What do you think?
Rate this book
Existentialism
Essays on Sartre, Camus, De Beauvoir and Existentialism
92 pages, hardcover
First published January 1, 1947
6 people are currently reading
372 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Paul Sartre
1,098 books13k followersJean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was one of the key figures in the philosophy of existentialism (and phenomenology). His work has influenced sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. He was awarded the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature despite attempting to refuse it, saying that he always declined official honors and that "a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution."
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Sartre held an open relationship with prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Together, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged the cultural and social assumptions and expectations of their upbringings, which they considered bourgeois, in both lifestyles and thought. The conflict between oppressive, spiritually destructive conformity (mauvaise foi, literally, 'bad faith') and an "authentic" way of "being" became the dominant theme of Sartre's early work, a theme embodied in his principal philosophical work Being and Nothingness (L'Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre's introduction to his philosophy is his work Existentialism Is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
June 18, 2014
According to Satre, you can't be a hipster only by thinking hipster but by wearing hispter clothes, doing hipster things, making hipster friends etc.
In other words, he thinks that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. Man can only conceive himself after existing. "Before that projection of self, nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he proposes to be." So, the very first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man responsible for what he becomes and the very responsibility of how he becomes is on his shoulders. So all the crap communists or Christians gave about existentialism being a bourgeois philosophy can eat it. Their doctrine is built on the pure subjectivity of an individual while Satre thinks the essence comes before the existence not the other way around.
Also, Satre wants people to shut their trap about existentialism offering the gloomy side of things (aka existential crises as my realist friends like to call it) 'cos it aint that. He says it only scares those fellas cos it confronts them with the possibility of choice. So according to Satre, I do not exist. NOT YET.
In other words, he thinks that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. Man can only conceive himself after existing. "Before that projection of self, nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what he proposes to be." So, the very first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man responsible for what he becomes and the very responsibility of how he becomes is on his shoulders. So all the crap communists or Christians gave about existentialism being a bourgeois philosophy can eat it. Their doctrine is built on the pure subjectivity of an individual while Satre thinks the essence comes before the existence not the other way around.
Also, Satre wants people to shut their trap about existentialism offering the gloomy side of things (aka existential crises as my realist friends like to call it) 'cos it aint that. He says it only scares those fellas cos it confronts them with the possibility of choice. So according to Satre, I do not exist. NOT YET.
September 10, 2016
Very brief text, simple and straightforward.
May 10, 2019
سارتر و منتقدانش
هایدگر/ کامو و...
آیا کامو ایده آلیسم است؟ کامو خودش و مدیترانه ای میدونه و خودش و نزدیک به یونانی ها توصیف میکنه
سارتر به کامو ایراد میگیره که تو به تاریخ توجه نداری
سارتر یه فیلسوف هگلیه
کامو خدایان و بنده هگل و قبول نداره درحالی که سارتر قبول داره
کامو منتقد هگل و مارکس هست
سارتر ارزش خودش و در آینه دیگری میبینه
عشق برای سارتر یک کنش هست کنش کلا برای سارتر مهمه
هکامتن در تهوع سارتر از خودش پرسش های اگزیستی میکنه
مرسو در بیگانه به کلی در یک جهان بی معنا داره زندگی میکنه
در مرسو دیگری وجود نداره ولی دیگری در تمام نوشته هاي سارتر موج میزنه مثل گوشه گیران التونا و ...
در طاعون کامو اگه بتونیم بگیم دیگری وجود داره خود طاعونه است
طاعون اینجوری تموم میشه که اینا فکر میکنن پیروز شدن درحالی که موش های انباری هنوز باقی موندن و کامو میگه که اینا پیروز نمیشن
سارتر به دنبال ایجاد قرارداد اجتماعی مثل هابز و روسو و اسپینوزا نیست
سارتر به دنبال حاکمیت مطلق نیست ولی هابز هست
سارتر از انقلاب های زیادی دفاع کرده کاری که کامو نمیکنه کامو درگیر مفاهیمه و اساسا نمیخواد بگه که من همه چیز و میدونم و راه حل همه چیزا رو دارم
کامو میگه مهمترین شور و شوق قرن بیستم بندگی است در حالی که سارتر میگه انقلابه
کامو با نازی مبارزه کرده و سارتر نکرده اصن
ایدئولوژی برای کامو بنده گیه بنابراین نمیتونه ارمانخواه باشه اگرم بگیم هست نوعی که به دنبال آزادی و خلاقیته درحالی که میگه خلاقیت یعنی در بدترین شرایط خلاق بودن یعنی با خطر و در خطر خلاق بودن
مارسل هم دوره های سارتر هست و مسیحی و خودش و اگزیست میدونه
کلمه سیتواسیون یا سیجویشن یا موقعیت و سارتر از مارسل میگیره: این وجودی که ما هستیم موقعیت یافته است
مساله اینترسابجکتیویتی برای مارسل از سارتر مهم تره.
کامو هیچ گاه خودش و اگزیستانسیالیسم نمیدونست
کامو: دست از سر مقایسه من و سارتر بردارید ما با هم تفاوت زیاد داشتیم
یه نوع دوستی بدون معاشرت و دوستی فکری با هم داشتند
هایدگر/ کامو و...
آیا کامو ایده آلیسم است؟ کامو خودش و مدیترانه ای میدونه و خودش و نزدیک به یونانی ها توصیف میکنه
سارتر به کامو ایراد میگیره که تو به تاریخ توجه نداری
سارتر یه فیلسوف هگلیه
کامو خدایان و بنده هگل و قبول نداره درحالی که سارتر قبول داره
کامو منتقد هگل و مارکس هست
سارتر ارزش خودش و در آینه دیگری میبینه
عشق برای سارتر یک کنش هست کنش کلا برای سارتر مهمه
هکامتن در تهوع سارتر از خودش پرسش های اگزیستی میکنه
مرسو در بیگانه به کلی در یک جهان بی معنا داره زندگی میکنه
در مرسو دیگری وجود نداره ولی دیگری در تمام نوشته هاي سارتر موج میزنه مثل گوشه گیران التونا و ...
در طاعون کامو اگه بتونیم بگیم دیگری وجود داره خود طاعونه است
طاعون اینجوری تموم میشه که اینا فکر میکنن پیروز شدن درحالی که موش های انباری هنوز باقی موندن و کامو میگه که اینا پیروز نمیشن
سارتر به دنبال ایجاد قرارداد اجتماعی مثل هابز و روسو و اسپینوزا نیست
سارتر به دنبال حاکمیت مطلق نیست ولی هابز هست
سارتر از انقلاب های زیادی دفاع کرده کاری که کامو نمیکنه کامو درگیر مفاهیمه و اساسا نمیخواد بگه که من همه چیز و میدونم و راه حل همه چیزا رو دارم
کامو میگه مهمترین شور و شوق قرن بیستم بندگی است در حالی که سارتر میگه انقلابه
کامو با نازی مبارزه کرده و سارتر نکرده اصن
ایدئولوژی برای کامو بنده گیه بنابراین نمیتونه ارمانخواه باشه اگرم بگیم هست نوعی که به دنبال آزادی و خلاقیته درحالی که میگه خلاقیت یعنی در بدترین شرایط خلاق بودن یعنی با خطر و در خطر خلاق بودن
مارسل هم دوره های سارتر هست و مسیحی و خودش و اگزیست میدونه
کلمه سیتواسیون یا سیجویشن یا موقعیت و سارتر از مارسل میگیره: این وجودی که ما هستیم موقعیت یافته است
مساله اینترسابجکتیویتی برای مارسل از سارتر مهم تره.
کامو هیچ گاه خودش و اگزیستانسیالیسم نمیدونست
کامو: دست از سر مقایسه من و سارتر بردارید ما با هم تفاوت زیاد داشتیم
یه نوع دوستی بدون معاشرت و دوستی فکری با هم داشتند
January 1, 2020
Just a short explanation of Sartre's views on what Existentialism is and is not. Neither the philosophy nor this book did much for me.
October 20, 2018
The clearest explanation of existentialism that I have read. Certainly authoritative, given the author. Struck by similarities to Ayn Rand’s objectivism, though Rand and Sartre would certainly disagree about many things, especially Marxism! While Rand is focused on the individual in relation to himself/herself, Sartre is focused on the individual in relation to others. I think Sartre drastically underestimates the role of genetics and physiology in the making of a person. Our mind partners with our body to bring about the person we become.
December 19, 2012
This is one of the clearest essays on existentialism I have ever read. While one is reading, however, I would invite one to ponder the existential aspect of life as such and to avoid taking language on holiday. Use Sartre as a cartographer and climb the mountains yourself. Existentialism is real only in one's recognition of the world as something that is for or against one.
I would recommend this to any student of philosophy and anyone interested in existentialism in general.
I would recommend this to any student of philosophy and anyone interested in existentialism in general.
October 29, 2018
maybe it's a successful and easy to understand book for beginners.
January 10, 2019
Based on my reading, this book contains "the first sustained exposition of Sartre's existential philosophy to appear in English" (Frechtman, 1947, pp. 2-3). Sartre's existentialism varied greatly from Christian existentialism described by Kierkegaard in the sense that Sartre espoused an existential model for "a universe without purpose" (Frechtman, 1947, p. 3). The translator reminded readers that this work contains Sartre's lectures, not his intended book writings. The first principle of Sartre's philosophy states that "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself" (Sartre, 1947, p. 18). In other words, this statement indicates that "man exists first", that he is the first point of focus for determining a person's future as he or she willed it (Sartre, 1947, p. 19). The second principle states that "every man is responsible for his existence" (Sartre, 1947, p. 19). The third principle states that "man is anguish" (Sartre, 1947, p. 21). This statement indicates that "man struggles with knowing that he is also a lawmaker" and "cannot escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility" (Sartre, 1947, p. 22).
Sartre wrote some apologetic statements that supported Christian arguments. For example, he noted that the existentialist suffers with the concept that "no values or commands" have authoritative position in atheist existentialism (Sartre, 1947, p. 27). This argument aligns with Nietzsche's revelation behind his aphorism about the Madman in The Gay Science (Happy Wisdom).
Sartre wrote some apologetic statements that supported Christian arguments. For example, he noted that the existentialist suffers with the concept that "no values or commands" have authoritative position in atheist existentialism (Sartre, 1947, p. 27). This argument aligns with Nietzsche's revelation behind his aphorism about the Madman in The Gay Science (Happy Wisdom).
January 11, 2024
spricht unbewusste Gedanken aus. sehr comforting. sagt viel darüber dass es verdammt schwer ist zufrieden zu sein. Mensch als einziges Wesen das der Existenz voraus geht.
July 18, 2024
very digestable except for the round of questions at the end, call me dumb but it didnt get a single thing and that motherfucker naville sure had a lot of shit to say
December 15, 2009
I am learning a lot from this book of essays about art, about how it is created, the philosophical principles behind it, its purpose (because, according to existentialists, prose at least needs to have a purpose). I am also learning about a fascinating world view. I got so excited by what I read last night, that I could hardly go to sleep. I was laying and just smiling in the dark, and my thoughts were racing.
I'd like to include a couple of citations that I particularly liked so far.
The first one is from the introductory essay titled "Existentialism - a literature of despair?" by Henri Peyre.
Sartre does not wish poetry, painting, music, to accept 'engagement' and to set themselves at the service of any cause. But the prose-writer is different; he uses words as signs, not as objects. Writing, to him, means entering the realm of action. He must aim at his own contemporaries, and deliver a message valid for them, first of all.
The other two are from a wonderful essay by Gwendolyn Bays, "Simone de Beauvoir: Ethics and Art":
The paradoxical nature of man's existence consists in his solitude, separation, and need for such independence from others on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in his relation to others by which alone his actions have meaning.
and on art:
...Mme de Beauvoir issues an important challenge to the ideal of art for art's sake, which she finds no longer applicable to our culture; it is as impossible, in our time, to separate the philosophy or the values of the critic or novelist from his novel or criticism as it is to separate mind and body. It is no longer a question of whether philosophy will enter the novel, but WHICH philosophy and WHAT ideas. The philosophical novelist, according to Mme de Beauvoir, has a dual responsibility: to confront the "commonality" with abstractions of the key concerns of the human condition; and to intensify, dramatize, and 'sell' his ideas with all the novelistic devices at his command.
Disclaimer: Most essays were written in the 1950s, to give you an idea of the political setting; it might bear somewhat on the way you read them.
I'd like to include a couple of citations that I particularly liked so far.
The first one is from the introductory essay titled "Existentialism - a literature of despair?" by Henri Peyre.
Sartre does not wish poetry, painting, music, to accept 'engagement' and to set themselves at the service of any cause. But the prose-writer is different; he uses words as signs, not as objects. Writing, to him, means entering the realm of action. He must aim at his own contemporaries, and deliver a message valid for them, first of all.
The other two are from a wonderful essay by Gwendolyn Bays, "Simone de Beauvoir: Ethics and Art":
The paradoxical nature of man's existence consists in his solitude, separation, and need for such independence from others on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in his relation to others by which alone his actions have meaning.
and on art:
...Mme de Beauvoir issues an important challenge to the ideal of art for art's sake, which she finds no longer applicable to our culture; it is as impossible, in our time, to separate the philosophy or the values of the critic or novelist from his novel or criticism as it is to separate mind and body. It is no longer a question of whether philosophy will enter the novel, but WHICH philosophy and WHAT ideas. The philosophical novelist, according to Mme de Beauvoir, has a dual responsibility: to confront the "commonality" with abstractions of the key concerns of the human condition; and to intensify, dramatize, and 'sell' his ideas with all the novelistic devices at his command.
Disclaimer: Most essays were written in the 1950s, to give you an idea of the political setting; it might bear somewhat on the way you read them.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 6, 2020
Third read through:
Wow, it only took me three goes, but I get it now :D. I also bumped it up a star because I understand it and it is actually quite interesting. I would definitely recommend reading the first chapter of At The Existentialist Café before reading this to get a better grasp of it the first time through.
After reread:
One’s existence is defined by their choices and their doing. Did I get it right?
Original thoughts:
Some points were profound, others were confusing, but I’ll be rereading this sometime in September so hopefully I’ll get more of it that second go around
Wow, it only took me three goes, but I get it now :D. I also bumped it up a star because I understand it and it is actually quite interesting. I would definitely recommend reading the first chapter of At The Existentialist Café before reading this to get a better grasp of it the first time through.
After reread:
One’s existence is defined by their choices and their doing. Did I get it right?
Original thoughts:
Some points were profound, others were confusing, but I’ll be rereading this sometime in September so hopefully I’ll get more of it that second go around
November 9, 2011
"Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing."
March 18, 2014
Super clear, straight forward and easy to understand- this book defines existentialism very well. It's really good to help jump off of and get rolling on that ball of philosophy.
May 7, 2017
Bahan kuliah.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews