What do you think?
Rate this book
What Is Existentialism?
'It is possible for man to snatch the world from the darkness of absurdity'
How should we think and act in the world? These writings on the human condition by one of the twentieth century's great philosophers explore the absurdity of our notions of good and evil, and show instead how we make our own destiny simply by being.
One of twenty new books in the bestselling Penguin Great Ideas series. This new selection showcases a diverse list of thinkers who have helped shape our world today, from anarchists to stoics, feminists to prophets, satirists to Zen Buddhists.
How should we think and act in the world? These writings on the human condition by one of the twentieth century's great philosophers explore the absurdity of our notions of good and evil, and show instead how we make our own destiny simply by being.
One of twenty new books in the bestselling Penguin Great Ideas series. This new selection showcases a diverse list of thinkers who have helped shape our world today, from anarchists to stoics, feminists to prophets, satirists to Zen Buddhists.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1944
384 people are currently reading
7410 people want to read
About the author
Simone de Beauvoir
419 books11.4k followersWorks of Simone de Beauvoir, French writer, existentialist, and feminist, include
The Second Sex
in 1949 and
The Coming of Age
, a study in 1970 of views of different cultures on the old.
Simone de Beauvoir, an author and philosopher, wrote novels, monographs, political and social issues, essays, biographies, and an autobiography. People now best know She Came to Stay and The Mandarins , her metaphysical novels. Her treatise, a foundational contemporary tract, of 1949 detailed analysis of oppression of women.
Simone de Beauvoir, an author and philosopher, wrote novels, monographs, political and social issues, essays, biographies, and an autobiography. People now best know She Came to Stay and The Mandarins , her metaphysical novels. Her treatise, a foundational contemporary tract, of 1949 detailed analysis of oppression of women.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 228 reviews
![Profile Image for s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1735525095i%2F6431467._UX200_CR0%2C11%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
August 9, 2024
‘Life in itself is neither good nor evil; it is the scene of good or evil as you make it.’
Michel de Montaigne
When I was a kid I always assumed we’d probably crack the code to the meaning of life by the time I got around to having to actually live one in the adult world. I mean, children’s fiction and media can be really effective at bestowing a meaningful lesson that doesn’t answer it full but helps you feel good about living with the questions of what it is, so I figured we must at least be almost there. Yet here we are! Something I’ve always enjoyed about existentialism—aside from having been a cool word to use in college to give the impression maybe something useful was bouncing around in my mind (doubtful)—is that it approaches these questions in a highly personal and subjective way and empowers us to see our role in creating meaning around us. What is Existentialism from the great Simone de Beauvoir collects two essays, the titular one (which is only 8pgs long) and her first-published essay, the 1944 Pyrrhus and Cinéas. Much like, what is the meaning of life, turns out what existentialism is can also tough to define. Eschewing a direct answer, something she says she often let people down by denying it could be succinctly summarized, Beauvoir’s first essay focuses on what it isn’t, how to approach and offers helpful signposts towards an answer, while the second dives further into many of the themes that would come to define her work. Together they form a wonderful introduction into ideas of existentialism, examining ideas on how our task is ‘to fashion the world by giving it a meaning,’ as well as the journey to ascribing meaning in a world where our lives our finite and the journey never ending.
‘It is possible for man to snatch the world from the darkness of absurdity.’
I love Beauvoir, I find her to be really uplifting, inspiring and optimistic, the final one something many find surprising as existentialism often gets mistaken as a rather gloomy outlook. Which is what she contends against in the brief opening essay, examining why there is so much disconcertion and backlash against it during the time of her writing. ‘Symbolic logic, for example, never incited such passionate disputes.’ Part of the misunderstanding, she asserts, is inherent in the error ‘believing that existentialism can be concentrated in one or two immediately efficient, simple expressions.’ She compares it to mathematics or physics theories where it is accessible only to the initiated, and isn’t some pop-psychology trend but built on a long road of philosophical thought that it itself continues. She posits that the way existentialism is so easily expressed through novels and plays as well as theoretical treatises also bothers people and leads them to believe it might not be a philosophy at all.
But what is it? She first discusses what it is not, being not a social phenomenon or political movement, not a trick to ‘winning a game,’ and though it has social repercussions it is not a social theory. It is not interior or exterior but:
Now that sounds like a speech you’d give to get a sports team worked up to win, but if that sports team was going to write an essay on free will or something. But must critically, she reminds us that good and evil is not a guaranteed, definitive moral code and ‘existentialism rejects the notion of ready-made values whose affirmation precedes human judgement,’ something she would expand upon greatly in The Ethics of Ambiguity.
An more in-depth introduction to existenialist thought comes in the second essay, Pyrrhus and Cinéas, which probes questions such as what is the point of anything, something I say at least once a day at work. It begins with the story of the titular characters where, in response to Pyrrhus’ long list of goals (unfortunately goals to colonize people…), Cinéas asks what he will do then. The response, to finally rest, makes Cinéas then question why he doesn’t just rest now instead of going through all the struggles and efforts to arrive at the same thing. While Cinéas is often seen as the wiser, Beauvoir says, she finds Pyrrhus to be an example of authentic living. He sets out to accomplish goals, to have action, and exposes the truth that goals are always continuing, something will always transcend the former goal. ‘The paradox of the human condition is that every end can be surpassed, and yet, the project defines the end as an end,’ she writes. The path to finding meaning is, in its own way, a compass for meaning in itself.
This is an excellent essay that addresses many themes to be picked up again in The Ethics of Ambiguity and shows Beauvoir first approaching themes that she would elucidate through her entire life. The final section of that book explores the ideas that freedom consists of aiming itself towards freedom, and that we always continue onward, goals always advancing, such as how a painter never 'finishes' art, but continues a conversation forward to the future. Human transcendence has the problem that we can never truly fulfill something, due to our finite lifespan, but play a transitory part in it.
Using Candide’s statement that he will simply tend his own garden, we can look at the world as our garden and something we must cultivate and engage with as a way of giving it meaning.She also looks at many other issues on how meaning or ethics can be addressed and for what purpose do we do anything. Under a religious belief, God would determine what is good or bad, and we would be called by God to do things and must, therefore, do them. She brings up Fear and Trembling and The Castle as examples that question this, and the problem how we can determine when the false prophets would also claim to be the messiah. She also looks at issues of violence, and our responsibility to each other. How can we act in a way that enhances freedom, that cultivates our garden. This essay is a good representation of what she says in the first that these aren’t isolated ideas and draw on the works of others, with this drawing examples and arguments from many great minds before her.
What is Existentialism? doesn’t have all the answers, but nobody does and that’s half the fun. This does serve as an excellent introduction to existentialism as well as the works of Simone de Beauvoir, who has certainly become my favorite of the group. A quick read that, while dense, is packed with amazing insights and thoughts to ponder all life long.
Michel de Montaigne
When I was a kid I always assumed we’d probably crack the code to the meaning of life by the time I got around to having to actually live one in the adult world. I mean, children’s fiction and media can be really effective at bestowing a meaningful lesson that doesn’t answer it full but helps you feel good about living with the questions of what it is, so I figured we must at least be almost there. Yet here we are! Something I’ve always enjoyed about existentialism—aside from having been a cool word to use in college to give the impression maybe something useful was bouncing around in my mind (doubtful)—is that it approaches these questions in a highly personal and subjective way and empowers us to see our role in creating meaning around us. What is Existentialism from the great Simone de Beauvoir collects two essays, the titular one (which is only 8pgs long) and her first-published essay, the 1944 Pyrrhus and Cinéas. Much like, what is the meaning of life, turns out what existentialism is can also tough to define. Eschewing a direct answer, something she says she often let people down by denying it could be succinctly summarized, Beauvoir’s first essay focuses on what it isn’t, how to approach and offers helpful signposts towards an answer, while the second dives further into many of the themes that would come to define her work. Together they form a wonderful introduction into ideas of existentialism, examining ideas on how our task is ‘to fashion the world by giving it a meaning,’ as well as the journey to ascribing meaning in a world where our lives our finite and the journey never ending.
‘It is possible for man to snatch the world from the darkness of absurdity.’
I love Beauvoir, I find her to be really uplifting, inspiring and optimistic, the final one something many find surprising as existentialism often gets mistaken as a rather gloomy outlook. Which is what she contends against in the brief opening essay, examining why there is so much disconcertion and backlash against it during the time of her writing. ‘Symbolic logic, for example, never incited such passionate disputes.’ Part of the misunderstanding, she asserts, is inherent in the error ‘believing that existentialism can be concentrated in one or two immediately efficient, simple expressions.’ She compares it to mathematics or physics theories where it is accessible only to the initiated, and isn’t some pop-psychology trend but built on a long road of philosophical thought that it itself continues. She posits that the way existentialism is so easily expressed through novels and plays as well as theoretical treatises also bothers people and leads them to believe it might not be a philosophy at all.
But what is it? She first discusses what it is not, being not a social phenomenon or political movement, not a trick to ‘winning a game,’ and though it has social repercussions it is not a social theory. It is not interior or exterior but:
‘strives to hold both ends of the chain at the same time, surpassing the interior-exterior, subjective-objective opposition. It postulates the value of the individual as the source and reason for being [raison d’être]...yet it admits that the individual has reality only through his engagement in the world. It affirms that the will of free being is sufficient for the accomplishment of freedom, yet it also states that this will can posit itself only by struggling against the obstacles and the oppressions that limit the concrete possibilities of man.’
Now that sounds like a speech you’d give to get a sports team worked up to win, but if that sports team was going to write an essay on free will or something. But must critically, she reminds us that good and evil is not a guaranteed, definitive moral code and ‘existentialism rejects the notion of ready-made values whose affirmation precedes human judgement,’ something she would expand upon greatly in The Ethics of Ambiguity.
An more in-depth introduction to existenialist thought comes in the second essay, Pyrrhus and Cinéas, which probes questions such as what is the point of anything, something I say at least once a day at work. It begins with the story of the titular characters where, in response to Pyrrhus’ long list of goals (unfortunately goals to colonize people…), Cinéas asks what he will do then. The response, to finally rest, makes Cinéas then question why he doesn’t just rest now instead of going through all the struggles and efforts to arrive at the same thing. While Cinéas is often seen as the wiser, Beauvoir says, she finds Pyrrhus to be an example of authentic living. He sets out to accomplish goals, to have action, and exposes the truth that goals are always continuing, something will always transcend the former goal. ‘The paradox of the human condition is that every end can be surpassed, and yet, the project defines the end as an end,’ she writes. The path to finding meaning is, in its own way, a compass for meaning in itself.
‘From the top of the hill I look at the path travelled, and the entire path is present in the joy of my success. The walk gives the rest its worth, and my thirst gives the glass of water its worth. A whole past comes together in the moment of enjoyment.’
This is an excellent essay that addresses many themes to be picked up again in The Ethics of Ambiguity and shows Beauvoir first approaching themes that she would elucidate through her entire life. The final section of that book explores the ideas that freedom consists of aiming itself towards freedom, and that we always continue onward, goals always advancing, such as how a painter never 'finishes' art, but continues a conversation forward to the future. Human transcendence has the problem that we can never truly fulfill something, due to our finite lifespan, but play a transitory part in it.
Using Candide’s statement that he will simply tend his own garden, we can look at the world as our garden and something we must cultivate and engage with as a way of giving it meaning.She also looks at many other issues on how meaning or ethics can be addressed and for what purpose do we do anything. Under a religious belief, God would determine what is good or bad, and we would be called by God to do things and must, therefore, do them. She brings up Fear and Trembling and The Castle as examples that question this, and the problem how we can determine when the false prophets would also claim to be the messiah. She also looks at issues of violence, and our responsibility to each other. How can we act in a way that enhances freedom, that cultivates our garden. This essay is a good representation of what she says in the first that these aren’t isolated ideas and draw on the works of others, with this drawing examples and arguments from many great minds before her.
What is Existentialism? doesn’t have all the answers, but nobody does and that’s half the fun. This does serve as an excellent introduction to existentialism as well as the works of Simone de Beauvoir, who has certainly become my favorite of the group. A quick read that, while dense, is packed with amazing insights and thoughts to ponder all life long.
October 10, 2022
asking existential questions.
(buh dum ch.)
this is very small and very dense. i had to read it out loud to myself at points, and also sometimes my dog, but that was mostly to make myself laugh and she didn't seem very interested.
anyway.
around the 20% mark, i stopped to add all of the other books in this series to my tbr.
bottom line: get measurably smarter in 100 pages or less!
(buh dum ch.)
this is very small and very dense. i had to read it out loud to myself at points, and also sometimes my dog, but that was mostly to make myself laugh and she didn't seem very interested.
anyway.
around the 20% mark, i stopped to add all of the other books in this series to my tbr.
bottom line: get measurably smarter in 100 pages or less!
September 8, 2021
“and after that?” (screams)
January 5, 2023
If Sartre's introduction to existentialism can be summarized as "Man is condemned to be free", de Beauvoir's introduction can be summarized as "And after that?".
The analogy of Pyrrhus and Cineas masterfully illustrates the idea of continuous self-surpassing necessary for finding meaning in a world devoid of any pre-existing morality.
In this essay she lays the groundwork for the ethics of ambiguity. Here she identifies the tension between the instant and the infinite as a driver for meaning. The man cannot be caught or captured in an instant, since a man's life makes sense in a context with his past and is always linked to a project in his future. Similarly, the man cannot identify himself with the infinite, since he always needs intermediary steps to drive his life. Caring about everything means caring about nothing.
Her careful argument against Heidegger saying man's death is his ultimate project makes me curious to take up some Heidegger next and understand a bit better his argument. She argues that man cannot be for death because man simply has no choice in it. Death simply is the state of fact.
I find it interesting how she uses existentialism to explain the struggle man experiences from teenage onward when trying to integrate into a society:
It is by exercising his freedom, man can create a place for himself in humanity and "humanity transcends itself through him".
She explains how the only way we can truly be free is by exposing ourselves to and embracing the freedom of others. She expresses this using an expression which strikes me as very interesting, "dangerous freedoms":
All in all, I think I picked up this book at the right time, as I have just finished "Beyond good and evil" and "L'Etranger" which she both references and builds upon. This also marks my first read written by a female author, and more to come up.
The analogy of Pyrrhus and Cineas masterfully illustrates the idea of continuous self-surpassing necessary for finding meaning in a world devoid of any pre-existing morality.
In this essay she lays the groundwork for the ethics of ambiguity. Here she identifies the tension between the instant and the infinite as a driver for meaning. The man cannot be caught or captured in an instant, since a man's life makes sense in a context with his past and is always linked to a project in his future. Similarly, the man cannot identify himself with the infinite, since he always needs intermediary steps to drive his life. Caring about everything means caring about nothing.
Her careful argument against Heidegger saying man's death is his ultimate project makes me curious to take up some Heidegger next and understand a bit better his argument. She argues that man cannot be for death because man simply has no choice in it. Death simply is the state of fact.
I find it interesting how she uses existentialism to explain the struggle man experiences from teenage onward when trying to integrate into a society:
No drop of water is lacking from the sea. Before his birth, humanity was exactly full; it will remain as full if he dies. He can neither diminish nor increase it, any more than a point can increase the length of a line.
It is by exercising his freedom, man can create a place for himself in humanity and "humanity transcends itself through him".
She explains how the only way we can truly be free is by exposing ourselves to and embracing the freedom of others. She expresses this using an expression which strikes me as very interesting, "dangerous freedoms":
All men are free, and as soon as we deal with them, we experience their freedom. If we want to disregard these dangerous freedoms, we must turn away from men. But then our being draws back and loses itself. Our being realizes itself only by choosing to be in danger in the world, in danger before the foreign and divided freedoms that take hold of it.
All in all, I think I picked up this book at the right time, as I have just finished "Beyond good and evil" and "L'Etranger" which she both references and builds upon. This also marks my first read written by a female author, and more to come up.
January 7, 2024
লেখাটা খুবই সুন্দর। প্রচ্ছদটাও তাই। কিন্তু একদমই একমত হতে পারলাম না লেখার বক্তব্যের সাথে।
ছোট্ট এই বইয়ের শুরুতে একটা ভূমিকার মতো আছে, যেখানে সিমোন দে ব্যুভিয়ে একটা মজার সমস্যার কথা বলেন। তাকে নাকি অনেকেই (বিশেষ করে আমেরিকানরা) ৪-৫ লাইনের মধ্যে অস্তিত্ববাদের সংজ্ঞা দিতে বলে। তিনি বলেন যে অস্তিত্ববাদের মতো বিস্তৃত আইডিয়াকে এতো সংক্ষেপে ব্যাখ্যা করা যায় না।
তাই কয়েক লাইনের বদলে শ'খানেক পৃষ্ঠায় তিনি ব্যাখ্যাটা দেওয়ার চেষ্টা করেছেন। এই বইয়ের মূল অংশ হচ্ছে 'পিরাস অ্যান্ড সিনিয়ুস' নামে এক প্রবন্ধ। প্রাচীন একটা গল্প আছে, আমি গল্পের যে সংস্করণের সাথে পরিচিত সেটা আলেক্সান্ডার আর ডায়োজিনিসকে নিয়ে। সেখানে সম্রাট আলেক্সান্ডার যায় পাগলাটে দার্শনিক ডায়োজিনিসের পরামর্শ নিতে। ডায়োজিনিসকে আলেক্সান্ডার বারবার বলে সে অমুক রাজ্য দখল করবে, তমুক রাজ্য দখল করবে, গোটা বিশ্ব দখল করবে। শেষে ডায়োজিনিস জিজ্ঞেস করে: তারপর কী করবেন? আলেক্সান্ডার বলে তারপর বিশ্রাম নেবো। ডায়োজিনিস বলে তাহলে এখনই বিশ্রাম নিন।
দে ব্যুভিয়ে এবং অস্তিত্ববাদীদের মতে এখানে আলেকজান্ডার ঠিক, ডায়োজিনিস নয় (প্রবন্ধের ভাষায় পিরাস ঠিক, সিনিয়ুস ভুল)। কারণ মানুষের স্বভাব হচ্ছে এক লক্ষ্য থেকে আরেক লক্ষ্যের দিকে ছুটে যাওয়া। নিজের প��িস্থিতিকে ক্রমাগত ছাপিয়ে যাওয়ার চেষ্টা করা। এক এক করে দে ব্যুভিয়ে ব্যাখ্যা করেন কেন ঈশ্বর, স্বার্থ, মানবজাতি, অন্যের প্রশংসা- এগুলো কো���োটাই মানুষের এই অনন্ত ছুটে চলাকে সন্তুষ্ট করতে পারে না। শুধু মানুষ চায় অন্যেরা স্বাধীনভাবে তার লক্ষ্যের গুরুত্ব বুঝতে পারুক, তার লক্ষ্য অর্জনে সাহায্য করুক বা লক্ষ্যে শামিল হয়ে ভবিষ্যতে একই লক্ষ্যকে আরও এগিয়ে নিয়ে যাক।
এই প্রচণ্ড ভবিষ্যতমুখী দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি আর নরকের মধ্যে খুব একটা পার্থক্য নেই আমার মতে। আমার জীবনের মূল সমস্যাই হচ্ছে এই লক্ষ্য থেকে লক্ষ্যে ছুটে চলা। ভবিষ্যতের দিকে তাকিয়ে বর্তমানকে সাজানো। এভাবে প্রায় চল্লিশ বছর কাটানোর পর এবং বেশিরভাগ লক্ষ্য অর্জনের পর (আমার লক্ষ্যগুলো বেশি কঠিন ছিলো না আসলে) আমি নির্দ্বিধায় বলতে পারি এই ধরনের জীবন হচ্ছে সেটাই যেটার ব্যাপারে গৌতম বুদ্ধ সতর্ক করেছিলেন। এমন অস্তিত্ববাদের চেয়ে বরং কাম্যুর অ্যাবসার্ডিজম ভালো। সেখানে অন্তত আশা ছেড়ে বর্তমানে মন দিতে বলা হয়।
বইটা অস্তিত্ববাদের সাথে প্রথম পরিচয়ের জন্য একটু কঠিন মনে হতে পারে। তবে দে ব্যুভিয়ে এর লেখা ঝকঝকে পরিষ্কার। অনুবাদটাও সুন্দর। ছোট বই, তাই আগ্রহীরা কয়েক ঘণ্টা কাটাতে পারেন এটার সাথে।
ছোট্ট এই বইয়ের শুরুতে একটা ভূমিকার মতো আছে, যেখানে সিমোন দে ব্যুভিয়ে একটা মজার সমস্যার কথা বলেন। তাকে নাকি অনেকেই (বিশেষ করে আমেরিকানরা) ৪-৫ লাইনের মধ্যে অস্তিত্ববাদের সংজ্ঞা দিতে বলে। তিনি বলেন যে অস্তিত্ববাদের মতো বিস্তৃত আইডিয়াকে এতো সংক্ষেপে ব্যাখ্যা করা যায় না।
তাই কয়েক লাইনের বদলে শ'খানেক পৃষ্ঠায় তিনি ব্যাখ্যাটা দেওয়ার চেষ্টা করেছেন। এই বইয়ের মূল অংশ হচ্ছে 'পিরাস অ্যান্ড সিনিয়ুস' নামে এক প্রবন্ধ। প্রাচীন একটা গল্প আছে, আমি গল্পের যে সংস্করণের সাথে পরিচিত সেটা আলেক্সান্ডার আর ডায়োজিনিসকে নিয়ে। সেখানে সম্রাট আলেক্সান্ডার যায় পাগলাটে দার্শনিক ডায়োজিনিসের পরামর্শ নিতে। ডায়োজিনিসকে আলেক্সান্ডার বারবার বলে সে অমুক রাজ্য দখল করবে, তমুক রাজ্য দখল করবে, গোটা বিশ্ব দখল করবে। শেষে ডায়োজিনিস জিজ্ঞেস করে: তারপর কী করবেন? আলেক্সান্ডার বলে তারপর বিশ্রাম নেবো। ডায়োজিনিস বলে তাহলে এখনই বিশ্রাম নিন।
দে ব্যুভিয়ে এবং অস্তিত্ববাদীদের মতে এখানে আলেকজান্ডার ঠিক, ডায়োজিনিস নয় (প্রবন্ধের ভাষায় পিরাস ঠিক, সিনিয়ুস ভুল)। কারণ মানুষের স্বভাব হচ্ছে এক লক্ষ্য থেকে আরেক লক্ষ্যের দিকে ছুটে যাওয়া। নিজের প��িস্থিতিকে ক্রমাগত ছাপিয়ে যাওয়ার চেষ্টা করা। এক এক করে দে ব্যুভিয়ে ব্যাখ্যা করেন কেন ঈশ্বর, স্বার্থ, মানবজাতি, অন্যের প্রশংসা- এগুলো কো���োটাই মানুষের এই অনন্ত ছুটে চলাকে সন্তুষ্ট করতে পারে না। শুধু মানুষ চায় অন্যেরা স্বাধীনভাবে তার লক্ষ্যের গুরুত্ব বুঝতে পারুক, তার লক্ষ্য অর্জনে সাহায্য করুক বা লক্ষ্যে শামিল হয়ে ভবিষ্যতে একই লক্ষ্যকে আরও এগিয়ে নিয়ে যাক।
এই প্রচণ্ড ভবিষ্যতমুখী দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি আর নরকের মধ্যে খুব একটা পার্থক্য নেই আমার মতে। আমার জীবনের মূল সমস্যাই হচ্ছে এই লক্ষ্য থেকে লক্ষ্যে ছুটে চলা। ভবিষ্যতের দিকে তাকিয়ে বর্তমানকে সাজানো। এভাবে প্রায় চল্লিশ বছর কাটানোর পর এবং বেশিরভাগ লক্ষ্য অর্জনের পর (আমার লক্ষ্যগুলো বেশি কঠিন ছিলো না আসলে) আমি নির্দ্বিধায় বলতে পারি এই ধরনের জীবন হচ্ছে সেটাই যেটার ব্যাপারে গৌতম বুদ্ধ সতর্ক করেছিলেন। এমন অস্তিত্ববাদের চেয়ে বরং কাম্যুর অ্যাবসার্ডিজম ভালো। সেখানে অন্তত আশা ছেড়ে বর্তমানে মন দিতে বলা হয়।
বইটা অস্তিত্ববাদের সাথে প্রথম পরিচয়ের জন্য একটু কঠিন মনে হতে পারে। তবে দে ব্যুভিয়ে এর লেখা ঝকঝকে পরিষ্কার। অনুবাদটাও সুন্দর। ছোট বই, তাই আগ্রহীরা কয়েক ঘণ্টা কাটাতে পারেন এটার সাথে।
January 28, 2025
ˏˋ°•*⁀➷ 2 stars
Oh, Simone, why did you do this to me? I usually love your writing, but this made me hate every existentialist out there.
It’s not that I expected an easy read. This is existentialism, after all. But I did expect to feel something. Instead, I spent the entire book frustrated by how repetitive and overcomplicated it was. I don’t think I learned anything new, which is weird because I always expect de Beauvoir to give me something to chew on.
This book assumes you already have a working knowledge of existentialism, but even if you do, it doesn’t add much. If you’re unfamiliar with the works of Sartre, Kierkegaard, or Camus, this will feel even more impenetrable. And if you are familiar? It’s just a lot of rehashing ideas you’ve probably encountered before, but with less clarity or spark.
Existentialism is fascinating when done right, and de Beauvoir has tackled it beautifully in her other works. But here it’s like she stripped the soul out of the ideas and replaced it with endless rephrasing. By the end, I was more annoyed than inspired.
If you’re already familiar with existentialism, this won’t teach you anything new. And if you’re new, this is not the place to start. A rare miss from a writer I usually adore.
Oh, Simone, why did you do this to me? I usually love your writing, but this made me hate every existentialist out there.
It’s not that I expected an easy read. This is existentialism, after all. But I did expect to feel something. Instead, I spent the entire book frustrated by how repetitive and overcomplicated it was. I don’t think I learned anything new, which is weird because I always expect de Beauvoir to give me something to chew on.
This book assumes you already have a working knowledge of existentialism, but even if you do, it doesn’t add much. If you’re unfamiliar with the works of Sartre, Kierkegaard, or Camus, this will feel even more impenetrable. And if you are familiar? It’s just a lot of rehashing ideas you’ve probably encountered before, but with less clarity or spark.
Existentialism is fascinating when done right, and de Beauvoir has tackled it beautifully in her other works. But here it’s like she stripped the soul out of the ideas and replaced it with endless rephrasing. By the end, I was more annoyed than inspired.
If you’re already familiar with existentialism, this won’t teach you anything new. And if you’re new, this is not the place to start. A rare miss from a writer I usually adore.
November 20, 2020
In the introductory essay de Beauvoir warns the reader who aims for a quick-fix-update on existentialism. He won’t find it here. It takes hard work to fully grasp existentialism.
Besides containing some awful sentences like ‘the transcendent can transcend the transcendental’, this is surprisingly readable.
Besides containing some awful sentences like ‘the transcendent can transcend the transcendental’, this is surprisingly readable.
May 15, 2023
the way she talked about the world makes me believe she saw it through clearer eyes than most
October 27, 2022
“Plutarch tells us that one day Pyrrhus was devising projects of conquest. ‘We are going to subjugate Greece first,’ he was saying. ‘And after that?’ said Cineas. ‘We will vanquish Africa.’ - ‘After Africa?’ - ‘We will go on to Asia, we will conquer Asia Minor, Arabia.’ - ‘And after that?’ -‘We will go on as far as India.’ - ‘After India?’ - ‘Ah!’ said Pyrrhus, ‘I will rest.’ - ‘Why not rest right away?’”
February 8, 2021
I have always been interested in existentialism and I have take a few courses in it at university. I do think that my general attitude to life is an existentialist one, maybe leaning more to Camus' philosophy more than anything else but I can't claim that I understand existentialism fully. Therefore Beauvoir's very short essay "What is Existentialism?" was really reassuring to read as she ends it by saying that existentialism is not easily summarised and takes time to be understood.
The second essay titled "Pyrrhus and Cineas" takes you through main ideas of existentialism in more detail and touches upon how it relates to God, the rest of humanity and one's lived experience. That text really made me understand existentialism a lot more compared to the few lectures I had at university.
The best thing about this little book is how readable it is compared to the major works in existentialism like "Being and Nothingness" or god forbid "Being and Time". I think this serves as a great introduction to existentialism and I will surely be reading more books about it in the future.
The second essay titled "Pyrrhus and Cineas" takes you through main ideas of existentialism in more detail and touches upon how it relates to God, the rest of humanity and one's lived experience. That text really made me understand existentialism a lot more compared to the few lectures I had at university.
The best thing about this little book is how readable it is compared to the major works in existentialism like "Being and Nothingness" or god forbid "Being and Time". I think this serves as a great introduction to existentialism and I will surely be reading more books about it in the future.
October 9, 2022
“Every refusal is a choice; every silence has a voice. Our very passivity is willed; in order to not choose, we still must choose not to choose. It is impossible to escape.
Viegla lasāmviela.
Viegla lasāmviela.
April 22, 2021
A man alone in the world would be paralyzed by the manifest vision of the vanity of all his goals. He would undoubtedly not be able to stand living.
But man is not alone in the world.
What is Existentialism? by Simone de Beauvoir is my introduction to the philosophy of Existentialism. It’s such a shame that I took two years of philosophy classes in high school and last semester had a Political Philosophy class, and not once did I learn anything about philosophers who weren’t men.
Simone de Beauvoir makes such valid observations. I loved how this book was divided in tiny parts and something that I noticed was that: despite this book having only 118 pages, I didn’t feel like it needed more. It opened my eyes to certain things that I’d thought about before, but never really managed to put into words.
This was an absolute mind-opening book. I loved it so much.
The fundamental error of devotion is that it considers the other as an object carrying an emptiness in its heart that would be possible to fill. Even when it aims at the future, it still assumes such a lack.
But man is not alone in the world.
What is Existentialism? by Simone de Beauvoir is my introduction to the philosophy of Existentialism. It’s such a shame that I took two years of philosophy classes in high school and last semester had a Political Philosophy class, and not once did I learn anything about philosophers who weren’t men.
Simone de Beauvoir makes such valid observations. I loved how this book was divided in tiny parts and something that I noticed was that: despite this book having only 118 pages, I didn’t feel like it needed more. It opened my eyes to certain things that I’d thought about before, but never really managed to put into words.
This was an absolute mind-opening book. I loved it so much.
The fundamental error of devotion is that it considers the other as an object carrying an emptiness in its heart that would be possible to fill. Even when it aims at the future, it still assumes such a lack.
Read
September 18, 2024war mit 16 irgendwie krasser
January 2, 2022
promising introduction, but morphs into jargon-y and broad sweeping statements
love the shoutouts to sartre and camus, as well as the contextualizing of concepts using mythological figures like pyrrhus and cineas
love the shoutouts to sartre and camus, as well as the contextualizing of concepts using mythological figures like pyrrhus and cineas
November 23, 2023
“What's the use of leaving if it is to return home? What's the use of starting if you must stop? … Cineas harasses me in vain, saying: 'And after that? What's the use?’ In spite of everything, my heart beats, my hand reaches out, new projects are born and push me forward.”
November 6, 2023
AHHHHH
August 9, 2023
This is too good
Read
September 1, 2025I disagree
August 24, 2024
Nie dość, że naprawdę dobry i tłusty esej egzystencjalny to do tego praktycznie debiut. Przystępny w języku a dalej obfity w treści, daje niezły backup na czytanie czysto filozoficznych rzeczy.
July 10, 2025
okay i’m not going to pretend i understood this essay/book fully, but i do have a few thoughts:
Beauvoir begins her writing by attempting to briefly explain existentialism. in short, She fails. in fact, i don’t think she does well explaining existentialism at any point in her work.
First, Beauvoir compares existentialism to many concepts and ideals of the ancient and modern world today. She continues by contrasting Christianity and Marxism. In her eyes, Christianity focuses more on the sentient, spiritual interior of beings, and claims man’s existence is relative to the Creator and ones own self.
Marxism leans towards a physical realm of entity by encouraging the concept of an individuals existence being relative to his surroundings and environment. Consequently, this deems the belief of a spiritual domain untenable and irrelevant. Existentialism is supposed to tie the two beliefs together, hence acknowledging the effects and gravity of a world outside ones self, while exalting introspection and spiritual discovery.
The main issue I had with this book was its blatant self contradiction. Beauvoir constantly reiterates the theme of transcendentalism, but she also states she doesn’t believe in a pure form of disassociating.
She admits that there is no complete form of erasing one’s existence. you could retreat into your subconscious as far as is possible, identifying solely with the broad, universal “existence”, but by trying to reach towards this, you would be distinguishing yourself from that which you are trying to attain. in other words, man simply cant not exist.
but she goes on to question the very nature of existence, unable to define what existence even is.
he believes in relativity of truth; that truth differs depending on his or her moral code, and nothing “good” or “bad” truly exists, for what defines good or bad? Our only answers for that question are our own interpretation of “good” and “bad”, stemming from our own intellect, right? this is where Beauvoir takes a fatal misstep.
In concluding that truth is relative, who’s to say that anything she’s saying is true? if she so very well believes that God doesn’t exist or is simply a far removed universal presence, how can she prove that? By Beauvoir’s bitter distaste and complete disregard for any philosophy outside of her own beliefs, she fails to even make her own point.
She leads the reader to believe that there is no true existence of free will, but there is no governing authority either. there is no absolute truth, but people have versions of their own truths.
(which are based off of what? and also what even IS truth, if the concept is incapable of coming to fruition?) there is no God, yet there is a natural set of rules in the world. There is no order, yet there is not detrimental chaos.
Overall, the book made me think.
It made me question.
But when I took a step back and really thought about each point Beauvoir attempts to make, there is no sense. If existence is a concept, then what is life?
To me, Existentialism demeans and destroys the beauty and joy that comes from life. It removes all emotion and feeling from any action, and deems everything that ever was and ever will be pointless and without origin.
While claiming to be all-considering, it shuts off any opening for any input outside of an individual’s own beliefs, and that sort of withdrawal is the most dangerous of all.
Beauvoir begins her writing by attempting to briefly explain existentialism. in short, She fails. in fact, i don’t think she does well explaining existentialism at any point in her work.
First, Beauvoir compares existentialism to many concepts and ideals of the ancient and modern world today. She continues by contrasting Christianity and Marxism. In her eyes, Christianity focuses more on the sentient, spiritual interior of beings, and claims man’s existence is relative to the Creator and ones own self.
Marxism leans towards a physical realm of entity by encouraging the concept of an individuals existence being relative to his surroundings and environment. Consequently, this deems the belief of a spiritual domain untenable and irrelevant. Existentialism is supposed to tie the two beliefs together, hence acknowledging the effects and gravity of a world outside ones self, while exalting introspection and spiritual discovery.
The main issue I had with this book was its blatant self contradiction. Beauvoir constantly reiterates the theme of transcendentalism, but she also states she doesn’t believe in a pure form of disassociating.
She admits that there is no complete form of erasing one’s existence. you could retreat into your subconscious as far as is possible, identifying solely with the broad, universal “existence”, but by trying to reach towards this, you would be distinguishing yourself from that which you are trying to attain. in other words, man simply cant not exist.
but she goes on to question the very nature of existence, unable to define what existence even is.
he believes in relativity of truth; that truth differs depending on his or her moral code, and nothing “good” or “bad” truly exists, for what defines good or bad? Our only answers for that question are our own interpretation of “good” and “bad”, stemming from our own intellect, right? this is where Beauvoir takes a fatal misstep.
In concluding that truth is relative, who’s to say that anything she’s saying is true? if she so very well believes that God doesn’t exist or is simply a far removed universal presence, how can she prove that? By Beauvoir’s bitter distaste and complete disregard for any philosophy outside of her own beliefs, she fails to even make her own point.
She leads the reader to believe that there is no true existence of free will, but there is no governing authority either. there is no absolute truth, but people have versions of their own truths.
(which are based off of what? and also what even IS truth, if the concept is incapable of coming to fruition?) there is no God, yet there is a natural set of rules in the world. There is no order, yet there is not detrimental chaos.
Overall, the book made me think.
It made me question.
But when I took a step back and really thought about each point Beauvoir attempts to make, there is no sense. If existence is a concept, then what is life?
To me, Existentialism demeans and destroys the beauty and joy that comes from life. It removes all emotion and feeling from any action, and deems everything that ever was and ever will be pointless and without origin.
While claiming to be all-considering, it shuts off any opening for any input outside of an individual’s own beliefs, and that sort of withdrawal is the most dangerous of all.
July 11, 2022
This short anthology contains two essays, "What is Existentialism?" and "Pyrrhus and Cineas."
The first essay, "What is Existentialism?" was interesting but nowhere as good as the second (and much longer), "Pyrrhus and Cineas." "Pyrrhus and Cineas" elaborates on the fundamentals of existentialism by telling the story of a boy who is concerned with the death of his concierge's son. The boy is quickly told not to cry by his parents as the deceased friend was only a stranger's son and not anyone important---like say, his brother. From this point on, Beauvoir elaborates on the assumptions and suppositions nested in the parents' beliefs and why they tie meaning to family and status in particular. Beauvoir then expands on nearly all elements of the human experience, focusing on death, self-purpose, relationship to the world and to others, gender, power, and much more.
"Pyrrhus and Cineas" stands out as a particularly valuable and informative essay that came to me at an opportune time. Beauvoir's wisdom is practical and accessible.
The first essay, "What is Existentialism?" was interesting but nowhere as good as the second (and much longer), "Pyrrhus and Cineas." "Pyrrhus and Cineas" elaborates on the fundamentals of existentialism by telling the story of a boy who is concerned with the death of his concierge's son. The boy is quickly told not to cry by his parents as the deceased friend was only a stranger's son and not anyone important---like say, his brother. From this point on, Beauvoir elaborates on the assumptions and suppositions nested in the parents' beliefs and why they tie meaning to family and status in particular. Beauvoir then expands on nearly all elements of the human experience, focusing on death, self-purpose, relationship to the world and to others, gender, power, and much more.
"Pyrrhus and Cineas" stands out as a particularly valuable and informative essay that came to me at an opportune time. Beauvoir's wisdom is practical and accessible.
June 12, 2022
súper cortito y rápido de leer. muy preciso problematizando y respondiendo contundentemente al nihilismo y al deseo de simplemente no hacer nada en vida, así como a qué nos une a los demás, a un proyecto político, a nuestra propia vida y su relación con la libertad. muy serio muy recomendado muy ilusionante!!!!!
Read
December 23, 2024This book is 50% the most captivating and well worded philosophy I have read to date, and 50% absolute nonsense.
“The transcendent transcendence can in turn be transcended”
…yeah sure, whatever you say man.
“The transcendent transcendence can in turn be transcended”
…yeah sure, whatever you say man.
November 30, 2022
this was so real
July 22, 2024
“To be free is to throw oneself into the world without weighing the consequences or stakes; it is to define any stake or step oneself.”
i don’t think i can ever look at life the same after reading this; every conversation i’ve had in the past few days makes me want to go “well actually…” but i wont for everyone else’s sake.
i used to be a big proponent of absurdity, but now, i guess im an existentialist at heart. of course, these are just labels, and no word could truly describe what i feel at heart (don’t worry de beauvoir i didn’t completely blank while reading), but the main difference is if i believe in free will. from a neurological perspective, im not sure - we’re overwhelmingly determined by our genes and our upbringing, but our upbringing itself is based on the freedoms that surround us. i’ve had to reconsider my viewpoint; i do think free will exists, at least as far as our lingual capabilities can take us. i could choose to write whatever i want in this review, i could throw my phone at the door, and at any moment, i could choose to do whatever i want.
when de beauvoir said even the slave is free, i had to do a double take, because how could that be? but the truth is, as long as he’s a human, he has his own will. in fact, one could argue that the master is even less free, since he has to gain his power in the subjugation of others. i feel like every thought i’ve had, every situation i’ve regarded, has been discussed in this book. when de beauvoir said that in her youth she used to think she had no personality and saw that spark in others… i felt that. but that just reminds us that every action is interpreted so many different ways by each person.
i’m rambling now, but i could talk about these 117 pages forever. violence, love, creation, modernity… simone de beauvoir has not an answer, but an explanation for it all and how it can be interpreted. she’s now one of my favorite authors, if “the woman destroyed” didn’t make her that already. just like self-reliance, i think this is one of those books that everyone, and i mean everyone should read. god knows this world would be a hell of a lot better if every politician had to read this and then write an essay on their thoughts lol.
4.75/5 - the only reason im not rating it five stars is because she never truly answers what is existentialism lol. but with a bit of reading between the lines you can get an idea; i think the ideas that de beauvoir elucidates are more important than the concept of existentialism itself, as no singular word can completely explain the concept it defines.
anyways, do yourself a favor and read at least a few passages if you won’t read the whole thing. i feel so much more secure of my place in the world, though or perhaps because it is a completely arbitrary and created one. truly breathtaking piece of work.
“and after that?” i’ll make a new end to transcend. “and after that?” we’ll see!!
i don’t think i can ever look at life the same after reading this; every conversation i’ve had in the past few days makes me want to go “well actually…” but i wont for everyone else’s sake.
i used to be a big proponent of absurdity, but now, i guess im an existentialist at heart. of course, these are just labels, and no word could truly describe what i feel at heart (don’t worry de beauvoir i didn’t completely blank while reading), but the main difference is if i believe in free will. from a neurological perspective, im not sure - we’re overwhelmingly determined by our genes and our upbringing, but our upbringing itself is based on the freedoms that surround us. i’ve had to reconsider my viewpoint; i do think free will exists, at least as far as our lingual capabilities can take us. i could choose to write whatever i want in this review, i could throw my phone at the door, and at any moment, i could choose to do whatever i want.
when de beauvoir said even the slave is free, i had to do a double take, because how could that be? but the truth is, as long as he’s a human, he has his own will. in fact, one could argue that the master is even less free, since he has to gain his power in the subjugation of others. i feel like every thought i’ve had, every situation i’ve regarded, has been discussed in this book. when de beauvoir said that in her youth she used to think she had no personality and saw that spark in others… i felt that. but that just reminds us that every action is interpreted so many different ways by each person.
i’m rambling now, but i could talk about these 117 pages forever. violence, love, creation, modernity… simone de beauvoir has not an answer, but an explanation for it all and how it can be interpreted. she’s now one of my favorite authors, if “the woman destroyed” didn’t make her that already. just like self-reliance, i think this is one of those books that everyone, and i mean everyone should read. god knows this world would be a hell of a lot better if every politician had to read this and then write an essay on their thoughts lol.
4.75/5 - the only reason im not rating it five stars is because she never truly answers what is existentialism lol. but with a bit of reading between the lines you can get an idea; i think the ideas that de beauvoir elucidates are more important than the concept of existentialism itself, as no singular word can completely explain the concept it defines.
anyways, do yourself a favor and read at least a few passages if you won’t read the whole thing. i feel so much more secure of my place in the world, though or perhaps because it is a completely arbitrary and created one. truly breathtaking piece of work.
“and after that?” i’ll make a new end to transcend. “and after that?” we’ll see!!
January 17, 2025
"[. . .] the task of man is one: to fashion the world by giving it a meaning."
"Life is neither in itself good nor evil; it is the place of good or evil as you make them!" - Montaigne
What it lacks in length is more than made up in density. My first read through could almost be considered a reread, considering how often I read a paragraph and then had to go back to read it all over again. This is a great start for anyone interested in philosophy in general, despite that density. It is complex, yet approachable when consumed slowly. Read it, take it in, and then read it again.
That said, I found the content extremely repetitive. These essays are structured by presenting a thought problem within the context of existentialism, followed by a breakdown using examples of where they might be represented. This format, which makes it so approachable, is simultaneously what makes it unnecessarily dense. Abstract statement after abstract statement, each with the same idea but different wording, make up page-long paragraphs. Shortening the abstract and focusing on the examples would have provided the same message in a much more succinct format.
Additionally, I had picked this book up because the authors were women, and I was tired of reading philosophy with sexist language built into it. Alas, I was let down here as well. It was not overly prominent, but it certainly had me rolling my eyes and siging several times.
"Life is neither in itself good nor evil; it is the place of good or evil as you make them!" - Montaigne
What it lacks in length is more than made up in density. My first read through could almost be considered a reread, considering how often I read a paragraph and then had to go back to read it all over again. This is a great start for anyone interested in philosophy in general, despite that density. It is complex, yet approachable when consumed slowly. Read it, take it in, and then read it again.
That said, I found the content extremely repetitive. These essays are structured by presenting a thought problem within the context of existentialism, followed by a breakdown using examples of where they might be represented. This format, which makes it so approachable, is simultaneously what makes it unnecessarily dense. Abstract statement after abstract statement, each with the same idea but different wording, make up page-long paragraphs. Shortening the abstract and focusing on the examples would have provided the same message in a much more succinct format.
Additionally, I had picked this book up because the authors were women, and I was tired of reading philosophy with sexist language built into it. Alas, I was let down here as well. It was not overly prominent, but it certainly had me rolling my eyes and siging several times.
March 19, 2025
Pyrrhus and Cineas was such an enjoyable and optimistic break from trudging through Schopenhauer (most depressing man ever). love remembering that indifference/ nihilism is a choice when they are often put forth as harsh reality. if there is no objective truth, then why should there be no value to our actions over value? why apathy over empathy? there is no default non-choice in this world on anything at all, especially if subjectivity is the reigning force within your world view. + the political considerations on violence and the human project of ensuring the freedoms of all others almost makes me want to read more Beauvoir (don’t check her wikipedia page…)
“Only I can create the tie that unites me to the other. I create it from the fact that I am not a thing, but a project of self toward the other, a transcendence. And it is this power that Camus’s Stranger is unaware of: no possession is not given either. I am not first a thing but a spontaneity that desires, that loves, that wants, that acts. ‘That little boy is not my brother.’ But if I cry over him, he is no longer a stranger to me. It’s my tears that decide.”
“The fate that weighs on the other is always us. Fate is the fixed face that the freedom of all the others turns towards each of us. It is in this sense that Dostoevsky said that ‘each person is guilty for everything, before everyone.’ Immobile or in action, we always weigh upon the earth.”
“Only I can create the tie that unites me to the other. I create it from the fact that I am not a thing, but a project of self toward the other, a transcendence. And it is this power that Camus’s Stranger is unaware of: no possession is not given either. I am not first a thing but a spontaneity that desires, that loves, that wants, that acts. ‘That little boy is not my brother.’ But if I cry over him, he is no longer a stranger to me. It’s my tears that decide.”
“The fate that weighs on the other is always us. Fate is the fixed face that the freedom of all the others turns towards each of us. It is in this sense that Dostoevsky said that ‘each person is guilty for everything, before everyone.’ Immobile or in action, we always weigh upon the earth.”
August 10, 2023
A concise primer on the existentialist stance in life; existence precedes essence and that makes all the difference. Some favorites:
- Cut off from human will, the reality of the world is but an ‘absurd given’. This is a conception that appears to many people as hopeless and makes them accuse existentialism of being pessimistic. But actually there is no hopelessness, since we think that it is possible for man to snatch the world from the darkness of absurdity, clothe it in significations, and project valid goals into it.
- Only I can create the tie that unites me to the other. I create it from the fact that I am not a thing, but a project of self toward the other, a transcendence.
- Man’s finiteness is therefore not endured [subie]; it is desired. Here, death does not have that importance with which it has often been endowed. It is not because man dies that he is finite. Our transcendence is always concretely defined on this side of death, or beyond it.
- A lucid generosity is what should guide our actions. We will assume our own choices and posit as our ends the situations that will be new points of departure for others.
- Cut off from human will, the reality of the world is but an ‘absurd given’. This is a conception that appears to many people as hopeless and makes them accuse existentialism of being pessimistic. But actually there is no hopelessness, since we think that it is possible for man to snatch the world from the darkness of absurdity, clothe it in significations, and project valid goals into it.
- Only I can create the tie that unites me to the other. I create it from the fact that I am not a thing, but a project of self toward the other, a transcendence.
- Man’s finiteness is therefore not endured [subie]; it is desired. Here, death does not have that importance with which it has often been endowed. It is not because man dies that he is finite. Our transcendence is always concretely defined on this side of death, or beyond it.
- A lucid generosity is what should guide our actions. We will assume our own choices and posit as our ends the situations that will be new points of departure for others.
August 16, 2025
Ahora mismo solo vengo a felicitarme a mí misma por haber terminado el libro. Es posiblemente lo más denso que he leído nunca. Cada frase es una metáfora, una conexión con otra parte de su pensamiento o con el de Sartre o con el del concepto del existencialismo. Cada párrafo se puede desglosar en numerosos puntos clave y de cada página se pueden extraer tantas ideas que es un libro abrumador. El tono pretencioso no ayuda. Y la traducción del francés al inglés parece bastante torpe en muchos casos (quizás al español se ha trasladado mejor la información por la similitud de las lenguas). Hay partes que son verdades absolutas y otras que no parecen siquiera pensamientos humanos en su rebuscamiento. Aun así, o precisamente por la dificultad que me ha supuesto, me ha resultado un recurso muy valioso. Tengo mucho que asentar y analizar y entender todavía. Comprendo el bosquejo de ideas, pero lo mejor es que he terminado el libro sin saber qué es el existencialismo; aunque tampoco creo que este libro esté diseñado para explicarlo.
March 5, 2024
Read because I was flamed by a certain mocker for never having read Simone de Beauvoir, and I have to say—this is the most easily digestible piece of philosophical text I've read that comes straight from the philosopher. Probably because de Beauvoir never considered herself that. I think I've had a wrong conception of existentialism until now.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 228 reviews