Hey /lit/! I'm reading this right now, and I wanted to know

Sartre makes the claim that there is no such thing as "Human Nature" disagreeing with pretty much all biological thought. That's where he lost me

>>7579266
Sartre isn't denying that we have biological conditions which are very real parts of our existence. He's making the case that who we "are" is not predetermined. Thus we have biology, but what that essentially means is not clear until it's put into the context of what we choose to be. It's fair to argue against his idea that "existence preceeds essence", but it is a common misreading to think that Sartre is denying facticity completely.

Existensialism is a Humanism is a good intro to Sartre's thought, but it's certainly not going to give you the full picture. The purpose of the lecture was to defend what Sartre is calling "existensialsm" against some of the misreadings he felt were popular during the time as it was making its way into pop culture. He specifically addresses the Marxist and Christian attacks on his position (which is where the disgust you're referring to comes in).

Sartre is probably one of the most disliked and therefore misread philosophers in the Continental tradition. Most people disagree with his foundational arguments for free will pretty quickly and never give his ideas a chance. I would recommend giving him a chance and trying to read him on his own terms. He has some good thoughts and at the very least he will push you to formulate arguments against him, which is important if you're interested in philosophy.