Is this the best book about human life and existence ever written ?

[Anonymous No.22392328]

[Anonymous No.22392333]

For midwits, maybe.
Read some real metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.22392338]

>>22392328
sure, if you're an extremely neurotic 5'2" eccentric moderately based frog

[Anonymous No.22392339]

>>22392333
In which domain of inquiry is B&T better than B&N ?

[Anonymous No.22392343]

>>22392339
>replying to a post that has midwits in it
you deserve the troll desu

[Anonymous No.22392344]

>>22392338
>t. obviously never opened the book

[Anonymous No.22392348]

>>22392344
I liked the book you dumbass kek

[Anonymous No.22392353]

>>22392343
i'll answer to every possible bump, but why is that post midwitesque ? If this is because his post says that heidegger is still a metaphysician, he's right

[Anonymous No.22392360]

>>22392348
Sorry then, what did you liked of it ? What did you took from it ? Has it had any practical implications for your life ?

[Anonymous No.22392406]

>>22392328
>the infinite curtains and the one curtain

it's not bad

[Anonymous No.22392501]

Never read it. I like Kierkegaard and the oeuvre of Ernst Jünger. I think the former discussed the dilemma better than anyone. I think the implication of the latter is that existentialism and nihilism are largely consequences of technology and I also think he also provides a method of escape.

[Anonymous No.22392602]

>>22392501
Which dilemma ? How would existentialism be a consequence of technology ? Why escape it ?

If you like Kierkegaard, you should definitely read Sartre, he really expands Kierkegaard's theory of the self, of anxiety and of false identity (bad faith)

[Anonymous No.22392704]

>>22392602
The existentialist dilemma, in short. You’ll have to read Ernst Jünger and see if you come away with it what I did. This format isn’t appropriate for me to go into detail, but I can say that he had a series of figures, one being the worker, which he ultimately concluded was nihilistic and moved on from. I read Sartre’s existentialism is a humanism and thought it was awful tbqh but please don’t ask me why because that was some time I ago and I don’t remember exactly why I didn’t like it.

[Anonymous No.22392730]

>>22392704
What is the existentialist dilemma ?

Don't trust existentialism is a humanism, it's an awful vulgarisation of being and nothingness in which he just tried to get himself accepted by communists. You're really missing something great by avoiding existentialism man

[Anonymous No.22394284]

bump

[Anonymous No.22394619]

>>22392602
read Marcel

[Anonymous No.22394845]

>>22392328
I'm just glad /lit/ or at least some /lit/ anon regularly posting about this is finally giving this book a go and liking it. I used to make occasional threads and posts about this book being slept on and actually being pretty great. Keep at it OP.
>Is this the best book about human life and existence ever written?
I don't know. I think I would write a better one if I had the time, but Sartre would deserve credit for influencing me. So would Heidegger, Buber, and others. But I think B&N is a lot more interesting than people realize because they go off like third hand fourth hand or fifth hand rumors about Sartre not based in really reading the book. All the /lit/ rumormongering pisses me off actually. It shows how sheepish everyone is here, they never study the things I force myself to study just to spite them. And in all cases I learn something new and valuable. Or I'll study what they pretend to study (like Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche) and get more out of it than they do. Be like that OP, not like them. Anyway B&N is pretty great. Fun fact it basically ends with an analysis of picrel, but nobody knows that except the B&N readership.

[Anonymous No.22394856]

>>22392328
uh, it was released in France and Voltaire isn't there to shit on it

[Anonymous No.22394859]

>>22394845
This is what a narcissist looks like.

[Anonymous No.22394875]

>>22392328
Is Nausea good? My understanding is it’s similar to The Book of Disquiet but more optimistic in the sense that suffering is needed for motivation, and you can’t have the good without the bad?

[Anonymous No.22394897]

>>22394859
Frankly, just learn to own up to your best self. I don't flex unless I can own up to it. Make your life about affirmation and balance it with other-orientedness and you'll be much less resentful when someone else is a "narcissist." Become a healthy narcissist yourself, it's part of a healthy life-affirming mindset. What are you ashamed of? Shame's holding you back.

[Anonymous No.22396531]

Existentialism is a Humanism for a shortcut

[Anonymous No.22396579]

>>22394845
I'm sorry, why are we praising atheists' brain vomit ?

[Anonymous No.22396762]

>>22394619
what do you mean

[Anonymous No.22396795]

>>22394845
Yeah i'm actually a big fan of Heidegger's Being and Time which completely redefined my perception of human life, and from what i've read of B&N (and the bits of his theory i already know) i'm expecting the same if not better ! Phenomenological ontology really is something...

>I would write a better one if I had the time
What would be your starting point or main thesis anon ?

>Heidegger, Buber, and others
Do you have any others interesting philosophers inquiring into human existence ?

>they never study the things I force myself to study just to spite them. And in all cases I learn something new and valuable. Or I'll study what they pretend to study (like Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche)
Hahaha, i'm litteraly like you, I'm really glad to have overcome my prejudices and to have attacked thinkers who are little appreciated by the 4chan doxa, such as Sartre, Kant and Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.22396799]

>>22396531
nah it sucks, i started Sartre with it and completely despised it at first (before getting into B&N)

[Anonymous No.22398198]

Sartre was a tankie and one of the most hypocritical and dishonest intellectuals in 20th century. I refuse to take any word from this ugly subhuman seriously. picrel.

[Anonymous No.22398253]

>>22392328
no because he doesn't say "someone who would have known him"

[Anonymous No.22398280]

>>22398198 (me)
He even explicitly acknowledged that he's a liar lmfao

[sage No.22398297]

>>22398280 (me)
>Towards the end of his life, Sartre began to describe himself as a "special kind" of anarchist.[77]
>"umm actually i'm anarchist and against government all the time, i'm about to die so pls don't judge me as a soviet apologizer"

[Anonymous No.22398321]

>>22392328
My copy of Being And Nothingness has an translators introduction written by femoid with all sorts of woke nonsense scattered throughout so I shut the book. What a bunch of horseshit

[Anonymous No.22398324]

>>22398198
Good

[Anonymous No.22398343]

>>22396579
His philosophy isn't too bad until you realize hes one of those people who say "existence just happened...because it just did okay" an addendum I'd make to Existentialism Is A Humanism is that while the choices we make define humanity, let's not forget that when humanity was conceived a greater thing that existed before us gave us free will, because if it happened otherwise there would be no point in creating civilization and art and beauty and it would follow that humanity would be stillborn in the womb. A creator wouldn't knowingly create something that couldn't move, couldn't speak or couldn't sense anything because it would defeat the purpose of creating it in the first place.

[Anonymous No.22398348]

>>22398280
Thanks for your opinion. So the book is actually good then.

[Anonymous No.22398354]

>>22398343
Why are religious retards so edgy?

[Anonymous No.22398862]

>>22396795
>Do you have any others interesting philosophers inquiring into human existence?
I think rounding it out (those two and Sartre) with Beauvoir, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche is good. But I would say you can also learn from the (lower case p) phenomenology of folks like Emerson, the young Marx, or William James. They're not existentialists but there's times when they resemble Buber, Heidegger, Sartre, etc.
>What would be your starting point or main thesis anon?
The main problem with B&N-era Sartre which Buber (and I hear the later Sartre) overcome is the distinction between seeking out an Other's Look to achieve self-consciousness via their recognition of ourselves, and the shame, conflict, and otherwise objectification that Sartre in B&N associates with the process of recognition. Buber reocgnizes that objectification and more-dignifying recognition can come apart. Giving a deeper theory of that is not metaphysically easy, and there's some interesting responses to Buber (for example by Levinas and by the Kyoto School). And in my opinion what this stuff leads up to is some conception of like, mutual interprenetration without losing difference, think of like the Christian trinity's persons and their relations of being "in" each other but being distinct persons all the same. There's more to say but I think I'll pause there.

[Anonymous No.22398930]

>>22398354
It's not about edginess or retardation is about sending a message.

[Anonymous No.22399161]

>>22398280
Sartre was a based Strausserian

[Anonymous No.22399264]

>>22398862
>I think rounding it out (those two and Sartre) with Beauvoir, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche is good. But I would say you can also learn from the (lower case p) phenomenology of folks like Emerson, the young Marx, or William James. They're not existentialists but there's times when they resemble Buber, Heidegger, Sartre, etc.
I'm sorry, how are atheist ''''thinkers'''''capable of any insight into existence?

[Anonymous No.22399334]

>>22399264
Simple. You imagine a theist said it. Woah so crazy, now it's insightful. What the?? Wow.

[Anonymous No.22399357]

>>22398280
>>22398198
>>22398297
>>22398321
I’m doing this thread to save poltards like you who don’t have a single clue of what theyre missing
You are neither funny nor counter-argumentating anything, no one cares about his life, whatever anon don’t read him my life won’t stop, but you’re really missing a chance to understand the nature of conscience, identity, being itself, humans relations and intersubjectivity and so much more

[Anonymous No.22399409]

>>22398862
So your theory of intersubjectivity would deprive Sartre’s own theory of his «hegelian pessimism« (Relationship=conflict) ? How?

[Anonymous No.22399545]

>>22399409
Somewhat. I've learned since that Sartre himself gave up the Hegelian pessimism later and am curious to read that stuff since I've read B&N and Existentialism is a Humanism but not the later Sartre. But Buber is a good place to check for that. Buber just says there's two relations, the I-It and the I-Thou, in the former you objectify but in the latter you dignify, and he makes the latter play the role of mutual reciprocal recognition which leads to self-conscious fullness of subjecthood via the recognition. That's clearly Hegelian and Sartrean but the pessimist conflict stuff has been divorced and put into the I-It. So Buber basically keeps them separate. He wrote this in the 1920s before Sartre even write B&N which is also really cool.

[Anonymous No.22399577]

https://www.persee.fr/doc/ierii_1764-8319_1971_mon_1_1

L'intégration des Juifs nord-africains en France [monographie]

Doris Bensimon-Donath
Collection IDERIC Année 1971

[Anonymous No.22399852]

>>22392328
I'm NOT reading shit by the (((guy))) who's pathetic ideology is literally at the core of all modern leftist woke bullshit.

[Anonymous No.22399861]

>>22399852
>implying that existentialism is the core of wokeness
>implying that Sartre is jewish
retarded /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.22399960]

>>22399577
résumé ?

[Anonymous No.22399964]

>>22399852
what is his ideology ?

[Anonymous No.22401173]

bump