No Exit is better.
The basic tenant of existentialism is that "existence precedes essence." In other words, man makes up meaning with the use of his mind. There is no pre-set (a priori) meaning to be found here.
Because of this Sartre (wrongly) believed that this means that man is free, and, therefore, responsible for everything he does.
It didn't take long for Foucault to disprove this idea of freedom, showing how enslaved people were to social system of oppressive power.
Being is nauseating, language can't describe it perfectly, the ambiguity and absurdity of the world is insurmountable, all narratives are contrivances, the only redemption possible is in music and art ("suffer in rhythm") blah blah blah probably got more out of it than you
lol, that's literally in the book. why does every autist on this board complain about shallow writing if it isn't a fucking treatise on the human condition? I'm sorry you read 1984 for the first time in your 20s bro but don't take it out on me
That's not what I was implying. I was saying you probably didn't understand it when you were 15. Then you went on to explain as if you were still 15.
Your reading comprehension is absolute shit mate. If you went back in time to when you were 15 and explained the book to me then that would have made sense.
Do you understand what I'm saying? Do I need to explain it further?
excepting the "fanfiction" criticisms
I remember on the first day of /lit/'s existence, a bunch of us talked about this book in a thread and how much we loved it. No one called anyone a pleb or anything. I miss those days.
Probably the book I have heard the least criticism of, along with Lolita
Not really, since it's a novel. 'Being and Nothingness', inspired by Heidegger's work, is considered to be Sartre's magnum opus; Heidegger read it but didn't like it--he literally said that he "can't bear to read that shit".
You can show that an idea is not logically consistent with other ideas which are generally accepted in a specific discourse, thereby disproving the idea.
Reading objectivism into one simple word really shows that you're d-u-m-b.
No faget he believed in free will because of his 'radical freedom' concept. Get a grip pretender. The idea is that we can choose to disregard all contingency. Whether he's right or not is another question.
>but most people who are religious have a very complex, deep and expansive love of art.
I can't tell if this book is a meme and /lit/ votes it to the top of their favorite books. After 400 pages of reading it I hope it's not a meme.
It really can't. I sometimes doubt you people have read these things. If anything I think he kept it as as succinct as should be. One or two parts were unnecessary but as a whole I disagree.
What literary circles do you hang around? You would be laughed out of just about any top 50 school if you claimed that book was anything more than Rolling Stone-tier Pynchon-knockoff
am i the only one on lit who didn't find this book depressing? honestly, it was more of a self-help book to me, than a philosophical novel.
i mean its actually so stupid this book. its literally just a depressed guy whining about how meaningless life is, as his life just gets worse and worse. Untill he suddenlly bullshits out an explanation for why music/art somehow has meaning, while nothing else has. the book he talks about writing in the end of the novel, is the we're reading.
so we're literally reading the meaning of someones life.
You missed the point. He doesn't assign meaning to art but Finds meaning in it. The book is not much beside ontological and epistemological ideas fleshes out into fiction. Understanding that is key to any enjoyment of the novel.