What do you think?
Rate this book
An Introduction to Existentialism
"The best book on this subject that I have so far read; it genuinely does what its title implies." — Philosophical Books
"Should be of great help in dispelling some of the mystery that surrounds the subject." — Review of Metaphysics
At one time or another almost everyone has reflected upon the major existentialist the sources of despair and suffering, the triumph over adversity, the nature and limits of reason, the encounter of the individual with other humans and with society, authenticity, death, and freedom. This book is for serious readers for whom previous accounts have been either too impressionistic or too limited in scope, and who wish to approach the original texts with perspective and critical understanding.
Although this is a first-rate work of scholarship, no previous training in philosophy is required of the reader. The topical treatment introduces not only the existentialist position on each topic but also supporting arguments, historical context, and the line of criticism adopted by contemporary philosophers who oppose the existentialist stand. Readers will also be rewarded with a good knowledge of individual representatives of the movement, particularly Sartre and Heidegger.
"Should be of great help in dispelling some of the mystery that surrounds the subject." — Review of Metaphysics
At one time or another almost everyone has reflected upon the major existentialist the sources of despair and suffering, the triumph over adversity, the nature and limits of reason, the encounter of the individual with other humans and with society, authenticity, death, and freedom. This book is for serious readers for whom previous accounts have been either too impressionistic or too limited in scope, and who wish to approach the original texts with perspective and critical understanding.
Although this is a first-rate work of scholarship, no previous training in philosophy is required of the reader. The topical treatment introduces not only the existentialist position on each topic but also supporting arguments, historical context, and the line of criticism adopted by contemporary philosophers who oppose the existentialist stand. Readers will also be rewarded with a good knowledge of individual representatives of the movement, particularly Sartre and Heidegger.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
241 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 1962
22 people are currently reading
145 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 17, 2012
Philosophy professor Robert Olson's book An Introduction to Existentialism provides a wide swath of mostly digestible explanations of the different facets of this seemingly abstruse philosophy. The book manages to walk a fine line between appealing to philosophical neophytes and maintaining an in-depth approach, and it quickly becomes clear that there could be no answer less than the full length of a book to unpack the following question adequately: What is existentialism?
Olson gives snippets of certain aspects of existentialism that help to provide clarity. He notes that existentialism eschews concerns of "God, abstract ideas, laws of nature, or empirical knowledge of human beings" only to focus on "the human condition." He even states that " . . . the fundamental existentialist conviction that although life is inescapably tragic and man necessarily doomed to frustration, values sufficient to make life worth the effort are available to him within the very heart of despair." But even statements like these can seem vague and only give a partial philosophy. The best brief description I can give would be to say that once people uncover their surreptitious knowledge that the world is incomprehensible, they must use this anguish to lead a life not of happiness but of intensity.
The push toward intensity is one major distinction between existentialism and most other philosophies. The most frequent position of the common man or woman is that happiness is the supreme value, and the three ways to achieve happiness are through wealth, physical pleasure, and honor (which later became fame or social acceptance). The Stoics felt happiness resided in a calm acceptance of life's dealings. Enlightenment thinkers felt that happiness was a product of the arduous work for the benefit of all humanity. Others like Plato and Aristotle believed happiness was attained through the contemplative life. The existentialists, on the other hand, discounted happiness as an impossible ideal that obscured life's true values.
And, this is one area where the book really excels: it puts existentialism in context by breaking down both the opposing and similar views of other philosophies. Not only does this help clarify many existentialist positions, it illustrates how widespread philosophical issues are. They can be much more than theoretical musings; they can help people determine how to live a good life and have sought to do so for thousands of years.
Now, I would be lying if I said I understood every position and argument made in this book. While Olson is often able to translate the opaque language of thinkers like Jean Paul Sartre, there are times when his own language is as unintelligible as anyone else's. Also, arguments he recounts at times feel incomplete or poorly thought out. One existentialist argument against humanism is partially based on the idea that respect "is by nature recognition of superior merit." After thinking about it and looking up the exact definition of "respect," this seems to be faulty reasoning. "Respect" can often mean due regard for others, and this definition does not imply the bestowing of any superior status. If so, the argument becomes much weaker. However, this might be more of a critique of philosophy itself than the book.
Olson gives snippets of certain aspects of existentialism that help to provide clarity. He notes that existentialism eschews concerns of "God, abstract ideas, laws of nature, or empirical knowledge of human beings" only to focus on "the human condition." He even states that " . . . the fundamental existentialist conviction that although life is inescapably tragic and man necessarily doomed to frustration, values sufficient to make life worth the effort are available to him within the very heart of despair." But even statements like these can seem vague and only give a partial philosophy. The best brief description I can give would be to say that once people uncover their surreptitious knowledge that the world is incomprehensible, they must use this anguish to lead a life not of happiness but of intensity.
The push toward intensity is one major distinction between existentialism and most other philosophies. The most frequent position of the common man or woman is that happiness is the supreme value, and the three ways to achieve happiness are through wealth, physical pleasure, and honor (which later became fame or social acceptance). The Stoics felt happiness resided in a calm acceptance of life's dealings. Enlightenment thinkers felt that happiness was a product of the arduous work for the benefit of all humanity. Others like Plato and Aristotle believed happiness was attained through the contemplative life. The existentialists, on the other hand, discounted happiness as an impossible ideal that obscured life's true values.
And, this is one area where the book really excels: it puts existentialism in context by breaking down both the opposing and similar views of other philosophies. Not only does this help clarify many existentialist positions, it illustrates how widespread philosophical issues are. They can be much more than theoretical musings; they can help people determine how to live a good life and have sought to do so for thousands of years.
Now, I would be lying if I said I understood every position and argument made in this book. While Olson is often able to translate the opaque language of thinkers like Jean Paul Sartre, there are times when his own language is as unintelligible as anyone else's. Also, arguments he recounts at times feel incomplete or poorly thought out. One existentialist argument against humanism is partially based on the idea that respect "is by nature recognition of superior merit." After thinking about it and looking up the exact definition of "respect," this seems to be faulty reasoning. "Respect" can often mean due regard for others, and this definition does not imply the bestowing of any superior status. If so, the argument becomes much weaker. However, this might be more of a critique of philosophy itself than the book.
February 21, 2025
existence precedes essence!
“The anguish of being is the feeling we have whenever the thought comed to us that nothingness was and still is just ad possible as being, whenever we ask ourselves how it id that there us something rather than nothing.”
philosophical theory is generally kind of unbearable to read, and this book is really no exception. olson wasn’t always super explicit about defining these central existentialist tenets, but he does do a good job of laying out the counter arguments. overall, it does a decent job of doing what it intends: presenting an introduction to existentialism.
read 4 school (english capstone)
“The anguish of being is the feeling we have whenever the thought comed to us that nothingness was and still is just ad possible as being, whenever we ask ourselves how it id that there us something rather than nothing.”
philosophical theory is generally kind of unbearable to read, and this book is really no exception. olson wasn’t always super explicit about defining these central existentialist tenets, but he does do a good job of laying out the counter arguments. overall, it does a decent job of doing what it intends: presenting an introduction to existentialism.
read 4 school (english capstone)
April 3, 2018
A book is divided into 7 chapters. First four chapters - Value Orientation, The Human Condition, Reason and Unreason, Freedom - give a basic con-text for understanding existentialism through its major themes. Trying to explain existentialism as a whole, Olson is more interested in similarities than differences between its representatives. In order to define existentialism, Olson had to put it in relation to other philosophical movements. So on one side we have philosophical tradition that preceded existentialism and on the other side we have philosophical movement very influental in America that same period - pragmatism. By including sections on metaphysical tradition (from Plato to Kant), Olson provides some basic understanding of philosophy in general. This justifies author's claim in the preface, that book doesn't require any previous konowledge of philosophy.
Among the existentialists Olson is most frequently quoting and explaining are Kierkeggard, Unamuno, Sartre, Heidegger (early Heidegger from Being and Time) and Jaspers. But Olson is not limiting the contribution to existentialism merely on philosophers as he often quotes passages from fiction writers, especially Dostoyevsky. Last 3 chapters, Authenticity, Other and Death, are dedicated to three topics of special interest in existentialism. In those three chapters Olson is focusing on ideas from Sartre and Heidegger as of two philosophers who have given most profound insights on those topics.
Now that I' ve ran through a content of the book, I will try to bring few crtical remarks on it. I' ve already stated that Olson is contrasting existentialism with pragmatism. The main purpose of bringing pragmatism in the conversation is to provide some criticism of existentialism. While comparison of those two movements is not completely useless, I guess I'm not the only reader who thinks that it would be more interesting to contrast, for example, structuralism and existentialism or even bring deconstruction in the text. But of course, we have to understand that Olson's Introduction to Existentialism was written in '62 when structuralism was not completely recognised and we also have to keep in mind that book was written by american author and it deals with philosophical movements found in domestic environment. In conclusion, writing about structuralists' response on existentialism or deconstruction of western metaphysics probably also means writing another book.
Mentioning the year of publication brings me to another point. While some other readers have already pointed out to "pompousness, harsh judgement and high-handednes" which I mostlty agree with, I had one other problem with the book. And it's primary a feeling. Reading Olson's book in 2018, it (the book) certainly felt a bit outdated. It is enough just to look at the cover of the book where one critic noted: "Existentialism is the most exciting movement in contemporary philosophy." Well, something like that could be hardly said for existentialism nowadays. While in the 60's existentialism was already starting to lose its influence, it still participated in shaping contemporary intellectual climat, so to say. Reading the book now, it becomes very obvious that we don't look at the existentialism in the same way. We look at it nowadays as at something past, something belonging to philosophical tradition.
Among the existentialists Olson is most frequently quoting and explaining are Kierkeggard, Unamuno, Sartre, Heidegger (early Heidegger from Being and Time) and Jaspers. But Olson is not limiting the contribution to existentialism merely on philosophers as he often quotes passages from fiction writers, especially Dostoyevsky. Last 3 chapters, Authenticity, Other and Death, are dedicated to three topics of special interest in existentialism. In those three chapters Olson is focusing on ideas from Sartre and Heidegger as of two philosophers who have given most profound insights on those topics.
Now that I' ve ran through a content of the book, I will try to bring few crtical remarks on it. I' ve already stated that Olson is contrasting existentialism with pragmatism. The main purpose of bringing pragmatism in the conversation is to provide some criticism of existentialism. While comparison of those two movements is not completely useless, I guess I'm not the only reader who thinks that it would be more interesting to contrast, for example, structuralism and existentialism or even bring deconstruction in the text. But of course, we have to understand that Olson's Introduction to Existentialism was written in '62 when structuralism was not completely recognised and we also have to keep in mind that book was written by american author and it deals with philosophical movements found in domestic environment. In conclusion, writing about structuralists' response on existentialism or deconstruction of western metaphysics probably also means writing another book.
Mentioning the year of publication brings me to another point. While some other readers have already pointed out to "pompousness, harsh judgement and high-handednes" which I mostlty agree with, I had one other problem with the book. And it's primary a feeling. Reading Olson's book in 2018, it (the book) certainly felt a bit outdated. It is enough just to look at the cover of the book where one critic noted: "Existentialism is the most exciting movement in contemporary philosophy." Well, something like that could be hardly said for existentialism nowadays. While in the 60's existentialism was already starting to lose its influence, it still participated in shaping contemporary intellectual climat, so to say. Reading the book now, it becomes very obvious that we don't look at the existentialism in the same way. We look at it nowadays as at something past, something belonging to philosophical tradition.
November 23, 2009
A pompous and poorly explained book on existentialism. It's the sort of book you recommend to friends not to read.
Want to read
March 2, 2019For my Existential Meetup Group.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews