Being And Nothingness

'the tragic finale' by wilfrid desan is an early and well-regarded exposition of sartre's thought. i've read part of it; i recall it being pretty lucid.

it's good that you have tried to get at the book from different points. skipping the whole first part might be helpful.

Have you *read* being and nothingness? I've skipped the first part, then second, then third, I've tried from all the angles, but couldn't understand one single sentence. I'm ashamed of myself. sob. Help me!

It's pretty hardcore. Sartre uses a lot of words in a technical and not everyday sense. I'd suggest a) using a glossary or a dictionary every time you're not sure of a word's meaning, b) trying to read the whole thing at least a couple of times without getting hung up on following it from paragraph to paragraph, and c) not expecting to have a clear programme of ideas from it, maybe not ever.

I've read it, I wouldn't claim to understand it (I reckon it's more a case of feeling it), but I don't think every sentence or idea is impossibly cryptic. A lot of 20th Century philosophy is better read like poetry - not as poetry, but with the same acceptance that you won't grasp 1 clear literal meaning from the get-go.

i can't really say i have, fred. i've read parts, but not thoroughly.

i noted the possibility of skipping the first part even though you mentioned trying different parts because, i suppose, i meant to say: maybe focus on the 'being for itself' section at the end of the introduction, and then, separately, move on to the chapters on negation.

and then: maybe find a secondary source on these passages, read it over carefully, then go back and see if you can read the passages again and see why the secondary source explained them or summarized them as it did. that may sound either pedantic or patronizing, depending on your past experiences as a reader. but it's not, really, since in effect what you seek to do is to educate yourself enough to be able to follow what you're reading, with the benefit of neither (at least, perhaps: i don't know what your background is) a gradual introduction to philosophical writing and thinking that would start out with more digestible work, nor a knowledgable person who can respond directly to what you need, your questions.

it's fair to expect to read some of these passages several times over, dozens maybe, especially with a new kind of work that is quite foreign to your way of reading and thinking, until you've built up some familiarity with that kind of work.

[i have been told by a relative (to me) expert that it makes much more sense to read an earlier book, 'the transcendence of the ego', first; i suppose it's a critique of some of husserl's views, among other things, that has a lot to do with why he takes up the very different position that he does in 'being and nothingness'. but i suspect that, even apart from whether you find it not all that helpful to be referred back to sartre's criticism of some OTHER difficult philosopher whose views you are not acquainted with, this approach would only help you if you have some grounding in the very cartesian way of doing philosophy by rooting important foundational concepts in individual consciousness (in some way). but if you do have some, then having a more explicit idea (from 'the transcendence of the ego') of the way sartre means to be opposed to that way of doing things is one potential way into 'being and nothingness'.]

Thanks a lot for the replies :-)
I guess I should have taken philosophy in college, accountancy is a waste for a book lover.

I'd suggest reading Heidegger's Being and Time, the book Sartre plaigarizes.

Yeah, cos Being and Time is way easier. Also, please check yr definition of "plagiarise".

If you first read some secondary literature on Heidegger (not necessarily Heidegger himself, who is in my experience much harder to read than Sartre) you'll understand most of the Heideggerian concepts and terminology which Sartre employs heavily, and B&N, which is very much indebted to Heidegger, will become a lot more comprehensible.

I found Jeff Malpas's essay on Heidegger in the "Blackwell Guide to Continental Philosophy" particularly illuminating, as well as the "Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Heidegger and Being and Time", which you can read independently of B&T (although it skips some of the more subtle details)

Yeah Heidegger is way too dense and unnecessarily complicated. Secondary literature always helps to get a grip on complex ideas and terminology. Last semester I did a unit called "The Meaning of Life" (no Python or Hitchhiker's jokes pls) & one of the readings was an excellent journal article comparison of Sartre and Heidegger. It was "The Rationalism of Absurdity: Sartre and Heidegger" by Thomas C. Anderson in "Philosophy Today" (vol 21 Fall 1977).

OMG Jeff Malpas was one of my 1st year philosophy lecturers - he did a whole few weeks on Camus and existentialism. Very good.

Damn I'm in India and the books/essays you've mentioned aren't available here :-(

How disappointing! But here is a really good link to Internet resources compiled by a university, including journals:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm
Good luck in the quest to discover what Sartre was *really* banging on about. If you've read "Nausea" it probably actually contains similar ideas to "Being and Nothingness" but in a more palatable form.

Thanks!

We read the reassuringly slim 'Existentialism and Humanism' for my philosophy A Level, which seemed to me an excellent intro to Sartre. On the other hand, I never progressed beyond it so couldn't say how much or little it reflects/illuminates the content of 'Being and Nothingness'.

Hey thanks I've found it on the niternet http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
I'll give it a read shortly :-)

I also tried to read Beingness and Nothingness. I delved into the dictionary to learn some of Sartre's terminology, but that is frustrating because philosophers tend to take an earlier philosopher's terminology and redefine it to suit their new ideas. Finally I gave up and turned to the novels of Simone de Beauvoir. She was Satre's lover and fellow writer for many years. Perhaps no one would agree with me, but I felt that her novels explain Sartre's philosophy better than the man himself. So far I have read SHE CAME TO STAY, THE BLOOD OF OTHERS and ALL MEN ARE MORTAL.