Customer Reviews
Makes a Brilliant Doorstop!!! - By: Elputo, 01 Feb 2008 
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 & vaguely about the nature of existence only to draw such earth-shattering conclusions like "consciousness is consciousness of consciousness" & (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 & over without really adding anything to his highly suspect & 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 interestin 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! - By: calmly, 25 Oct 2007 
Sartre builds up a big, abstract, speculative system, apparently as a framework for his beliefin human freedom, choice, & 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 rootedin 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), & examples (you'll learn more of the waysin 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 & delivered from uncertainty, they (and you) may be wrong. If Sartre only argued for our individual freedoms, he wouldn't be so important. It isin his exploration of the waysin which we cringe from our freedom, of our "bad faith", that he connects & makes what seems a speculative, abstract system instead a powerful emotional truth.
If all this philosophy has captured you, Satre's novels & plays are no less powerfulin presenting his themes: the novel "Nausea", the 3-volume "The Roads to Freedom", the play "No Exit", & more. Or if "Being & Nothingness" seems a bit much, try "Existential Psychoanalysis" which consists of two more grounded excerpts from "Being & Nothingness".
A long haul, but brilliant - By: , 01 May 2005 
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 & 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; & 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 objectin the normal understanding of the word; & for-itself, something with free will & 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, & boils down to the conflict between the analytic & continental schools of philosophy.
This book is anti-religious, anti-scientific & anti-analytic. These three facts are the reason for a lot of general abuse that is hurled at the book, Sartre, & 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 & obtuse'. I am an A-level student with no formal backgroundin philosophy & I found no insurmountable problems. Continental philosophy is almost always like this, & the reason for it liesin the nature of the content. Sartre is attempting to describe something that precedes logic, & 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 & logical language structure. Instead, Sartre must resort to using almost poetic descriptive methods (paradox & oxymoron abound), & 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 & 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'rein for; you're liable otherwise to regard yourself as having wasted a considerable amount of life-time & 13 quid on top of that. Also, Sartre kicks off with an immense amount of jargon, if you are without a basic groundingin philosophy, something like Penguin's Dictionary of Philosophy will prove useful.
It's not an easy read, & 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 & enthrals. Sartre's philosophy answers a lot of questions very well, & if you are both interested & determined enough to want a full account of his thought, this book is wholeheartedly recommended.
Satisfyingly Weighty - By: David J. Smith, 03 Nov 2004 Alongside Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, de Beauvoir's Second Sex & Heidegger's Being & Time this book seems to have that requisite broadness of the beam to be considered foundational existentialist fodder. Which is curious, really, given the anti-foundationalist nature of existentialism. But on to content - this is definitely not the place, like the other tomes mentioned above, to start from for an understanding of existential phenomenology. For that I heartily recommend "Existentialism: A reconstruction" by David Cooper.
This, the "seminal" work of Sartre, is a thorough examination of the differences & relationships between thing-like beings & mind-like beings, to some degree aimed at overcoming the cartesian division of the subject from the world, & couchedin Sartre's own attempt at phenomenological prose, which is at best paradoxical & at worst utterly confusing & easily misunderstandable. Statements like "man is what he is not & is not what he is" need pages of clarification to draw out the sensein which nothingness, or nihiliation is an integral processin the human project of self-identification. Much of what Sartre says is (badly) rehashed Heidegger, who I found much easier to understand, but Sartre does depart from Heidegger on several very important points, & also peppers his work with some quite specific real-world examples of what he means, a practise not favoured by the Master. It is also iluminating to read a work that many bandwagonesque 20th century "existentialists"in the parisian cafe culture probably never waded through, & now, at a time when Sartre is unpopular, is probably a better time to read this work, unhindered by hype & "movements". Some of the key elements of Sartre's thought presented here he later repudiated or at least doubted, especially during his romance with communism, such as the radical nature of human freedom to create itself, however, it is possible on returning to this work after reading elsewhere to come to the conclusion that Sartre himself misunderstood this workin his later years, & that he never really did underplay the significance of intersubjectivity after all.
I found the most illuminating passagesin this weighty tome are those regarding "the look", "bad faith", "authenticity" etc. It is also facinating to see how all those quotations from Sartre that have been (mis)appropriated by others actually sit within this textin quite different contexts to how they have been used, & this goes for those colourful examples regarding "vertigo", pierre's "absencein the cafe", the "waiter playing at being a waiter" & so on.
This book is a very challenging readin terms of its style & its density, but extremely rewarding & surprising, especially coming to it after having read only second or third hand accounts of Sartre.
I rate this book despite its sheer awkwardness, with one single provisio: Sartre's attempt at examing sexual encounter is most amusing, if not profoundly silly!
The most underated classic of all time! - By: , 15 Aug 1999 The review before mine says that there is a God shaped holein existential thought. I disagree. Being an existentialist deals with man's acceptance of powers greater than his own. God is not the focus, & yes Sartre has a problem with the God idea, but God can exist if he exist's with the individual. There need not be a hole. Man is minute, butin his own life he is usually more important than anything. This does pose a problem for the western ideal of God, but it does not destroy the existence. The book will show you a God like hole only if one exists already, within you.
