Book Description
The first novel of Sartre's monumental Roads to Freedom series, The Age of Reason is set in 1938 and tells of Mathieu, a French professor of philosophy who is obsessed with the idea of freedom. As the shadows of the Second World War draw closer -- even as his personal life is complicated by his mistress's pregnancy -- his search for a way to remain free becomes more and more intense. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (23)

Concentration only on Reason/Abstraction leads us into Anxiety
This work discerns Sartre in his element. Reason characterizes the modern age: through reason, we abstract our realities, turn away from experience and into the "cognitive", "mental" field, and consequently loose our grounding.

This novel is a phenomenological journey into the absurdities of life; through it, we delve into the mood of the times: one in which anxiety towers over our very Being, one in which anxiety is the primordial mood in which we dwell. Anxiety, a consequence of Being turning (into) "pure abstract" Thought, reminds us that without a full acknowledgment of our "being-in-the-world", we remain homeless, uprooted, fearful of that which is.We value the "supersensuous" over the sensuous, "mind" over "body", and as such, loose sight of our concrete existence and meaning-making possibilities.

Through strikingly insightful "experiential" writing (i.e., descriptive, not explanatory), Sartre, dare we understand him, engenders in us a despair at our current state (and many who do not "like" Sartre use this as a defense of their position: he is too dreary, too "depressing"). Yet if we choose to listen carefully we observe that nothing he says is out of the ordinary, out of touch with our own experiences: rather, his descriptions sound at least vaguely familiar, attentive as they are to the nature of commonplace Being itself.

This is not only a masterful philosophical work (though certainly not by some philosophers' definitions of philosophy), but a beautifully written art work as well. The two belong together in Sartre's case; this becomes clear when one considers that to obtain a truly powerful description of that which is, language must be attended to deeply and fully.

We're French -- We Don't Have to Care (About Anything)
If there is any country in the world capable of producing tedious, equivocating fiction whose characters flagellate themselves over trivia, paralyze themselves with inane, existential debates, and generally agonize over their meaningless lives, France is that country. Add to this annoying stylistic tendency a career in philosophy, and you have the makings of a literary disaster on the order of Jean-Paul Sartre's THE AGE OF REASON. Amazingly, this book is the first of a trilogy - one can hardly imagine what treats follow this opening volume.

The story takes place in Paris (naturally) over a two-day period in the summer of 1938, as the Spanish Civil War rages and Europe sits on the precipice of Hitler's war of conquest. The shadow of world war is undoubtedly intended to add meaning and import to the story, but only ends up with a Jew in 1938 referring to concentration camps. Matthieu Delarue, a professor perpetually short of funds has enjoyed a seven-year relationship with a woman of questionable repute named Marcelle who has unexpectedly become pregnant. Matthieu unilaterally decides that abortion is the only appropriate response and sets out on a quest of sorts to obtain the necessary funds. Revolving around Matthieu during these two days are Matthieu's sycophantic student Boris Serguine and his borderline paranoid schizophrenic sister Ivich, Boris's clinging, almost-over-the-hill dancer/girlfriend Lola, and Matthieu's long-time acquaintances Daniel and Brunet. They spend most of their time visiting one another, seeking cheap thrills (shoplifting, petty larceny, drowning cats, or cutting themselves just for the sensation), eating, drinking, dancing, taking drugs, loathing themselves and each other, and generally looking down on everyone else around them. As a group, the characters are thoroughly unlikable, either whiny narcissists or pompous didacts (or both), the best fate for whom would be the suicides they seem to dwell upon so endlessly. No wonder the Nazis overran France in a matter of weeks.

The ostensible theme of THE AGE OF REASON is personal freedom, but as it plays out for Sartre, being free apparently means having no guiding principles, assuming no responsibility for one's actions, committing to nothing, and sacrificing nothing for another person or a greater cause than oneself. Presenting a group of characters who see themselves as free but are paralyzed by inaction and chained by their own self-doubts is rather an obvious form of irony. The only halfway likable character is Daniel, a homosexual who breaks sufficiently free of his chains to "come out" to Matthieu, expresses genuine concern for another human being's welfare, tries to guide Matthieu toward the morally correct course of action, and ultimately takes responsibility for another person's future well-being.

Matthieu's life "hemmed him in...it had a vague and hesitant purpose, a kind of insistent futility, a smell of dust and violets...'I have led a toothless life,' he thought. A toothless life. I have never bitten into anything....What's to be done? Break the shell? That's easily said. Besides, what would remain? A little viscous bit of rubber, oozing through the dust and leaving a glistening trail behind it....And suddenly, above his besmirched body...there hovered a pure consciousness, a consciousness without ego, no more than a mere puff of warm air; there it hovered, in the semblance of a look, it viewed the shoddy bohemian, the petty bourgeois clamped into his comforts, the futile intellectual,...the listless dreamer immersed in his flaccid life, and the verdict of that consciousness was: `The fellow is a wash-out and deserves his fate.'"

If you can stand the prospect of 400 pages of this and worse, then by all means, go ahead, but don't say I didn't warn you. Sartre's "explorations" of personal freedom take place within the psyches of an insufferable group of utterly unrealistic characters.By the end of the novel Mattieu claims he has truly "attained the age of reason," and most readers will have reached a state of exasperation if they haven't completely lost their minds and turned suicidal.

Having disgorged this diarrhetic stream of unremitting despair and despondency, it comes as little surprise that Sartre had earlier written a first novel fittingly titled NAUSEA. The big surprise is learning that he was chosen for the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964; what WERE they thinking? Naturally, Sartre turned it down -- how truly French to disdain a Nobel Prize.

I approached this book optimistically, on the assumption that a philosopher of Sartre's stature would have some interesting philosophical insights to render in a fictional form. Regretably, I find it impossible to offer any good reason to read THE AGE OF REASON. I'll take Malcolm Lowry's UNDER THE VOLCANO or Paul Bowles any time over this. One star for the story, a second star in recognition of Sartre's intellectual reputation and his forwardness in 1947 to write frankly about abortions, prostitution, homosexuality, and drugs (even as he was horribly stereotyping blacks and Jews - hey, nobody's perfect).

How can a writer of this level not have a good translation?
As a translator, I am always angry to see a good novel destroyed because a publisher refused to pay for a decent translation.This book has no flow as in the original language, and certain translations are absolutely embarrassing (he was of good humor?come on, even after a year of studying languages one should know better).It makes the narrative confusing and the reader has to translate from french english to real english.Read the original or don't bother with this one.

Can someone get Gregory Rabassa to translate this thing for the sake of humanity?!

One of Sartre's best
This is the first in Sartre's Road to Freedom series that follows the life of Mathiue, a disillusioned Philosophy professor who is trying to maintain his freedom in a conforming world.His life suddenly gets a shock when his long time mistress anounces news that will finally bound him forever. The rest of the novel is Mathiue's attempt to remedy the situation and presrve what freedom he has before it is lost forever.

One of the overall themes of this novel is freedom and the individuals attempt to remain free. This is one of the corner stones of Existential philosophy, which Sartre was one of the central characters.If you want to understand Sartre's philosphy and apply it to a situation then read this book.

what is freedom?
the age of reason is the 1st book in a trilogy, roads to freedom. i have not yet read the next two books, but after this one, i plan to. this is an excellent novel.

it is a thinking man's book not an action thriller. it's concepts are existential in nature and deal specifically with the concept of freedom.

the story, which covers only a few days in the the life of character mathieu in 1938 france, deals with mathieu's obsession with his personal freedom. he has just been informed of the unwanted pregnancy of his girlfriend. i personally did not see the pending war as a significant element in the story. it is there, but does not drive the quest for freedom. this is most likely picked up in the later novels. as mathieu searches for funds to abort the child, we meet his friends. all of them have hidden personal problems of their own. the results of this quest and the resolution of his problem make up the storyline.

the interesting issue is the understanding of freedom. what does mathieu think about it in the beginning and how does that change as he reaches the age of reason.

the story is best summed up in mathieu's comment near the end:
"i don't know what i would give to do something irrevocable."

this is a book that raises amazing questions and has the potential of changing your life.


... Read more

Book Description
The classic Existentialist novel, with a newintroduction by renowned poet, translator, and critic Richard Howard.

Winner of the 1964 Nobel Prize for Literature, Jean-Paul Sartre, French philosopher, critic, novelist, and dramatist, holds a position of singular eminence in the world of letters. Among readers and critics familiar with the whole of Sartre's work, it is generally recognized that his earliest novel, La Nausée (first published in 1938), is his finest and most significant. It is unquestionably a key novel of the twentieth century and a landmark in Existentialist fiction.

Nausea is the story of Antoine Roquentin, a French writer who is horrified at his own existence. In impressionistic, diary form he ruthlessly catalogues his every feeling and sensation. His thoughts culminate in a pervasive, overpowering feeling of nausea which "spreads at the bottom of the viscous puddle, at the bottom of our time—the time of purple suspenders and broken chair seats; it is made of wide, soft instants, spreading at the edge, like an oil stain." Roquentin's efforts to come to terms with life, his philosophical and psychological struggles, give Sartre the opportunity to dramatize the tenets of his Existentialist creed. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (86)

When schizofrenia meets philosophy
When Sartre wrote this, he was just a young budding writer, and it's surprising to see how mature and 'old and resigned' this novel sounds. Absolutely not in the style of a young man. Quite astonishing. You will find this a very strange book, with basically no real story behind it, the main character himself is just an excuse for an exposition of Sartre's ideas about life... actually more than about ideas, it's actually about Sartre's instinctive feel and intuition for life, about life more 'natural' (in the sense of mindless and mechanical) , repetitive, absurd and repulsive aspect of life. To give you an idea, that kind of "feel" that would make you think of a fat spider while you are holding another person hand into yours or just looking at it moving on a desk. That kind of sensation and feel that borders on repulsive hallucination, and yes in case you are wondering, Sartre was occasionally affected by hallucinations, and I guess this particular mental vulnerability contributed to his great insight and intuition about the more obscure and celebrate aspect of existence. So give this a try, it's a very different kind of book, even if usually quite overrated, just because "sartre sounds very high culture'. This book does get boring after it has made its point, and the more fascinating and best written parts are actually the marginal ones, like the short section about the main character meeting and ex lover and reminiscing about the various psychological folds of their relationship. The end of the book tries to put forward some kind of 'solution' to the main character 'nausea of life' but it ends up being quite naive. One is tempted say: "Hey did it really take a whole book to say that?". So, in the end, an intriguingbook to read, but it does border on mental masturbation...

Decent book, but horribly edited.
This is not a review of the literary prowess of the work of Jean-Paul Sartre; this is a review of the horribly lackadaisical attitude towards editing that allowed this edition to be sent to press.I would only accept the quality of this book were it a pre-press proof.

Many portions of this edition are rife with typos.Most are simple juxtapositions of letters, but some horrendous substitutions of words make sections of the book nearly unreadable without consulting the original text.The translation is at times clunky and dated, but at worst, inaccurate.

For example, on page 170, an oft cited passage originally phrased as "Personne. Pour personne, Antoine Roquentin n'existe. Ça m'amuse." instead reads: "No one.Antoine Roquentin exists for on one.That amuses me."It doesn't amuse me.With the original text by their side, even one who does not speak French can identify the blatant error allowed to pass here.

Additionally, quotation marks at times encapsulate the non-quoted portions of sentences.

The book, 4 stars.
The quality of the publication, 1 star.

The poor editing in this edition makes it far more difficult to read than it should be.Do yourself a favor: go to the library and get a different, readable out-of-print edition if you can find one, and save your cash for a book that is truly deserving.

Over rated author.
I'll open by saying I've always found Sartre overly pretentcious, much preferring the writing of Camus (both literiture and philosophy).Though Sartre undeniably has had a huge impact on modern philosophy through his academic writings (for which he owes Dovstoyevski, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heideggar obvious debt) I find him overly boring.This novel is not bad, its just that the protagonist is unlikeable- he doesn't seem to do anything, which isn't really an answer to the existential dilema of the nihilist dissolution it seems Sartre tried to see through in his works, rather he seems to pissfart around his own nuerosies.The themes come through well enough it's just that the work doesn't reach out and grab me with emotional intensity as Thus Spake Zarathustra does, nor is their any attractivness of the sheer cold honesty of Camus's protagonist in L'Etranger.There are much better philosphical (particularly existential) novels out there than this one such as L'Etranger, Stepphenwolf, Damien and the classic Brothers Karazamov (wordy as it is). Contry to some impressions, Sartre did not discover or invent existentialism (it can't even be called an 'ism' there is way to much variation), he simply siezed onto the ideas of those who came before him.I would respectfully (perhaps stuffily)suggest that his ending answer to nihilism is to commit to communism ( whatever the original intentions of this system it destroys individuality and despises spiritual and existential crises) is laughable, but that is for adifferent review.Nausea is like the matrix movies- a great idea with heaps of hype but done very badly and lacking in substance.

Not an essay!
Picking up this book, I was expecting a philosophical essay, since that's what I've become accustomed to reading from famous philosophers.As I began to read "Nausea", however, it was soon clear that this was a work of fiction, but based around his own philosophical ideas: "philosofiction".This is the first thing from Sartre that I have read, but it won't be the last.

His writing style is really incredible.The solitary figure he creates is wonderfully sick, innocent, sinister, amiable, a truly three-dimensional character.Sartre's imagery is clear, yet subtle in its sickness.I actually began to feel naseous myself a few times reading it; it's just one of those books that has a sort of ineffable feeling pervading from it.

I definitely recommend reading it, if not for the philosophy, then definitely for an extremely well-written novel.

There's a reason why we remember him for his plays...
There is a very good reason why we adore Sarte for his plays, simply: they are better. This 'novel' or treatise, or manifesto, or journal, or however you choose to classify this work...is well boring. Very boring.I don't understand people...I mean, if you want to share your thoughts, ideas, theories maybe even an answer to the quiz that is life with your fellow man. isn't simplicity the best answer?

I believe ulitmately this work derailed Sarte's purpose. ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (1)

Good Addition to Being and Nothingness
Further developing themes laid out in earlier works, specifically truth and ignorance as it relates to Being.The prose is dense at times, and you can tell in many places that this book was published unfinished-once in a while the ideas meander or are not clearly defined.Nevertheless, I found it to be a highly interesting read containing ideas that are both philosophically intriguing and personally relevant.A companion piece to Baing and Nothingness.

I don't speak French so I cannot personally evaluate the translation job, but the English here flows well enough.Highly recommended. ... Read more

Book Description
This unique selection presents the essential elements of Sartre's lifework -- organized systematically and made available in one volume for the first time in any language. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Fair and far-reaching overview of Jean-Paul Sartre's work
(I was introduced to philosophy through the work of Thomas Nagel andJean-Paul Sartre.)

An excellent introduction to Jean-Paul Sartre's work, both chronologically and conceptually. Sartre has much to say about everything from love and art to consciousness and personal identity. His insights are profound and in many ways have much relevance to every day life. I would recommend his work to anyone, but especially philosophers, psychologists and ministers/priests.

Wonderful Sartrean examinations and crituques
This volume contains exceptional philosophical articles on the philosophy of Sartre.It covers every and all aspect of his life and thoughts. The critiques pull no punches and omit nothing.This work takes a hard look at the soundness of Sartre's philosophy.To find out if they hold up, readthis volume.p.s. The interview with Sartre durring his later years isworth the price of the book alone.If you like Sartre, you will love thisbook. ... Read more

Book Description
This is the first collection of Sartre's key philosophical writings and provides an indispensable resourcefor all students and readers of his work which has been influential in philosophy,literature and politics. Download Description
This is the first collection of Sartre's key philosophical writings and provides an indispensable resource for all students and readers of his work, which has been influential in philosophy, literature and politics. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

The Anti-Semite
This review is of a single essay by Sartre, "The Anti-Semite".He uses his notion of people's needing to turn away from their own natures and not look too closely at themselves, as causal to anti-semitism.He is probably correct that mankind in general wishes to concentrate the mind upon some external idea.Religion does this, of course, giving people a beautiful or demanding abstraction to focus upon at the expense of one's own nature.This is no brilliant insight.It is an idea as old as Genesis.Sartre's creation of a relationship between this
aspect of man's existence and anti-semitism is that the anti-semite concentrates feeling, thought and force of will upon the Jew individually or collectively in order to keep his own mind from
concentrating on his true nature.

As an explanation of anti-semitism Sartre is spouting pure nonsense.He says, for instance, that one cannot understand
anti-semitism unless one knows that Jews are totally blameness.

Sartre's general philosophy is of interest to many people, but is of no particular importance to me.However, his theory of the cause of anti-semitism is of importance when people accept what he is saying.His stated view is much akin to notions that anti-semitism is some sort of "virus" that infects the sufferer or that anti-semitism is "the most virulent form of raceism" or similar notions which have Jews in the position of young children being attacked, perhaps killed, by a child molester turned child killer.This view, widely promoted, is an attempt to force the public's minds to ignore cause-and-effect.Sartre's argument is infantile; it has no more connection to real causes of anti-semitism than a comic book or a video game has to real life.

Liberty, equality, fraternity
In the introduction of the book Sartre's philosophical writings are spoken of as connected with the three fundamental values given in the slogan of the French Revolution, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The first Existensial writings are devoted to individual development expression and freedom. The second period in Sartre's philosophical life, the Marxist period is said to be devoted to the value of'Equality'. And the third less extensive period to the value of ' Fraternity' In this period Sartre calls for the disappearance of the State, and places the focus on bonds of friendship, Fraternity. This rough classification is of course ' rough' and as Steven Priest makes clear Sartre is an Existensialist throughout concerned with the fundamental themes of human life, liberty, justice, life, death, anxiety, being, nothingness, truth and authentic existence.
The work is divided into eighteen chapters each of which deals with a major theme of this kind.
In it the reader can have a good feeling of the overall development of Sartre's philosophy, and can judge what they regard to be of value in it.
My own sense is that the truly important Sartre is the Sartre of the first period, of the existence precedes essence, of the making of meaning in our own life through our action, period.
But the philosophy of this first period too would seem to me to fall short of answering true human needs, and providing hope of ultimate meaning.For that one has to go to a kind of religious existensialism which of course Sartre would have nothing to do with.

an excellent selection
As far as collections of Sartre's philosophical works go, this one is the best I've come across.The book is broken down into sections such as "Existentialism", "The Other", "Nothingness", "Politics", and so on.16 chapters in all, each offering key excerpts from Sartre's entire corpus, especially focused on a specific philosophical matter.The editor, Stephen Priest, does a good job of introducing each chapter and his contributions offer excellent insight both to those who haven't gotten too far into Sartrean philosophy as well as those of us who occasionally need a refresher course.This book reminds me of why I first got interested in reading Sartre.It brings out the exciting spirit of Existentialist philosophy by focusing on the most poignant passages of Sartre's works.I do feel the book to be a bit pricey for a paperback, but all in all it is a rather aesthetically pleasing book.The binding and layout are high quality, as is usual for Routledge texts.Also, this book offers the complete "Existentialism and Humanism" lecture, including transcript of a question and answer forum which you will not find in most editions.Priest also does a decent job of providing biographical information in the chapter "Sartre in-the-world."

Hard, but good if you like existentialism.
The selections in this book are very good, but unless you're up for a little bit of a challenge this book isn't for you.There were an excessive amount of typos, but that is bearable.The first and last thirds of the book were most down to earth.I would strongly recomend reading some commentary along with this, though not having read any on Sartre myself I can't recommend any.There's a good chance I will re-read this book again in the future, particularly as I now want to take a class in existentialism this fall.Really, the only drawback was how hard and next to incomprehensible the reading was at times, which is typical of philosophy.I don't even agree with most of what I read, but I still value the struggle to understand it. ... Read more

Book Description
4 plays about an existential portrayal of Hell, the reworking of the Electra-Orestes story, the conflict of a young intellectual torn between theory and conflict and an arresting attack on American racism. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (45)

Fabulous plays!
This book is a wonderful collection of plays written by the brilliant intellect of Sartre. It is an essential reading for the philosopher at heart.

Beautiful melancholy
Sartre is sometimes given a reputation that far precedes him, as with many Nobel recipients. These plays are a testament against the skeptic's mindset.

"No Exit" is a modern-day interpretation of the antiquated "fire and brimstone" hell we are so accustomed to hearing about. Sartre adroitly picks up on the small idiosyncracies of human behavior and capitalizes on them with his version of hell. Three incompatible personalities are locked in a hot, stuffy hotel room for eternity, unable to get along with one another or reconcile their personal differences. The lights are always a bit too bright, the furniture a bit too stiff, and the wonder at "what lies down the hall" eats at the occupants for eternity. This is a far cry from biblical interpretations of hell, where an individual can mentally will themselves against pain. Instead, Sartre focuses on the interpersonal nature of unhappiness, and gives his spirits "one of those days" for eternity.

"Dirty Hands" is perhaps my favorite piece of literature. It plants its focus on a young intellectual revolutionary intent on assassinating a corrupt party leader. As he grows closer to Hoederer, the man he is sent to kill, he comes to realize that pure intellectual theories will always become muddied in the waters of reality.

"The Respectful Prostitute" depicts a young woman, a prostitute, who spends the night with a man who turns out to be a politician. The man completes his sordid mission, but the next morning scorns the woman. An lesson in objectivity and the two-faced nature of those who tend to preach loudly.

"The Flies" is set in Ancient Greece, but possesses Sartre's aptitude for human behavior. Just as good as all the others, though not as indicative of how humans behave.

These are all plays, making them quite easy to read. The characters are not hard to keep straight. The ease of reading doesn't detract from their literary quality. These four plays are elegant simplicity at its finest.

"The folk of Argos are my folk. I must open their eyes."
I have read this little collection countless times over the years. I have seen Huit Clos (No Exit) performed several times (generally poorly) but it has never quite lived up to the power that I find in the written version. I realize that this is unusual for a play, and may reflect a fault in Sartre's work rather than a strength.

It is important to remember, however, that Sartre's work is always more about the ideas behind it than it is about the form he is using. Sartre wrote novels, plays, essays, and criticism during his long career. Through it all, he was a philosopher-- struggling with the notion of freedom and indifference.

People (particularly students) tend to stop with No Exit, neglecting its less famous cousins. This is a shame, as both The Flies and Dirty Hands are fascinating pieces. Particularly if you have an interest in the Oresteia then The Flies is a wonderful interpretation.

A must read book.

good but not great
These four plays were good plays- they are easier to understand if one is familiar with Sartre's philosophy. The plots in all these plays were both unique and exciting yet at times, especially in dirty hands and the flies, the plays seem to drag on and on. Had the plays been shorter, Sartre's main point would have been made clearer and more forcefully. In plays, it's hard to communicate character background yet with a novel the author can just describe it from third-person perspective. I think perhaps these plays would have been more successful and more dramatic had they been written as short novels with more description and character analysis. At times I felt that the characters were explored and described in superfical ways. All in all, these were good plays yet I cant say I loved them. This might just be me though since I have never been too fond of the format of plays- i feel like it never gets to the heart of the character since you only get dialogue with little analysis.

Hell is other people, and they exist to torture you.
This book is an answer to a question many people have been avoiding all their lives.And when you finally develop the ability to ask it to yourself, Sartre provides his suggested answer for you, though it may not be the answer you wanted.

The premise of the main play, "No Exit", is that many people have chosen to exist in misery, even when the exit to that misery presents itself clearly.For these people, there is "no exit".Their existance is defined by their misery.If they make the concious decision to exit, then they have nothing to live for.

All four plays are written in non-pretentious and easy to understand styles, unlike many philisophical writings.They don't require a great deal of effort to read or understand.In fact, they are quite enjoyable and I found myself reading each play many times before moving on to the next one.

Don't expect to feel uplifted about the state of humanity while reading these plays, however.Sartre's message about human existance can be a dismal one.It is quite helpful, though, to come to terms with the fact that many of our fellow humans are just puzzled about their lives, and sharing a social existance with these people can be precarious to your own search for meaning. ... Read more

Book Description
The internationally acclaimed biography of Sartre in celebration of the 100th anniversary of his birth.

The first volume in the Lives of the Left series, Annie Cohen-Solal's Sartre is a remarkable achievement. "A sensation" upon its initial publication in France, as the New York Times reported, Sartre was subsequently translated into sixteen languages and went on to become an international bestseller, appealing to the broadest audience. First published in the United States in 1987, it is the definitive biography of a man and an age, an intimate portrait of a complex life. A major accomplishment of this biography is that it places Sartre in the context of history while at the same time reassessing the full import of his literary and political accomplishments. Discovering untold aspects of Sartre's private and political life, Cohen-Solal weaves together all the elements of an exceptional career. From the fascinating description of his hitherto-unknown father to the painful last moments of Sartre's own declining years, this is biography on the grandest scale, fully deserving of the praise it has received. ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (2)

"If you want it, come and get it."
This is the best commentary on Sartre's book I've seen. In fact, you should probably read this book before Being and Nothingness, and then tackle that forbiddingly ponderous and dense volume afterwards. Many people start, but never finish the book, and this book may help you get "over the hump" in that sense, since it'll simplify things considerably and give you a leg up on some of the more difficult points. Anyway, since this is an excellent commentary on Sartre's book, I just wanted to add a few comments myself, especially about one particular existential idea that I find odd.

I should warn you ahead of time that this is a very dark book review, just as Being and Nothingness itself can be, that being my point of departure. But a lot of it is black humor or satire and not meant to be taken seriously.

Sartre wrote in this book that "Life is a useless passion." He and other existential philosophers have maintained that life is "absurd,"--an idea that became a major tenet of existential thought.

Well, as the memory of the 20th century fades behind us, let us consider how absurd or useless life may truly be. Although existential philosophy traces its roots back to Kierkegard in the last half of the 19th century, it was the 20th century in which existentialism really came to prominence, as philosophers attempted to create a philosophy of being to cope with the devastation of a century that saw not only the greatest scientific and medical advances, but also the greatest conflagrations of mass death and destruction in man's history--and which, ironically enough--were mostly made possible by man's own new-found technological capabilities. With these awesome new powers at his command, mankind unflichingly, even enthusiastically, embarked on a new era of unabashed and uninhibited mass death and destruction unprecedented in human history.

It was indeed a century to remember, made all the more memorable by the millions of people caught in its deadly milieu. Millions died in World War I; 20 million more died during the Spanish Flu epidemic immediately afterward, and made worse by the weakened condition of state infrastructures and medical facilities after the war.

In World War II, millions more died, including 20 million dead in Russia alone either directly from war casualties or indirectly through starvation, disease, and privation. Six million Jews, 1 million Russians--and even a quarter million Gypsies--were rounded up and systematically exterminated in the death camps ("better living through chemistry"), and tens of millions more died of starvation in India because the price of rice went through the roof.

That doesn't take into consideration the myriad smaller conflicts, genocides, pogroms, famines, and other disasters in which thousands to millions of people died. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of them to grace and adorn each ill-fated decade of the 20th century, as more and more people were caught in its inimitable and seemingly inexorable machines of death.

In addition to WWI in the teens and WWII in the 40's, respectively, there was the genocide of Armenians in the 1920's (1,000,000 people dead), the Rape of Nanking (300,000 dead), the Great Purges in Russia in the 30's (3,000,000 people executed or dead in the labor camps) the Korean War in the 50's, the famines in Biafra in the 60's and Ethiopia in the 80's, and America's geopolitical debacle, the Vietnam war of the 60's and early 70's.

And there's more fun yet to come. Let's not forget the ever-lovin' Idi Amin in Uganda during the 70's (if you can say one good thing about Amin, it's that he was content to stay within his own borders and slaughter his own, instead of starting wars with everybody else, like most dictators). Africans, knowing a good thing when they see one, followed Amin with the internal massacres and tribal conflicts in Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra Leone, and Sudan in the 90's (to mention the most important ones), with untold millions of innocent people slaughtered, maimed, dead from disease and starvation, or displaced in refugee camps.

Lest you think I'm unjustly singling out Africa, there was the recent genocide and atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia, the recent terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, and the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians (which has been going on for about 4,000 years--give 'em time--they'll figure out that they really hate each other eventually).

Not to mention the spectre of nuclear annihilation, which somehow, humans have managed to avoid--at least for the time being. (No doubt the human race will screw that up, too). And last but not least--we now have the spectre of mass annihilation through bioweapons. (Isn't it great being part of such a technologically advanced race? We come up with such clever and fun little toys.)

Yeah, you have to hand it to the human race. We know how to make progress. We've gone from sacrificing virgins (what genius invented that idea?) to being able to kill millions of people at a time with a single nuclear blast in only about 2,000 years. When the first two atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 200,000 people (including, presumably some virgins, which made it okay, I guess) vanished in less than a second. And now we have bombs that are up to 5,000 times more powerful than these.

But getting back to my main point. Given the above, describing life as "absurd" seems pretty lame, to say the least. Sartre was even awarded a Nobel Prize in Literature. When the news of the prize came out, Life magazine called him "The wall-eyed little man who figured it all out." (Maybe Sartre should have just gotten corrective lenses for his eye problem and called it a day). But really, is this the best they can do?

Don't get me wrong, I like much of what Sartre says and I might even go so far as to say he was a brilliant philosopher, but some people have been upset by what they see as Sartre's and other existential philosophers' overly "pessimistic" view of life. Given how things have generally turned out for the human race, however, especially in the 20th century, saying life is "absurd" seems itself an absurdly naive and over-optimistic understatement, and hardly anything for people to get upset about.

Given the above, I don't think it is possible to be overly pessimistic about individual human existence, and perhaps more importantly, about the prospects for human society as a whole.

There is always the possibility (it does occasionally happen) that an individual human being will become more enlightened. You can always tell when someone has become "enlightened." His friends all start avoiding him like the plague and think he's gone totally nuts. At the social level, however, this never happens--since there are no, and never have been, any truly enlightened human societies--and probably never will be.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything (another sadistic human custom, no doubt), but I'll mention one more social criticism of contemporary society that I happen to agree with. Especially in the west, adult life is mostly concerned with the accumulation of wealth and power--neither of which, as Arthur C. Clarke once wrote--should be the main concern, much less the only concern, of full-grown, mature men. It goes without saying that a society based on such consumerist ideals will never become truly advanced or enlightened. No wonder S-F writers dream of getting off the planet--they may not know where they're going in the universe either--but they sure as hell know it's a cosmic cluster-f_ck down here.

I haven't even touched on the problem of individual crime, since I've been more concerned here with the broader social and historical issues. Suffice it to say that a society in which the mass media glorifies and makes heroes of serial murderers just to sell more magazines, newspapers, and advertising can't be all bad. After all, they'll probably make more money that way, which will be good for the stock--and in this market--that's nothing to shake a stick at.

But returning to my earlier point, failing to achieve "true enlightenment" is the least of our worries, however, because if we were even close, that in itself would be quite an achievement. If human societies were just "advanced" as opposed to truly enlightened, we'd probably be 10 times better off than we are now.

Well, we're about as far away from true enlightenment as you can get. In fact, the really tragic thing is that the human societies of the 20th century brought most of the above disasters down on themselves--tragedies which a less violent and more reasonable, socially intelligent, and responsible race would have been able to avoid. Or to put it another way, in another unfortunate and bizarre twist of human psychology, despite humans being the most intelligent and "evolved" species on the planet, it would seem we are also the only social species that is less intelligent as a group than we are individually. Or, as Mark Twain once said, "A committee is the only critter with 10 bellies and no brain."

Not that I'm a total nihilist. There is always the slim hope humans will change. I truly hope the human race will come to its senses before time runs out. It seems unlikely, however. Humans are too quarrelsome, violent, warlike, greedy, selfish, intolerant, bigotted, venal, petty, vain, neurotic, irrational, illogical, ignorant, short-sighted, and just generally vicious, mean-spirited and uncivilized a species (I could go on but one has to stop somewhere), and there just aren't enough truly good humans out there to make a difference. There are a few good people out there, I admit--but let's face it--we all know that in this life "nice guys finish last." Similarly, the lessons of human history make it abundantly clear that unless good is very, very careful, evil usually wins out.

Oh well. It's sad to say, since it's my own species I'm talking about, but the earth, and probably the universe as well, will probably be better off without us.

I realize I've painted a pretty dim, dark, and ultimately depressing view (a 3D view?) of humanity and of humanity's future prospects. I hope I am wrong. Unfortunately, the history of the human race doesn't give one much cause for optimism. If we can screw it up, the human race probably will--even our own future. After all, we've screwed up 99% of our past history--and the future is just history that hasn't happened yet.

Speaking of which, I don't want to give you the impression that there's no room for optimism in my life. In fact, I'm about the most "optimistic" guy out there--I'm just optimistic that the human race will Bite the Big One some day through its own habitual and perverse self-destructiveness and figure out some creative and fun way to wipe itself off the surface of the planet in one fell swoop. Although our history may be nothing to be proud of--I have every expectation and confidence that our ending will be a truly monumental and awe-inspiring achievement. I just hope I live long enough to see it; it would be a real bummer to miss out on humanity's glorious, universal, and final holocaust of mass death and destruction. Given humanity's talent for careening from disaster to disaster throughout its history, I'm sure it will be sooner rather than later--after all why delay the fun? Just think of the 20th century as the dress rehearsal for humanity's last curtain call.

Come to think of it, why we're called "humanity" I don't really understand. We should be called "inhumanity." "Humanity" has to be the only one-word oxymoron in the English language. (For those of you who weren't paying attention in your English class, an "oxymoron" is a rhetorical figure of speech in which incongruous or contradictory words are combined, as in "thunderous silence", or "mournful optimist," or "a just society," or "a kind and wise human being.")

I know some people will say it'll never happen--that the human race will become wise before it's too late and somehow turn back from the brink of disaster. Obviously these people have never stuck their noses inside a single history book for more than five minutes. But the ultimate problem, and the ultimate reality--is that we humans, both individually and as a species--would rather live down to our lowest impulses and desires rather than the reverse. After all, that takes genuine discipline and real moral fiber--which is no fun at all for a snarling, primitive, vicious ground monkey with a brain too big for his Johnson (among other things--such as the 40,000 nuclear missiles and bombs still in existence).

But there is always hope, and the future is as good place for our hopes to reside as any--because if there's going to be any hope for the human race, it will have to be there--since there obviously isn't any hope for humanity based on our past.

And maybe what I've said here is what Sartre and the other existentialists really meant to say? Perhaps being civilized philosophers and academic-types, they were just trying to be polite and soft-pedal it a bit.

Well, I'm not a philosopher, I'm not an academic (not anymore, anyway)--and maybe I'm not even civilized! So does that mean I'm telling it like it is?

We'll see. In the meantime, I'm sure the geopolitical gladiatorial games that is human civilization will continue to provide all the sadistic and voyeuristic "bread and circuses" action (coming to you live on the 6 o'clock news!) you could want.

Joseph Catalano's A COMMENTARY OF "BEING and NOTHINGNESS"
If you find yourself extremely frustrated in your attempt to plow through Sartre's massive BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, there is simply no better guide than Catalano's commentary. No first time reader of Sartre's book should be without this guide. Catalano does not shy away from the difficult and abstruse points of BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, but helps the reader understand Sartre's rather peculiar style of phenomenology. If one wants to understand one of the landmark works of 20th century Continental philosphy, one needs to read the original text. However, most nonacademic readers, and even most professional American philosophers, lack the crucial background to truly grasp what Sartre is attemtping to accomplish. Before reading BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, I recomend reading several of Sartre's literary works, and two shorter philosophical texts, THE TRANSCENDENCE OF THE EGO and THEORY OF THE EMOTIONS. Then expect to spend several months (at least if you have to work for a living) with Sartre's treatise. Be sure to have Catalano's book by your side. It will give you both the necessary background for understanding the text, as well as lucid commentary on some very difficult passages of Sartre's work. In the end, do not shy away from the original text. Even if you find yourself unsympathetic to Sartre's ideas and style of philosophy, I believe you will find that Sartre has some rather vivid insights about human existence. ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (3)

The turning point in the thought of Sartre
The Transcendence of the Ego is Sartre's refutation and response to the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and his idea that a transcendental ego stands behind consciousness. Reading Being and Nothingness is tremendously aided by this short work, and the thought inside is tremendously exciting, because Sartre refutes solipsism and finally brings consciousness outside into the world. This book is highly recommended to those interested in Existentialist Philosophy.

An Existential Classic
The Transendence of the Ego is the heart and soul of Sartre's philosopy.It is a classic and a must for anyone who wants to delve deeper in his/her understanding of Sartre's other philosophical views.It is a wonderfulthesis, more or less an expanded introduction to Being and Nothingness.

mind blowing
transcending the ego, is the state to which 'organized' religions preach, whether christian, jew, muslim, hindu, buddhist, shamin. this little book is so deep, with so few words, it is astounding.read this and the secondhalf of Flatlander by Abbott. ... Read more

Product Description
A massive paperback, Being and Nothingness contains the basic tenets of the thought of Jean-Paul Sartre, perhaps France's most famous existentialist philosopher. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

Great work of existentialism
What a phycological journey Sartre is presenting us in every little story of this book. Wow! All the stories are perfectly written. My favorite ones are "The Wall", "The room", and "Erostratus". I must admit though, I found "Intimacy" a bit hard to follow.
I recommend this book to everyone who wanna read a unique piece of work of existentialism. You won't regret :)

In depth study of human psychology
This particular work of J P Sartre should be ranked as one of the masterpieces in modern literature...The author used to possess a penetrating insight in the complex mind and behaviours of a modern human being...It is true that he analyses different reactions of any human mind on the basis of the doctrine of existentialism, of which he is one of the main proponents...However one should not look upon his judgement as biased as the celebrated basis of his philosophical doctrine, ie. "Existence should precede the essence " is really logical and highly optimistic as well as humanistic....All the five stories that are presented in this book bear the mature signature of an efficient interpreter of human mind along with it's anxieties and the decisions and choices taken at such critical moments,eg., when a man is condemned to die.....It seems the stories in this book imply that one should always consider those anxious moments,those contradictions that are constantly perturbing the man and only his response and choices that he make, ultimately defines him and give him a relative meaning in this otherwise meaningless world..I feel this book should be read by those who are aware of the divine futility of human life but still are optimistic about the triumph of human mind and creativity.....

Who didn't feel the fear and smelled the sweat of Pablo Ibbieta?
In fact "The wall" was one of the best stories in the book along with "Erostratus" where once more Sarte makes his claim on the proof of freedom, and how most of us tend to pretend we are not that free and crawl behind our available and yet limited choices.

Rationalization of marginality
The wall gives the reader the chance to infuse into the consciousness of characters with, seemingly, absurd & extreme behaviors. The depiction of the inner world of these marginal people, rationalize their conduct by using some common humane themes like willingness to survive, fear, submission to power, altruism etc.

A Mesmorizing Journey.Extreme Psychological Insight
"The Wall and other short stories" is a triumph in literature.Each story explores the depths of human thought and reason through an existential point of view.Each story can be interpreted different by all readers, therefore making this a great book for discussion.

"The Wall" is the first story presented.It consumes the reader because of its brilliant writing style. The story is narrated by a man named Pablo Ibbieta, who is in a jail cell with 2 others awaiting execution the following morning. Every event that transpires that particular night is analyzed almost too thoroughly thus leaving the reader in a trance. I wont get into it too deeply, but believe me, this story is worth reading...i guarentee it will have to be read again. After finishing the story, I felt as though nothing mattered.Who cares if the dishes were not washed, who cares if I would be late for work. Believe me, this story will have a profound impact on the way you think.Don't be surprised if you have a new appreciation for life.This story enlightens the mind.

Another great story from this book is called "Erostratus". Erostratus was a character who wanted to be famous, so he burned down the temple of Ephesus, which was one of the 7 wonders of the world.This is the central symbol of the story, the quest for glory.It also brings up an interesting point when the narrator asks one of his colleagues "Who built Ephesus?" and the colleauge did not know, he only knew who burned it. "Erostratus" in short is one mans decent into madness because of his quest to be remembered. The ending of "Erostratus" is filled with suspense and makes your heart beat in fear.It serves as a grim reminder that there are people of this type, and we should be prepared at any time for them to strike.

There are also 3 other stories, that being "The Room", "Intimacy", and "The Childhood of a Leader", which also draw the reader inside the workings of the mind through an existential window (ie: we are all here by accident, man is condemned to choose).

In short, these stories are all perfect, and leave the reader with a feeling of enlightment.Sartre is an extremely intelligent and clever writer.This is evident in these short stories.So turn off the television, buy this book, and start questioning your existence, you owe it to yourself. Besides, they are short stories, so you will be able to get through at least one a day...that isnt much to ask considering the benefits you will reap by reading them. ... Read more

Product Description
The principal text of modern existentialism ... Read more

Book Description

They are one of the world's legendary couples. We can't think of one without thinking of the other. Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre -- those passionate, freethinking existentialist philosopher-writers -- had a committed but notoriously open union that generated no end of controversy. With Tete-a-Tete, distinguished biographer Hazel Rowley offers the first dual portrait of these two colossal figures and their intense, often embattled relationship. Through original interviews and access to new primary sources, Rowley portrays them up close, in their most intimate moments.

Customer Reviews (9)

Vivid and engaging portrait of a relationship -- but philosophically unenlightening
This well-researched and detailed portrait of a remarkable and unique relationship between two remarkable and unique people is never less than engaging. It is well worth reading for anyone who has even a passing interest in the intellectual climate in France just preceding, during and after WWII, a period that produced an amazing list of artists and philosophers: Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze, Camus, Sartre, Beauvoir, Lanzmann (all of whom figure in this narrative), the nouvelle vague in cinema, and many more. For that matter, it is well worth reading for anyone who is interested in life, and the details of these lives are intrinsically fascinating (which is not always to say admirable). Rowley had an almost unprecedented access to historical materials, and to many of the people involved, and put together a sensitive and coherent picture of Sartre and Beauvoir from roughly the time they met to their deaths. That she is able to paint such an intimate and compassionate portrait that does not shy away from depicting faults and inconsistencies in their lives and thought is a testament to Rowley's skills as a writer and as a historian.

The major weakness of the book is that her talent with philosophy is not equally on display here. In the course of telling her story, Rowley mentions the philosophical works of Sartre and Beauvoir, but says very little to illuminate the connection between their thinking and their lives. Even where she does discuss such connections, the links are fairly superficial. (Or, the connections are of the sort that can be made at the level of pop psychology between an artist and his or her work.) Existentialism comes across in her book in its fairly popular form: that there is no essence of human being and that we define ourselves through our actions. The connection between Sartre's existentialism and phenomenology gets summarized in the claim that Sartre learned from phenomenology that philosophy could be about everyday life. What she doesn't note is that beyond the fact Sartre learned from phenomenology to focus on everyday life, he also engaged in a systematic effort to redescribe life -- to show that our ordinary ways of conceiving everyday life are deeply flawed. Beauvoir's own significant and original philosophical work (apart from "The Second Sex") is hardly discussed -- her "Ethics of Ambiguity," for example, is never even mentioned. What she doesn't note is that Beauvoir had developed a powerful typology of ways in which one might respond to and realize freedom in one's life, in her "Ethics of Ambiguity" -- and it would be interesting to consider where she must have fit on that continuum. Perhaps most egregiously, she fails to emphasize that for both Sartre and Beauvoir, existentialist freedom is not primarily about the rejection of traditional bonds but about the recognition of the ways in which we bind ourselves to others through our projects and commitments -- so that "authenticity" is not just about being oneself but about the discovery that one cannot avoid belonging to others and to deny one's commitments to others is bad faith. If Sartre painted this inevitibility as a kind of hell in "No Exit," Beauvoir especially in the "Ethics of Ambiguity" depicts an acceptance of the ambiguous commitments that emerge from our being with others as the only genuine freedom and the only possible salvation. (In spite of her desire to depict Beauvoir as independent of Sartre, and her emphasis of Sartre's unwavering respect for her as a thinker, Rowley doesn't really give a sense of the independence of Beauvoir as a thinker -- and what comes across for the most part here is the popular but I think misleading picture of Sartre as the philosopher and Beauvoir as the memoirist who occasionally also applied philosophy to subjects like women and aging.) On this reading, then Sartre and Beauvoir come across primarily as writers whose ideas and commitments evolved over time to become more political, who rejected standard morality including and especially the moral prescriptions that reinforce the family, and who shared a unique form of relationship (that involved fidelity to each other in the sense that they would always tell each other the truth, even where they were willing to lie to others with whom they had secondary relationships). One might have wished for a more detailed account of their thinking if only because such an account would help to pose the question how their life must have been conceived by themselves, in accordance with their own thinking. Otherwise, and in spite of the book's other merits as a piece of history and biography that can complement a study of their work (or of the period), the book ends up reading like a soap opera for intellectuals.While I think this point deserves emphasis I don't want to overemphasize this.One of the merits of Rowley's book is that she takes as her model of biography the autobiographical works of Beauvoir -- and to that extent she does employ a similar approach to reflection on their lives that Beauvoir employs in her published works.I just would have liked to see a bit more reflection in the book about the relation between their lives and their more focused philosophical reflections.First and foremost, Sartre and Beavoir are engaged thinkers and a biography that rarely engages with their deepest thinking except at the superficial level of brief summary, seems to me to be lacking. Having said that, I should reiterate that apart from such misgivings I found the book to be very well written and thoroughly enjoyable and could hardly put it down.

Corps au corps
This book is a factual chronology of the relationship between Beauvoir and Sartre, particularly as it relates to their extracurricular sexual relations. It is not an in-depth commentary or analysis on how they influenced each other's thinking and writings. I found this aspect of the book disappointing.

Attention should have been paid to how Sartre's way of life runs counter to his existential philosophy- freedom in action is paramount to JPS's existential man and yet he succumbs to addictions to drugs and alcohol in his mid-to-later life. Why does Beauvoir give Sartre her uncritical approval to his meaningless, manipulative and lecherous courtships? And how does such compliance reflect on her nascent feminism?

I expect biographies of two seminal philosophers to raise such questions and provide some level of explication. Despite these reservations, I recommend this book as it is well-researched and well-written.

Tete-a-Tete : Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre
I felt part of that tangled and emotionally complex world that Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sarte wove around themselves while reading this book. It balanced the passion of their creativity with the very calculating anti-passion of their emotional lives. Never judging, just describing how one phase played into the next and the work that was born out of all that was inspiring enough. All the people who were caught up or made certain to be caught up in those two lives never really made a difference in the final out come. Their work was all that really mattered.

Success despite erotomania

De Beauvoir and Sartre, without any doubt, are among the most talented writers of the twentieth century.I have enjoyed de Beauvoir's novels over the years, even when I could never quite get connected with the turgid texts of Sartre;and Sartre could be a perfect idiot on matters political, while de Beauvoir always retained more than her share of good sense.But no matter.Both of these "intellectuals," as they are called in this book, wrote thoughtful books that deeply affected the thinking of the last century.

Now comes a book that conclusively shows one of this duo to have been, well, a sick character. A technical term might be erotomania, the insatiable drive for sexual gratification.Even when Sartre was close to death, blind, incontinent, suffering from dementia, his friends would provide him with young women that he would then proceed to grope.It was the culmination of a lifetime's obsession.

Hazel Rowley, in this scrupulously documented study, has shown us a deeply flawed human being achieve success, despite these considerable odds, at being outstandingly creative.

The human side of genius
This book vividly sets genuis in a human perspective.It is a sad story.Genine love requires fidelity and the human heart knows this even if philosophical genius doesn't.Certainly worth reading as an insight for any time.Besides, it provides a magnificent and totally unexpected view of Simone's marvelous behind. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (13)

Great book
I first checked this out from the library.I loved the text so much that I ended up reading it in an afternoon.I later bought the book because I liked it so much.If you're interested in Sartre but don't want to dig through his longer books, this is a good start.

A brilliant work by a brilliant author!
Sartre hass eloquently and brilliantly defended existentialism and elucidated the meaning behind the words. Sartre emphasized the importance of actions and responsibility in defining man. No more excuses. You create yourself and you are responsible for it. Sartre debunks the victim role perpetuated by religion, determinism, and fatalism, and in lieu he accentuates freedom of choice and responsibility.
This book is a must read for any student or lover of philosophy....

A Good Introduction
This is a very accessible book for anyone who has a passing acquaintance with philosophical terminology and discussion.As a Christian, I of course differ with Sartre in many fundamental ways, but one has to admire the consistency of his thought given his philosophical presuppositions.

Sartre is unafraid to face and even embrace the consequences of the idea of life lived without hope of fundamental purpose or meaning.Life, both corporate and individual, is the outcome of choices we make.Every man carries the burden and freedom of all humanity and in his time through his own actions makes the human race what it is and becomes through him.

The weakest areas of his ethics is when he seeks to divorce them from absolute standards.Though he requires that individual man must necessarily act on his freedom to judge and evaluate the actions of others, and to make statements about his evaluation, yet he seeks to distance such statements from any claim that all should so evaluate them.I think Sartre recognizes the logical tension he creates here but his explanation is not satisfying.

All in all, if someone wants to sample the waters of atheistic existentialism, then you can't go far wrong with this book.It is not light reading but it is worthwhile.After reading it find a similar book on Christian ethics for the other side of the story.

Most Accessible of Sartre's Philosophy
I give this book 5 stars for its accessibility and clarity of Sartre's philosophy, but I give it 3 for its consistency (hence the 4 stars on the rating).

The first section of the book is his lecture "Existentialism" or "Existentialism is a Humanism."The rest contains excerpts from "Being and Nothingness."

On the surface, Sartre's philosophy seems insightful and profound, especially the chapter on personal responsibility.However, the extreme lengths that Sartre takes to create a coherent atheistic position are enough to drive anyone to their nearest priest.He assumes atheism, but never proves it.At one point he says it is profoundly distressing that there is no God.Later on he says that it doesn't matter if God exists or not because existentialism is about man, not God.

Nonetheless, he says he is trying to create a coherent atheistic philosophy, since the modern philosophers rejected God but tried to keep the a priori ethics that can not exist without God (in the words of Dostoevsky, "If there is not God, all [moral] things are permissible.")He takes this to such a profound extreme (and I think he would be correct if there were no God) that, had I not known better, I would have thought he was a Christian arguing against atheism!

The book is not difficult to read, though it is difficult to reconcile Sartre's apparent contradictions (e.g. do we define our own essence or is it our essence to desire to be God?)There is minimal technical language.I recommend reading this book 1) to understand Sartre's brand of existentialism, 2) to understand why so many other existentialists rejected the label "existentialism" and 3) understand why so many people today live a philosophy of despair (not unlike Sartre's own philosophy, which he described as being full of despair).

Don't think too much of Sartre's supposed "rejection" of this book.Sartre wrote and said a lot of things; he was said to have written 10,000 words a day, mostly garbage, and to have talked incessantly to others (and even to himself).On one hand, he completely lived out his philosophy by engaging in anything he so desired (especially sex with many women, often his students).But on the other hand, he was completely hypocritical because he did not afford the freedom he preached on others (especially his mistresses, and most especially Simone de Beauvoir).

The most readable philosophy work of Sartre
This work is readable and clear. In this it is possible to learn more from reading a few pages of it than from reading all of Sartre's major philosophical work 'Being and Nothingness'. The basic idea of Sartre's Existensialism is that we are born into the world without having any prior purpose or meaning. Our life is the story of the meaning we make for ourselves. And we do this through our decisions and choices. We make the meaning by our action. And should we decide not to take action then this too is a meaning and action. For Sartre the rejection of all a priori systems most especially those of the great religions leads to the idea of human dignity as based primarily on human freedom and decision.This is an appealing doctrine in some ways because it would seem to free Mankind of all shackles, liberate it to be itself completely. The problem is that the meaning we make is mortal as we are, and the path of freedom would then seem to lead no matter who we are to an ultimate annihilation and nothingness.
We need God if we are to have a meaning that will endure. But this of course would not be acceptable to Sartre. ... Read more

Amazon.com
Jean-Paul Sartre, the