Being and Nothingness
- Downloads：2156
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-05-09 08:53:58
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Jean-Paul Sartre
- ISBN：1982105453
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Revisit one of the most important pillars in modern philosophy with this new English translation—the first in more than 60 years—of Jean-Paul Sartre’s seminal treatise on existentialism。 “This is a philosophy to be reckoned with， both for its own intrinsic power and as a profound symptom of our time” （The New York Times）。
In 1943， Jean-Paul Sartre published his masterpiece， Being and Nothingness， and laid the foundation of his legacy as one of the greatest twentieth century philosophers。 A brilliant and radical account of the human condition， Being and Nothingness explores what gives our lives significance。
In a new and more accessible translation， this foundational text argues that we alone create our values and our existence is characterized by freedom and the inescapability of choice。 Far from being an internal， passive container for our thoughts and experiences， human consciousness is constantly projecting itself into the outside world and imbuing it with meaning。
Now with a new foreword by Harvard professor of philosophy Richard Moran， this clear-eyed translation guarantees that the groundbreaking ideas that Sartre introduced in this resonant work will continue to inspire for generations to come。
In 1943， Jean-Paul Sartre published his masterpiece， Being and Nothingness， and laid the foundation of his legacy as one of the greatest twentieth century philosophers。 A brilliant and radical account of the human condition， Being and Nothingness explores what gives our lives significance。
In a new and more accessible translation， this foundational text argues that we alone create our values and our existence is characterized by freedom and the inescapability of choice。 Far from being an internal， passive container for our thoughts and experiences， human consciousness is constantly projecting itself into the outside world and imbuing it with meaning。
Now with a new foreword by Harvard professor of philosophy Richard Moran， this clear-eyed translation guarantees that the groundbreaking ideas that Sartre introduced in this resonant work will continue to inspire for generations to come。
Reviews
Libia Fibilo
，
L'idea centrale di questo libro è che se l'uomo è libero lo è perché davanti a lui c'è il nulla。Il suo "essere" è continuamente risospinto a scegliere tra una libera creazione e un cieco affidarsi al caso。"essere" questo termine usato e abusato da filosofi d'ogni tempo， vuol dire una cosa semplice， nonostante tutte le pedanterie e gli inutili cavilli che ci si fanno sopra per la sua vaghezza semantica:Vuol dire che distinguiamo intuitivamente tra le cose vive e le cose morte， e che la caratteris L'idea centrale di questo libro è che se l'uomo è libero lo è perché davanti a lui c'è il nulla。Il suo "essere" è continuamente risospinto a scegliere tra una libera creazione e un cieco affidarsi al caso。"essere" questo termine usato e abusato da filosofi d'ogni tempo， vuol dire una cosa semplice， nonostante tutte le pedanterie e gli inutili cavilli che ci si fanno sopra per la sua vaghezza semantica:Vuol dire che distinguiamo intuitivamente tra le cose vive e le cose morte， e che la caratteristica comune delle cose vive è una certa velocità di responso alle nostre osservazioni。 Per semplicità diamo il nome di "essere" alla qualità che accomuna tra loro le più diverse forme di vita vivente。Ovviamente in questi termini non viene presentato qui。Nella migliore tradizione dei truffatori parolieri， ma con una piu cocciuta ed emotiva pertinacia， Sartre si avventura per la selva degli pseudo ragionamenti e qui è là ci sono grida di lucidità poeticizzata che tentarono di salvarlo dal proseguire questo lavoro che， quando non insensato， non ne vale davvero la pena。Si poteva parlare di come cambia l'uomo da neonato fino a vecchio， dell'imitazione， della memoria， della differenza e convivenza con gli animali e della ragione culturale dietro la plausibilità di certe possibilità e meno di altre; della natura del credo e del sapere in funzione della cultura scritta e tante altre cose。Invece questo libro è un rigirio di inferenze sbagliate， formalismi verbali connesse da ponti di costrutti grammaticali ai limiti della sensatezza e ben oltre quelli della decenza rispetto alla vaghezza。Una pustola nella faccia della carriera letteraria di Sartre， originata da quell'acne tedesca che nacque da Kant， proseguì a Hegel e continuò con Heidegger。 。。。more
Julia
，
A must read if you’re interested in existentialism。 Dense and will probably take some time to get through but definitely worthwhile。
Will O'Hara
，
He solved a lot of problems with this book。 I’m not acquainted with any other metaphysics （or， as sartre calls it， ontology）， so i have nothing against which i can measure this， but it seems to make intuitive sense。 i’m excited to see how he treats collectivity in the CDR
Arashsaraei
，
این کتاب رو اولین بار چند سال پیش با ترجمه افتضاح （ اگه بشه اسمش رو ترکه گذاشت ） خوندم، جدیدا متوجه شدم هستی و نیستی ژان پل سارتر رو مترجم خوب مهستی بحرینی ترجمه کرده و خواندنش با این ترجمه خوب و روون لذت بخش بود
arbuz
，
Не зная заранее философии Гуссерля， Хайдеггера， Фрейда и Ницше， Гегеля， Канта， Декарта， а также не имея на руках хороших лекций и монографий по самому Сартру， лучше к этому труду даже не приступать。。。 Он сложный， местами просто тёмный， а сама аргументация идет немного неравномерно и витиевато。Но это окупится！ Сартр не переписывает Хайдеггера своими словами （как говорят некоторые）。 Зато развивает идеи Гуссерля и уничтожает （рвёт） Фрейда， бихевиоризм， религии， буржуазную мораль， романтические отно Не зная заранее философии Гуссерля， Хайдеггера， Фрейда и Ницше， Гегеля， Канта， Декарта， а также не имея на руках хороших лекций и монографий по самому Сартру， лучше к этому труду даже не приступать。。。 Он сложный， местами просто тёмный， а сама аргументация идет немного неравномерно и витиевато。Но это окупится！ Сартр не переписывает Хайдеггера своими словами （как говорят некоторые）。 Зато развивает идеи Гуссерля и уничтожает （рвёт） Фрейда， бихевиоризм， религии， буржуазную мораль， романтические отношения， эмоции и даже психологическое "Я"。 В общем， все， что может помешать абсолютной свободе чистого сознания。 Насколько убедительна его система （а у Сартра хорошие аргументы） и какие этические следствия она имеет -- другой интересный вопрос。 。。。more
Sarah
，
In the book "Being and Nothingness，" Sartre distinguishes between two sorts of reality that exist outside of our conscious awareness: the being of the object of consciousness and consciousness itself。 The object of awareness existing "in-itself，" that is， in a non-relational and autonomous manner。 Consciousness， on the other hand， is always aware "of something，" therefore it is defined in reference to something else， and it cannot be grasped inside a conscious experience: it exists "for-itself。" In the book "Being and Nothingness，" Sartre distinguishes between two sorts of reality that exist outside of our conscious awareness: the being of the object of consciousness and consciousness itself。 The object of awareness existing "in-itself，" that is， in a non-relational and autonomous manner。 Consciousness， on the other hand， is always aware "of something，" therefore it is defined in reference to something else， and it cannot be grasped inside a conscious experience: it exists "for-itself。" One of the most important aspects of awareness is its negative power， which allows us to feel "nothingness。" This force also operates inside the self， causing an inherent lack of self-identity。 As a result， rather than being taken for granted， the unity of the self is seen as a duty for the for-itself。 In essence， sartre defines the human being as a being who is intrinsically free and can never be unfree。 It is free in the sense that it exists， and nothing can take that away from it。 He distinguishes between the being of things like buildings， trees， and cups and the being of consciousness on a fundamental ontological level。 He refers to the first as "in-itself" and the second as "for-itself。" What's the distinction between the two？ On an ontological level， the in-itself is identical to the for-itself， yet the for-itself is first and primarily "what it is not。" The being through which "nothing" enters the world is the for-itself。 This claim is based on the observation that human beings can always negate， meaning they can "let slip in nothingness。" Being free is defined by this "negation。" The negative should be interpreted as a state of being suspended。 In his opinion， a form of suspension like that is to be seen as we perceive the phenomenon of the inquiry。 Now， the for-itself is the consciousness's existence， which is continually negating。 So， in his opinion， there can't be a casual connection between anything and consciousness， because a casual connection wouldn't allow nothingness in。 Conciousness， on the other hand， cancels and suspends these bridges between beings。 As a result， sartre comes to the conclusion that the for-itself is free。 On a more practical level， this means that， for example， intentions never determine human beingness since motives are initially rejected。 They are suspended， not arbitrarily deciding。 To act on motives， it's necessary to first comprehend reasons as motives。 Otherwise， motives would be unable to influence anything。 。。。more
Gregory Mitten
，
I've been reading this for so long that I'm unable to recall a single event prior to buying it I've been reading this for so long that I'm unable to recall a single event prior to buying it 。。。more
Quiver
，
Complex and rich and difficult， though a great pleasure for every inch of understanding gained。 I made it about two-thirds of the way before intellectual duty called me elsewhere。Nearly two years on， I retain very little of the contents， but that is merely a reflection of my inability at the time to activate， apply， and pass on what I was reading。 Today， it would be different。 I shall return。
Brennen
，
*prolonged fart noise*
Sajid
，
“Man is a useless passion”I have been reading this difficult work of existential philosophy from over a month。 And now as it is finished– lying beside me，hovering on the surface of my being，flowing its brilliant character on my freedom–i am satisfied and blessed。 Satisfied because it gave me everything i wanted to know about the very being our existence， and oh boy，did it give in so many layers of subtle details。 And blessed because i could finish this extremely complex a work without being exha “Man is a useless passion”I have been reading this difficult work of existential philosophy from over a month。 And now as it is finished– lying beside me，hovering on the surface of my being，flowing its brilliant character on my freedom–i am satisfied and blessed。 Satisfied because it gave me everything i wanted to know about the very being our existence， and oh boy，did it give in so many layers of subtle details。 And blessed because i could finish this extremely complex a work without being exhausted a bit。 So why does this book enjoy the reputation of being the bible of existentialism？It is because Sartre，in this book，with so much care delved deep into beings and by the ontological method cleared all the philosophical jargons philosophized for years and years。 Incepting the seed of an idea from Husserlian phenomenology that Consciousness is always consciousness of something，Sartre most of the times deviated from Husserl， Heidegger and Hegel and paved the path for his own unique philosophy of existentialism。 Discussing or summarizing this book here would be impossible， because talking about one term over another without creating any bridge between them would be to abstracting that individuals term。 And everything in this book from the start to end interpenetrates one another。 So writing on all those terms would require a individual book by myself。 But here，i can only talk about the changes this book had brought on me。And even if we want to summarize my overall understanding of this book， these would be: （1） Consciousness is always consciousness of something。 In other words，consciousness is only a relation。Consciousness has no inside or outside。 It is always fleeing from itself。 It is this very fleeing。 Or in Kierkegaard's words，“It is relation relating itself to its own relation。” Or What Sartre says，“Consciousness is a being such that in its being， its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself。”（2） By the very upsurge of consciousness human reality exists。 Human reality is nothing other than affirming or denying its own existence in the mode of non-being。 Even by the sole contingency of its being a nothingness or non-being comes into play。（3）The very being of the consciousness which is “condemned to be free” and must forever choose itself—i。e。， make itself。 “‘To be free’ does not mean ‘to obtain what one has wished’ but rather ‘by oneself to determine oneself to wish’ （in the broad sense of choosing）。 In other words success is not important to freedom。” By the very upsurge of its being，it is free。（4） But we deny our freedom by continuously being in Bad faith。 Which can be simply understood， even in an exaggerated manner，by a man's self deception。 （5） But apprehending the reality of one's freedom submerges him/her in Anguish。 Anguish is the reflective apprehension of the Self as freedom， the realization that a nothingness slips in between my Self and my past and future so that nothing relieves me from the necessity of continually choosing myself and nothing guarantees the validity of the values which I choose。 Fear is of something in the world， anguish is anguish before myself （as in Kierkegaard）。 So in some concluding words，i would say that i had a great relationship with this book。 Now the relationship has ended on a good term。 But the nature of this book is like the nature of a wild，charming， intelligent and a mysterious women–and whatever you do to penetrate to the deepest abyss of her consciousness you only flow over her skin with your own temporal reality。 That's why you have to encounter her again and again to satisfy the urge of your own self quest。 And such is the nature of this book。 。。。more
funda
，
Nasıl zorlandığım bir okuma oldu anlatamam。 Sartre， Varoluşçuluk ve bağlantılı birçok okuma yapmama rağmen anlamakta zorlandım。 En biyük sebebi ise felsefi çevirilerde gördüğümüz Türkçeleştirme çabası。 Bırakın kendi haliyle kalsın terimler。 Zaten okur onu o şekilde oturmuştur。 Anlamsız cümle çevirileri de cabası… Tüm bunlar bir bilinmezlik katma çabası mıdır？ Kimse anlamasın uğraşı mıdır çözemedim。 İmkanınız varsa orjinalinden veya İngilizce çevirisinden okuyun。
Masha
，
Sartre’s best work。 Wrote lots of essays based on it， it was just beautiful to be able to understand and analyze everything from this book。
Jordan
，
Heidegger， Sartre， Ortega y Gasset， and Camus all said pretty much the same thing， but the German did so obscurely; the Frenchman， complexly; the Spaniard， elegantly; and the Algerian， simply。
سلمان
，
رغم صعوبة الكتاب إلا أن هناك متعة في فحص كلام سارتر والتأمل به
Ahmed Obaid
，
أنا لم أقرأه كاملًا—أي من الدفة للدفة، وبالتتالي—بل كانت قرائتي لهذا الكتاب هي في الحقيقة دراسة لفصول منفصلة بجانب قراءاتي للتعليقات والشروحات على هذا الكتاب، ولا أزال لا أفهم الكثير منه، ولا يعني وضعه في هذه القائمة أني أنتهيتُ منه، بل سأعاود الرجوع له مرات ومرات، وهو بالفعل من أقرب النصوص الفلسفية إلى قلبي。
Aditya Narayanan
，
Cool stuff
sarah mcGonagle
，
ngl i did not read the whole thing but i did read a lot of it so i’m marking it as complete and it did make my head hurt。 i do recommend。 i read nausea after this and it was Not A Good Time for me。 that one actually made me sick。 read this when u have the time and space to really annotate and digest what ur reading， it is not light reading material。 maybe i’ll revisit it and finish， probably not
Zoe
，
Ah yes。。。 Being and Nothingness by Jean Paul Sartre。。。 the fulcrum of goth teenagers everywhere fallen down the rabbit hole of existentialist philosophy。 Published in 1943， this is probably Sartre’s most famous work。 Being and nothingness centers around Ontology， （or for those of us who speak english，） the philosophical study of existing/being。 In this book Sartre creates a philosophical account of existentialism （exploring the nature of existence by emphasizing experiences of people。） There are Ah yes。。。 Being and Nothingness by Jean Paul Sartre。。。 the fulcrum of goth teenagers everywhere fallen down the rabbit hole of existentialist philosophy。 Published in 1943， this is probably Sartre’s most famous work。 Being and nothingness centers around Ontology， （or for those of us who speak english，） the philosophical study of existing/being。 In this book Sartre creates a philosophical account of existentialism （exploring the nature of existence by emphasizing experiences of people。） There are chapters that explore temporality， the past， the present， transcendence， and more。 My personal favorite part of this entire book was the chapter on “bad faith，” the summary of which is basically that you shouldn’t be a slave to hypothetical outcomes of your choices because of societal pressure， making yourself a passive object that things happen to， rather than having an active role in your own life。 I have to say， I do have problems with jean Paul Sartre as a person and I don’t love the fact that the phrase “ontological phenomenology” was repeated every 20 words， or that Jean Paul couldn’t have made his work more accessible。 it’s a seminal text of 20th century French philosophy and if you are into that then this is the book for you。 Also: when I was a sophomore I carried this book around like someone was going to take it from me。 it took me a ridiculously long time to read。 It’s kind of funny but this book did in fact show me that there are more ways of defining your life than religion （i。e。 a higher power） which was really helpful to me at the time， could be helpful to someone else too。 。。。more
Bryan
，
Tough one to review— it's a touchstone text historically speaking， but almost irrelevant in modern scholarship。 Sartre is brilliant， but he seems reductive and naïve in his account of "subjectivity as ground。" I didn't read most of the sections where he applies his framework simply because it seems like a waste of time。 I don't buy the model， so why explore it？ I'm not the biggest Heidegger fan， but it does seem like every one of his divergences from Heidegger is wrong footed in my view。 I did e Tough one to review— it's a touchstone text historically speaking， but almost irrelevant in modern scholarship。 Sartre is brilliant， but he seems reductive and naïve in his account of "subjectivity as ground。" I didn't read most of the sections where he applies his framework simply because it seems like a waste of time。 I don't buy the model， so why explore it？ I'm not the biggest Heidegger fan， but it does seem like every one of his divergences from Heidegger is wrong footed in my view。 I did enjoy reading it though， even if Sartre annoyingly oscillates between beautiful， crystal clear prose and dense， inscrutable Hegelianisms。 I don't think one needs to agree with a book to like it or appreciate it。 I do appreciate Sartre here， but I don't think it's any surprise that he's so out of favor in academia。 Frankly， being out of favor with academia could be a good thing in some cases， but that's not the case here。 I think Sartre's model has simply too many blindspots for there to be a bunch of Sartreans running amuck。 。。。more
James Klagge
，
First of all I'll admit I didn't read every page。 Has anyone？I'm an analytic philosopher， but about 30 years ago I decided I wanted to broaden my classes a bit。 I decided to teach a senior/MA level course in Metaphysics using The Philosophy of Logical Atomism， this book， and The View from Nowhere or Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature。 This gives a survey of 3 significant works in the 20th century。 It also modeled for my students the experience of working with a text that is not easy or familiar First of all I'll admit I didn't read every page。 Has anyone？I'm an analytic philosopher， but about 30 years ago I decided I wanted to broaden my classes a bit。 I decided to teach a senior/MA level course in Metaphysics using The Philosophy of Logical Atomism， this book， and The View from Nowhere or Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature。 This gives a survey of 3 significant works in the 20th century。 It also modeled for my students the experience of working with a text that is not easy or familiar。 I have now taught that class that way 10 times， and I think it works。The reader can easily get lost in Sartre's prose and lingo。 And long passages are （for me） impenetrable。 （I would give it 1 star on this basis。） But there are so many nuggets along the way and deeply interesting ideas that it is worth the effort to find them。 （With some guidance！ I don't make my students read the whole thing， but extensive selections that I mark。） （I would give it 5 stars on this basis--so the 1 and 5 average out to my 3-star rating。）Among the nuggets that I enjoy （though I can't hope to explain them here）:-The distinction between being-in-itself and being-for-itself。-His discussion of Pierre NOT being in the cafe （p。 40ff）。 This makes for an interesting contrast with Russell's view of negative facts。 The most charming thing about Sartre is his vignettes， such as this。 They have real depth to them， and offer a way of doing philosophy that largely contrasts with the analytic tradition。 （However， I try to bring this approach on stage， with Wittgenstein's assistance， in my Wittgenstein's Artillery: Philosophy as Poetry。-His distinction between fear and anguish （p。 60）。-His radical conception of freedom （throughout the book）， in which the for-itself has the inalienable capacity to nihilate influences of any sort。-His notion of bad faith （p。 83）， in which people are constantly tempted to fool themselves into thinking they are not constantly free。 Think how often we say "I can't do that tonight， I have to。。。" instead of "I choose not to do that tonight， I choose to。。。" -Authenticity （p。 128） becomes perhaps the only real virtue for him， and what makes us truly human; yet we are constantly tempted to bad faith。 He defines God as the being-in-itself-for-itself， and sees the human project as the desire to be god （p。 140）。 He is an atheist b/c such a synthesis is not possible， and he sees the human project as fundamentally impossible。 We are inevitably in an "unhappy state。"-The appeal to reasons and values in decision-making is a manifestation of bad faith （p。 143）。 Things are reasons or values for us only insofar as we choose them。 If we think we are weighing factors in a decision， it is only we who weighted the factors to start with。-He solves the problem of other minds by reminding us of the experience of shame in the presence of another--the Look。 His account of being caught in the act， peeking through a keyhole， is another great vignette （p。 347）。 -He does not think 2 for-itselfs can encounter one another and both remain for-itselfs。 One or the other becomes an in-itself。 He illustrates this with the marvelous account of walking through the park （p。 341）。 My account of this: If you can imagine a polar coordinate system overlaid in the park， with me at the center， the discovery of another in the park creates a metaphysical battle over who will be the center of the coordinate system。 -Love， or rather， sex， then becomes a battleground of a similar sort （p。 475）， in which the for-itself dominates another--sadism， or is dominated by the other--masochism。 Late in life Sartre's long-time partner， Simone de Beauvoir， interviewed him about a wide range of things in Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre。 Amazingly， his answers about his own sex life fit perfectly with his metaphysical views between the sheets。-I love his discussion of hiking and giving up （p。 584）。 It is a perfect analogy to running a marathon， of which I have lots of experience。 He says it is wrong and bad faith to think you "have" to stop， though he admits that to do otherwise might require a fundamental modification of "my original choice of myself。" My own experience of long-distance running is that I never ask myself whether I should stop--for fear of what the answer will be。 So， by Sartre's lights， my strategy is to run in bad faith。 Once I decide to run， I let that earlier decision ride and govern my actions， and I never raise it again。 Always reaffirming your choices could end up being somewhat tiring itself， in addition to being dangerous。-You might think that many of your choices are guided by your character。 In fact Aristotle recommended inculcating the virtues precisely so you would have a character that led to the best choices。 But Sartre would say that is relying on bad faith。 For Sartre， character is a vow， or a project （p。 705）。-Sartre says man is condemned to be free （p。 707）， and he is responsible for everything that happens to him！ He chose it， for lack of having gotten out of it--by suicide if not by some other means （p。 710）。 He even goes so far as to say that "in a certain sense I choose to be born"--for not having committed suicide。 -Sartre has an extended critique of Freudian psychoanalysis。 Freud treats the person as a collection of forces--i。e。， as an in-itself。 Sartre endorses what he calls existential psychoanalysis （p。 726）。 The goal of that is to help a person to discern their original choice of themselves， with the idea that they can see how that plays out and how a different choice could be made。Let no one suppose I like the book b/c I agree with it。 In fact I disagree with a lot， though there are many grains of truth。 But its value， as philosophy， is its provocation。 And also its determination that philosophy impacts life。 Too often analytic philosophy is quite separate from （the rest of） life。 But I'm interested in the connections。 That has motivated my work on Wittgenstein--to see how his life and his work connect。 And that makes Sartre's work especially interesting to me。 I don't want to allow that only "continental" philosophy connects with life， but it does at least have that value。 。。。more
James Love
，
I read this book along with his earlier work， The Transcendence of the Ego， for a college philosophy course。 I have re-read it at least one other time and I have a Love/Hate relationship with the theories proposed by the author。The thing I love most is the thought provoking concepts like the different forms of being， bad faith， and the Reef of Solipsism that Sartre brings to the conversation of existence。 Sartre treats each individual concept as its own phenomenon。 He brackets it off and then de I read this book along with his earlier work， The Transcendence of the Ego， for a college philosophy course。 I have re-read it at least one other time and I have a Love/Hate relationship with the theories proposed by the author。The thing I love most is the thought provoking concepts like the different forms of being， bad faith， and the Reef of Solipsism that Sartre brings to the conversation of existence。 Sartre treats each individual concept as its own phenomenon。 He brackets it off and then defines and describes it much like a Hematologist would focus on a specific blood cell determining its form and function to decide whether it is healthy or diseased。The thing I HATE is the annoying repetition brought by the translation。 When discussing the idea of consciousness the translator keeps using the same word "consciousness。" It brings a circular logic that goes beyond redundancy to the point of Monty Python-esque silliness。 There are times where the translation sounds like a NASCAR racer stalled in the pit。 The engine whines， the rubber tires squall on the pavement， you can smell the burning rubber and asphalt， but the car goes nowhere。 。。。more
Alina
，
Sartre's a pretty terrible writer。 This is a 900 page book， but its substantial points could be explained and defended in full detail in probably no more than 100 pages。 Sartre likes repeating his points again and again， and rarely in the form of illuminating or helpful examples; there are a few such examples which have made it into the popular literature （Pierre in the cafe， the voyeur at the keyhole）， but these are few and in between。 Fortunately， the substantial parts of the book are very goo Sartre's a pretty terrible writer。 This is a 900 page book， but its substantial points could be explained and defended in full detail in probably no more than 100 pages。 Sartre likes repeating his points again and again， and rarely in the form of illuminating or helpful examples; there are a few such examples which have made it into the popular literature （Pierre in the cafe， the voyeur at the keyhole）， but these are few and in between。 Fortunately， the substantial parts of the book are very good and well-argued for; this is the only reason why I'm not giving this a lower rating。 Let me summarize what I take to be the substantial parts below。Sartre grounds freedom in the fact that there are two fundamentally distinct aspects of conscious experience。 He calls these positional consciousness and non-positional consciousness。 Positional consciousness refers to our awareness of the intentional objects of experience。 When we look upon the world， think about an idea， or introspect on a past experience， we become aware of the objects around us， the thought， and the past experience—the presentation of each of these intentional objects to our awareness in each of these experiences constitutes the positional consciousness of these experiences。Non-positional consciousness refers to our awareness of ourselves as subjects having experiences， or encountering the contents of positional consciousness。 Whether I am looking upon the world， thinking about an idea， or introspecting on a past experience， I am aware that this experience is had by me。 If non-positional consciousness didn’t exist， the contents of my experience would show up to me as standing as absolute reality itself， as non-negotiable facts， given that there is no subject that these contents are conditioned by。 The way by which my being is presented to myself in non-positional consciousness is very different from the way by which that intentional objects are presented in positional consciousness。 It is neither that my embodied person shows up in my perceptual field alongside the other objects of experience; nor that a thought about myself accompanies every experience。 Sartre doesn’t seem to explicitly characterize the phenomenology of this way by which my being shows up to me; but he details the causal consequences of this fact， or what this awareness allows us to do， which I will explain below。According to Sartre， every conscious experience necessarily involves both positional and non-positional consciousness。 I cannot have an experience without being aware of myself as the subject of that experience。 This fact makes our freedom possible。 On Sartre’s metaphysics， every object as we experience it is necessarily non-identical to the object as it stands independently of our experience of it; and our non-positional consciousness enables us to be aware of this fact when we apprehend objects of positional consciousness。 Every object as we positionally experience it is， rather， is partial， incomplete， and dependent on our subjectivity that partially constitutes it。 Objects show up as manifesting values and significances， for example， and these depend on our projects and commitments。 In contrast， the sense of self which is presented in non-positional consciousness is not incomplete in this same way。 Sartre seems to presuppose that the exact way the self is presented in this consciousness does not reveal the self in any determinate form; for example， the self as we experience it non-positionally does not possess characteristics like being shy or warm-hearted。 Sartre identifies this self with nothingness; it metaphysically lacks any determinate or essential characteristics， unlike the objects of positional consciousness。 （Sartre may also get to this conclusion with committing to that， phenomenologically， the self presented in non-positional consciousness possesses determinate characteristics; he could add the premise that this self as presented is non-identical to the self as it stands independently of our experiencing it， and then argue that the latter is metaphysically indeterminate， and we can be aware of that fact while encountering a determinate sense of self in non-positional consciousness。 I am not familiar enough with the text and secondary literature to know with certainty which of these positions Sartre takes）。 Sartre ascribes to the self of non-positional consciousness the power to negotiate with any object of positional consciousness。 In other words， we are always and necessarily able to remove the significance that a particular object possesses in our experience and replace it with new significance。 Even emotions do not necessarily possess that which we typically take to be their essential significances。 We typically think that is we are in a blind rage， this rage makes us act aggressively or violently， and lose any desire to care or protect the creature that instigated our rage。 Sartre would argue that such rage does not necessarily have this significance for us。 We can choose its significance。 We could choose that this rage won’t lead to our aggression; perhaps we choose that is rather a purely physiological state， just as feeling warm and cold are purely physiological states。 Without the significance of indicating our compulsion towards violence， the feeling of rage may be compatible with our standing still peacefully。 What is the relationship between the fact that the self is nothingness with this power that this self possesses？ What about the self being nothingness could enable it to possess this power of transforming any significance in the world， or conversely， what about the self possessing this power would make it ontologically consist in nothingness？ My understanding is that if the self didn’t possess any essential or determinate characteristics， and so is nothingness， it could temporarily adopt any indeterminate and non-essential dispositions， values， or other kinds of “mental” characteristics。 These mental characteristics， in turn， would make possible new significances that objects of positional consciousness may manifest。 The significance of an object depends on a prior mental characteristic， such as a disposition or value。 For example， the disposition to use spoons to eat soup may lead to the perception of a bowl of soup served without a spoon on the side to manifest the significance of a missing spoon， so that one gets up to look for a spoon。 The idea that we are nothingness amounts to that we are constantly changing and recreating ourselves， whether this recreation is the renewal of a previously temporary characteristic， or is the rejection of one and the adaption of a new temporary characteristic。 These changes in the self correspond with changes in the significances of objects of experience; so we may constantly free ourselves from previous meanings， and the emotions， thoughts， or behaviors those encourage。 Moreover， such changes could happen in any direction whatsoever; there are no previous experiences or causal conditions that determine the directions into which we change。 I think one could get away with reading only the chapters "The origin of negation，" "Bad faith，" and "Being and doing" and grasp all that's substantial about this book。 All the other chapters seem to involve Sartre just going through the same exercise of showing how some traditional philosophical phenomenon in fact may be reduced to or is adequately explained by his view on freedom。 。。。more
Seamus Holland
，
In its key moments -- like those concerning Sartre's principal ontology， existential psychoanalysis， and freedom -- Being and Nothingness attains an almost mystical quality， as attained by Stephen Daedalus while he expounds Aristotle in the National Library。 As his interpretation of experience comes together， and the reader is introduced to the concept of what Sartre calls their "fundamental project"， their gnosis may verge on spiritual， or as close as you're likely to get in this discipline。 Bu In its key moments -- like those concerning Sartre's principal ontology， existential psychoanalysis， and freedom -- Being and Nothingness attains an almost mystical quality， as attained by Stephen Daedalus while he expounds Aristotle in the National Library。 As his interpretation of experience comes together， and the reader is introduced to the concept of what Sartre calls their "fundamental project"， their gnosis may verge on spiritual， or as close as you're likely to get in this discipline。 But as with most successful religious doctrine （whether orthodox or otherwise）， it's unclear whether the appeal lies in philosophical/theological robustness or in humanist tendencies。 There are points in the 800-page work in which Sartre The Novelist seeps through， occasionally injecting a hint of sentimentality （"man is a useless passion"， "there is no such thing as an innocent child" etc。） that may comfort but just as easily confuse。 Targets abound for the structuralists。 But Sartre's conception of existence and its implications for consciousness， primary or not， proves a signficant step forward from the work of Husserl， Heidegger and Scheler。Also， I wish I spoke French -- the translation is a nightmare at times。 。。。more
Andrew Noselli
，
Sartre's anti-Christian philosophy sees sincerity as being in bad faith， and I suppose I waited thirty years before venturing this text because the project itself seems repugnant to me。 I am thankful for the new translation， I was waiting for such a translation to make this work comprehensible to me。。。。 Sartre says that Being precedes essence， and states further that the only acceptable form of knowledge is intuitive， and what we are confronted with is not God but nothingness and a dreary pictur Sartre's anti-Christian philosophy sees sincerity as being in bad faith， and I suppose I waited thirty years before venturing this text because the project itself seems repugnant to me。 I am thankful for the new translation， I was waiting for such a translation to make this work comprehensible to me。。。。 Sartre says that Being precedes essence， and states further that the only acceptable form of knowledge is intuitive， and what we are confronted with is not God but nothingness and a dreary picture of an infinitely empty universe。 Sartre thought there was no place for divinity in a Nazi-occupied France， surprisingly he chose to side with the resistance movement against the German aggressors; however， today's existentialists patronize Starbucks and do not join the U。S。 Army， as I did shortly after 9/11。 It is Sartre's self-professed existential philosophy that a negation of the being who determines existence is an "ideal"， supreme negation。 which is obviously meant as a slap in the face to God whose most notably quality is indifference to human affairs。 I think that the entire gamut of binary oppositions Sartre and countless others propagate， that is， divisions such as being/not being， presence/absence， real/irreal， all essentially stem from the fact that consciousness is not a steady state but flickers in moments of varying intensity， and this， my friends， is the secret lesson and mission of the atomic bomb， to alienate us from life completely， to want to destroy the love-objects which are related to the self that we cannot possess totally。 I think the translator is correct， and that Sartre's work can best be understood as a misinterpretation of Heidegger's philosophy。 。。。more
Kristianne Noelle Celis
，
I must admit， i think i will never finish this one。 Apart from the intimidating thickness of the book， it dried up my brain fluids from page 1。😅 i’ll definitely attempt one more time。
Saraa
，
I never leave reviews but the end chapter where he kept talking about and mentioning slime drove me absolutely fucking insane （out of all other things that could have。。）。 Otherwise， good book！
Andrea Muraro
，
"Esiste una quantità infinita di realtà che non sono solamente oggetti di giudizio， ma esperite， combattute， temute ecc。， dall'essere umano， e che sono abitate nelle loro infrastrutture dalla negazione， come condizione necessaria della loro esistenza。 Le chiameremo delle negatività。"L'esistenzialismo è una corrente filosofica che mi prende un sacco e che trovo utile e praticabile nella vita reale。 Mi ero rivolto a Heidegger e Jaspers e mi hanno convinto。 Avevo comprato questo libro anni fa ma， s "Esiste una quantità infinita di realtà che non sono solamente oggetti di giudizio， ma esperite， combattute， temute ecc。， dall'essere umano， e che sono abitate nelle loro infrastrutture dalla negazione， come condizione necessaria della loro esistenza。 Le chiameremo delle negatività。"L'esistenzialismo è una corrente filosofica che mi prende un sacco e che trovo utile e praticabile nella vita reale。 Mi ero rivolto a Heidegger e Jaspers e mi hanno convinto。 Avevo comprato questo libro anni fa ma， spaventato dalla mole， lo avevo lasciato in disparte。 Ma ho deciso di dedicarci le sere di agosto， calde e afose e bisognose di essere riempite。Jean-Paul Sartre ha uno stile di ragionamento serrato; non mancano domande retoriche e ricapitolazioni， così come neologismi e usi linguistici particolari （come la forma transitiva del verbo "esistere" ad esempio）。 In questo non si differenzia molto dallo stile di Heidegger。 Ma a differenza del filosofo tedesco， Sartre sembra procedere molto più lentamente nel ragionamento， perché lo riempie di considerazioni che sembrano eccedere la questione in atto e che portano talvolta fuori strada。 Per questo ho trovato complessa la lettura di questo saggio e onestamente in alcuni punti anche noiosa。Tuttavia， la tematica è importante。 L'uomo è al centro del mondo， anzi è lui che lo crea con la sua presenza e con il progetto della sua esistenza。 Tale progetto nasce dalla domanda sull'essere e dalla considerazione che l'essere è qualcosa sempre da realizzare: c'è qualcosa da colmare giorno dopo giorno， c'è un sottofondo di angoscia che prende l'uomo di fronte al rapporto tra ciò che è e ciò che potrebbe fare， c'è una necessità di agire che va soddisfatta in base ai valori che ci si propongono。 Il tema è simile a quello degli altri campioni dell'esistenzialismo， ma la veste è originale e ardua da indossare！ 。。。more
Danny
，
Every moment of every day for the entirety of my existence， I decide who I am and the decision made the in previous moment has no influence。 Avoid bad faith and understand that nothing has inherent meaning， thereby no inherent rules。 I feel so free！！ So free that it is absolutely terrifying。 JPS calls it Existential Angst。
Brock
，
Glad I led up to this with Descarte， Freud， and brushing up on some Kant and Kierkorgaard so I could at least begin to wrap my head around these ideas。 Definitely one of the most expansive philosophical essays I’ve read， but certainly not the driest！ Sartre leave no ground untrod and for someone in the 21st century， the examples he uses are still somewhat tangible from their recency and presence in the collective social conscience。 Still gotta tackle Hegel and Heidegger to get the full context， Glad I led up to this with Descarte， Freud， and brushing up on some Kant and Kierkorgaard so I could at least begin to wrap my head around these ideas。 Definitely one of the most expansive philosophical essays I’ve read， but certainly not the driest！ Sartre leave no ground untrod and for someone in the 21st century， the examples he uses are still somewhat tangible from their recency and presence in the collective social conscience。 Still gotta tackle Hegel and Heidegger to get the full context， but I really gotta take a step back from the existential philosophers for a little while now， maybe read some of their literature here and there。 。。。more
Ericka
，
Fine， but needed a mf editor。
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Being and Nothingness
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Being and Nothingness&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft
The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Being and Nothingness&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0