Being and Nothingness: An Analysis of Jean Paul Sartre and Existentialism - Essay Example

? Section/# Being and Nothingness: An Analysis of Jean Paul Sartre and Existentialism Seeking to discuss Sean Paul Sartre will without analyzing elements of existentialism would be similar to discussing George Washington without ever mentioning the United States. As a function of this level of comparison, the following analysis will use a particular quote from Sartre with reference to his feelings concerning the condition of nausea and use this is a vehicle to understand the theory of existentialism. Accordingly, the following brief analysis offer for something of a close examination of the following quote: “All of sudden they existed and then, all of sudden, they no longer existed: … I slumped on the bench, dazed, stunned by that profusion of beings without origin: bloomings, blossomings everywhere, my ears were buzzing with existence, my very flesh was throbbing and opening, abandoning itself to the universal burgeoning, it was repulsive” (Sartre, 1966). As a function of examining this quote, the following analysis will not only seek to define it but also contextualize it with regards to Sartre’s understanding of life and reality. The very first aspect that the reader should engage with in regards to the preceding quote by Sartre is the understanding that taken holistic way, these brief two sentences express a great deal of vivid imagery with regards to the situation at hand. Although many authors are capable of disseminating the level of vivid literary imagery, this is especially useful with regards to start due to his belief in existentialism. Ultimately, this belief and existentialism serves as the fundamental cohesive ideal that binds the passage together. At its core, existentialism notes that there is nothing, no meaning, no logic, and no sense to anything other than that which exists. Accordingly, the reader can and should integrate with the understanding that the vivid imagery that is used by Sartre described the situation is utilized as a means of drawing particular focus upon the existential realities of the situation that he is attempting to describe. Moreover, taken as a whole, the quote emphasizes the reality of human life. The reader notes that the nausea that Sartre is seeking to define can also serve as something of a byword for life and death. This is seen due to the fact that Sartre represents in these few brief lines a situation in which he was normally going about his everyday activities when suddenly the unexpected forced him to stop and stand still. As he is racked with pain and grief, the existential nature of life is compounded. This is due to the fact that his own existence is called into question while this brief bout of nausea grips the whole of his reality. However, completely unperturbed by his level of grief, the remainder of the world continues to go on oblivious. The author describes in as much detail as possible for only a three line quote that the profusion of beings, the blossoming, the blooming, life, death, and the reality of existence veritably throbs around him. Furthermore, the din of visceral imagery and noise the quote entails further integrate the reader with the understanding that the entire world goes on oblivious to the throes of hardship, life, death, and reality that the individual must integrate. This of course provides a stark and market contrast between many of the prior philosophical theories regarding the meaning of life in the purpose of existence. Whereas previous thought sought to integrate the human condition into much more of the universal and global phenomenon, Sartre sought to replace such an understanding with the reality of the fact no one and nothing ultimately cared. Although depressing, this reality is perfectly exhibited within the quotation due to the fact that the author is able to exhibit to the reader the disassociation that nature in the remainder of humanity has with the individual undergoing hardship. Ultimately, with regards to the way in which the preceding quotation relates to Sartre’s ideas about nausea and about existence, it can be understood by the reader that nausea serves as a type of micro reality and identifier of the life and existence which Sartre is attempting to describe. Of particular interest within this understanding are the last three words of the quote. Says Sartre, “It was repulsive”. Though this may not seem as particularly telling, the fact of the matter is that this level of understanding with regards to the realities of life and existence perfectly portrays existentialism with regards to the impacts definition of life that it integrates with the user. It is of course nominally dangerous to seek to draw such a very large level of inference based upon a single three line quotation. However, given the life, writings, and opinions that Sartre held, it is only logical and reasonable for the reader to assume that nausea and existence itself were being compared within the given quotation. Yet, before delving too deeply into the manner in which Sartre defines existence itself, it must be understood that he places a great deal of emphasis upon delineating the differences between the binary distinction of “being” and “consciousness”. According to Sartre, being in and of itself implies little if anything. Moreover, this being is definitive and only implies an inability to be self aware. Interestingly, this indeterminate and incomplete level of consciousness is ultimately what defines most of the world in which mankind lives. However, not surprisingly, the ability to be conscious and exhibit a will to change, as well as acting upon the world and itself, must necessarily engage with a level of innate consciousness; the component that best describes the way in which humans interact and exhibit determinate needs, wants, and desires. The difficulty in such concrete definitions is of course the fact that they are somewhat immutable. However, realizing this to be the case, Sartre goes on to state that man is continually evolving and cannot be classified in concrete terms such that one could not expect him to change over time. This of course further breaks down into the delineation of talents and abilities and the manner through which existence is a determinate of an individual’s abilities. Leveraging this approach, Sartre points to the fact that unlike an inanimate object, mankind can point to his physical characteristics and/or abilities and then define himself in a rather ephemeral way. This transience and the continual growth and evolution that choice factors into the way in which such definitions are incurred functions as a fundamental element of the way in which Sartre defines being and existence in and of itself for mankind. In further helping to define consciousness from being, Sartre presents the reader with an understanding of what he terms as “for itself” existence. This for itself existence can ultimately be synonymously understood in terms of human consciousness. Interestingly, whereas many other philosophers have sought to define self actualization and the means through which identity is created, Sartre argues that it cannot objectively exist unless the individual is confronted with the objectivity of another. In other words, not until such a time that the individual is aware that they are being watched or analyzed will they then become aware of their own presence. The “right” of self image and the freedom to project it in any manner that one seeks to is therefore constrained due to the fact that even though one might wish to assume that they are an island and are perfectly capable of determining their own aspirations and image themselves, they are ultimately reliant upon others to draw their attention to their own presence. Bringing the analysis full circle back to the existential philosophy for which he was so famous, Sartre discusses the fact that the fir itself being is ultimately a being of agency; therefore action/creation and being lack any form of concrete foundation/purpose. In such a manner, the for itself being seeks to provide a semblance of purpose for itself by defining and creating a sense of purpose for this cause that necessarily created or helped to form the being and consciousness itself. Naturally, the reader can seek to realize why so many different interpretations of the divine have sprung to prominence throughout the human experience as the existential nature of life, according to Sartre, is so painful and uncomfortable that human nature seeks each and every mechanism possible to escape from such a vapid realization. An interesting dichotomy that exists throughout Sartre’s work is the fact that he finds it continually necessary to emphasize his own freedom, his own transcendence, his own consciousness, and his own ability to impact upon the world. However, tangential to this exercise of will is the continual observation that all existence is nothingness and that no level of analysis or philosophical ponderings can create any point or meaning to such an existential quandary as has been presented. This begs to the question of what purpose Sartre had in presenting this view to the reader in the first place. If in fact all existence is nothing and a pointless effort, then what virtue exists in the freedom or the ability of the individual to impact upon the world. Utilizing Sartre’s own argument, the reader can quickly see a deep irony that exists with regards to the purpose and rationale for anything; even freedom itself. Yet perhaps most interesting of all is Sartre’s focus with regards to the conclusion of his argument where he puts forward the notion that the most essential characteristics of being is the inherent absence of differentiation or diversity. Once again, the reader is left objectively at a loss for further explanation of the philosophical argument that Sartre has thus far lain out. If in fact all being is nothingness and there is no purpose to consciousness, then whither is the logic of exercising freedom of will in a world in which there is no differentiation or diversity. Common logic would necessarily beg to differ from such a misinformed understanding and state that even though a certain level of commonality exists between all sentient life, the level of freedom, diversity, and disparity that is exhibited can most certainly not be ignored; rather, it must be integrated with in order for the individual to define themselves and seek to make sense of the world in which they live. Whereas the majority of the arguments that Sartre made within this work could definitively be backed with strong conclusions and an implicit level of understanding, the reader is left to wonder what the purpose of the previous work must be if such a final determination is the crux of the argument that Sartre seeks the reader to take away from the preceding elements. With that drawback being clearly manifest, there is an element of Sartre’s conclusion that cannot be passed by without garnering a further level of analysis. This has to do with the fact that Sartre points out the fact that consciousness define the world. Without it, there truly would be nothing. By the same token, consciousness is what allows the world to exist. Moreover, consciousness knows what is by a determination of what is not. Whereas it would be pretentious of this student to presuppose that they could trace the roots of Sartre’s epistemology and define it in succinct terms, from the information that has been provided and the broad and nuanced understanding that has been measured, it should be understood that Sartre viewed an infinitely complex world that virtually overwhelmed him with the notions of what defined being and what defined consciousness. In taking this further, the true subjectivity of consciousness led him to something of a tacit acceptance that all consciousness defines reality and therefore all reality is a form of consciousness. Even within this philosophy, Sartre is unhappy with the way in which such a determination leaves the philosopher at such a quandary for providing relevant and meaningful delineations of reality. As such, the oft repeated incantation of being able to determine one’s own fate, being free, and having the ability to change the world is so often noted. Accordingly, what the reviewer should focus upon is the fact that Sartre was making an exploratory foray into the realm of existentialism and the true definitions of consciousness and thought. As such, the difficulties of defining these and creating an effective world view that was based upon them were evident at each and every turn; causing Sartre to need to reassert his “will to power” as a means of making sense of this troublesome dichotomy that he found himself embroiled. The core concepts of Sartre’s understanding and vision are concentric upon the understanding of being in itself and being for itself. As this analysis has thus far delineated, these different aspects have differing meanings with regards to the ways in which consciousness is defined and placed into operational terms. Although a great deal of confusion can arise from a thorough analysis of Sartre’s work and the implied levels of meaning that it portends, the reader should not miss the core components of subjectivity and objectivity that are inherently defined within the existential philosophy. Furthermore, due to the overlap of concepts and the seeming levels of confusion that exists even with Sartre’s own epistemology, the reader can and should appreciate the fact that they are taking part in a pioneering work in a new direction as they read the philosophy of Sartre. In much the same way that it is possible to read the works of Aristotle and Socrates and come to an understanding of the inherent flaws and weaknesses to their approach, Sartre can be understood as a pioneer of existential philosophy and therefore not released from the expectation that the philosophical representation that he provides is equally replete with failures and epistemological shortcomings. Of course, Sartre could have just as easily sought to have related the situation of supreme joy or pleasure within the context of existentialism. However, the realities of language and the means by which pain, sadness, and death are ultimately the final aspects of the human existence, it was more appropriate and effective for him to utilize the example of nausea as a means of describing existentialism and the level and extent to which reality demands that one’s hardships must be handled by oneself. In seeking to portray nausea as the microcosm of life in reality, Sartre is able to expertly define the human condition. This is of course due to the fact that regardless of the overall level of ease that might exist in life, episodes such as the ones which have been described can ultimately negate whatever purpose, ideal, or moral had guided the individual within the past. As a way of laying bare the true determinants that reality and existence denote, Sartre is able to use the preceding quote as an indicator for how quickly and easily the realities of existentialism can lay bare whatever other means, no matter how optimistic, had been previously used to define life. Reference Sartre. & Barnes, H. (1966). Being and nothingness : a phenomenological essay on ontology. New York: Pocket books. Read More