What do you think?
Rate this book
All That Matters
Existentialism: All That Matters
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL?
That is the question at the heart of existentialism and it informs this book's exploration of the existentialist tradition in 19th and 20th century philosophy.
All That Matters considers each of the key figures - Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir - who all offer related, though distinct, conceptions of the task of becoming an individual.
David Cerbone's book gives a fascinating introduction to existentialism and what matters most about it.
ABOUT THE SERIES
All That Matters books are written by the world's leading experts to introduce the most exciting and relevant topics in an accessible, readable way. From Bioethics to Future Cities and Philosophy to Terrorism, the All That Matters series covers controversial and engaging subjects from science, philosophy, history, religion and politics. The authors are world-class academics or leading public intellectuals, on a mission to bring the most interesting and challenging areas of their subject to new readers.
That is the question at the heart of existentialism and it informs this book's exploration of the existentialist tradition in 19th and 20th century philosophy.
All That Matters considers each of the key figures - Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus and de Beauvoir - who all offer related, though distinct, conceptions of the task of becoming an individual.
David Cerbone's book gives a fascinating introduction to existentialism and what matters most about it.
ABOUT THE SERIES
All That Matters books are written by the world's leading experts to introduce the most exciting and relevant topics in an accessible, readable way. From Bioethics to Future Cities and Philosophy to Terrorism, the All That Matters series covers controversial and engaging subjects from science, philosophy, history, religion and politics. The authors are world-class academics or leading public intellectuals, on a mission to bring the most interesting and challenging areas of their subject to new readers.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
160 pages, Paperback
First published June 18, 2015
12 people are currently reading
256 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 16, 2018
A well-written introduction to a tough to comprehend philosophy. It is not an easy read but well-suited to new philosophy students at the undergraduate level, not so much general readers.
Some of the thinkers covered are some of the toughest to comprehend. a few a from the 19th century and nearly all had work translated from another language. Throw in their high levels of education and you get prose that is tough to penetrate. Cerbone boils most of it down as much as he can but some of it is still presented "in its own words." The chapters on Sartre and Kirkegaard were particularly tough. Heidegger and Beauvoir were clearer.
Cerbone cites several thinkers who claim their philosophy is not atheistic, but it sure sounds like it. There is a clear attempt to eliminate all prior notions of meaning, purpose, origin, or history from the religious texts, mythology, etc. To discard or devalue all those texts and belief systems is clearly a path toward atheism. The philosophy may not require the adoption of an atheist worldview, but it sure helps.
Finding meaning and definition within one's existence and consciousness, as opposed to something innate (like God's will or preordained destiny) is an intriguing concept. Each individual has the power to define the meaning of their existence based on their own experience.
Overall, not sure if this is the best introduction, but it is a pretty good one.
Some of the thinkers covered are some of the toughest to comprehend. a few a from the 19th century and nearly all had work translated from another language. Throw in their high levels of education and you get prose that is tough to penetrate. Cerbone boils most of it down as much as he can but some of it is still presented "in its own words." The chapters on Sartre and Kirkegaard were particularly tough. Heidegger and Beauvoir were clearer.
Cerbone cites several thinkers who claim their philosophy is not atheistic, but it sure sounds like it. There is a clear attempt to eliminate all prior notions of meaning, purpose, origin, or history from the religious texts, mythology, etc. To discard or devalue all those texts and belief systems is clearly a path toward atheism. The philosophy may not require the adoption of an atheist worldview, but it sure helps.
Finding meaning and definition within one's existence and consciousness, as opposed to something innate (like God's will or preordained destiny) is an intriguing concept. Each individual has the power to define the meaning of their existence based on their own experience.
Overall, not sure if this is the best introduction, but it is a pretty good one.
October 7, 2025
Start fresh. That is my takeaway from this book on an unnecessarily difficult philosophy. ‘Existence before Essence, says Sartre and I say, ‘Huh?’
The author, David Cerbone does a very good job distilling existentialism to its core messengers and most relevant messages. Sartre is the existentialist par excellence. It is his passion for the idea of the human as free to establish his or her own purpose in life that for me is the key concept of this philosophy. Sure, Nietzsche told us God was dead but Sartre in a way brings us to the place where it is gloriously up to each of us to find a reason to live.
That Camus is a tenuous existentialist makes sense because he presents the ideas in their most extreme form. Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the hill knowing his effort is futile. Yes this is futile but it is also mindless. What if the purpose fully engages. Does it matter so much that the summit is never reached? In my view no. It is passionate engagement which is where I want to be. In media res (In the middle of things).
February 22, 2017
Who are you? What does it mean to be an individual? What does it mean "to be yourself"? This book is a great little primer on existentialism. David Cerbone takes the reader through an exploration of existentialism touching on the main arguments made by philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Simone de Beauvior. Is there meaning to our lives as beings? Or are we doomed to despair, anguish, anxiety, and nihilistic behaviors? These well-known philosophers have some ideas on that subject and the author puts them into plain language and an easy to follow chronology of logical thought. If you like to think about the human condition or find yourself thinking about it, this book has put those thoughts on paper. Good stuff. Now I'm going to go cry in the corner for a bit. Just kidding!
June 8, 2024
This book is an introduction to existentialist philosophy, written by Professor David Cerbone. Being a short book of around 100 pages, I finished it in a single sitting at a regional library in Singapore over a period of 3 hours (I am not a fast reader by any stretch). The book has 7 chapters. The introductory chapter aside, each of the following 6 chapters describes the ideas of philosophers who did not necessarily identify themselves as 'existentialist', either because they were already dead by the time Gabriel Marcel coined the term in the 1940s (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche) or because they explicitly rejected the label (Heidegger, Camus). Nevertheless, their ideas contain what Cerbone considers to be important elements of existentialist thought, which merit their inclusion. Camus is the odd one out in this group with his philosophy of absurdism, which, through its emphasis on dignified defiance, contains only wisps of existentialist thinking. The 6 philosophers are, in the order of presentation, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, and De Beauvoir. I found the latter half of the book, where the 3 more contemporary existentialist writers were introduced, to be much more compelling as Cerbone elegantly highlights the specific features in which their ideas differ.
For instance, I always had the impression that Camus's Sisyphus was naive in his defiant optimism. I never bought the idea that "one must imagine Sisyphus happy", but I couldn't quite articulate the source of my intuitive reservations. Cerbone helped me put my finger on what was underpinning this discomfort: Camus had unwittingly characterised his absurd heroes in a favourable light by making them perform, albeit with futility, goals and projects that we already find sensible to begin with. Replace Sisyphus's act of pushing the boulder up the hill with straining against an immovable boulder, and suddenly the force of Camus's metaphorical hero dissipates. In the former case, we are comforted by the sight that at least the boulder went up the hill; in the latter, we aren't offered the slightest reprieve. The veil of illusion is lifted, revealing Sisyphus as a character steeped in consolatory, self-deception. In this retelling, not only do we fail to imagine Sisyphus happy, but we find it ludicrous that he would not feel indignant or even despair at his fate. Cerbone connected this to De Beauvoir's oblique critique of Camus in "The Ethics of Ambiguity" where she writes: "if I persist in beating my fist against a stone wall, my freedom exhausts itself in this useless gesture without succeeding in giving itself content. It debases itself in vain contingency". Stone wall or boulder, pick your choice of futility. I also enjoyed how Cerbone connects De Beauvoir with Sartre by pointing out concretely how she fixes the flaws in his thinking. De Beauvoir, for instance, puts much greater emphasis on the way sociocultural forces mould the range of options that are reasonably available within our purview. Facticity, the set of conditions we are thrown into, can limit our freedom, which makes it rather perverse to assign responsibility to individuals who are, in flesh and blood, trapped within situations not of their choosing. As Cerbone puts it, "once we recognize the complexity of the social conditions that generate oppression, individual choice can come to seem very anaemic." I also find his writing in certain parts to be admirable for its brevity and clarity. One section that comes to mind is where he elaborated on Sartre's famous paper knife, used to explain the existentialist slogan that "existence precedes essence". He breaks down this "precedence" into 3 types: chronological/temporal precedence (the blueprint of a paper knife precedes its creation), explanatory precedence (the paper knife is before me because it is meant for cutting) and evaluative precedence (the paper knife is good because it fulfills its function of cutting paper). Another small feature of the book I liked was the various notes at the end, which included book, art and even movie recommendations for furthering our exploration of existentialism.
I gave it one short of a 5-star recommendation because I felt that the chapter on Nietzsche and the discussion of perspectivism was rather dry and disconnected from the rest of the chapters. The chapter on Kierkegaard should also have some discussion on the his three stages (aesthetic, ethical and religious), but this was entirely omitted. I think this book is best suited for someone with some prior knowledge of existentialism, looking for a deeper introduction to these 6 thinkers.
For instance, I always had the impression that Camus's Sisyphus was naive in his defiant optimism. I never bought the idea that "one must imagine Sisyphus happy", but I couldn't quite articulate the source of my intuitive reservations. Cerbone helped me put my finger on what was underpinning this discomfort: Camus had unwittingly characterised his absurd heroes in a favourable light by making them perform, albeit with futility, goals and projects that we already find sensible to begin with. Replace Sisyphus's act of pushing the boulder up the hill with straining against an immovable boulder, and suddenly the force of Camus's metaphorical hero dissipates. In the former case, we are comforted by the sight that at least the boulder went up the hill; in the latter, we aren't offered the slightest reprieve. The veil of illusion is lifted, revealing Sisyphus as a character steeped in consolatory, self-deception. In this retelling, not only do we fail to imagine Sisyphus happy, but we find it ludicrous that he would not feel indignant or even despair at his fate. Cerbone connected this to De Beauvoir's oblique critique of Camus in "The Ethics of Ambiguity" where she writes: "if I persist in beating my fist against a stone wall, my freedom exhausts itself in this useless gesture without succeeding in giving itself content. It debases itself in vain contingency". Stone wall or boulder, pick your choice of futility. I also enjoyed how Cerbone connects De Beauvoir with Sartre by pointing out concretely how she fixes the flaws in his thinking. De Beauvoir, for instance, puts much greater emphasis on the way sociocultural forces mould the range of options that are reasonably available within our purview. Facticity, the set of conditions we are thrown into, can limit our freedom, which makes it rather perverse to assign responsibility to individuals who are, in flesh and blood, trapped within situations not of their choosing. As Cerbone puts it, "once we recognize the complexity of the social conditions that generate oppression, individual choice can come to seem very anaemic." I also find his writing in certain parts to be admirable for its brevity and clarity. One section that comes to mind is where he elaborated on Sartre's famous paper knife, used to explain the existentialist slogan that "existence precedes essence". He breaks down this "precedence" into 3 types: chronological/temporal precedence (the blueprint of a paper knife precedes its creation), explanatory precedence (the paper knife is before me because it is meant for cutting) and evaluative precedence (the paper knife is good because it fulfills its function of cutting paper). Another small feature of the book I liked was the various notes at the end, which included book, art and even movie recommendations for furthering our exploration of existentialism.
I gave it one short of a 5-star recommendation because I felt that the chapter on Nietzsche and the discussion of perspectivism was rather dry and disconnected from the rest of the chapters. The chapter on Kierkegaard should also have some discussion on the his three stages (aesthetic, ethical and religious), but this was entirely omitted. I think this book is best suited for someone with some prior knowledge of existentialism, looking for a deeper introduction to these 6 thinkers.
August 29, 2025
Best Introduction to Existentialism I ever read. The book is short and sweet and gives you a very comprehensive view of each philosopher. It is written in a very philosophical language so that could be an obstacle if you haven't read much philosophy before but all you have to do is read it slowly and contemplate as you read. I absolute love the 100 Existentialist recommendations at the end of the book too!
March 18, 2020
A pretty good general overview of Existentialism. I would recommend it to someone who doesn't have a firm understanding of the philosophy but I did feel as though some of the writing was a little too complicated, mostly in the Heidegger section.
September 17, 2025
This doctor is my professor for PHIL-147 at WVU. He is intelligent and funny and can write. (I read the whole thing in his voice).
May 21, 2024
definitely more content heavy than i expected for my first non-fiction philosophy book, mostly enjoyed reading about kierkegaard, camus, and de beauvoir since i felt that the information in those chapters was more useful and applicable to daily life.
July 14, 2015
I already reviewed this book, by adding it, as it was not listed when I meant to review it... Could Goodreads join the two?
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews