Rating: 
Summary: only for initiates
Review: "Being and Nothingness" reminds me of a fine meal with a bad dessert. You end up saying, "Can't I come away with more than fruit?" In a metaphoric sense, I wish there were more dark chocolate sprinkled in, more cream, more butter. But this is a common criticism of Sartre and I don't mean to belabor the point.
Rating: 
Summary: Starts out well, but not enough laughs
Review: "Being and Nothingness" reminds me of a fine meal with a bad dessert. You end up saying, "Can't I come away with more than fruit?" In a metaphoric sense, I wish there were more dark chocolate sprinkled in, more cream, more butter. But this is a common criticism of Sartre and I don't mean to belabor the point.
Rating: 
Summary: woefully unreadable: in short, a mess....
Review: Although he presents some important ideas in this too-big work, Sartre the closet Cartesian, whose systematization of existential thought make Camus and Marcel abandon the label altogether, writes so badly that even his idol Heidegger seems readable by comparison. You're better off with someone else's summary of Sartre's philosophical thought; this book isn't worth the effort.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad Faith
Review: Bad faith, good faith, much ado about nothing. Spent so much time thinking and writing and yet came up with such rubbish. No wonder Satre was so attracted to Soviet communism. Satre, perhaps the most over-rated existentialist and philosopher, could have saved the time for more womanising.
Rating: 
Summary: Profoundly Important -Ahead of Its Time
Review: Difficult and abstract, this book tackles some of the most perplexing mysteries of human existence. It is here that Sartre affirms his concept of "bad faith" and authenticity -one of the most insightful theories in the history of philosophy. Aggressive in his presentation and uncompromising in his conclusions, Jean-Paul is to be admired for his desire to go where few philosphers would dare to venture. How a man like Sartre could later become a socialist has always made me wonder -and yet Marcel predicted it.
Rating:
Summary: Bear with me here, it is a good book but I have my reasons..
Review: First of all, I will say that I personally enjoyed the work, however at this stage of my education I found it rather uneccessary. If you want to understand either Sartre or his particular brand of existentialism you are best to read his essay "Existentialism is Humanism." The reason being that he gives the core of his philosophy and explains his beliefs in a much shorter and more accessible framework. The beginning of Being and Nothingness will no doubt prove very difficult to a reader who is unfamiliar with Sartre's philosophy. Perhaps an important side note, please don't go around with the insane notion that this work started or is the masterwork of existentialism as a whole. First of all, Sartre did not start this particular school of philosophy. In most regards the first existentialist was Kierkigaard, and was in many ways (particularly his belief in God) radically different than Sartre. Even in terms of aethiestic or humanistic existentialism, Nietzsche certainly predates Sartre by a good century. Either way, this book does have a great deal of importance, but the ironic part is, by the time you come to the point that you can understand it with ease you need not read it at all. It becomes very obvious that this book can be edited tremendously. There is a belief in philosophy that to be important one must write a rather large tome. In this case Sartre uses so many examples an intelligent reader will exclaim, "Ok, I get it already, move on." The importance of this book is overrated and I hear far too many people believing this to be one of the most important works in Continental Philosophy. Being and Time by Heidegger is much more important and weilds a great deal of influence on Sartre's Being and Nothingness. I suggest rather that one read his essay. The book makes his basic tenants more complicated, it really doesn't add anything to them. I can appreciate the effort here, but the outcome is not as Earth shattering as it is made out to be. Essentially his entire work can be synthesized into a single quotation of his in the essay I mentioned which is, "existence precedes essence." When you truly understand that along side of his other famous quote, "human beings are doomed to be free," this book is extremely understandable. However at that point, it is also uneccessary. Also this work requires understanding of philosophical history, and if one is not inclined to have such knowledge, than it will prove greatly challenging, if possible at all. Don't get me wrong, it looks good on your shelf and makes for a good read. I simply don't see how it benefits his ideas beyond giving post-war Existentialism an epic tome.
Rating:
Summary: a good perspective of european existentialism
Review: First of all: you cannot read and understand this work before reading something about Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau Ponty, Marcel. I think that the most valuable word that I can use in order to define this book is "european", becouse Sartre' s thoughts are deeply connected with European philosophy, from Greeks to Descartes. A good work, but not for everybody, I think.
Rating:
Summary: Enough to make your head hurt
Review: For starters, I think this book deserves 3.5 stars, not 4. It's very confusing, I must give it that. I had read reviews before-hand so I picked up his other works first. "Existentialism and Human Emotion" was an excellent introduction to existentialist thought and I could find understanding and even-do I dare say- relation in it. Then I read essays in existentialism, which has Part 1 of "Being and Nothingness" in it. One of the more unfortunate things about Sartre is his frequent mentions of other philosophers, being the well read philosopher he is himself. Descartes, Hegel, Heidegger, Kant, Kierkegaard and a few minor others come into mention several times. Rather than reading all of these philosophers' major works (in which you'll also find mention of even mroe philosophers, leading you in an endless loop) to get an understanding of why Sartre agrees or disagrees, it would be easier to just brush over an encyclopedia. Rather than the reader forcing the book with a side of asprin (I would be lying if I said I didn't find myself popping a few), I would suggest that the reader take advantage of the glossary of terms in the back. The gloassary doesn't especially make sense alone. One would either have to have read the book or be immersed in the reading at the time to understand the terms and how they tie in with Sartre's concepts. It would be best to transcribe them for easy access and, well, a quick overview. Sartre really changed my mode of thinking though. The only problem is that I didn't really see further elaboration of his theory until latter chapters of the book (I'd say the about last 250 pages or so). I saw an initial build up of theory, but it seemed to just amble along, explaining how far reaching it was with endless expansion after expansion, adding in new terms along the way (or maybe that was seemingly that 300-400 page's agenda). I would say that this middle part, other than the addition of necessary terms for later, is very discouraging. It being 800 pages alone is very discouraging, but it really tried my patience, and I consider myself a very patient reader.
Rating:
Summary: Sartre's Cartesian View of Heidegger - Back to Husserl
Review: From a discussion with Brian Magee and Hubert Dreyfuss in the book entitled, The Great Philosophers, An Introduction to Western Philosophy, on page 275, the following:
Sartre started out as a Husserlian, an d as a phenomenologist he wrote a good novel called Nausea, which is a first-person description of a person's world breaking down. Then he read Heidegger and was converted to what he thought was Heideggerian existentialism. But as a Husserlian and a Frenchman he felt he had to fix up Heidegger and make him more Cartesian. So he starts with the individual conscious subject, but writes about Death, Anxiety, In authenticity, Being and Nothing - all the things that Heidegger talks about. The result, Being and Nothingness, is a brilliant misunderstanding of Heidegger's Being and Time. If the story that we've been telling is right, Heidegger was precisely trying to free us from our Cartesian assumptions. When I went to visit Heidegger he had Being and Nothingness on his desk, in German translation, and I said, "So you're reading Sartre?, and He responded, "How can I even begin to read this muck?" (His word was 'Dreck'.) That's pretty strong, but I think accurate, since if you treat Heidegger as if he were talking about subjects you turn him back into Husserl. What Sartre wrote was an edifying existentialist version of Husserl. Sartre's for-itself (consciousness) is like Husserl's transcendental ego - an individual subject that gives meaning to everything by way of its intentionality. Because consciousness gives all meaning, anything can have meaning for it. There isn't any restraint, any facticity or thrownness, as Heidegger would call it. It follows that we can give meaning to whatever values we choose. To take Sartre's example, if I decide this moment not to be a gambler, the next moment I can give that decision a new meaning, say that it was a foolish decision, and go right on gambling. I am, in Sartre's terms, pure spontaneity, pure lightness, pure freedom, pure nothingness - absurdly free. Sartre holds that consciousness is 'beyond freedom' and human being is the absurd and doomed attempt to find some stable meaning in life.
Rating:
Summary: Atheism and Sartre
Review: God-shaped hole? I think not. I have myself written several papers on Sartre dealing with atheism, and it is extremely evident in his works (including his greatest, Being and Nothingness) that Sartre is a self-proclaimed atheist if not a nihilist at times. Being and Nothingness states that existentialism does not hinge on the existence of a divine being or even imply it. It advocates Man's supreme rule of himself and his freedom of will, but it also declares that moral responsibilitly and personal identity are critical to maintaining that freedom.
This is my all-time favorite existentialism book. I haven't seen many to compare on the subject. Sartre isn't called the father of modern existentialism for nothing.
|
