what is the best book to start studying existentialism?

[spooky]

Existentialism - A Very Short Introduction by Thomas R. Flynn ?
Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy by William Barrett ?
Existentialism and Human Emotions by Jean Paul Sartre ?

or something else?? i don't know anything about the subject, so i want something that's not too detailed & confusing..

thanks...

edit: i was gonna open this topic to philosophical literature part but i saw sartre's topic here, and thought it's relevant...sorry if it's in the wrong place..

[Veva]

Hi, simply enough it is worth reading a book of short stories by Sartre - The Wall, I have read many books by other philosophers of existentialism but The Wall will help you understand everything. I like particularly the last of the stories -Young leader ?{not sure of the title in English}. The last idea there is:"I am here because I have the right, I live because I have the right to live."
I guess The Wall is all you need.... ;)

[kelby_lake]

What about Huis Clos?

[loe]

I would recommend Sartre's "Nausea" - it's one of his first novels and in my opinion rather easy to read and a very good way to get familiar with the basic principals of existentialism.

Best regards

[jgweed]

Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy by William Barrett

This is a very good, sympathetic, survey of the subject and the various and more or less common themes of the existentialist philosophers, and I would think a good place to begin.
Most of the existentialists are very good writers, and their novels and plays can stand alone as literature. And I think it is important to note that Simone deB and Jean-Paul are not the only existentialists.
The famous essay "Existentialism is a Humanism" is Sartre's philosophical manifesto, and should be your first introduction to him.

Added:
James Collins, The Existentialists (1952).
Walter Kaufmann, Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre (1956), containing what I think is a very interesting and well-chosen selections of "existentialist" writings, with comments and introductions for each writer.


Cheers,
John

[armenian]

nausea and the wall are fiction

you said 'study' so im thinkin you would want something like what jdweed said, "Existentialism is a Humanism", and essay or manifesto

[spooky]

nausea and the wall are fiction

you said 'study' so im thinkin you would want something like what jdweed said, "Existentialism is a Humanism", and essay or manifesto

no i'm not gonna study it for school or anything like that, i used the wrong word i guess, my mistake...i'm just curious and i wanna explore the subject, so fiction is ok but don't you guys think that reading works like Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy or Existentialism is a Humanism before reading fiction will be better? i mean for better understanding of the books like nausea or the wall ??

[Kafka's Crow]

This should help you a lot:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978306

[jgweed]

You can read Sartre or Camus, to name the better writers , simply as literature; but understanding some of the themes in existentialism and, especially in the case of Sartre's works, the philosophy his plays and novels are intended to illustrate make the novels and plays more interesting.For example, Sartre's No Exit makes more sense if you understand his discussion of "the look" and the making of Others into objects.

Because existentialism is a very broad movement and not a "school" of philosophy, you will find it includes very divergent perspectives.

[JBI]

I don't know if either are good places to start, as philosophy, to me anyway, seems like a big conversation, and jumping into existentialism is like overhearing a few words and trying to participate.

[jgweed]

One must begin somewhere, JBI, and for many reasons existentialism is a good place to start.

For the most part, existentialism is (by purpose and design) far less technical than many other particular "schools" of thought. It may be that the concern and interest of existentialism with the individual in his situation (which it takes as the starting point of philosophical thinking) caused so much of its writings to be addressed, not to the philosophical community, but to the average reader.

Much of Sartre's writing was topical and concerned with engaging the politics and ethical considerations of post-war life. For example,he co-founded and edited Les Temps Modernes, while Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex was one of the first works of contemporary feminism.

[Digression. The major works of Ortega Y Gasset are another example; even his What is Philosophy? was a series of public lectures in Madrid and Buenos Aires. This priority of the individual and the idea that philosophy should be engaged with the world may also account for its influence in modern religious (Tillich, Bultmann, Buber) and psychoanalytical thought (May, Binswanger, Rogers).]

For the most part, then, much of existentialist philosophy is far more approachable than more “technical” philosophy (e.g. its contemporary, German phenomenalism), if for no other reason than it is far more concerned with coming to terms with contemporary problems in the “lebenswelt” that we all share. For the existentialists, philosophy was not what one does but what and how one lives, and that is to their credit.

[JBI]

Depends, Sarte, Beauvoir, and Camus surely are quite easy. But to me at least, their entire philosophies seem to be a rather light slight mis-reading of Nietzsche, who, though he is not as difficult as others, is still less accessible, and more "philosophical" than his followers.

I think that is perhaps the reason why as a philosophy Existentialism is rather light, when compared to something like, as you said, Phenomenalism, or Deconstruction, or even German Idealism, or American Pragmatism. The fact that it creates its own personal answers, without any foundation, and, in my opinion is rather self-destructing.

Either way, I could see how one could think it a good starting point (especially when one considers the great playwrites and writers connected to the movement), but an understanding of existentialism hardly will bring any clarity on the study of philosophy, or the philosophical method of thinking.

Either way, all the books suggested seem decent (I have read none of them, as I have only read the primary texts), and if you want to study existentialism, it would be good to read one of them, and then to delve into the primary texts (Sarte is a good place to start, as his language is really easy).

[jgweed]

I think that most continental philosophy may be a "slight misreading of Nietzsche" who was more profound than any of them. "Zarathustra's apes" seems applicable.

And I am not sure what is mean by existentialism creating its own personal answers, when one could say the same thing about any philosophical system. It seems to me that they do not make an appeal to feelings (for example) but employ reasoned argumentation, which would indicate that they were "doing philosophy" and not merely stating opinions.

And is its foundation not very similar to Heidegger's phenomenalism, which one supposes is closer to "real" or "heavy" philosophy? One could point to Jasper's three volume work, or on his Von Der Wahrheit , or indeed Being and Nothingness as providing metaphysical foundations for existentialism.

Nor can I agree, and this from personal experience, that an understanding of existentialism will hardly help one to understand either philosophy or the philosophical method. As a matter of fact, it was the study of Sartre---and subsequently Nietzsche--- that lead me to pursue philosophy in the first place, forcing me to abandon English literature with a great amount of undergraduate reluctance. Certainly Sartre seems to give an account of most of the subjects treated by the traditional branches of philosophy.
Cheers,
John

[Etienne]

Most continental philosophy is a "slight misreading of Nietzsche"? Come on, continental philosophy as a movement is much older than Nietzsche.

[jgweed]

I was perhaps unclear, even given the context of the discussion. I meant to say most contemporary continental philosophy....
John

[spooky]

i want to thank everyone for giving their time..i'm a little bit intimidated i must say, but i'm gonna explore the subject, thank you all for your suggestions ;)

[JBI]

I didn't say it wouldn't create the drive to find out what philosophy is all about, I merely tried to imply that it didn't offer the answers, really, of what philosophy is all about.

Even so, it is true that everything these days in the western contemporary philosophical movements seems to be based on a misreading of Nietzsche, but I find with Sarte and Camus, it was nearly all somewhat lifted from there, the way Guy Maupassant seems lifted from Flaubert, or Kathrine Mansfield is lifted from Anton Chekhov (to use examples that I feel people are more familiar with).

[Kafka's Crow]

I don't know how contemporary continental philosophy can be a misreading of Nietzsche. Most major modern philosophers from Derrida to Deleuze and up to Badiou who called Nietzsche an 'event' or 'Event', to be precise (the unique occurance that changes the course of history) pay homage to him. This reminds me of reading somewhere that Nietzsche believed that people would mark history as events that happened before his time and the events that happened after his time. At least as far as history of philosophy is concerned, his claim is proving true. I remember laughing at this claim when I first read it during my school-days! I think it was in Will Durant's book, in his chapter on the German philosopher.

[Etienne]

Continental philosophy has an history much older than Nietzsche, and Nietzsche did not break continental philosophy's history, he made a step and many of Nietzsche's ideas were already in the air, notably in the writings of Spinoza, Kierkegaard or Schopenhauer, for example. No doubt that Nietzsche is an pillar of modern continental philosophy, but he is not the alpha nor the omega.

As for claiming about "misreading" of Nietzsche, I would like to read your doctorate thesis on this, and see what your arguments are, because such a claim thrown in the air like this sounds more presumptuous than anything.

[Kafka's Crow]

We have discussed the concept of originality many times on this board and I strongly believe that originality usually means some sort of continuity of things that already exist. Yes Nietzsche's ideas were already in the air. He represents a 'return' to the Dionysian mode of thinking in a major way. This strain has always been there in the Western culture and thought (Ihab Hussan's Dismemberment of Orpheus discusses this point in detail) and comes to the forefront time and time again, most notably in Romanticism and the French fin de siecle literature, thought and culture. Saying that Nietzsche was absolutely original would be against Nietzsche's own idea of the "eternal return". He was a major shift away from the Socratic/Platonic mode of thinking which had dominated the Western culture for over two millenia. This dominance was challenged before but Nietzsche made a rift in this continuity in a major way and his influence keeps on showing itself in the Western thought up to this day.

As far as existentialism is concerned, before Sartre and Camus, Soren Kierkegaard's ideas are regarded as one of its earlier manifestations. This brings us back to the concept of 'originality' and beginnings. If we start digging the real roots of things, it would take us farther than we had initially estimated, so far back that it would render further digging impossible.

[Melmoth]

nausea and the wall are fiction

you said 'study' so im thinkin you would want something like what jdweed said, "Existentialism is a Humanism", and essay or manifesto

I subscribe armenian's words... "Existentialism is a Humanism" is simply fascinating...

[Kafka's Crow]

I subscribe armenian's words... "Existentialism is a Humanism" is simply fascinating...

Read it here:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

This should also help:

http://dbanach.com/exist.htm