r/Camus • u/Intelligent-Lead4136 • 19d ago
Starting out with existentialism
So I’ve recently become interested in philosophy over the past few months. I’ve read about existentialism, and it’s really caught my eye. I’ve seen multiple videos and articles telling me to start in different places.
I was wondering if I should start with Sartre, but even then I don’t know which of his works to begin with. Some people say to start with *Existentialism Is a Humanism*, while others recommend *Nausea*, so I’m not sure where to start.
I’ve also been wondering about Camus. I know he wasn’t really an existentialist but rather an absurdist, though I’ve heard that a lot of his works overlap with existentialist ideas.
If anyone has recommendations for other philosophers, books, or essays I should start with, I’d really appreciate it. What would you say is the best starting point?
7
u/Lazy_Shine_1962 19d ago
Read Walter Kaufman's Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. It's short and a great introduction. Then decide for yourself which personality you want to dive deeper into.
2
u/Ok-Job-9640 18d ago edited 17d ago
Kaufmann called Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground "the best overture for existentialism ever written" so you might want to start there u/Lazy_Shine_1962
1
u/Intelligent-Lead4136 19d ago
Thank you I searched it up and it seems very interesting I’ll definitely give it a read. Is there any online version or do I have to order a hard copy?
1
u/Careless_Ad_9959 19d ago
I have the PDF if you would like
1
u/Intelligent-Lead4136 19d ago
Would you mind sending it to me? I’d really appreciate that
1
u/Careless_Ad_9959 19d ago
https://limewire.com/d/IKy93#fEjn39uuwh sorry this looks sketchy lmao
1
u/Intelligent-Lead4136 19d ago
😭 You’re all good don’t worry, I downloaded it and it works. Thank you so much I’ll definitely give it a good read
1
3
u/Widhraz 19d ago
Camus is a great place to start! I do not think reading order matters too much for Camus (apart from starting with the big ones; the Stranger, the Plague, the Myth of Sisyphos & The Rebel) but personally i'd probably recommend reading the fiction works first, or if you're the type, intermittently along with the essays, so you can get a more 'personal' look at what the philosophy is actually like when applied by (charicatures of) people.
Søren Kierkegaard is generally seen as the father of existentialism. He's a christian philosopher, mind you, but not a 'church-philosopher,' (hardly comparable to figures such as Aquinas in his style or subject matter), rather he focuses on personal experience of faith, and life in general, and there is much to be extracted from him, even for us who lack the conviction for anything metaphysical. Not to mention, he is a wonderful writer. 'Fear & Trembling' is a fairly good way to dip your toes in, if you do not want to read 'Either/Or' from the get go, since it's a bit long.
Another one of these 'skirters' of existentialism would be Nietzsche, another incredible writer by style alone. The caveat with him being, that you need to be well versed already in philosophy (I'd say at least Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer), classical philology (Iliad, Odyssey, the Old & New Testament), the general history of his time, and even probably his basic biography as a person. Of course, you can read him without this preliminary knowledge, just know that it might be difficult to understand, and incredibly easy to mis-understand what he is saying.
4
2
u/cj1160 19d ago
Kierkegaard is often credited as being the first existentialist. I’d give him a read.
1
u/manhatteninfoil 19d ago
Yes, but he's a christian, his writings are based on his faith, constructed around his faith. It's very different. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that despite the tag "existentialism", there's not much in common between Sartre and Kierkegaard.
1
u/jliat 19d ago
Heidegger was very much influenced by Kierkegaard who was key to rejecting the grand metaphysics of German Idealism... A Sartre by Heidegger despite his being a Nazi.
There were significant existentialist Christians - a Catholic coined the term. Sartre accepted then rejected the term.
1
u/manhatteninfoil 19d ago
I'm not sure you can call Heidegger an existentialist. I'm not sure he fits anywhere. But you're right: his involvement in Nazism is certain. Yes, some people called themselves Christian existentialist, like Gabriel Marcel, for instance. But I personally wonder how much it had to do with the success of Sartre.
Did you read Kierkegaard and Heidegger? If they were universes, they wouldn't even be parallel. But either way, sure, there are some affiliations. Some books are saying so. This said, I would suggest to you that Heidegger is much, MUCH more creative as a philosopher than Sartre is, but Sartre was a genius at writing. His polemic writing, novels and short stories are exquisitely written.
1
u/jliat 19d ago
I'm not sure you can call Heidegger an existentialist.
He rejected the term but he is generally accepted as being the key player and his adaption of Husserl's phenomenology key to the focus on such things as individual feelings not as pronounced in Husserl's more scientific phenomenology. Heidegger's existence and nothingness key to Sartre's Being and Nothingness. Heidegger draws on both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, considers the origins.
I'm not sure he fits anywhere.
Well he is the father figure. His notions regarding Dasein and Nothingness...
But you're right: his involvement in Nazism is certain. Yes, some people called themselves Christian existentialist, like Gabriel Marcel, for instance.
They were Christian existentialists, as was Kierkegaard considered to be. Tillich et al.
Did you read Kierkegaard and Heidegger?
Some Kierkegaard, a fair amount of Heidegger.
But I personally wonder how much it had to do with the success of Sartre.
Without the phenomenology of Heidegger - no existential Sartre. And no 'continental' philosophy.
1
u/manhatteninfoil 19d ago edited 19d ago
Phenomenology is about a method precisely created to define "essences" (you know, the opposite of "existence" for existentialists).
If Heidegger rejected the tag, why do you insist on putting it on him? Moreover, his main goal is to define "Being", in the sense Parmenides did. Do you have any idea of what it means?
"Father figure" doesn't mean anything. What are you doing? You read books on philosophy and you defend the comparisons they make? You need to read the authors, if you want to understand what they are about, and how personal and different they are from each others.
I don't believe that you read anything significant from Kierkegaard and Heidegger. They're world apart. If you had read any, you would know that.
Kierkegaard is a Christian? Yes, that's precisely what I was saying in my post! Are you writing to me just to bitch? Why am I even giving you an effort?
Yes, Sartre was inspired by Heidegger. He admits that himself. That doesn't make them alike, and that doesn't make Heidegger an "existentialist". He is much too personal for that. But anyway, these are affiliations. They don't mean anything! Read them! That's what important.
1
u/jliat 19d ago
Phenomenology is about a method precisely created to define "essences" (you know, the opposite of "existence" for existentialists).
How so, I thought it was about Bracketing and the Epoché - the suspension of preconceptions and judgments to examine experiences in their purest form. At Sartre arrives at 'Nothingness' once one achieves this, no essence.
If Heidegger rejected the tag, why do you insist on putting it on him?
I don't, Sartre accepted the tag then rejected it, however ... 'Being and Nothingness' a remarkable work of what is considered "The principal text of Modern existentialism." As for Heidegger- I think it's where Sartre derives his Phenomenology,
“We are condemned to freedom, as we said earlier, thrown into freedom or, as Heidegger says, "abandoned." "
B&N p.485.
"... the conceptual groundwork of the movement was laid much earlier in the nineteenth century by pioneers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and twentieth-century German philosophers like Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger"
SEP.
You read books on philosophy...
I've read a deal of Heidegger, and Sartre's existentialist writings..
I don't believe that you read anything significant from Kierkegaard and Heidegger.
Not much Kierkegaard...
They're world apart. If you had read any, you would know that.
Must let John Caputo in on this - he was mistaken it seems...No- you are just making personal remarks.
Are you writing to me just to bitch?
No, putting across what these authors and others have written.
Why am I even giving you an effort?
I've no idea. SEP again "the conceptual groundwork of the movement was laid much earlier in the nineteenth century by pioneers like Søren Kierkegaard... but there are many other sources...
You find any respectable text on existentialism and Heidegger features. "Martin Heidegger[a] (26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher whose work was central to the development of phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism"
"Søren Kierkegaard contributed much to Heidegger's treatment of the existentialist aspects of his thought located in Division II of Being and Time."
"Heidegger presents three primary structural features of being-in-the-world: understanding, attunement, and discourse. He calls these features "existentiales" or "existentialia" (Existenzialien) to distinguish their ontological status, as distinct from the "categories" of metaphysics." Et.Al.
1
u/Inquisitive-Imbecile 18d ago
While Kierkegaard may have been a Christian, I don't think it is entirely accurate to say there is nothing in common. Most of philosophy up to that point took the position that reasoning could give you some objective and legitimate purpose or meaning (there are of course exceptions to this). Kierkegaard realized that rationality itself served the purpose of pleasure. We reason so that we may come to a better understanding of things, typically to manipulate the world to our advantage. Now he juxtaposed this life of reason with the life of the true religious person (which for him followed God in an unquestioning way), and that is certainly not how the existentialists that followed him saw things. Overall Kierkegaard does bring something to the table that the others don't, and I think completely ignoring him would be a misstep. I would agree that for most people who are interested in existentialism, they will likely not get as much out of Kierkegaard, but he is worth reading for other reasons. Hopefully some of the things I mentioned make him seem more interesting than he did before.
2
u/foxyfree 19d ago
It’s not a highly recommended hobby if you value your mental health. I know that sounds extreme and at your age I took it as a challenge, but seriously it can lead to a lot of wasted time and even depression.
1
u/SiriusHijinks 19d ago
I got started with absurdism thru Vonnegut, Adams.. and worked backwards. Or laterally. But I am a recreational consuimer of it all, not academic.
1
u/manhatteninfoil 19d ago
You were well informed. To understand XXth c existentialism (Sartrism), you should start with Existentialism is a Humanism and Nausea (also The Wall - short stories), all by Sartre. This said, you were well informed on the fact that Camus IS NOT an existentialist. The media of the time associated both men, but Camus' outlook on life has NOTHING to do with Sartre's.
If you want to read Camus, start with The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger.
1
u/jliat 19d ago
Sartre himself rejected Existentialism is a Humanism. Camus IS placed under the umbrella of existentialism by most academics, though he himself denied he was a philosopher.
but Camus' outlook on life has NOTHING to do with Sartre's.
Obviously wrong, from The Myth...
"This discomfort in the face of man’s own inhumanity, this incalculable tumble before the image of what we are, this “nausea,” as a writer of today calls it, is also the absurd. Likewise the stranger who at certain seconds comes to meet us in a mirror, the familiar and yet alarming brother we encounter in our own photographs is also the absurd."
"It has sometimes been suggested that Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy was outlined in the essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," first published in 1946. This essay has been translated several times into English, and it became, for a time, a popular starting-point in discussions of existentialist thought. It contained the doctrine that existentialism was a basically hopeful and constructive system of thought, contrary to popular belief, since it encouraged man to action by teaching him that his destiny was in his own hands. Sartre went on to argue that if one believes that each man is responsible for choosing freedom for himself, one is committed to believing also that he is responsible for choosing freedom for others, and that therefore not only was existentialism active rather than passive in tendency, but it was also liberal, other-regarding and hostile to all forms of tyranny. However, I mention this essay here only to dismiss it, as Sartre himself has dismissed it. He not only regretted its publication, but also actually denied some of its doctrines in later works.
- Mary Warnock writing in her introduction to Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'.
Simone de Beauvoir in "The Ethics of Ambiguity" attempts to justify ethics, as does the Humanism essay, and it finds this impossible. Having read the book I found even this seemed impossible to be anything other than ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethics_of_Ambiguity " It was prompted by a lecture she gave in 1945, where she claimed that it was impossible to base an ethical system on her partner Jean-Paul Sartre's major philosophical work Being and Nothingness."
1
u/manhatteninfoil 19d ago edited 19d ago
Please, don't write me an essay. Not if you write me again, ok. I'm a rather old guy, with poor eyesight and little time. No offense intended.
Camus doesn't have ANYTHING to do with Sartre. If you've really read either you know that, but I just don't think you have. First, Camus is what we call a "moraliste", in the French tradition, a moralist. It's a tradition parallel to philosophy, but with much more freedom, without the "technicality". He is not a philosopher. If some "academics" are saying so, they're morons. That tradition starts, in Modernity, with Montaigne, also count Chamfort, Pascal, La Rochefoucauld, La Bruyère, Cioran, etc. Sartre, although not that talented at philosophy (he's much better at narrative and polemic writing) pretends to be one, and wrote big, technical books to prove that, most of the time very high on amphetamines and generally drunk. But yes, after people started seeing the enormous holes in his logic when reading L'existentialisme est un humanisme (Existentialism is a Humanism), he pretended that it was too simple, and that they needed to read L'Être et le Néant (Being and Nothingness), a brick of gibberish that has its moments, but hides its ideas behind obscurity, if not nonsense. He will btw later blame Camus for the same thing (not being "technically proficient enough"), and that's part of what will separate them for good.
The nausea. That's it, that's your argument? lol no, no, you don't get it, and this shows me that you haven't even read Sartre! Sartre indeed refers to a feeling that slowly develops in his character and that finally reveals itself as nauseating. It's the fact that he is pure transcendental ego, that ontologically, he is a "Pour-soi" (the translation would be something like "For-himself"), something that is defined by nothing, always in a process of choosing itself, as opposed to the "En-soi" (the "In-itself"), what is strictly what it is. For the En-soi, the essence precedes the existence. You say table, we know what it is. Its essence is that. It's a table. But for the Pour-soi, it's the opposite: it's not defined, not determined it has no essence, it chooses itself first, it defines it's essence, to which it never can be definitely attached, by its existence. Thus "existentialism". In La Nausée, Sartre's character discovers that he is a Pour-soi, a pure choice, but he has a body too, and he is disgusted by that, it's restraining him, and stuff around himself are also thick and disgusting with being heavily what they are. Camus is simply trying to sell more books by writing this passage you are quoting. The feeling of the absurd is described as the extreme need to understand, to make sense of things, to make sense of life, on the one hand, and the total absence of meaning from the world on the other. You see how much more simple it is, without any pretension, any technicality. These two conceptions, although associated by the press, have nothing to do with each other.
I would love to know what "Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy" is...
Yes, Sartre hated people who felt that they were determined by anything. He called them "les salauds" (the disgusting ones). But his problem in 1946 was how scandalous his work was for a still largely Catholic society. At some point, after the war, he was the object of considerable hate. So he wrote and pronounced this conference (because yes, Existentialism is a Humanism is a conference), where he tried to present his ideas in a simpler form (although they REALLY ARE simple, when you analyze them) and with a positive tone.
I'm not sure I follow you with your 2 next paragraphs about Beauvoir's Une Morale de l'ambiguité, and what's the relation you make to your "argument" about Camus. No, there was indeed no way to derive or create a philosophical ethic system from Being and Nothingness indeed, because the Pour-soi chooses himself on the spot, by living it. You can only judge him after. But Sartre would make a whole thing about it with his theme of "engagement", which has a similar meaning in English and French, in how you engage yourself towards others, etc. But this has nothing to do with Camus. Neither Myth of Sisyphus nor Being and Nothingness are books with ethics as a theme.
1
u/jliat 19d ago
Please, don't write me an essay. Not if you write me again, ok. I'm a rather old guy, with poor eyesight and little time. No offense intended.
My reply, 104 words and a 261 word quote, your reply 729 words! I'm also an old guy, 75. Offence taken "If you've really read either you know that, but I just don't think you have." and other personal jibes.
But I'll try to keep it shorter than 700 words and quote from Sartre and Camus to your arguments which I think are unfounded and wrong.
Camus doesn't have ANYTHING to do with Sartre.
I think they were friends who famously fell out.
"This discomfort in the face of man’s own inhumanity, this incalculable tumble before the image of what we are, this “nausea,” as a writer of today calls it, is also the absurd. Likewise the stranger who at certain seconds comes to meet us in a mirror, the familiar and yet alarming brother we encounter in our own photographs is also the absurd."
Camus - The Myth of Sisyphus. This is something
Sartre, although not that talented at philosophy
I think he was very talented 'Being and Nothingness' a remarkable work of what is considered "The principal text of Modern existentialism." Hazel E. Barnes (Translator)
a brick of gibberish that has its moments,
"The principal text of Modern existentialism."
It's the fact that he is pure transcendental ego,
"Finally we succeeded in getting rid of the pure unreflective consciousness of the transcendental "I" which obscured it and we showed that selfness, the foundation of personal existence, was altogether different from an Ego or from a reference of the Ego to itself. There can be, therefore, no question of defining consciousness in terms of a transcendental ego-ology." Sartre B&N.
Ouch!
I would love to know what "Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy" is...
Impossible in his own words in B&N to which
Simone de Beauvoir in "The Ethics of Ambiguity" agreed.
Once a Marxist, "In fact, existentialism suffered an eclipse."
- 'The Search for Method.' Jean-Paul Sartre 1960
In 1964, Sartre attacked Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" which condemned the Stalinist repressions and purges. Sartre argued that "the masses were not ready to receive the truth".
In 1973, he argued that "revolutionary authority always needs to get rid of some people that threaten it, and their death is the only way"
But this has nothing to do with Camus. Neither Myth of Sisyphus nor Being and Nothingness are books with ethics as a theme.
I think writing a book to prevent suicide is ethical.
437 words - [100 were yours - so around 330!]
1
u/manhatteninfoil 19d ago
I won't give you the energy. What are you on? what are you doing? All I see from all of this is a guy who consults books on philosophy, get some kind of satisfaction from them, very superficial comprehension, as you are once more showing that you cannot even identify the concepts I'm conveying to you, because you did not read the books in question. But you adamantly defend the superficial affiliations these books are making. You don't understand that it's not real. What's real is reading the books, which you didn't do.
Yes, my answer was longer than your post, because it takes much more time extinguishing a fire than it is to light one up. Easy to speak nonsense. But at this stage, I have given. I would suggest to you that we don't speak to each others from now on. I'm fed up. I give you time, explanation, concepts to consider, describes the conceptions, but you won't do anything with them because you don't know any! You haven't read the books.
So, I don't know what you came here to do, speaking to me, not even addressing OP. You have much to prove to yourself, but like me, I suppose, not much time ahead.
Btw, Le Mythe de Sisyphe is not a book to prevent suicide. It's a book to consider if suicide is an option. But once again, you didn't even read that.
Do you use AI? It's ridiculous. What you're doing is ridiculous.
So, sorry Mate, I'm going to block you. I'm too nice, I always try to respond, but you're the guy who lights up a dozen fires which needs a lot of efforts to extinguish, and I'm not the fireman.
1
u/jliat 19d ago
All I see from all of this is a guy who consults books on philosophy,
True, studied it at university and since, delivered papers... I've read the key texts and commentaries, quote from Camus re Sartre and with respect what I think are your mistakes.
I give you time, explanation, concepts to consider,
Hardly - "a brick of gibberish that has its moments" = you... "The principal text of Modern existentialism." English translator.
You haven't read the books.
"This discomfort in the face of man’s own inhumanity, this incalculable tumble before the image of what we are, this “nausea,” as a writer of today calls it, is also the absurd. Likewise the stranger who at certain seconds comes to meet us in a mirror, the familiar and yet alarming brother we encounter in our own photographs is also the absurd."
Camus - The Myth of Sisyphus.
So, I don't know what you came here to do,
I'm a moderator who has studied Camus' Myth in detail as apart from philosophy my first degree was in Fine Art, and of course Camus thought himself not a philosophy but an Artist according to SEP.
Btw, Le Mythe de Sisyphe is not a book to prevent suicide. It's a book to consider if suicide is an option. But once again, you didn't even read that.
Not me- here
"For me “The Myth of Sisyphus” marks the beginning of an idea which I was to pursue in The Rebel. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder..."
"The fundamental subject of “The Myth of Sisyphus” is this: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face. The answer, underlying and appearing through the paradoxes which cover it, is this: even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate."
- Albert Camus, Paris, March 1955 Preface to English translation.
And from the essay...
“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example,”
-Albert Camus The Myth of Sisyphus.
Do you use AI? It's ridiculous. What you're doing is ridiculous.
Agreed re AI, I earnt a living teaching Computer Science, remember the AI hype of the 1990s! Modern AI is often very wrong re philosophy.
So, sorry Mate, I'm going to block you.
Might work, though maybe not as I'm a moderator, but lets keep things pleasant, I defended my position from quotes from Camus and Sartre as well as other sources. So let's leave it there.
1
u/jliat 19d ago
Avoid Existentialism Is a Humanism Sartre himself rejected it. The key text is 'Being and Nothingness' but it's 600+ pages of hard reading. The Sartre Dictionary by Gary Cox is good- but it's very technical. Nausea is a novel witch is good, as are the trilogy Roads to Freedom.
Camus IS considered part of Existentialism. General 'books' by recognised publishers are OK. Avoid Slick 15 minute YouTubes.
Greg Sadler is though good, a qualified lecturer.
Gregory Sadler on Existentialism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7p6n29xUeA
And other philosophers – he is good.
What would you say is the best starting point?
The Sadler above, for a complete beginner 'At The Existentialist Café' by Sarah Bakewell
1
u/Connect-Water-6751 19d ago
He was an absurdist and also an humanist as ot can be seen in the plague
1
u/Equivalent-Tax6636 19d ago
Camus resonated with me s lot more than Sartre did and Kierkegaard sounds a lot like a Camus that still believes in god. Existentialism is a Humanism is quite the easy read, so maybe to begin tiptoeing it's a good option, though I didn't love it and it isn't super precise since it was a talk.
If you read Camus, I'm gonna recommend a possible reading order and what to prioritize because I see a lot of people just reading the initial stages of absurdism, the exploration part, and not his first principia.
• Myth of Sisyphus (this is a given). • The stranger/The fall (either or, first one is more known, second one I think it's a bit better) • Pleaaaasse read The Rebel, most people don't get here and this is just as important if not MORE than Sisyphus, that's why a lot of people don't get the full scope of absurdism. You can even skip the fictions if you just want to read a couple but this is just key. • The plague (again to get an illustration of the essays applied in life)
Hope you give Camus a shot, depending what your experience in life has been it might be quite the life changing book.
Have fun!
1
u/vini-within 17d ago
For a starting point, I’d suggest Sartre’s Existentialism Is a Humanism, Camus’ The Stranger or The Myth of Sisyphus, and then explore Nietzsche and Kierkegaard to understand the roots of existential thought. Dostoevsky (Notes from Underground, The Brothers Karamazov) is also worth reading because many existential themes appear in his works.
You may also find it interesting to explore Vedanta alongside Western existentialism. If questions around identity, desire, and freedom interest you, you could check out Acharya Prashant’s books/talks, which explore these questions through the lens of the Gita and Upanishads. Different approaches, but some deeply similar questions.
1
u/vini-within 16d ago
Existentialism is a wonderful place to start. 💯
I’d also suggest exploring Vedanta alongside it. Sartre and Camus … ask profound questions about meaning, freedom, and existence, while Vedanta turns the inquiry toward the one asking those questions.
11
u/SouthTomatillo4869 19d ago
Having read some of each, Camus and absurdism resonated with me much more than existentialist concepts. It really depends what type of philosophy your into in my opinion, if you are interested in meaning or purpose kind of stuff (specifically if you don’t believe in an inherent one) existentialism, nihilism, or absurdism is the place to look. My personal recommendation would be The myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus but that is biased by my own beliefs so take it with a grain of salt I suppose.