently as a framework for his belief in human freedom, choice, and responsibility. What does this construction accomplish that simple assertions wouldn't of our freedom, our not being determined, our defining ourself via our yet-to-be-accomplished projects, our responsibility rooted in our unavoidable need to make choices? Perhaps both emphasis (you'll be less likely to forget you are free), elaboration (you'll learn more what being free as well as trying not to be implies), and examples (you'll learn more of the ways in which people try to avoid the weight of their freedom).

Even if the experts tell you they have you all figured out, you'll have decide whether to buy that or not. Even if you want to be all figured out and delivered from uncertainty, they (and you) may be wrong. If Sartre only argued for our individual freedoms, he wouldn't be so important. It is in his exploration of the ways in which we cringe from our freedom, of our "bad faith", that he connects and makes what seems a speculative, abstract system instead a powerful emotional truth.

If all this philosophy has captured you, Satre's novels and plays are no less powerful in presenting his themes: the novel "Nausea", the 3-volume "The Roads to Freedom", the play "No Exit", and more. Or if "Being and Nothingness" seems a bit much, try "Existential Psychoanalysis" which consists of two more grounded excerpts from "Being and Nothingness".

A long haul, but brilliant
Probably the best description of what this book is about comes from the subtitle, 'An essay on phenomenological ontology'- its a thorough analysis of the nature of existence from the point of view of human consciousness. Sartre begins with our most basic knowledge and works his way up to the complexities of human relationships, leaving nothing out. The first Part (of four) of the book centres around the two fundamental components of consciousness. Being is what we are aware of as existing; and Nothingness signifies any kind of negation, such as what we identify as missing, or even the giving of boundaries to an object. Consciousness is shown to be the agency responsible for introducing nothingness into the world: it is we who decide where the boundaries lie or who notice a component missing from the whole. Hence Sartre distinguishes two species of being: in-itself, i.e. a fixed, definable object in the normal understanding of the word; and for-itself, something with free will and which, therefore, is constantly moving beyond what it is was towards something new. Part II deals in-depth with the for-itself, Parts III & IV move on to relationships between for-itselves. One of the other reviews condemns Sartre for lack of argument. In fact, there is nothing to argue for, this book is a description, Sartre regards knowledge derived from closer scrutiny of the subject matter as superior to that elicited by chain of reason. Actually, the misunderstanding here is fundamental, and boils down to the conflict between the analytic and continental schools of philosophy.

This book is anti-religious, anti-scientific and anti-analytic. These three facts are the reason for a lot of general abuse that is hurled at the book, Sartre, and continental philosophy as a whole. However, with an open mind you will find that Sartre makes a very strong case for himself. The prose is difficult to follow, there is no disputing that, however, it is premature to dismiss the work as impenetrable, or even 'confused and obtuse'. I am an A-level student with no formal background in philosophy and I found no insurmountable problems. Continental philosophy is almost always like this, and the reason for it lies in the nature of the content. Sartre is attempting to describe something that precedes logic, and if you are willing to accept that such a notion is possible you will realise that it makes redundant the use of clear-cut definitions and logical language structure. Instead, Sartre must resort to using almost poetic descriptive methods (paradox and oxymoron abound), and the result of this is that the reader must take a more active approach to the understanding of the text. You have to 'think around' the words and sentences to find a meaning that is coherent. Sometimes this requires adapting your interpretation of earlier material. Having read to the end, I can assure you that there is a least one way of understanding what Sartre is trying to put across, although it is a time-intensive endeavour. I would recommend reading a short introductory book, some of Sartre's fictional works or Existentialism And Humanism, to get an idea of what you're in for; you're liable otherwise to regard yourself as having wasted a considerable amount of life-time and 13 quid on top of that. Also, Sartre kicks off with an immense amount of jargon, if you are without a basic grounding in philosophy, something like Penguin's Dictionary of Philosophy will prove useful.

It's not an easy read, and I can't agree with everything said, but for the most part it is incredibly perspicacious. It is written with an intensity that simultaneously demands and enthrals. Sartre's philosophy answers a lot of questions very well, and if you are both interested and determined enough to want a full account of his thought, this book is wholeheartedly recommended.