is there any research i should do before i dive into this? i've

I guess just be familiar with the existentialist movement (starting with Dostoevsky/Kierkegaard/Nietzsche) as a response to phenomenology and such, as the title is almost a direct play off of Heidegger's "Being and Time", though in no way am I advocating it's necessary to read that first. I suppose a better option would be to read some of Sartre's essays such as Existentialism Is a Humanism

>>9614810
If you bought it then just read it. If you haven't yet, then don't buy it

Be on as much speed reading it as he was writing it and you'll love it.

It's an academic work intended for people who study philosophy as an academic study.

So read the Greeks, Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger if you want to understand Being and Nothingness like an academic philosopher and explain Sartre's philosophy in a thoroughly academic way.

But honestly you're probably better off rereading Nausea and Sartre's fiction and
>>9614817
yes, his layman intended essays to just understand what he was thinking.

He turned into a living meme after WW2, but really his fiction is not bad in the slightest.

>>9614810

Read Marx's Paris Manuscripts

And some secondary works on Husserl and Heidegger and German Idealism if you want to be thorough.

>>9614831

Sartre didn't read Marx until after the war, nor did any of his significant ideas have any relation to Marxism. He had to work hard to placate and earn street cred with leftists.

Marx's deterministic "man is an economic creature" viewpoint is diametrically opposed to the free, responsible existential creature that Sartre proposes.

see: what Sartre, via Roquentin, has to say about humanists in Nausea.

The other works you recommended are spot on though.

What's the first Sartre book anyone should read? Nausea?

How much philosophy background is needed for that?

>>9614810
read the translator's (Barnes's) introduction, it does a better job explicating Sartre's ideas than Sartre does

>>9614883

Yes, and technically you don't need any academic philosophical background for it but I wouldn't call it an easy novel by any means.

If you haven't read the entire canon of western philosophy but you're well-read in, you know, actual books and you're reasonably well-educated you'll be fine.

If you go "hurr durr who da fuk is dezzkarts?" when Roquentin says "Descartes", consider going back to school.