Existentialism and Human Emotions

by Jean-Paul Sartre

This rare and vintage book is a perfect addition to any bibliophile's collection

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, Classics, France, Essays, French Literature

96 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1957

About the author

Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.

Reviews

[Lloyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

The chapters "Existentialism" and "Freedom and Responsibility" are a warmly written, natural link between Kierkegaard and Watts.

Short "Desire to Be God" chapters are...meh.

Everything past that is irredeemable garbage. This is a 5-star book, with one small condition: Find the page with the chapter title "Existentialist Psychoanalysis", locate a pair of scissors, and cut it out, along with every page after it. Then you will have a book worth cherishing, and reading over and over again. Don't read this review any further, and everything should be good.

---------------------------

Alright, if you must: This KILLS me! After taking the time to so wonderfully lay down his pillars of existentialism in the first 2/3 of the book, with emphasis on "forlornness, anguish, and despair" of YOU being the ONLY ONE who defines your own existence, the only one who gives it meaning, and that NOBODY can help you make your most important decisions in life; Sartre then flippantly suggests that a new form of "existentialist psychoanalysis" should provide easy answers. This is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY to the absolute foundation of the beautiful ideas that make this book significant. Then you'll read in horror as he degrades into all manner of disturbing sexual Freudian psychobabble, laughing out loud at at least one part due to the absurdity.

*Deep breath*. I'm just going to pretend that some perverted Freudian fanboy slipped the last chapters in right before it went to press, and those were never really Sarte's thoughts. They couldn't have been, right?

[Michael Roop · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one is a goodin. Jean-Paul Sartre is one of the greatest free thinkers in modern history. I didn't care much for philosophy until I became curious about it from watching the Big Lebowski. When he said it must be hard being a nihilist, i wondered what that was. Unsure I hit up the book store looking for answers. Though I didn't find dude related help I did find this. Sartre was top of the list at the book store.
This book is a quick enthralling read. For like minded individuals this book will read like the inner workings of your own mind. The lonesome world becomes at one inside your head. Pick other Sartre books to delve deeper into the philosophic world. It's an interesting one.

[Brandt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seriously? Can I even start a review like that? Anyway, the overall theme of the book was good, and in a lot of respects it does do a good job of defining and analyzing human emotions through existentialist thought. However, let's be honest... The way this book is written, and the examples used throughout are trashy. I think that Sartre is very good, extremely good, but I also think that this collection of recyclables is really low quality. I picture Camus and Sartre having a conversation similar to the ones covered in the book, and Camus looking at Sartre and exclaiming, "Wat?" Sartre's style of oblique examples and quasi-circular argumentative "a-prioriness" made me slither into a pattern of mentally checking every time he mentioned "a priori". It would be unfair to at least acknowledge that perhaps there is a barrier of linguistics to the writing. What I am saying is that perhaps if read in French, or instead of read actually discussed with Sartre, the ideas would be more vividly understood. One thing is for certain, Sartre may have been a great thinker, but Camus shamed him when it came to actually expressing concepts in the written/translated form, and after all, isn't that how we know the existentially ideas?

[William Strasse · Rating 2 out of 5]

The short verdict: like panning for gold. I finally made myself read this front to back (I'd previously skipped around it a couple times.) Sartre is tiresome for several reasons to me. It is mostly that he just takes himself so seriously that you have to laugh at times, especially when he starts using terms like the being-in-itself-for-itself-of-itself. At one point, I thought "Jean-Paul, if you say 'a priori' one more time..." Of course, he used it about 100 more times after that. When I got to the chapter "The Hole", I really had laughing fits...and it's not because it deals with sexuality and I'm immature. It's just that, listening to Jean-Paul talk about sexuality really makes you realize how far up his own arse he is. If you believe in psychosomatic causes of physical ailments/deformities (I do...to a certain extent) it is worth considering that he was walleyed. Some would say this denotes not being able to look at something "head on". This is interesting because part of his whole attitude is that of being a tough-minded realist. When he gets into his ideas of existential psychoanalysis, it also feels a bit self-aggrandizing. And then, of course, I always end up thinking about the fact that he and Camus split hairs at some point. I remember someone once saying "There isn't much difference between Sartre and Camus...except that Camus was right." In Sartre's defense, he allegedly said himself at one point that he could only express the truth through fiction. I think this is why Camus excelled...he was a novelist at heart, where Sartre was an academic philosopher at heart. Still, there are a few ideas here that made the whole thing worth trudging through. It isn't really that long a book, after all...but sometimes it feels like it.

[Jimmy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first long essay is called "Existentialism." Here are some notes and comments:

Basically, for the longest time, people believed that "Essence precedes existence" because God the Creator made us who we were. Sartre is saying that "Existence precedes essence" because we make us who we are. "Man in nothing but what he makes of himself." Sounds great but it is simply not true. At least, not to the extent Sartre thinks it is. The factors of heredity, environment, and chance affect us and make us long before we ever get a chance to make ourselves. And they never let up.

Heidegger was fond of the phrase "forlornness." So that "if God does not exist we have to face all the consequences of this." French teachers tried to deal with it by saying there are certain values that have an a priori existence. In other words, according to Sartre, "nothing will be changed if God does not exist." The existentialist thinks it is "very distressing" that God does not exist. As Dostoievsky said "If God didn't exist, everything would be possible."

In even more other words, man is free, man is freedom. No determinism. Only us trying to conduct ourselves. I call BS because I am a determinist.

Ponge has said "Man is the future of man." Now we must trust our "instincts" or our "feelings."

Descartes: "Conquer yourself rather than the world."

"You are nothing else than your life."

The low point of the essay was his definition of a "coward" as someone who defined himself by "his acts."

He is a critic of humanism. I think of myself as more of a "universalist." I like to include more than just humans in my belief systems.

Sartre says that "man is always in the making." We make ourselves, define ourselves in our forlornness.

[Eric · Rating 2 out of 5]

An excellent primer by the father of Existentialist philosophy. Sartre's concept is at the same time simple and radical: man is fully responsible for what happens in the world. No excuses. No cover. No "out." If it happens: we make it happen. On the one hand, it's extraordinarily empowering. We are moral artisans, painting actions on the world's canvas. Yet the existentialist is overwhelmed by anguish (that everything I do essentially sets a standard, since none exist apriori) and despair (that there's no outside system or authority to which I can appeal when acting in the world). From a moral standpoint: is "everything permissible" in a world where we are freed from the yolk of pre-enlightenment religious doctrine? Sartre argues to the contrary. But I'm not completely convinced ...

[Gary Patella · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some parts I found very interesting, while other part were extremely convoluted. His take on existential psychoanalysis was intriguing, and seemed to revolve around introspection. The last chapter almost seemed like nonsense to me. Fortunately, the entire book is fairly short. This means that all parts, including the ones where Sartre's philosophy seems closer to the rhetoric of Socrates than existentialism, are quickly over.

[Jon Nakapalau · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the more 'approachable' books by JPS. Foundation for “existence precedes essence” is presented and explained. - key to open other 'doors' to JPS complex philosophy. Of all the philosophers I have read JPS has the most 'rabid' defenders: truly a sight to see a verbal JPS 'pit fight' between two of his followers who have total disregard for each others interpretations! Always fun at a party!

[baz · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book is indigestible. read it if you want a bit of assistance processing the way u view life etc. wordy but still interesting and makes a lot of good points. also starts talking about The Hole towards the end and its extremely weird. i would say something like "what zero pussy does to a man" except im pretty sure he had an active sex life so the only reason is hes weird. very interesting book five stars

[Kait · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most of this book is good and even simply written, but once it gets into psychoanalysis and hole analogies, I lose interest.

[Hala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quotes from the article:


these are the people who accuse existentialism of being too gloomy, and to such an extent that I wonder whether they are complaining about it, not for its pessimism, but much rather its optimism.
Can it be that what really scares them in the doctrine I shall try to present here is that it leaves to man a possibility of choice?



existence precedes essence, or, if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the starting point




Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism. It is also what is called subjectivity, the name we are labeled with when charges are brought against us. But what do we mean by this, if not that man has a greater dignity than a stone or table? For we mean that man first exists, that is, that man first of all is the being who hurls himself toward a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future. Man is at the start a plan which is aware of itself, rather than a patch of moss, a piece of garbage, or a cauliflower; nothing exists prior to this plan; [.......] man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what he will want to be. Because by the word "will" we generally mean a conscious decision, which is subsequent to what we have already made of ourselves. I may want to belong to a political party, write a book, get married; but all that is only a manifestation of an earlier, more spontaneous choice that is called "will" But if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, existentialism's first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.



Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed, because it involves all mankind. [.......] As a result, my action has involved all humanity. To take a more individual matter, if I want to marry, to have children; even if this marriage depends solely on my own circumstances or passion or wish, I am involving all humanity in monogamy and not merely myself. Therefore, I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man.




[....]anguish. What that means is this: the man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a law maker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, can not help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility. Of course, there are many people who are not anxious; but we claim that they are hiding their anxiety, that they are fleeing from it. Certainly, many people believe that when they do something, they themselves are the only ones involved, and when someone says to them, "What if everyone acted that way?" They shrug their shoulders and answer, "Everyone doesn't act that way." But really, one should always ask himself, "What would happen if everybody looked at things that way?" There is no escaping this disturbing thought except by a kind of double-dealing. A man who lies and makes excuses for himself by saying "not everybody does that," is someone with an uneasy conscience




What proof is there that I have been appointed to impose my choice and my conception of man on humanity?



I'm obliged to perform exemplary acts. For every man, everything happens as if all mankind had its eyes fixed on him and were guiding itself by what he does.




Because often the only way they can bear their wretchedness is to think, "Circumstances have been against me. What I've been and done doesn't show my true worth. To be sure, I've had no great love, no great friendship, but that's because I haven't met a man or woman who was worthy. The books I've written haven't been very good because I haven't had the proper leisure. I haven't had children to devote myself to because I didn't find a man with whom I could have spent my life. So there remains within me, unused and quite viable, a host of propensities, inclinations, possibilities, that one wouldn't guess from the mere series of things I've done." Now, for the existentialist there is really no love other than one which manifests itself in a person's being in love. There is no genius other than one which is expressed in works of an; the genius of Proust is the sum of Proust's works; the genius of Racine is his series of tragedies. Outside of that, there is nothing. Why say that Racine could have written another tragedy, when he didn't write it? [.......] But, on the other hand, it prompts people to understand that reality alone is what counts, that dreams, expectations, and hopes warrant no more than to define a man as a disappointed dream, as miscarried hopes, as vain expectations. In other words, to define him negatively and not positively





When all is said and done, what we are accused of, at bottom, is not our pessimism, but an optimistic toughness. If people throw up to us our works of fiction in which we write about people who are soft, weak, cowardly, and sometimes even downright bad, it's not because these people are soft, weak, cowardly, or bad; because if we were to say, as Zola did, that they are that way because of heredity, the workings of environment, society, because of biological or psychological determinism, people would be reassured. They would say, "Well, that's what we're like, no one can do anything about it." But when the existentialist writes about a coward, he says that this coward is responsible for his cowardice. He's not like that because he has a cowardly heart or lung or brain; he's not like that on account of his physiological make-up; but he's like that because he has made himself a coward by his acts. There's no such thing as a cowardly constitution; there are nervous constitutions; there is poor blood, as the common people say, or strong constitutions. But the man whose blood is poor is not a coward on that account, for what makes cowardice is the act of renouncing or yielding. A constitution is not an act; the coward is defined on the basis of the acts he performs. People feel, in a vague sort of way, that this coward we're talking about is guilty of being a coward, and the thought frightens them, What people would like is that a coward or a hero be born that way.





In order to describe the probable, you must have a firm hold on the true. Therefore, before there can be any truth whatsoever, there must be an absolute truth; and this one is simple and easily arrived at; it's on everyone's doorstep; it's a matter of grasping it directly.




man's condition than of his nature. By condition they mean, more or less definitely, the a priori limits which outline man's fundamental situation in the universe. Historical situations vary; a man may be born a slave in a pagan society or a feudal lord or a proletarian. What does not vary is the necessity for him to exist in the world, to be at work there, to be there in the midst of other people, and to be mortal there. The limits are neither subjective nor objective, or, rather, they have an objective and a subjective side. Objective because they are to be found everywhere and are recognizable everywhere; subjective because they are lived and are nothing if man does not live them, that is, freely determine his existence with reference to them. And though the configurations may differ, at least none of them are completely strange to me, because they all appear as attempts either to pass beyond these limit or recede from them or deny them or adapt to them.





In this sense we may say that there is a universality of man; but it is not given, it is perpetually being made. I build the universal in choosing myself; I build it in understanding the configuration of every other man, whatever age he might have lived in. This absoluteness of choice does not do away with the relativeness of each epoch.




On the same grounds, I maintain that there is also dishonesty if I choose to state that certain values exist prior to me; it is self-contradictory for me to want them and at the same state that they are imposed on me.

[Laçin Tutalar · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one took me almost a year to finish. I bought it second-hand at a time I was trying to catch every title on emotion for my research causes-a hopeless cause, because things do not work that way-. I started the first couple of pages, and then it was raining heavily one day, the book soaked wet in my bag and it took a few months to dry. Then I moved, and decided to take the book with me. Maybe a feeling of guilt. In my new home,one day I was spending time thinking about free people, and affectively bounded choices that seemingly contradict freedom according to some, and choosing silently. Then I stared at this book. For a few days. Unfinished business. Get away from responsibility? Not any more.

It was hard to get in to the first essay, Existentialism, but once in, it was hard to stay outside of it: says something relevant to method -so if you have a question about the worth of participant research designs, that gives you a good deal to think about: how do you know? how do you become conscious of something? I do not know why I thought, ah the French, you really have a skill on conceptualizing everyday spaces..Poor me, the cultural essentialist. Then I found myself giggling at the metro, reminding myself how people who take God as meta, as father, as object with absolute power, or as an arch mingling with the earthly business directly would be insulted by the way he introduced God. A lot of distrust, a lot of scepticism... Such merciless love of life, I thought, when I read, "A man is involved in life, leaves his impress on it, and outside of that there is nothing. (...) that does not imply that the artist will be judged solely on the basis of his works of art; a thousand other things will contribute to summing him up." History taken as a negative, status-filled evil source of labelling thing and people maybe? Something that would limit action if you fall for the bullshit around the notion of Subject? Knowing and reflecting, as pretentious, elite traitors of a fully-responsible self? I am so glad that he did not use the word "pseudo". A life of action, realizing, manifesting and involvement - even when choosing to flee. Somehow controversial since this also evokes an imagination of neo-liberal subject. But perhaps mine are quite wrong assessments. Very impressed by most of it, though. Except the essay, "the Hole"; I found it superficial.

If I leave out that essay, this is a book that will stay with me, together with its controversial twists about freedom and being doomed.

[Buck Wilde · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've never read Sartre before. I don't know if I'd say he's my kind of guy, but he's certainly an existentialist. Dry and not particularly engaging, but entirely an existentialist.

This book was divvied up into sections. Some were better than others.

Existentialism:
This was good. The first thirty pages or so were Sartre explaining that he wears sunglasses for blocking out the haters, and the remaining twenty were a brief summary of what existentialism is.

Freedom and Responsibility:
A little eight-page blurb explaining that by being alive, we have taken the responsibility of our lives and actions upon ourselves, and it's a responsibility from which we can't escape. Unless we kill ourselves. He never outright says that, but it's implied.

The Desire to Be God:
What man is vs what man wishes to be. The fullest realization of an individual. Maslow's self-actualization, the Nietzschean ubermensch, our own personal Charizard. To quest to become God is the only real honesty in a meaningless world. Not unlike becoming a garbage man, really. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

Existential Psychoanalysis: Our boy Sartre takes a shit on Freud. It's artful.

The Hole: Our boy Sartre than proceeds to offer an INCREDIBLY Freudian explanation as to why vaginas are icky, and what attraction to them suggests about our ethics. I desperately want tumblr feminists to get their hands on this chapter. It's like, seven pages, so they'll make it through most of it, and sweet bustlin' babies would I like to see what response they could dredge up from half-remembered SOC101 lessons.

Ethical Implications: A brief treatise on value, how we are charged with defining it, and what that means of us.

Hard to pick a favorite, but it's a toss-up between Existential Psychoanalysis and The Hole, both for their Jerry Springer aspects. Overall, a decent, if agonizingly sterile, read.

I can now say I've read Sartre, and avoid doing so in the future.

[Jack Lindgren · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I don't entirely agree with his philosophy the main section of this book (which is, I believe, the text of a speech he gave) illustrated Sartre's though in an easily digestible way. The later sections, which are excerpts from the massive Being and Nothingness are almost totally incomprehensible (probably in part because they're taken out of context, but probably also because they're from a massive philosophical tome instead of a speech). Um, but yes, I'm not really qualified to judge the usefulness of this book, really, since I don't know anything about Sartre or if this is a good representation of his thought. I thought it was useful for getting an overview of the basics of his conception of existentialism, though.

[Ali · Rating 2 out of 5]

این اثر سارتر با نام های مختلف و مترجمان مختلف به فارسی برگردانده شده که به گمان من از همه بهتر "اگزیستانسیالیزم و اصالت بشر" ترجمه ی مصطفی رحیمی ست که در 1344 توسط انتشارات مروارید منتشر شده است

در مورد ژان پل سارتر، مطلبی جداگانه نوشته ام؛
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...

[Ho Manh · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was a hard read. The thing I feel is the contradiction all the claims made by Satre about freedom of human actions with finding in sciences, typically, neurosciences. It is a good practice for the mind, trying to understand the logic, but still, too much contradiction with my view that freewill does not exist.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

[redacted]

[Kristen · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is another of my Master's degree books. I'd imagine it would only be enjoyable to a fairly limited demographic. And it gets boring, as these tend to, at about the halfway point.



4/2011: Notes/Reflections

Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions

I could quote pages out of this book. I’m just constantly like yes - YES!

I love the description of desperate quietism. I couldn’t agree more, as that is often how I feel. I absolutely see myself as an isolated being the majority of the time. And that’s not to say in complete solitude, but that ultimately I am joined by no one. Again, I don’t mean in my philosophies, but in life. We can share our emotions and thoughts with others, but at the end of the day we are alone, even if not literally.

Christians, according to Sartre, argue that a lack of belief in a higher deity, specifically their higher deity, will cause everyone to go to shit. If they truly believe that (maybe they do, or maybe it’s just a tactic to draw everyone toward onto their religous path), I would disagree because the majority of all people want to be ‘happy’ and, at least those with basic deductive reasoning, innately understand that their quality of life is dependent upon their own actions. Clearly people would not just start running the streets murdering and pillaging. That’s just silly. I’m not doing that, and I don’t connect with a higher deity.

Cogito: "I think, therefore I am." Existentialists can’t reach this state due to their hyper awareness of isolation, according to Communists. I don’t know how I feel about this. I like the quote, but don’t fully understand the implications within.

I don’t think we cause the alarm/scandal that Sartre describes. That’s a bit dramatic. Although my standpoint is always that no one gives a shit about anyone beyond themselves, so assuming anyone cares enough to be alarmed seems unlikely to me. I believe that, if any comparison is being made between themselves and non-believers, that’s it’s purely a selfish notion that they’re better off and pity the fool who doesn’t agree.

Pg. 11 “The kind of person who is resigned to the wisdom of the ages - which is pretty sad - finds us even sadder.” Lol. Made me chuckle, not because it’s true necessarily - although I do think there’s some validity there - but because he’s so sardonic.

I like the idea that Existentialism scares people because it leaves them with a choice. Agree. Religion is often a crutch, relieving people from self-responsibility.

Paraphrase pg. 12: Existentialism is the least scandalous doctrine and is reserved for specialists and philosophers.
I’ll have to tell Gay and Jen about this, as both of them have independently stated that to me in the past 2 weeks. Agree.

Does existence precede essence? Excellent question, and one that Sartre seems to have considered extensively. He makes the example of the paper-cutter. It wouldn’t exist on it’s own because, without the original papers who need a trim, the inventor would've had no thought process through which to create it. The essence, in this example, clearly had to have existed first.
Christians = Yes
Existentialists = No
My first question is - is it ever that cut and dry? It seems absurd to think that everything in existence falls into one category. Sure the paper-cutter’s essence preceded, but does that have to be true of man as well? I don’t think so. I’m not yet choosing one side or the other, but only that a determination of that magnitude certainly can’t be based on something so trivial.

I was happy to see that Sartre doesn’t fall clearly on either side of the argument either. He appears to believe that, while the paper-cutter deal is obvious, that man potentially existed first and defined himself afterward. BUT he states there is no human nature, based on that idea. Human nature would be predetermined, and if the body existed prior to being categorized, a pre-determination of any kind is impossible. But is there human nature? An excellent question. I’d be curious to hear some intelligent thoughts from others on that topic. Have I really been taught everything I know, none of it being inherent to my existence?

“Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” Take that to the extreme, not just referring to vocation or personality. What about gays? Is this referring purely to surface choices man makes for himself, or the deeper being? Surely the latter. Otherwise why discuss it at all?

Subjectivity. Ugh. 2 sides:
(1) an individual chooses and makes himself.
(2) it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity.
I hate definitions that include the word being defined.
In reference to (1), Sartre states that in choosing oneself, one is choosing all men. Further defined, it is that one imagines the man everyone ought to be in the attempt to become his ideal self. If he sees that image as ideal, then naturally he will compare others to the same image. Comparison and judgment are innate - or human nature. Another argument that human nature does exist. I have a hard time agreeing on the opposite.

Free will. Yes, there is free will. Agree. Fine. But what about destiny? The romantic side of my brain wants to think that I do, in fact, have a destiny, that I am meant to accomplish something unique on this planet during the short time I’m here. The logical side of my brain, however, which generally wins all philosophical arguments I have with myself, says no. I have no destiny. I’m here for no reason whatsoever. I am merely a product of evolution, or transcendentalism, or an undefined scientific accident, or the product of some force we’re not even aware of. I could go on and on, which illustrates my lack of commitment to any explanation for my existence. And that brings me back to being pointless. In my opinion, I am here, often against my will, and for no reason whatsoever.

pg. 17 Choosing Christ is resigning responsibility. Back to that. And agree, relative to the masses of Christ-followers. Not included, however, those who are attempting a higher level of understanding without the ‘religion’ part.

Heidegger Being and Time
I ordered this. As it turns out, you can’t find it in stores. It’s like collectible and shit.

“Without the existence of God, man has nothing to cling to and cannot make excuses for himself.” YES!!! And now we’ve come full circle, because we’re back to my belief that I am, and will always be, a isolated being. I’m comfortable with that, which is why I don’t embrace a blanketed, religious belief system. Most, however, are not, and use the existence of God for security. Humans are afraid of the unknown, want to define everything. And the religious spend their entire lives working toward something that may or may not exist (and even if it DOES exist, it’s unlikely that it’s in any way even close to what they’re imagining), rather than living the life they’ve been ‘given’.

LOVE the phrase “Man is condemned to be free.” Absolutely.

pg. 23 "What about consequences?" in reference to destiny and man's future without democracy.
I’m not sure what he means by asking that question. What about consequences? Are they not natural? Do we need a God to supply them? I think not. Democracy is man-made, not god-given, and only produces consequences for those actions which man has determined are necessary, based on man’s own thoughts. These actions may or may not be worthy of democracy. It’s generally puritanical stuff that is entirely subjective: Right/age to vote, human rights, drugs that are/aren’t acceptable, and on and on...

pg. 24: Entire paragraph is muh LIFE. Word. Story of the boy faced with ‘abandoning’ his mother, or living to be the best version of himself. I struggle with this CONSTANTLY. I feel that I have the same two choices. (1) Give up my own life to familial obligation, until my Mother dies and I’m left with nothing, as - potentially - I’ll be too old to then make the most of my personal talents. Or (2) ‘abandon’ my Mother and be the best version of myself, but carry the weight of that ‘selfish’ action. I highlight those words because I do not believe them to be accurate. This entire predicament fucking sux. Why do parents put obligations of that magnitude on their children? Why do parents HAVE children? One has to admit that having children is, while a beautiful thing blah blah, predominately a selfish act, and that the expectations put on said children are often unreasonable and unfair.

[Gary · Rating 3 out of 5]

This volume (1957) is a briefer and a generally more accessible discussion of Sartre’s Existentialism than, for instance, his major philosophical work Being and Nothingness (1943). Here are explanations of such existentialist expressions as “existence precedes essence,” and connotative words such as “anguish,” “forlornness,” and “despair.” Sartre also responds to criticism of Existentialism by Communist- and Catholic-philosophers, and these rebuttals are quite enlightening.

Sartre advises us that this philosophy is “the most austere of doctrines. It is intended strictly for specialists and philosophers," something other writers claim, but methinks he protests too much. His goal "is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position,” something Camus also attempted in The Myth of Sisphysis. Elsewhere he writes, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” to which I would add Humanism to the n-th degree. He tells us that man is totally free ... and totally responsible.

The second half of the book moves beyond the philosophical basis of Existentialism to introduce and describe what Sartre calls “Existentialist Psychoanalysis,” a therapy that he acknowledges does not yet exist, but that “could” exist. I disagree profoundly with Sartre’s premises here: that there is no unconscious, that there are no hereditary dispositions or character, that there is nothing before the upsurge of human freedom (i.e. consciousness), and that a man’s life is totally of his own making. His discussion of sexuality in “The Hole” made me cringe.

I found the first half of Existentialism and Human Emotions enlightening and challenging and recommend it highly. The second half I found frustrating and confusing, and once I rejected its premises, I did not study it as carefully as I might have.

[Avesta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Since we have defined the situation of man as one of free choice, without excuse and without help, any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver.

This is so good (but so heavy).

The one who realizes in anguish his condition as being thrown into a responsibility which extends to his very abandonment has no longer either remorse or regret or excuse; he is no longer anything but a freedom which perfectly reveals itself and whose being resides in this very revelation. But as we pointed out at the beginning of this work, most of the time we flee anguish in bad faith

(Also from Being and Nothingness but for some reason repeated here)

Quite enjoyed the discussion of existential psychoanalysis:

Existential psychoanalysis is going to reveal to man the real goal of his pursuit, which is being as a synthetic fusion of the in-itself with the for-itself; existential psychoanalysis is going to acquaint man with his passion…Many men, in fact, know that the goal of their pursuit is being; and … they refrain from appropriating things for their own sake and try to realize the symbolic appropriations of their being-in-itself…existential psychoanalysis…must reveal to the moral agent that he is the being by whom values exist. It is then that his freedom will become conscious of itself…

Many men, in fact, know that the goal of their pursuit is being; and … they refrain from appropriating things for their own sake and try to realize the symbolic appropriations of their being-in-itself…existential psychoanalysis…must reveal to the moral agent that he is the being by whom values exist. It is then that his freedom will become conscious of itself…

[Grace RS · Rating 3 out of 5]

This little book consists of seven sections, the very two being Sartre's defense and explanation of existentialism, which I actually really enjoyed reading. Man is ultimately responsible for what he is, what he makes of himself, that man is free to choose the meaning he wants. It's not enough to dream and imagine--the only thing that counts in life is what you actually do with it. Sartre gave these lectures in response to the pessimism and cynicism of post-WW2. In the midst of tragedy and chaos, instead of a passive attitude, the individual is free to act and be responsible not only for his life but for all of being: these ideas are empowering. While Sartre rejected God (in fact, he says you are your own god), I nevertheless find this philosophy encouraging, especially as Kierkegaard pursues it--it takes courage to pick up the pieces of your life and make something of it by pursuing meaning. This choice, however, is both condemning (causing despair and angst) as well as freeing.

I love what he says about being responsible for humanity, for everything you do is for the greater good, for the improvement of being. Another quote I like: "In order to get any truth about myself, I must have contact with another person." Hence, we know ourselves in relation to other people.

The other sections were not as interesting, especially Existentialist Psychoanalysis and Holes: I skimmed the last 20 pages.

[Daniel Polansky]

So I was staying with my brother for a few days at the start of the month, and he has a doctorate and used to be a professor, and I was cribbing through a bunch of collegiate philosophical works, including this short book by Sartre, who was a writer I had a great fondness for back when I was like sixteen, and whom I haven't read since.

Alas for my teenage self. This is...not great, a sophomoric and weirdly unserious retread of basic Nietzschean thought. 'Anything you do becomes the thing you are because its the thing you did.' Hey man, that's great, thanks. We didn't seriously give you the Nobel, did we? We did? Shit.

Side note: as a rule it's inappropriate to critique a professional based upon a lack of personal morality, but I can't help but think an exception should be made in the case of ethical philosophers. Sartre certainly implicitly agrees, which is why he makes a fairly naked effort to frame his wartime efforts as being more heroic then they were (without actually lying)--which, apart from being contemptible on its own merits, offers an almost comical rebuke to the underlying argument being put forth, since obviously if all actions are equally credible, Sartre's complicity in the Vichy regime shouldn't be a point of shame.

[Loveena Bhatia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gave me a lot to think about. I loved reading Sartre’s responses to a few common objections against existentialism, and how he used those arguments as a tool to define existentialism. Then, to place it among concepts like freedom and humanism makes the definition clearer and more concrete, in the first chapter. The following chapters break down characteristics of humans like responsibility, relation to the Other and mankind as an ensemble, etc., while staying consistent with the existentialist principles. What I found out of place was the last chapter. To me it seemed like it pulled away from the essence of the book, jumping into sexual complexes and infant tendencies - which I thought didn’t flow very well with the rest of the book. People reading my book should know that I am not an avid reader of philosophy and have a very surface-level perspective currently. However, this book was still an easy read and enjoyable. :)

[Sam Reagan · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Dostoevsky said, ‘If God didn’t exist, everything would be possible.’ That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can’t start making excuses for himself.”

“Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position. It isn’t trying to plunge man into despair at all.”

Wow. Wow wow wow. First few chapters were insanely gripping, genuinely hadn’t felt this way about anything I’ve read since Notes from Underground. After that point he kind of lost me because it started getting veryyyy abstract and I think I’m legitimately at a point where I just can’t understand it yet. Will revisit at a later date. I do know enough to be able to tell it is good and I need to read the rest of Sartre’s work

[Sofia Garcia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first 2/3 of the the book was some of the best concepts I’ve ever read. The whole thing was such an amazing read which made me look into myself and truly understand word for word what Sartre meant by anguish and forlornness. I am an atheist, but respected the fact that despite this book being all of the thoughts that I already believed, Sartre did not make fun or disrespected other religions.

The Freud part of the book was not my favorite, yes I get psychoanalysis, and despite not liking that part of the book, I did still learn a lot of things from it. It just was the part where… why?… you know?

Anyways I did like the way he described food architecture, and most of the last chapter “the hole”.

Also, I would like to say the translation of this book is phenomenal, coming off of badly translated books, I have now learned the importance of a good translator and that person deserves their flowers.

[Liza Jane · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m really not an existentialist,, but still provoking.

“When we say that man chooses his own self,
we mean that every one of us does likewise;
but we also mean by that that in making this choice
he also chooses all men.
In fact, in creating the man that we want to be,
there is not a single one of our acts which does not
at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be.
To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can
never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.”

Our mind shapes mankind. How we see the world defines the world.

[Hannah · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stinky bourgeois philosopher gives his two cents on why marginalized peoples DO have a choice… it’s obvious isn’t it, they have the choice to not live. I’ll try Sartre’s dramatic works to see if they’re more bearable, but for now, it’s gonna be a no for me.
I used to think existentialism might actually have some solid points to it, and it does, but not enough to make it a redeemable way to go about one’s life. You can make meaning in your life via choices, and recognize that life is suffering and some are just luckier and more privileged than others.

[Tommy Nordahl · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first chapter, titled Existentialism, encompassing nearly half of the ninety or so pages, was in my humble opinion brilliant. An incredibly insightful display and demonstration of existentialism by M. Sartre, without a doubt. The second half of this short book largely went over my head, which has more to do with my novelty to philosophical texts and less to do with the writing. There were some really insightful parts in Freedom and Responsibility, and I found The Hole to be absolutely terrifying. The other chapters were primarily concerned with psychoanalysis, especially the complex and subtle minutiae of the study, and the study of ontology. That stuff was quite hard to grasp for me, but I am unfit to criticize those sections.

[Primordial Offering · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was written early in his carrier and i'm led to believe that Jean-Paul Sartre regretted printing some of the ideas espoused... However the chapters, "Existentialism" and "Freedom and Responsibility" were particularly legendary.

[lawrence · Rating 2 out of 5]

ehh good ideas but eventually became exhausting to read, especially towards the latter half. hit a point where passages and strings of words were grazing my mind and leaving rather than sticking with me