Rating: 
Summary: A Paradox of Perspective
Review: Good Lord, what a book! First of all, there is a big difference between difficult reading and bad writing. This is simply bad writing. Get a load of this stuff, like, "Being-for-itself is the being which in its mode of being is what it is not and is not what it is." or whatever. The sheer grammar of that sentence is daunting. It is designed to be deliberately confusing. No idea, no matter how brillant or profound, needs to be presented in this manner. As I understand Sartre's theory (as least the foundation of it; God knows its almost impossible to understand all the points he makes in the book) it basically comes down to this: Imagine that you have before you a photograph, and this hypothetical photograph contains everything that exists in it. The whole universe is contained in the picture. This is what Sartre called being-in-itself. Now, the problem is, where is the camera that took the picture? It can not be in the picture and take the picture at the same time. This camera represents consciousness or what Sartre called being-for-itself. If you took a second camera and tried to take a picture of the first camera taking a picture of the universe then this first camera would no longer represent consciousness. It would represent instead our idea of consciousness. Since the second camera would now be the perspective from which the picture is taken it would represent consciousness, and once again it would not be in the picture. This is what Sartre calls our nihilating withdrawal from ourselves and from being-in-itself. Consciousness is always the vantage point from which the whole situation is viewed, and so it itself can not be viewed. The closest one could get to having a camera take a picture of itself is to stand in front of a mirror and take a photograph of your reflection taking the photograph. This is what Sartre calls relection-reflecting, and the problem here is that the camera featured in the photograph is not the actual camera. It is just a reflection of the camera. No matter what you do, its always the same problem. The camera that takes the picture can not be IN the picture at the same time. Likewise, consciousness can never have an adequate perspective of itself. This is what Sartre's theory basically comes down to. He believes that since the camera or consciousness can never be squeezed into is own picture, it must lie somehow outside of existence. The flaw I think is that he assumes that reality must be framed by a perspective in order to be a unified whole. But I don't see how it's inconcievable for there to be a unity involving camera and photograph without there being an all-seeing eye which unites them, i.e. without another camera to capture them together. It seems to me that Sartre has allowed a thin sliver of subjectivism to infect the foundations of his theory. No doubt someone will say that I am way off and that I've missed Sartre's point by miles. That very well may be. But it took a Herculean effort just to understand this much of his theory and no book should make anyone have to work that hard.
Rating:
Summary: A Paradox of Perspective
Review: Good Lord, what a book! First of all, there is a big difference between difficult reading and bad writing. This is simply bad writing. Get a load of this stuff, like, "Being-for-itself is the being which in its mode of being is what it is not and is not what it is." or whatever. The sheer grammar of that sentence is daunting. It is designed to be deliberately confusing. No idea, no matter how brillant or profound, needs to be presented in this manner. As I understand Sartre's theory (as least the foundation of it; God knows its almost impossible to understand all the points he makes in the book) it basically comes down to this: Imagine that you have before you a photograph, and this hypothetical photograph contains everything that exists in it. The whole universe is contained in the picture. This is what Sartre called being-in-itself. Now, the problem is, where is the camera that took the picture? It can not be in the picture and take the picture at the same time. This camera represents consciousness or what Sartre called being-for-itself. If you took a second camera and tried to take a picture of the first camera taking a picture of the universe then this first camera would no longer represent consciousness. It would represent instead our idea of consciousness. Since the second camera would now be the perspective from which the picture is taken it would represent consciousness, and once again it would not be in the picture. This is what Sartre calls our nihilating withdrawal from ourselves and from being-in-itself. Consciousness is always the vantage point from which the whole situation is viewed, and so it itself can not be viewed. The closest one could get to having a camera take a picture of itself is to stand in front of a mirror and take a photograph of your reflection taking the photograph. This is what Sartre calls relection-reflecting, and the problem here is that the camera featured in the photograph is not the actual camera. It is just a reflection of the camera. No matter what you do, its always the same problem. The camera that takes the picture can not be IN the picture at the same time. Likewise, consciousness can never have an adequate perspective of itself. This is what Sartre's theory basically comes down to. He believes that since the camera or consciousness can never be squeezed into is own picture, it must lie somehow outside of existence. The flaw I think is that he assumes that reality must be framed by a perspective in order to be a unified whole. But I don't see how it's inconcievable for there to be a unity involving camera and photograph without there being an all-seeing eye which unites them, i.e. without another camera to capture them together. It seems to me that Sartre has allowed a thin sliver of subjectivism to infect the foundations of his theory. No doubt someone will say that I am way off and that I've missed Sartre's point by miles. That very well may be. But it took a Herculean effort just to understand this much of his theory and no book should make anyone have to work that hard.
Rating: 
Summary: only for initiates
Review: Hey folks, this is not a book for beginners. And I mean beginners in a large sense, even those who have read Camus or Dostoyevsky ARE beginners. And when i give it only 3 stars I dont mean it's bad, I mean it's not philosophical enough, not systematic enough, not dense enough, that is not repelling enough for beginners. When you read Hegel's Phenomenology of the spirit, Husserl's Logical meditations, Heidegger's Being and Time, well then Sartre's Being and NOthingness is just a small piece of cake. If you're interested in Sartre though, truly, and how Sartre is haunting our post-modern era in its obsessive rejection of Sartre, then Being and Nothingness is indispensable. Glad to see there are beginners who dare set on the daunting task of reading it though if for one thing, you have understood Sartre's philosophy of projection, then dont get stuck with Being and NOthingness but try to go beyond it.
Rating: 
Summary: Definitive Work of Existentialism
Review: I agree with those who complain about the book's verbosity, but the ideas in it more than compensate. There are some decent summaries of Sartre's philosophy but nothing that compares with the original. I disagree with those who say that it is necessary to first read the works of other existenialists. One of the great things about this book is that, unlike many other philosophers, Sarte is unashamed of acknowledging those who influenced his thinking, particularly Husserl and Heidegger.My greatest criticism of the book is that it is unnecessarily pessimistic, with such statements as "life is a useless passion". This is not warranted by the general philosophy. I find the notion that we are creaters of meaning to be liberating. Sartre gives a brilliant philosophic interpretation of sado-masochism, but makes the mistake of assuming that sado-masochism forms the entire basis for human relationships. The greatest joys in life come from our ability to commuicate with and share experiences with others. Being the gregarious person that he was I am sure that in his personal life this was true of Sartre as well.
Rating:
Summary: Another suggestion
Review: I concur with the suggestions of the previous reviewer (June 12, 2002). Yet, I think that many readers may find it profitable to begin by reading PART 4 of the text. It is reasonably clear and, though certainly not a "stand alone" piece, should make the earlier sections of the book much less foreboding (and these earlier sections, in turn, help to futher clarify Part 4). Also of potential service to readers interested in Being and Nothingness are the "War Diaries" that Sartre wrote during the so-called "phony war" (available in a single volume). In addition to discussing various wartime experience, Sartre offers what is virtually a "dress rehearsal" for Being and Nothingess (first published in 1943). The arguments developed in the "war diaries" are generally very easy to follow, and you will get a feel for *why* Sartre was motivated to write Being and Nothingness in the first place. Being and Nothingness is a rich and complex book, but well worth careful attention.
Rating:
Summary: It's great.
Review: I don't need "objective" meaning in my life - for "I" give meaning to my own life!
Rating:
Summary: So you say you are passionate about Philosophy?
Review: I don't see how people can rate this book so highly. Am I missing something? I think people are simply impressed with themselves for actually having read this book. It is the Iron Man of philosophical works. I read the first 100 pages then gave up. But in doing so I was expressing my good faith. I believe that the world would be better without dry, long-winded philosophical treatises. Why do we need 600 pages just to say that we need to follow the golden rule? This book is literary torture!
Rating:
Summary: The Question is, can you handle it? You cant go back
Review: I have just read bits and pieces, but it all falls together seamlessly. My thoughts exactly- I am not alone :) If you can conceptualy grasp at least 50% of this stuff it will change, or reaffirm your deep down views, or help you learn what you are really about. I highley reccomend reading books on "how to read sartre" before attempting this one. I am a philosophy novice but, I know when something is brilliant.
Rating:
Summary: interesting ideas, horrid writing
Review: i just finished reading being and nothingness for one of my philosophy courses. the book has several excellent ideas and geniunly important insights to the human condition, but these ideas and insights are hidden behind such obstuse verbosity that the work is nearly impossible to read. "consciousness is a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies another being than itself." catch that? may i suggest jean-paul something such as: "one cannot be conscious without being conscious of something." so, if you enjoy literary and philosophical torture, read this. if not, go read some camus, he's far superior anyway.
Rating:
Summary: A suggestion
Review: I just had a suggestion in case you are thinking of tackling this weighty tome or are already reading it. No doubt many people will try to read this book, but after seeing how dense the prose and arguments are on each page and how difficult sledding or slogging it's going to be (sort of like the philosophical equivalent of the Slough of Despond in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress), they reluctantly decide, despite their best intentions, that it's really not for them. If so, try just reading Sartre's treatment of human dishonesty and his discussion of the idea of negation. If you do you'll still come away with some important insights. His treatment of negation is one of the most important contributions in the book, and after reading his discussion of human honesty/dishonesty you'll never look at the "truth" or human relations the same ever again. Anyway, just a suggestion in case it's useful. If you do decide to tackle the book, I wish you the best of luck, and if you stick it out for the entire book, congratulations and my hat's off to you.
|
