Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre

by Walter Kaufmann

One of the foremost resources on existentialism from renowned philosopher, poet, and Nietzsche translator Walter Kaufmann—a must-read for philosophers, both armchair and professional. 

Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre  provides basic writings of Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Rilke, Kafka, Ortega, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus, including some not previously translated, along with an invaluable introductory essay by Walter Kaufmann.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Classics, Essays, Literature, Psychology

384 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1956

About the author

Walter Arnold Kaufmann was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet. A prolific author, he wrote extensively on a broad range of subjects, such as authenticity and death, moral philosophy and existentialism, theism and atheism, Christianity and Judaism, as well as philosophy and literature. He served for over 30 years as a Professor at Princeton University.

He is renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He also wrote a 1965 book on Hegel, and a translation of most of Goethe's Faust.

Reviews

[Z. · Rating 4 out of 5]

So there's this group of guys (and women too, though you won’t find them here) who we call the existentialists, and their main similarity is that they... had very little in common and didn't like each other much. Seriously, Kaufmann tells us on the first page that "[e]xistentialism is not a philosophy but a label for several widely different revolts against traditional philosophy. . . a bewildered outsider might well conclude that the only thing [these thinkers] have in common is a marked aversion for each other." Well fine, we know how touchy intellectual types can be about labels, but surely they're more alike than diff—

Certainly, existentialism is not a school of thought nor reducible to any set of tenets. The three writers who appear invariably on every list of "existentialists"—Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre—are not in agreement on essentials. Such alleged precursors as Pascal and Kierkegaard differed from all three men by being dedicated Christians. . . If, as is often done, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky are included in the fold, we must make room for an impassioned anti-Christian and an even more fanatical Greek-Orthodox Russian imperialist. By the time we consider adding Rilke, Kafka, and Camus, it becomes plain that one essential feature shared by all these men is their perfervid individualism.

I see. And it gets worse: about half the writers collected here were dead before the term "existentialism" was ever coined, and only one (1) person in the entire book—Sartre, the coiner himself—actually referred to his philosophy by that name. Several either weren't philosophers at all in the traditional sense, or else maintained a serious skepticism towards all academic philosophers and codified philosophical systems. So already things are looking a little hopeless for anyone trying to promote this particular -ism as a consistent and widely adhered-to school of thought.

And yet here we are. We all have, thanks to a good 70+ years of cultural diffusion and parody, at least an aesthetic idea of what an "existentialist" is supposed to be. We imagine the black turtleneck, the cigarettes and Parisian cafés, the vague yet debilitating sense of angst. We talk almost daily about so-and-so having an "existential crisis," though in using the term we might mean anything from a momentary bout of internal conflict to a full-blown panic attack. If any specific thinker comes to mind upon hearing the e-word, it's probably Sartre (hence the Parisian cafés and the smoking), or possibly Kierkegaard.

So what's the deal? What, if anything, is existentialism, and why is it still so alluring for so many despite its apparent lack of coherence and the reservations of even its most essential contributors? Well, given that humanity's relationship with historical time is a big deal to (some of?) these guys, let's do what Kaufmann did and take it chronologically:

Fyodor Dostoevsky (Russian, 1821 - 1881)
Ah, my beloved Fyodor. (Although you can see that Kaufmann's already fucked up the timeline by sticking him in before Kierkegaard. Existentialism from Kierkegaard to Sartre is a syllable shorter by my count, too, so what gives, Walter?) Anyway, Dostoevsky always comes up in conversations about the origins of existentialism, even though he wasn't really a philosopher and probably didn't know any of these other people existed. As far as a I’m aware FD never tried to formulate his personal ideology in explicitly philosophical terms, but his books are bursting with all the things existentialists go crazy about anyway: humans' uncertainty in the face of pretty much everything, the importance of choice (and the impossibility of non-choice), the necessity of defining oneself through actions rather than words or labels. I think Kaufmann misses the point a bit by including only the first half of Notes from Underground (the second half is where Dostoevsky shows us the dirty underbelly of all the ideas espoused at the beginning), but I like that he (Kaufmann) considers fiction to be just as valid as straightforward philosophizing when it comes to expressing and examining our ideologies. "[C]ould it be," he asks, "that at least some part of what the existentialists attempt to do is best done in art and not philosophy?" Personally, I'd answer with a resounding yes.

Søren Kierkegaard (Danish, 1813 - 1855)
Kierkegaard is all but universally accepted as the granddad of existentialism, though he distrusted the practice of philosophy in general and rejected pretty much every label but "individual." Basically, SK yearned to be the 19th-century answer to the Christian hermits and prophets of old. Appalled by the complacent Christianity which dominated his society, he broke his engagement to a woman he seems to have loved and devoted himself to a solitary life of writing and wandering the streets of Copenhagen and meditating on questions of faith. That in itself probably wouldn't secure him a prominent spot in the annals of western philosophy, but as it turns out Søren had some pretty interesting ideas about the nature of truth and subjectivity (i.e. we have no sure way of knowing the things we most need to know, so we must take a leap of faith), the individual's relationship to society (i.e. real revelation can only ever occur in the heart and mind of the individual; "the crowd is untruth"), and the dread that accompanies choice (i.e. we are free to act, but we're burdened by the uncertainty of our actions' results), among other things. He was a perplexing thinker who was devoted to paradoxes and did most of his writing in character as someone else; I like him, and the later existentialists did too (nonbelievers or not), though it's doubtful anyone but Søren himself has ever understood him fully. I think that's probably how he'd have preferred it.

Friedrich Nietzsche (German, 1844 - 1900)
Now Nietzsche was sort of the atheistic foil for Kierkegaard, despite their knowing nothing about each other. (Remember that it was a lot harder to learn about people elsewhere in the world pre-internet.) Like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche distrusted systems of all kinds and abandoned polite society to commit himself more fully to the pursuit of his own solitary enlightenment. They both stressed the primacy of the individual over the crowd, as well as the subjectivity of the human experience and the impossibility of knowing anything for sure. (There's a whole essay by Karl Jaspers later in this very collection about the many other ways in which they were similar, which I found helpful.) The difference, of course, is that Nietzsche didn't believe in any god and thought Christianity was for the weak and was more interested in elevating the individual human being to a sort of divine status through the exertion of the will. He was an intense man with an intense worldview, and, while I do think there's a lot to be gleaned from his teachings if approached critically, it's also not too difficult to understand the appeal his particular brand of individualism held for Hitler and co. long after the philosopher's death. (Although Kaufmann rather brilliantly ends Nietzsche’s section with a passage from Ecce Homo, in which Friedrich denigrates the German people for their lack of self-awareness and laments that they will one day honor him as a prophet.) And actually, that ends up being one of the big questions existentialism has to wrestle with throughout its history: is it possible to prioritize one's individual experience while also respecting and uplifting the individuality of the other? See Dostoevsky and Sartre for details.

Rainer Maria Rilke (Bohemian-Austrian, 1875 - 1926)
Rilke's main gig was poetry, and prior to this anthology I knew him primarily as the author of the Goodreads favorite Letters to a Young Poet, which I've yet to read. Apparently he had a major existential streak too, though never having dipped into his poetry I'm afraid I can't say much about it. His section here is short, and consists mainly of an excerpt from a novel called The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge. It was interesting reading, sort of surreal and with a lot of emphasis on death and the passage of time (both crucial existential themes), though it was hard to get much of a handle on Rilke or his thought from such a tiny sample. I intend to read more eventually.

Franz Kafka (Bohemian, 1883 - 1924)
Ah, my other beloved, Franz K. While there are few writers who feel more "existential" than Kafka, I think his thematic connection to the broader movement is actually more subtle than it seems. Existentialists are obsessed with the freedom to choose—they hold that choice is the only thing that defines us and makes us human—but so many of Kafka’s characters are immobilized, restrained, silenced, or trapped—in other words, deprived of their freedom in some fundamental way. Well, someone like Sartre would say that even in the most restrictive circumstances choice is still possible and inevitable; we can choose our attitude, if nothing else. When Gregor Samsa finally accepts his transfigured body and surrenders himself to an insect's death, he is making a choice—and in a sense, that choice and his reluctance to make it are what the whole story is about. That being said, the stories Kaufmann chooses to highlight here are concerned more with a different existentialist idea, and one which is arguably even more central to Kafka's writing and thought: the subjectivity (there's that word again) of the human experience, and the (near?) impossibility of communicating our experiences effectively. This concept dominates almost all of Kafka's work, and caused him no end of real torment as a writer.

José Ortega y Gasset (Spanish, 1883 - 1955)
I had never heard of Ortega before starting this book, and, like Rilke, his section was almost too short to leave a lasting impression. All the same, it's easy enough after even a very short introduction to understand his relevance. Specifically, he was interested in history: not just history in the mode that it’s studied in high school survey courses—this happened, and then that happened because this happened—but history in the sense of linear time and our inescapable connection to it. We live chronologically, there's no getting away from that fact, and so life must be lived moment by moment—and therefore (say it with me) choice by choice. He also had this idea that humans have no fundamental nature or essence like rocks or trees do; we have a physical existence, but what we do with that existence and how we shape ourselves is not set in... well, stone. That's huge in existentialism, and prefigures maybe the most important sentence of the whole philosophy: "Existence precedes essence." But we'll come back to that in a minute.

Karl Jaspers (German-Swiss, 1883 - 1969)
Jaspers is the existentialist the other existentialists wanted to shove in a locker (although Kaufmann, somewhat bafflingly, liked him well enough to give him the longest section of this book). He was a psychiatrist-turned-philosopher who was forced from his teaching position during the Nazi takeover for marrying a Jewish woman. His contemporary Martin Heidegger, meanwhile, was busy sucking up to the fascists and angling for a spot as the party's official philosopher, so reasonably enough Jaspers took against him. After the war KJ did everything he could (which ended up not being much) to defame Heidegger, and apparently even kept a personal notebook of all the things he disagreed with in MH's writing (which is admittedly a pretty dweebish thing to do, but not exactly hard to understand given the circumstances). Unfortunately for Jaspers, everyone else was willing to forgive MH without much hesitation owing to his brilliant mind (more on that in a second), while KJ has pretty much been relegated to a footnote between his rival and Sartre. That's not to say he doesn't have some interesting ideas—he pretty much laid out the entire existentialist itinerary, at least in one form—but his prose is dry and academic to a fault and he lacks the distinct spirit and personality of his colleagues. The main concept I retained from his portion was a bit about the difficulty of communication that pairs nicely with Kafka's exploration of the same theme. His longest piece, about a sort of transcendent realm of being he calls "the Encompassing," was almost dull enough to skip.

Martin Heidegger (German, 1889 - 1976)
Oh yes, Heidegger. Ask the people who make such judgments who the most influential thinker of the 20th century was, and you’ll probably get a 50-50 split between him and Wittgenstein. The GR description for his magnum opus, Being and Time, asserts that the book has "literally changed the intellectual map of the modern world." And while I've never personally seen a well-formulated explanation of why Heidegger's was such a staggering achieving, I suppose such—actually, fuck that. Frankly I can’t stand the man. In life he was an appeasing coward at best, and at worst a sincere and vocal supporter of the Nazi party who never so much as hinted he might have been misled in the prosperous (for him) decades following the war. Even if we try to separate the man’s contributions from his failings (which I don’t believe is ever really possible or desirable, especially when dealing with a philosophy whose entire theme is personal responsibility), his thinking is all but incoherent without a guide and his writing dense and cumbersome to the point of unreadability. His supporters will say that that’s all part of the package, that some deeper and more fundamental point is being made, but then people can justify just about anything if they want to. Judged by the criteria of the existentialists, he fails on every point: he argued for the importance of action, but refused to take meaningful action when it mattered most; he taught that philosophy should be lived rather than merely argued about in schools, but is notorious for his indirectness and obscurity; he preached the transcendence of everyday existence, but is all but inaccessible without a PhD. If it weren’t for his profound influence on Sartre, I’d discount him entirely. Call me irrational if you’d like; Heidegger himself would tell you that rationality is deceptive.

Jean-Paul Sartre (French, 1905 - 1980)
And finally we arrive at Sartre, the only existentialist in this list to claim the title and the one primarily responsible—along with his intellectual and romantic partner Simone de Beauvoir, whom Kaufmann never so much as mentions—for codifying its key concepts. He first gained prominence with the publication of Being and Nothingness, a sort of spiritual sequel to Heidegger’s Being and Time, and one of the complaints often lodged against him is that he did little more than reformulate the ideas of the German thinker. But really Sartre was a kind of anti-Heidegger, in the same way that Nietzsche was the anti-Kierkegaard. While Heidegger was cozying up to the Nazis during WWII, Sartre was captured and imprisoned by the Germans while serving in the French army. They let him go, but he joined the Resistance and continued to oppose the Nazi occupation until the war’s end. He clashed with, and finally endorsed, the Communist Party, and spent much of his later career trying to synthesize existentialist ideas with marxist ones. He was a polished and lucid writer, and he penned some solid fiction and drama in addition to his substantial philosophical tomes. He maintained an open relationship with Beauvoir, and scandalized certain philosophical circles with such unseemly behavior as writing in cafés (it was different time) and discussing things that concerned real people, like sex. Sartre’s famous assertion that "existence precedes essence"—i.e., that we have no eternal "nature" besides the one we create for ourselves—has become a sort of motto for existentialism as a whole, and is probably the most concise and easy to grasp expression of the philosophy to be found anywhere. Another key concept is self-deception, or "bad faith"—our capacity to believe one thing and do another, or to hold two contradictory beliefs at once. He resisted claims that existentialism was a passive or hopeless philosophy, and argued that by granting humans full agency and responsibility for their own lives it was really a profoundly action-centric and optimistic worldview. He even addressed that tricky issue about the autonomy of the self versus the other by explaining that the moral action is always the one which grants freedom to one without taking it away from someone else. He was not immune to mistakes and moral failings, but nor was he unwilling to reconsider his convictions when the evidence was against him. He seems to have tried sincerely to live his philosophy, and for that reason is one of its best and most convincing spokespeople.

Albert Camus (French, 1913 - 1960)
Kaufmann wraps it all up with a few pages from Camus’s "Myth of Sisyphus." Camus and Sartre were friends and rivals who trafficked in similar ideas, though Camus preferred to call his ideology "absurdism." To be honest I haven’t read enough Camus to adequately explain the difference, and after working my way through a century or so of existential thought I don’t have the energy to look into it right now. Suffice it to say that the image of Sisyphus finding satisfaction and meaning even in his eternal toil is a memorable, if ambivalent, one to end the book on.

***

So there we have it. With all that behind us, have we come any closer to an understanding of what existentialism is or means? Is it just a catch-all term for a bunch of related but distinct strands of individualist thought, or is there a kind of unity—even if only a loose unity—to the concepts and terms we deem existential? I’ll let you decide for yourself, as we all must do.

And the book? Anthologies live or die on the strength of their selections, and for the most part the selections here are strong. There are some weird editorial choices—pieces that should have been pared down substantially, pieces that were pared down too much—and, while Kaufmann’s long introductory essay is excellent, he provides almost nothing by way of textual notes or commentary. (And let me tell you, textual notes and/or commentary would have been a big help while trudging through some of these convoluted motherfuckers.) Finally, while I know that diversity was scarcely even a concept for most mid-century white academics, it’s hard to take completely seriously any "comprehensive" overview this white and male and European. The exclusion of Beauvoir is particularly inexcusable, and the inclusion of some POC thinkers such as Frantz Fanon (for whose Wretched of the Earth Sartre wrote an introduction) or Ralph Ellison (whose 1952 novel Invisible Man was a successful and very explicitly existential work) would have been both appropriate and welcome.

But for the first time I'm actually at risk of hitting GR's character limit, so I'll conclude with a quote from Sartre's "Existentialism is a Humanism" that I think embodies the best of existential thought. Whatever you choose to call it, I believe he hits upon something undeniably resonant for any honest individual who seeks to live a fulfilling life:

Quietism is the attitude of people who say, "let others do what I cannot do." The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, "Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is."

[Peiman E iran · Rating 4 out of 5]

دوستانِ گرانقدر، بارها دیده ام که بسیاری از دوستان در خواندنِ کتاب هایی که مربوط به فلسفهٔ <اگزیستانسیالیسم> یا <اصالتِ وجود> بوده است، به مشکل برخورده اند. و یا در ریویوهایشان از این واژگان استفاده کرده اند، بی آنکه بدانند معنایِ درستِ آن چیست!! بنابراین تصمیم گرفتم تا در این ریویو به جایِ نوشتنِ سخنان و نظراتِ فلاسفه و اندیشمندان در موردِ <اصالتِ وجود>، بطور کامل به این موضوع بپردازم که در کل هدفِ این فلاسفه چه بوده است... پس این ریویو را تا پایان بخوانید
----------------------------------------------
‎عزیزانم، فعالیت اصلیِ <اگزیستانسیالیسم> و یا همان <اصالتِ وجود> را باید مربوط به سدهٔ نوزدهم و سدهٔ بیستمِ میلادی بدانیم و میتوان گفت که پیش از این دوره اندیشهٔ فلسفی روز به روز انتزاعی تر و پیچیده تر و آهنجیده تر میشد و فلاسفه بیشتر با موضوعاتی همچون ماهیت و حقیقت، سر و کار داشتند و از اهمیتِ وجودِ انسان و کرامتِ انسانی غافل مانده بودند و سعی در کشفِ موضوعاتی داشتند که خردگرایان آنها را موهومات میدادند... پس بهتر است بگوییم که هدفِ اصلیِ اگزیستانسیالیسم، جستجویِ معنایِ زندگی و کشفِ خویشتن بوده و میباشد
‎اگرچه فلاسفهٔ مسیحی و یهودی گهگاهی در آثارِ خویش درونمایه هایِ اگزیستانسیالیسم را مطرح کردند، ولی بطورِ کلی باید بدانید که اگزیستانسیالیسم یا همان اصالتِ وجود، بیشتر با خدا ناباوری و خردگرایی ارتباط دارد... پیروانِ اگزیستانسیالیسم تلاشی برایِ اثباتِ وجود و یا اثباتِ نبودنِ موجودی به نامِ "خدا" ندارند. فقط ایده ها و درونمایه هایِ اصلیِ اندیشهٔ آنها همچون آزادیِ کامل، با تصور وجودی که در همه جا حاضر است و توانا و دانا و خیرخواهِ انسان و جهانیان میباشد، جور در نمی آید... حتی میتوان گفت که آن دسته از فلاسفهٔ اگزیستانسیالیسم که به موجودی همچون "خدا " اعتقاد دارند، به دین و مذهب بی اعتقاد بوده و به آن به دیدهٔ شک و تردید نگاه میکنند
‎ فلسفهٔ اگزیستانسیالیسم از انسانها میخواهد تا خود به جستجویِ راستی و درستی و کشفِ معنا و هدفِ زندگیِ خویش بپردازند. ولی اگر انسانها به خرافات و موهومات ایمان داشته باشند و اعتقاد داشته باشند که نیرویی خارجی در حالِ نظارتِ بر کارها و رفتارِ آنها و کنترل نمودنشان میباشد، دیگر اگزیستانسیالیسم هیچ معنایی نخواهد داشت و کارِ این فلاسفه بیهوده خواهد بود، چراکه این فلسفه میگوید که کشفِ زندگی و خویشتن، تنها با تکیه بر ارادهٔ آزاد، مسئولیت و انتخابِ شخصی، امکان پذیر میباشد
‎در زیر به برخی از اهداف و درونمایه هایِ مشترک در فلسفهٔ <اگزیستانسیالیسم> اشاره میکنم و توضیحاتی مختصر برایشان مینویسم
---------------------------------------------
‎فلاسفهٔ اصالتِ وجودی معتقدند که همهٔ انسانها دارای ارادهٔ آزاد هستند و بنابراین میتوانند دست به انتخاب بزنند. ساختارهایِ جامعه نمیتوانند شخص را کنترل کنند. انتخاب هایِ هر شخصی منحصر به فرد بوده و بر مبنایِ نگرش و تجربه هایِ او انجام میگیرد، نه نیروهایِ ماورایی و نیروهایِ خارجی و یا جامعه... انسانها بر اساسِ این انتخاب ها به کشفِ خویشتن و اینکه در جهان چه نقشی دارند، میپردازند.. هدف در اصل رسیدن به آرزوهایی همچون ثروت، افتخار و یا لذت نمیباشد، چراکه اینها نمیتوانند به تنهایی ضامنِ زندگیِ خوب باشند
‎مسئولیتِ شخصی، یکی از اجزایِ مهّمِ فلسفهٔ اصالت وجودی یا اگزیستانسیالیسم است... مسئولیتِ تصمیمها کاملاً بر عهدهٔ شخص است و این تصمیمها همراه با پیامدها و استرس هایی نیز میباشد... زمانی که انسان با ماهیتِ خویش مبارزه میکند، میتواند بهترین تصمیم ها را بگیرد. در واقع تصمیمهایی که ما در زندگی میگیریم معرفِ ماهیت ما میباشد و چیزهایی در دنیا وجود دارند که غیر طبیعی بوده و یا با خرد و منطقِ انسانی جور در نمی آیند
****************************
‎برای آنکه کسی بخواهد انسانی ناب و اصیل باشد، باید در هماهنگی راستین با آزادیِ خویش زندگی کند... در فلسفهٔ اگزیستانسیالیسم یا اصالت وجود، اصالت به این معنی است که انسان نقاط ضعف و قوتِ خویش را بشناسد و سپس طبقِ این شناخت زندگی کند.. انسان باید هویت خود را درست بشناسد و اجازه ندهد محیط و تاریخِ زندگی اش، در فرآیندِ تصمیم گیریِ او تأثیر بگذارد... تصمیم گیری میبایست بر مبنایِ ارزش هایی باشد که انسان به آنها باور دارد و بنابراین انسان ناگزیر است که مسئولیتِ تصمیمهایی که میگیرد را بپذیرد
‎اگر کسی در هماهنگی و تعادل با آزادیِ خویش زندگی نکند، و دچار موهوماتِ مذهبی شود، موجودی غیرِ اصیل میباشد... در چنین حالتی انسان به جبر گرایش میابد و به این نتیجه میرسد که انتخاب، کاری بیهوده است و چنان رفتار میکند که گویی کسی او را به انتخاب وادار کرده است
***********************
‎در این فلسفه بحث میشود که دلیلی برای وجود و زیستن در میان نیست... ما میبایست با این واقعیت کنار بیاییم و درک کنیم که نمیتوان به فهمِ تمامِ مسائلِ جهان دست یافت... جهان، غیر معنایی که ما به آن میدهیم، معنایِ دیگری در بر ندارد
***********************
‎آزادی نشان میدهد که ما از آینده بی خبریم و انتخاب هایی که انجام میدهیم زندگیِ ما را تعریف میکند. ما معتقدیم که میتوانیم دنیایِ اطرافِ خویش را درک کنیم و وقتی به نکته ای برخورد میکنیم که خلافِ آن را اثبات میکند، دچارِ بحرانی در وجود میشویم که ما را مجبور میکند تا دیدگاهِ خود را نسبت به زندگی راست و درست کنیم... تنها راهِ رسیدن به معنا و ارزش، قبولِ مسئولیت و انجامِ انتخاب است
***********************
‎اصالتِ وجود یا اگزیستانسیالیسم با این پرسش سر و کار دارد که وجود داشتن چیست و انسان چه معنایی دارد؟؟ این فلسفه معتقد است که انسان به این جهان پرتاب شده است و بنابراین واقعیتِ پایانی همان حضور در این جهان است، نه خودآگاهی.... منظور از انسان، کسی است که میتواند به طورِ مستقل بیاندیشد و کردار و گفتارش در دستِ خودش است و زندگیِ راستین، معرفِ او میباشد... با تکیه بر خودآگاهی انسان است که ارزش ها و اهداف، مشخص میشوند
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما خردگرایانِ اهلِ فلسفه، مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

How unfortunate to have forgotten the curator to that museum of ideas. I once was young. Concepts all too often were inchoate. Kaufmann directed my stumbling progress through these choppy waters.
I had a long hooded green coat then.
I walked around the university brooding -- largely for effect.
My focus shifted from social justice to existential peril.
I'd like to beat that guy's ass.
What emerged was a lifelong appreciation of Hamlet.
I'm now curious if further biases leaped upon me with my dazzled attentions elsewhere.

[Plaidlad · Rating 5 out of 5]

A kid from my old neighborhood let me borrow this book for a summer, and it changed my life. I watched I Heart Huckabees and got really drunk.

[Christopher Porzenheim · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Existentialism in not a philosophy but a label for several widely different revolts against traditional philosophy. Most of the living ‘existentialists’ have repudiated this label, and a bewildered outsider might well conclude that the only thing they have in common is a marked aversion for each other.”

Walter Kaufmann’s: Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre is a collection of writings from writers and philosophers that Kaufmann thinks are ‘existentialists.’

I will focus my review on Kaufmann’s introductory essay, rather than the collected existentialist works herein, because (1) I think Kaufman’s essay is useful, short, and exceptionally well written and (2) I didn’t bother to read any of the collected works following Kaufman’s essay.

If you’ve spent any time learning about ‘existentialism’ you’ll know that deciding who to call an existentialist is a passionate (if myopic and navel gazing) debate, even among the ‘canonical’ existentialists. This is why before reading Kaufmann I had more or less jettisoned the terms ‘existentialist’ and ‘existentialism’ from my vocabulary. I just couldn’t find any meaning in either term that was satisfyingly consistent other than as highly debatable labels and imprecise zip codes for an attitude or historical movement in Western philosophy.

George Orwell had a similar problem in his essay What is Fascism? In that essay, Orwell does a laudable job trying to clarify what exactly the people of his day, just as today, mean with their haphazard (over)use of the the word ‘fascist’ and ‘fascism.’ And so, with apologies to the ghost of Orwell, I will paraphrase him closely on this point, consistently replacing the term ‘Fascist’ and ‘Fascism’ with ‘Existentialist’ and ‘Existentialism:’

“Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of Existentialism? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Existentialism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Existentialists themselves, nor the Consequentialist, nor Deontological philosophers of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.”

If you sympathize with Orwell, I suspect you will enjoy Walter Kaufman’s Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Kaufmann argument is this; what if anything ties the movement of Existentialism together is an admirable -if sometimes fanatically isolating- insistence that philosophy be focused on individual authenticity in our everyday lives and relationships. Sadly, this individual focus more than occasionally devolves into, as Kaufmann well puts it: a ‘perfervid individualism;’ which is both the cause and effect of why most Existentialists are unable to agree with each other about anything, even the term ‘Existentialism.’

I’ll close with the opening 3 paragraphs from Kaufmann's essay, because I think they are exceptionally concise and clear on a difficult subject, and if you agree with him, I can safely say this book (or at least his essay) is for you. If you don’t enjoy Kauffman’s coming words, you should probably skip his essay, if not the entire book:

“Existentialism in not a philosophy but a label for several widely different revolts against traditional philosophy. Most of the living ‘existentialists’ have repudiated this label, and a bewildered outsider might well conclude that the only thing they have in common is a marked aversion for each other. To add to the confusion, many writers of the past have frequently been hailed as members of this movement, and it is extremely doubtful whether they would have appreciated the company to which they are consigned. In view of this, it might be argued that the label ‘existentialism’ ought to be abandoned altogether.

Certainly, existentialism is not a school of thought nor reducible to any set of tenets. The three writers who appear invariably on every list of ‘existentialists’ -Jaspers, Heidegger, and Sartre- are not in agreement on the essentials. Such alleged precursors as Pascal and Kierkegaard differed from all three men by being dedicated Christians; and Pascal was a Catholic of sorts while Kierkegaard was a Protestant’s Protestant. If, as it is often done, Nietzsche and Dostoevsky are included in the fold, we must make room for an impassioned anti-Christian and an even more more fanatical Greek-Orthodox Russian Imperialist. By the time we consider adding Rilke, Kafka, and Camus, it becomes plain that the one essential feature shared by all these men is their perfervid individualism.

The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life -that is the heart of existentialism.”

[Miguel Cisneros Saucedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book "Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre" by Walter Kaufmann is a work that transcends the limits of a simple introduction to existentialism. In this book, the author provides a historical review of the existentialist movement and presents the works of the movement's most important thinkers, including Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, among others.

Kaufmann emphasizes that existentialism should not be seen as a homogeneous and uniform way of thinking, but rather as a movement that embraces a wide range of ideas and focuses its analyzes on aspects such as freedom, responsibility, and human authenticity. In his conception, existentialism is a philosophical position that questions and challenges traditional thought by being concerned with issues that go beyond what most contemporary philosophy has tried to explain.

From a psychological perspective, existentialism represents a relevant theory for clinical analysis and patient treatment. This philosophical position focuses on the essential questions of human existence, decision making and how these affect each individual. Existentialism, therefore, represents a valuable approach to psychology by focusing on the human being, his struggle and suffering, and the understanding of personal experience.

Existentialism represents a theory that can be applied in different areas of psychology, such as clinical psychology and social psychology. The existentialist current can be used as a basic frame of reference for clinical practice due to its focus on freedom and personal responsibility. According to Kaufmann, existentialism allows psychologists to focus on the key issues of life and provides a solid foundation for understanding the psychological problems a person may have.

In clinical psychology, existentialism can be of great help in treating patients who are experiencing emotional crises or adjustment problems in their lives. Existentialist therapy seeks to help patients define and face the existential crisis they are experiencing, as well as to find meaning in their lives. Kaufmann shows that existentialism and clinical psychology are not only related in practice, but also in the historical development of both fields. The ideas of existentialism are reflected in contemporary therapy techniques, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, which is sometimes based on the idea that people construct their own thoughts and emotions.

In social psychology, existentialist principles can contribute to the debate on personality theory. Existentialism implies that it is not possible to understand someone's personality without analyzing the problems and challenges they face in their daily lives. In this way, the advances of social psychology in the theory of personality could be used in the existentialist perspective, in order to understand the processes involved in decision-making, the choice of values and the configuration of the meaning of life.

In conclusion, the book "Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre" by Walter Kaufmann is an essential work for those interested in psychology, philosophy and the humanities in general. This book provides a historical review of existentialism, showing how this thought developed and its importance for contemporary psychological theory. The author demonstrates how the ideas of existentialism can be used in clinical practice and social psychology, providing a solid foundation for understanding the psychological problems of daily life and the search for meaning in life.
In summary, "Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre" is an essential reference work for those seeking an alternative approach based on freedom and personal responsibility in the theory and practice of psychology, but it also offers some golden nuggets by selecting several essays and short stories, which can help to better understand this complex philosophy.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

A gateway to the greats anthology collected and annotated by the genius who rescued and reinvented Nietzsche for our time, Walter Kaufman. Dostoevsky's NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND is the ground floor of existentialist despair. His underground man ponders the morality of bumping into people! Next we move into Kierkegaard and his wild retelling of the Abraham and Isaac legend as a metaphor for a higher morality than ethics, the religious life. The master is here, of course. Nietzsche's concept of "beyond good and evil" in a world without God, politics or any other compass. This is a stair case to Sartre, whose seminal essay, "Existentialism is a Humanism" birthed the post-war generation of free-thinkers, hep-cats and nihilists. Heady, heavy stuff and definitely for the thinking woman's shelf.

[Argos · Rating 4 out of 5]

W. Kaufman’ın 1956’da yapmış olduğu çalışmasının bir özeti, daha doğrusu çalışmadan seçkilerden oluşan bu kısa kitap ilginç bir yaklaşım sergiliyor. Ancak kim neye göre hangi bölümü seçmiş belli değil ve çok kısa olduğundan doyurucu demek mümkün değil. Sartre ve Kierkegaard üzerinde daha fazla durmakla birlikte, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Heidegger ve Dostoyevski’den de bahsediyor. Ortaya karışık minik minik meze misali.

Benim kitaptan edindiğim iki izlenim var, ilki varoluşçu düşünce felsefeden çok edebiyat alanında kendini ifade ediyor. Rilke, Kafka, Camus, Sartre, Dostoyeski ve Nietzsche edebi eserleriyle varoluşçu düşüncelerini iletmişler. İkincisi varoluşçular birliktelik sergilemeseler de, nasılki yaşamdan doğan sorunlara özden önce varlık inancına sıkı sıkıya bağlılarsa, Sokrates başta olmak üzere çözümleyici filozoflar da hiçbir görüş, töre, gelenek ve düşüncenin çözümlenmemiş kavramları açıklamaya yetmeyeceğine sıkı sıkıya bağlanmışlar. Bu durumda da amiyane tabirle “benim felsefem senin felsefeni döver” bilgiçliğiyle dalaşma hali mevcut. Filozoflar düşündükçe bu dalaşma sürecek, Sokrates öncesi filozoflar da dahil gelenekçi felsefe ile özellikle 19. ve 20. yüzyıllarda Anglo-sakson filozofların ağırlıkta olduğu modern felsefe arasında bu kavga sürecek.
Felsefe ile ilgiliyseniz öneririm.

[Matthew DeCostanza · Rating 3 out of 5]

If anything, misleading.

The thing that irked me most about this anthology was Kaufmann's highly questionable selections. The included pieces by Dostoevsky and Kafka, while fine pieces of literature, are hardly characteristic of existentialism, whatever it may be. I fear for the young mind who considers Notes From the Underground in the same way as The Myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus is a classic manifesto on how to create joy and self-perpetuation in a cruel world; Notes is a fictional memoir full of the deranged ramblings of a crazy fucker. Kaufmann does not distinguish this difference. Dangerous, as this is presented to be a primer of the most fundamental sort.

Kaufmann's lack of editorial focus is evident from the introduction. Never once does he define what existentialism is. He speaks in terms of "essence" and informs the reader what existentialism is not, but seems unable to offer an even rudimentary definition. While it's not an easy task, (scholars have argued about the basic concepts of existentialism for years), a primer without a clear idea of what the subject matter is doesn't serve much use.

Personally, I would have placed The Allegory of the Cave right after the introduction, because, between all of the authors in this anthology, it is a basic point of agreement. Instead, Kaufmann seems to say "Pretty cool ideas, right? I can't really make heads or tails of em, but maybe you can. I dunno."

[S.K. Kruse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great overview with short intros to each author and their works.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would not recommending getting into Existentialism, or probably any branch of philosophy or field of knowledge, without at least a brief primer. Kaufmann has done an excellent job organizing, translating and presenting some of the most noteworthy literature that is often called "Existentialist." He makes a point not to define the term outright, but rather to illustrate some of the ideas and give a feel of the writing by showing some of the big names in their own (translated) words.

This book might be a bit much for the casual reader and is probably a turn off to someone interested in Existentialism. I would suggest a primer, probably any primer other than Barrett's text Irrational Man, which I have to consider one of the worst introductory texts to any field I've ever found. Start with the dictionary or Wikipedia, if necessary. I think this is an excellent collection of writings, but not for someone totally new to the ideas and the styles.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walter Kaufmann's Existentialism From Dostoevsky To Sartre is an interesting selection of existentialist and pre-existentialist texts. My only problem with it is that I am for some reason unable to read the German philosophy of Heidegger and Jaspers without my eyes glazing over. The Heidegger was totally unreadable, and the only Jaspers I was able to read was the piece about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, which showed that he could write to be understood if he wanted to.

Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche were excellent, as were Sartre and Camus. But when I saw terms like Existenz I started to skip over the text.

I suppose that is why my general readers are not likely to tackle classical works of philosophy.

[Steven R. Kraaijeveld · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good anthology of existentialist writing (broadly construed by Kaufmann), including selections of Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Rilke, Kafka, Ortega, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus.

[Ade Bailey]

You can always rely on Kaufmann for punchy introductions and his vast knowledge to make thematic selections. That it's existentialism is secondary - though I would query the current bizarre fashion for dismissing the term. As K points out, there was never a 'school', method or anything else, and the philosophers in this selections are widely different. The longest selection of Jaspers does a good job of isolating the similarities between Nietsche and Kierkegaard which are beyond their vast differences, and despite there being no possibility that either knew of the other's work.

[Matthijs · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed the concise and clear description of the philosophical perspectives of the Existentialists. The author uses many present-day, popular examples to clarify and also discusses excerpts from the works of several Existentialists (mostly Sartre, Heidegger, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy). The author attempts to teach the reader. Some kind of Existentialism for dummies.

Something that really struck me was the view that Existentialists have on authenticity and the truth. More specifically, as long as one acts authentically, one acts truthfully.

Main concepts:
1. Existence
Existence precedes essence. In other words, the most consideration for the individual is the fact that he/she is an individual, an independent acting and responsible conscious being ('existence'). Rather than what labels, roles, stereotypes, definitions, or other preconceived categories the individual fits ('essence').

2. Freedom

3. Others
The experience of the Other is the experience of another free subject who inhabits the same world as a person does. Others Look at one subjectivity in the same way as we Look at others.

4. Anxiety
The Existentialists describe anxiety as a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility. The negative feeling associated with responsibility and freedom comes from the fact that regularly we have to base decisions on very little knowledge of the conditions and the outcome.

5. Finitude

6. The Absurd
There is no meaning to be found in the world beyond what meaning we give to it. Life is absurd. Life quite often does not make any sense to us.

7. Authenticity
Authenticity is acting in complete freedom. Create oneself and then live according to this self.

8. Oppression

9. Facticity
One has to regard the facts of his/her life, however one should also be aware of the responsibility and freedom to act to change these facts.

[Matthew Ciarvella · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book isn't really the best way to introduce one to existentialism. Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic pieces of existential writing in here, particularly from Sartre and Camus (you can tell my biases, as they're going to get mentioned several more times). The problem is that they're buried at the very end of the book, and there's a lot to slog through before getting to those pieces.

Some of it, such as the Kierkegaard, are interesting and relevant for historical context, but my initial enthusiasm waned by the midway point and I found myself grinding through to the end. Sartre and Camus are both high points and made the effort worthwhile if you're a completionist (if you're not, I think you can feel justified in picking and choosing what you want to read).

Giving this book a score was really tricky. Sartre and Camus made me feel that ultimately, my time was well spent. On the basis of Kaufmann's introduction and construction of the selections, however, I think the book loses its footing. Kaufmann doesn't really answer what existentialism and doesn't manage to create a narrative that shows how these writings created the backbone of the philosophy. It's more "hey, isn't this neat? Go read it and figure it out for yourself."

Final verdict? Pick it up if you want to flesh out the skeleton of your existentialism knowledge. Otherwise, I think there are more engaging books out there for someone curious to learn what existentialism actually is.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can't believe I actually read this cover to cover. It only took me a little more than a year! I'm not going to lie, I feel proud.

I find it difficult to rate philosophy books as I would others because 'liking' or not isn't really the point. A better way to describe it, as Sartre describes his reading of Marx is "I found everything perfectly clear, and I really understood absolutely nothing" (373).

I *do* feel like I have a better sense of existentialism after reading this book although I definitely did not understand, let alone retain, all of it. (Anyone who says they did is lying. Even Kaufman talks about its difficulty). My favourites were:
- Neitzche, whose bombastic overwrought simplicity I quite appreciated. I found him one of the most readable. Poor dude is so easily misunderstood and maligned by frat boys and popular culture.
"He that consummates his life dies his death victoriously, surrounded by those who hope and promise. Thus one should learn to die; and there should be no festival where dying thus does not hallow the lives of the living" (129).
- Jaspers's existenzphilosophie was very difficult to grapple with but I could see so many threads in his ideas of transcendence and the encompassing, or taking leaps of faith beyond what is knowable, and grasping towards what is not, and how this relates to the formation of selfhood, that are taken up in the post-structuralist work I came of age with in uni (Foucault, Butler et al.) I probably spent the most time reading and re-reading Jaspers to try to comprehend. I enjoyed grappling with it.
- Sartre's "Self-deception and falsehood" was disappointingly misogynistic and homophobic, but by contrast his "Portrait of an Anti-Semite" was incredible - it could have been written about Trump's America as it remains so relevant. I read passages out loud to my spouse and we marveled at the ongoing applicability and sharpness of Sartre's political commentary. His "Existentialism is a Humanism," was perhaps my favourite piece of all as it was the most readable and most clearly articulated existentialism as a philosophy for living; the majority of the philosophers under the existentialism banner (most of whom refused this label) are too abstract to give much to the layperson. Sartre feels more like the people's philosopher. Camus is decently readable as well, and somewhat more concrete.

Kierkegaard was much too whiny and doth protest too much about God, but his stuff on dread feels important to thinking through our cultural ideas of existential crisis.
Heidegger is a straight up Nazi so fuck that guy, but the way he built on Keierkegaard's stuff on dread was more interesting than Kierkegaard proper. You can definitely see where post-structuralism emerged from his work, too, with all the somethings and nothings and whatnot. Ortega felt similar. The whole middle of the book deals more with the question of subjectivity in the abstract.

This is an older book, but bless him, Kaufman didn't really help the reader out as its editor. I would have liked, instead of notes about the translation version etc., more actual plain language situating of each text politically and philosophically, as well as footnoting throughout the book. It is, after all, meant to be 'basic.' I'm curious to try Marino's Basic Writings of Existentialism to see if its any better in this regard. I know he includes de Beauvoir, who is absent here.

[Anima · Rating 4 out of 5]

“My philosophy is a philosophy of existence; I don’t even known what Existentialism is”, P. Sartre
"...man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be...."Sartre

".. there are two kinds of existentialists. ...What they have in common is simply the fact that they believe that existence comes before essence –
....
Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. "Jean-Paul Sartre 1946

[Hind · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very poor introduction to existentialism. Sadly. I hoped the book would sum up the whole existential movement, introducing the philosophy and it's proponents. The book fails to do so.
The introduction is very basic and even fails to define existentialism properly. The excerpts from various existentialist writers, I found to be abrupt and I failed to pick the gist and point behind the writing. The excerpts start in the middle and take you no where.
Each writer isn't introduced properly, and Kaufmann fails to link each writer with the other or differentiate their strand of existentialism.


Overall, very disappointing.

[Seth Skogerboe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful head-start on understanding why we think what we think today.
I missed one or two on the assigned reading fly-by, so I’ll have to give it a second go sometime.
Aren’t there a couple of women here and there?

[Brooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of it is very good (Sartre, Kafka, José Ortega y Gasset), some of it is very dull (Heidegger). All of it is incredibly dense and I’m gonna take a break from philosophy for a while.

[Tiago F · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book deals with 10 thinkers that are associated with existentialism: Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Rilke, Kafka, Ortega, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus. The collection was organized by Kaufmann, an American philosopher.

The book is an anthology, which took me by surprised since it's not mentioned anywhere. I think anthologies are useful, but I think it's rather dishonest to not state it up-front. I would rather have an actual book on the topic, which I think it's often best as an introduction.

The book starts with an introduction by Kaufmann. What is existentialism? This is difficult to answer. The very concept assumes uniformity among the thinkers that are placed within that label, but ironically enough many rejected such labels, and it's not easy to find a coherent philosophy among them. Topics like freedom, anxiety, individualism, authenticity, nihilism, and death are often touched, but very often emphasized differently, and sometimes with a different take from each thinker. Rather than a specific philosophy, Kaufmann instead identities the heart of existentialism as the refusal to belong to a pre-made school of thought (this often including the entire philosophical canon) and brining back philosophy to everyday life. Then the book features selected writings from the authors I initially mentioned, in that order. Sometimes from a single body of work, sometimes many. An introduction to the thinker is given by Kaufmann, and then the original text begins. Some of them translated for the first time by the author himself.

I enjoyed the book, although at times I felt very dense to go through. Some thinkers, like Jaspers, were very hard to read. I often spend countless paragraphs with almost zero idea what the hell he was saying. I think I did get the main gist of it, and often great insights, but a very hazardous task, and I kept getting annoyed that I bought a book to help me better understand existentialism, and yet I was thrown into it with minimal help. I liked the fact that I was introduced to some thinkers that I wasn't familiar with, and even those that I already knew, I liked reading a primary source, which I should do more of. Ortega, in particular, was very enjoyable and seemed to have everything I liked about Heidegger in a more accessible language. But I think to some degree I found something valuable in every chapter (of each author).

One thing I disliked was the distribution of the different authors. A very large portion of the book was dedicated to Jaspers, which I found unnecessary. Over 70 pages in a 360-page book with 10 different thinkers. Ortega, for example, which I really enjoyed reading, had a pathetic 6 pages. Satre and Camus were both giants of the movement, yet Satre had almost 100, and Camus had 4.

If you're interested in existentialism, I'm sure this is helpful. However, just be mindful that it is an anthology, and while the author does give an introduction before each thinker, it's rather short and not sufficient. Nevertheless, if you have an interest in diving into primary existential literature, but yet you rather dig your toes into several philosophers rather than commit to a single one, this is a great resource.

[Burak Taşcı · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heyecan uyandıran tamamlayıcı nitelikte bir kitaptı. Okunmadan önce varoluşçuluk üzerine bir altyapı gerektiyor. Belli başlı varoluşçu eserleri okuduktan sonra bu kitabı okursanız kesinlikle kafanızdaki eksik kalan parçalar birleşecek, taşlar yerine daha iyi oturacaktır. Sanırım bu yüzdendir ki okuduğum düşünürlerin ele alındığı bölümlerde kitap beni sarstı. Bahsi geçen düşünür ve yazarları daha önce okumadıysanız ise bir şeyler öğrenecek olmakla birlikte birçok şey havada kalacaktır. Yani denebilir ki eser konu üzerine okumalar yapmış okura yönelik. Söyleyeceği şeyden önce zemin oluşturmak gibi bir kaygı taşımadan, direkt kitabın orta yerinden konuşan, okurun zaten belli başlı noktaları bildiğini varsayan bir eser. Varoluşçulukla yakından ilgilenenler mutlaka okumalı. Okuyacak olanlar yazarın belirlediği bölümlerin sırasına riayet ederek okurlarsa daha faydalı olacaktır. Çünkü her bölümde ele alınan düşünür bir önceki bölümlerde ele alınan düşünürler hakkında söylenenler üzerine inşa ediliyor. Kitap hakkında şahsi olarak tek olumsuz eleştirim, hoşlanmadığım tek nokta ise Kafka, Camus, Rilke gibi yazarların en sonda tek bir bölüm altında küçücük bir yer işgal ettiklerini görmek oldu.

[Alex Obrigewitsch · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid collection, but Kaufmann seems far too arrogant and clearly sets up these philosophers based on his own reading and interpretation of them. He does not understand Heidegger at all (as he made clear in From Shakespeare to Existentialism.
You are better off just reading the philosopher's book as a whole, you always are. This is a good way to find out from a taste if you might like said philosopher's style or not. It does not, however, give you anywhere close to an "understanding" of the philosopher or their ideas.

[g1no h1no · Rating 3 out of 5]

I - kinda - finished this book. Difficult, dense, and terse at times. Some sections I ended up skipping (Jaspers, Dostoevsky because I've already read Notes from the Underground). Despite these loose criticisms I have for this book, I did find it intellectually rewarding to decode and extract the philosophical wisdom from the text. I will certainly be returning to this book in the future.

[Shernoff · Rating 5 out of 5]

ah, the things you thought you understood in high school but really didn't. not from incapacity but from lack of living. this basically worth reading alone for the intro by kaufmann, better known as nietzsche's finest translator and expositor.

[Timothy Yim-Stueve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me n the boys be like

[Easton Chambers-Ozasky · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lol, don't mind me...

[Jen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Found this book on a bookshelf in high school. It may sound cheesy, but it changed my life.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Existentialism has always been difficult to define, and this book makes a good effort. The author uses passages from some of the most famous existentialists to explain what it is. It's pretty well done.