JOURNALS
JOURNAL #1 6/26/19, 6 Word Description
I am a very self-motivated learner.
JOURNAL #2 6/26/19, Meeting
I liked how there was a focus on cooperation and communication in this class. I hope going forward there is more of this.
Journal #3 8/21/19, First steps
So far I've read up a bit on Sartre. I read his essay Existentialism is a Humanism, and his novel Nausea. For context on his contemporaries and influences like Husserl and Kant I've turned to college lecture notes that I found online. I'm also reading his principal text Being and Nothingness along with those lecture notes, while annotating and taking my own notes.
Sartre is unique in the extent that he values human freedom. One of his core ideas "existence precedes essence" is representative of this. Essence is a kind of "nature" of things, they are described in universals. For instance when I see a cube I see three faces and the essence "cube." Sartre assumes atheism (at least it seems that way to me, probably just didn't get into why he does yet) and "existence precedes essence" comes as a consequence of this. For inanimate objects like a table, the carpenter has a blueprint for the table. This is the essence of the table. In these cases, essence precedes existence since a plan must come before construction. But because god does not exist, there is no maker for man, and thus our existence is spontaneous (might not be accurate wording) and our essence (in this case our personalities, potential actions, etc.) are completely determined by us: we are free to choose who we are to be, "man is what he makes himself". For Sartre, the existence of god and human freedom are incompatible. He also rejects the idea of a "human nature" and the Freudian unconsciousness, both of which he sees as obstacles for human freedom. Since human beings are free, they alone are responsible for all their actions and emotions, not their environment. However, when we choose to do something, we are choosing as “a legislator deciding for the whole of mankind.” (I take it that whenever we make a choice, we believe that choice to be "right," and as a result, we are advocating for this choice to be taken on by others in the same circumstances; i'm not entirely sure) Realization of this overwhelming responsibility is "Anguish" and is inherent in the human condition (his novel nausea primarily deals with this, it is a fictionalized account of a person who is horrified at the nature of his existence, and who eventually finds respite through writing a book, or reasserting his control over his essence). These are the two main ideas of his essay existentialism is a humanism and is further elaborated upon in B/N.
So far in B/N I've reached the chapter on Bad Faith, about 100 pages in. I found Sartre's introduction to be near incomprehensible, but with the help of the lecture notes I was able to piece it together. A big chunk of the book is just on Sartre's metaphysics, dealing with topics like the possibility of the existence of a "thing in itself"(Is there something "outside myself" causing my perceptions? or is the entire world a figment of my consciousness?) In his introduction, Sartre critiques Husserl's idealism (idea that there is no thing-in-itself and that everything is within the consciousness), asserts the existence of Being-in-itself (similar to the thing in itself, being-in-itself are objects in the "external world" outside of consciousness, or, being-for-itself) and gives characteristics of the Being-in-itself. In the first chapter, the origin of negation, Sartre explores the nature of nothingness and "nihilation"(to "encase within nothingness"). Sartre concludes that nothingness originates from the being-for-itself, or consciousness (for example, whenever we ask a question there is always the possibility of a negative answer). An important point he makes is that the being-for-itself is able to "disconnect himself from the casual series" (through nihilation?) and is subsequently free. In the next chapter so far, Sartre has described his concept of Bad Faith, which is a person's self denial of their freedom.
I'm not altogether confident on some of the stuff he is talking about in B/N, especially the introduction. So I'll definitely need to scour for more resources on the subject. My plan right now is to finish reading B/N along with the lecture notes, although that may be a bit long-term. As for Camus, I feel that I am already somewhat familiar with his philosophy, so I plan on just reading The Plague, brushing up on The Myth of Sisyphus, and perhaps reading some of his other essays.
Journal #4 some questions answered (like september 20-something)
Context?
Sartre was majorly influenced by his predecessors. Primarily Husserl, before he became an idealist. Husserl’s ideas of intentionality (def. : 1. No act of consciousness is ever conscious of itself 2. The object of an act of consciousness is transcendent to that act in the sense of it that it is not wholly contained within the mind 3. The intentional object does not need to exist. In short “every act of consciousness is consciousness of something”) and the eidetic reduction (The process by which we look at a particular event and see the universal present. Although Sartre does downplay this.). In the first half of his career, Husserl worked to dispel the solipsism problem left behind by Kant and Descartes. Husserl developed the “phenomenological ego” which portrayed the ego as just a point of view, a passive observer of phenomenon which are directly given to us. In this model, all content comes from the outside. But, Husserl then began to worry about the validity of his model and moved onto the idea of the “Transcendental Ego.” In this model, all content comes from the ego, completely flipping his stance on the solipsism question, leading many of his supporters to turn their backs on him, including Sartre.
So in comes Sartre, who spends a portion of his career refuting the later Husserilean model. Sartre’s model of the ego is similar to the Phenomenological Ego, with the addition of the Kantian idea of constitution (the ego is a kind of interpreter of “raw data”). Sartre believes human freedom is incompatible with the transcendental ego. Sartre in general emphasizes the individual as opposed to the universal, and places great importance on the concept of human freedom.
Relevance?
It’s definitely not necessary to understand or even know about Sartrean thought in the present day. However, For the everyday person, especially with the increasing presence of deterministic forces in our lives (like the rising prominence of technology), Sartre’s iron-willed resolve to uphold human freedom could be empowering. These ideas on freedom and the human condition can never be outdated— they remain as relevant today as they did in the 1940s. Although I’m not really up to date on present day philosophy, so I’m not sure if Sartre is still relevant in academia.
What? So What? Now What?
I am researching Sartre's existentialism. Particularly the content covered in Being and Nothingness, which contains all of his most important ideas. The Sartre philosophy primarily deals with the distinction between matter and consciousness (Being-in-itself vs. Being-for-itself), their separate properties, the role and effect of freedom on the human condition, temporality, and interpersonal relationships (Being-for-others). I really can't say that knowledge of Sartre or existentialism really is a necessity for anybody. However, there is some takeaway for everybody in Sartre's philosophy, as the ideas found in existentialism are universally relatable and applicable to our lives in one way or another (because existentialism deals with the human condition). As for the importance of philosophy in general, here's an excerpt from Bertrand Russel's The Problems Of Philosophy https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/RussellValuePhilosophy1912.pdf
Right now I'm on the chapter about temporality, and I plan to just keep grinding through the book.
Investigation of essential question
As I am researching existentialism, my essential question seems to be "what is the human condition?" in Sartre's work, the human condition is comprised of the relationship between the for-itself and the in-itself, the existential freedom we possess, and the effects of that freedom. These claims are posed in Sartre's essay Existentialism is a Humanism which serves as a precursor and an introduction to his Being and Nothingness, which goes into the why for his claims; the ontological and metaphysical considerations that must accounted for to reinforce his ideas. In Camus' work, the human condition is the absurd struggle of man's search for meaning in an inherently meaningless world. Both his essay The Myth of Sisyphus and his novel The Stranger build upon this idea. As I am focusing on Sartre for this project, my essential question is pretty much just the one above but with a modifier "What is the human condition (for Sartre)?"
Next SDA
For next month's SDA, I am going to do the instruction/how to manual on constructing meaning. It'll focus more on the existence precedes essence part of Sartre's work, as that is what in his view grants us freedom and allows us to assume meaning in our lives. The manual will have to cover that and the implications of such a freedom, as well as the metaphysical/ontological aspects of that idea. The main goal is to engage a viewer with Sartre's thought on this essential part of the human condition, and to help me better understand the existentialist view of the human condition as well.
HOTQs
Q-focus statement: The Human condition is characterized by our spontaneous existence in a state of freedom.
Knowledge: What is the... result/ramifications of our living as free beings?
Comprehension: What facts/ideas... does Sartre use in his philosophy to illustrate the human condition?
Application: How would you use... this information in your own life/ what are the real world applications of these ideas?
Analysis: Why do you think... that Sartre tries to justify freedom?/ Does whether or not we are free or under an illusion of freedom matter (I know it matters to Sartre but is his philosophy still relevant even in light of what we know about genetics today?)?
Evaluation: What evidence can you find according to Sartre that we are free?
Synthesis: How would you compare the ideas of Sartre and Camus?
Midterm Journal
For my Emc project there are several different ways I could approach the midterm. I could either go through with the solipsism route (what I’m probably going to do), or with the lack/Existentialism is a Humanism-core route. With solipsism, I could construct a narrative around Sartre’s philosophical rejection of the idea, and tie it in with contemporary issues in which this rejection of solipsism may be relevant. The main goals of this midterm would simply be to define solipsism, give context as to why solipsism is such a difficult idea to refute, and provide a possible refutation through Sartre’s ideas. First off, I would give background on philosophers before Sartre, like Husserl and Kant, whose ideas in a way backed contemporary philosophers in a corner, unable to escape the problem of solipsism. Husserl’s thought can be split into two parts; his younger more influential ideas of intentionality (every act of consciousness is consciousness of something), and his later ideas of the transcendental ego (before, Husserl thought all “content” comes from outside the ego; in the transcendental ego, all content comes from within, which makes Husserl an idealist), where he essentially went back on his previous thought and alienated many of his followers, including Sartre. Kant’s ideas of the constitutional ego (organizing and interpreting function of raw content taking place in the mind) and the noumenon (raw content, being-in-itself, etc) were also very influential in Sartre’s work. Ultimately, Kant was unable to prove that noumenon existed, thus pointing towards solipsism. Sartre’s refutation of solipsism is based in our relationships with other people (not entirely familiar with this part of his argument yet but I will be), and on a newly constructed model of the ego based in part on early Husserlian ideas and Kant’s constitutional ego. In Sartre’s model of the ego, the mind is just a bare POV, interpreting raw data/ phenomenon.
Midterm Plan
PICTURED ABOVE
Midterm Reflection
I think my midterm was generally good, but could’ve been a bit smoother in some parts. For the most part I think I explained the concepts well and clearly, but I probably could’ve made the entire presentation a little more concise. In this presentation I’ve pretty much just summed up/ condensed my knowledge on this topic, which I suppose helps me view the topics clearer. Also was one of my first real (not in classroom) forays into public speaking which is probably my most important takeaway. I definitely would have spread out my time spent working rather than clustering it the week leading up to the midterm, which would’ve helped my command of my content. I’m most proud of some of the spontaneous explanations/analogies I came up with to explain some of the concepts, although I wasn't able to do this consistently. In changing my approach, I would take the Finsel’s advice and mention examples of the mass violence stuff I talk about later on in my presentation much earlier in order to ground my presentation from the beginning. In the future, I am going to focus more on the accessibility/relevance aspect of these issues. Next I hope to tackle the meat of Sartre’s philosophy: the logistics and consequences of human freedom, and perhaps authenticity/ living a “meaningful” life (I’ve already done inquiry regarding both of these, but there is much more to explore compared to what I’ve covered).
MINI SDA/JOURNAL POST
Most people couldn’t relate to my project/ find relevance in my subject during my midterm. So I think I will be shifting my focus towards the more accessible parts (and in many ways the more important parts) of Sartre’s philosophy: Freedom, Meaning, & Authenticity. These concepts will still have to be explained in terms of ontology (ie. Sartre’s classifications of being, their modes of being, etc), which means that it will still be complicated. But, the goal here is to increase accessibility as much as possible.
Essential questions
How can meaning be defined?
How does one live with meaning/ authentically?
Why does Sartre believe we are free/ what does this mean for us?
SDA
For my next SDA I will be exploring authenticity and reasserting freedom as per Sartre’s philosophy. The SDA will focus on the more tangible aspects of the philosophy and will try to make it more immediate/relatable to the reader. I will likely be doing something based around a creative writing piece, perhaps an allegorical short story in which may represent aspects of Sartre’s philosophy through characters/plot events/etc. I won’t be including Sartre or me as characters, and will not make any explicit references to Sartre and his philosophy in this piece. Specifically, the aim of this SDA is to create a narrative piece of fiction in which the thematic content is centered around Sartre’s ideas of authenticity and freedom. There are several ways I could go about making this. Although most likely I will follow a character through an existential conflict, and him coming out of this conflict through living authentically and asserting his freedom (much like Sartre’s novel, Nausea). The resolution part/ reassertion of freedom could be represented by the character undergoing a creative act, which is a pure expression of one’s freedom. The piece will be around anywhere from 700-1200 words long (as much or little it takes to complete the narrative).
april 2nd journal
Currently in my EMC project I have been continuing to read Being and Nothingness, as well as some secondary sources. Right now in B/N, I am still on the section about the being-for-others. Some new information I’ve accrued from this chapter: the being for others is a real mode of being (so it is a separate mode of being from the for itself and the in itself), the other limits my otherwise limitless freedom (by taking away our possibilities, for ex. I am hiding from a man who is trying to kill me—he has taken away my options of making my presence known ), and that both fear and pride are also indicators of the existence of the other, along with shame.
Journal APRIL 9th
I'm now closing off the chapter on being for others and am beginning the chapter on The Body. From the little that I've read since last week I've learned some important things regarding the being-for-other: My constant concern is to contain the other within his objectivity (I take it as trying to contain the other within his state as an object for me), only the dead can perpetually be objects without ever being subjects, and to lose all possibility of revealing oneself as subject to another. Also, the facticity of being-for others is "my denial that I am the other and the others denial of me" (a kind of dual nihilation?)
April 16th
Sartre's chapter on the body so far has been analyzing the nature of our sense perceptions and the properties of our body. According to Sartre, we are stuck in the "world of objects," and the physical object, the senses, the other, and language are all terms of objective relations that we wish to establish. Also, we have free choice of "true objectivity," so I deem "subjective" what I havent chosen as "true objectivity" (so is true objectivity subjective? as in up to the pov of the beholder?). Sartre also seems to want to make clear that the mind is not the producer of sense perceptions, rather, sensations are "appropriated" by the body through the body's "living" them (I take it that hes just saying sensations come from external factors not internal). Sensation is "pure fiction," and subjectivity is "given as the necessary basis on which all these transcendent relations which its appearance has just caused to disappear will have to be reconstructed" (sensation is inherently subjective? or rather those "transcendent relations" we make of our sensations are to be subjective?).
Ted talk analysis/comparison
The first Ted talk I chose was Bott's--the Sam Harris one about scientific/universal morality. In it, Harris argues for universal morality, that the realm of values can be based in facts--there is an objective right and wrong. He seems to equate human values to human well-being. From his stance, morality should be treated just like any other scientific discipline, as in their should be discernible truths and falsehoods of opinion. His argument uses many elements of Logos and pathos. He uses logos primarily in his appeals to analogy, for example his comparing of well-being to physical health in order to enumerate the point that undefined concepts can have truths and falsehoods applied to them. He uses pathos when he talks of women in the middle east (particularly when he mentions honor killing of rape victims). I view the talk more as an argument for adopting universal morality (which I agree with), rather than a philosophical argument for establishing universal morality (in this respect I find the talk a little unsatisfying, mostly due to the somewhat arbitrary equating of moral truth to human well-being).
My second TED talk I chose was Will Stephen's How To Sound Smart In Your Ted Talk. Throughout the talk, Stephen cleverly relays the many aspects of successful (and oftentimes manipulative) Ted talks, going through several points. But rather than explicitly telling us what makes for a successful speech, Stephen demonstrates it to us, with much exaggeration, making the whole thing more like a satirical take of TED. This made the talk more compelling as there was a very clear element of humor and sarcasm. From his speech, I've actually learned just how impactful speaking confidently and switching up the pace of your vocal intonations can have on an audience. Although not explicitly connected to my project, the talk contains many helpful tips for how i might've approached my symposium.
For example, when talking use hand gestures to emphasize points, ask the audience questions, direct or rhetorical, make good use of proper build up, use statistics and data, and connect the end to the beggining.
[SDA] Going deeper into two concepts I've previously covered/ this month I've learned journal/ Where to go from here
This April I so far I read about 100 pages of Being and Nothingness, and about 30 pages of my secondary source (about 200 pages of lecture notes on a class on Sartre from Indiana University) on Being and Nothingness. As of right now there’s still about 300 pages or so of B/N, and 90 pages of my secondary source, so I’m more or less on schedule. B/N these past 100 pages has wrapped up on the being-for-others discussion, and is now on a metaphysical examination of the nature of the human body. Particularly about our senses, and how they must be defined. Since I left off in my last journal: the body is finite, meaning I do not exist “all at once.” That is the condition of my freedom (meaning our freedom is limited to capabilities of our bodies). The relationship between my body and consciousness is an “existential” one—consciousness of the body is retrospective, yet the body is consciousness. Personally, I think that this chapter is slightly inconsequential when it comes to Sartre’s broader philosophy, of lesser importance. This is somewhat confirmed by the fact that my secondary source doesn’t even bother to cover this chapter.
So far my secondary source on B/N has elucidated many things about Sartre’s core philosophy. Particularly on the Being-for-others. On the subject of “the look”, what is precisely meant by “presence-for-others” or our “being-for-others” can be revealed by an example of walking in the park—which also makes clear why it is difficult to look someone in the eye. When I am walking in the park everything around me, the trees, sky etc. are my phenomena, the world is constituted from my point of view, everything revolves around me, everything is organized according to me. But the instant I see an old man sitting on a bench put down his newspaper, I immediately am confronted by “the look,” I feel threatened, unsettled—even though I am not in any danger. Instead of being a physical threat, other consciousnesses are threats to the organization and constitution of my world. Through recognizing another consciousness, another point of view is realized, a POV that is not mine and can never be mine. I am “haunted” by the values of the other which are unknown to me—what he thinks of me, how attractive he finds me, etc. He sees me as an “object” in his world. We spend a lot of time trying to view ourselves as the other views us, as an object: this precisely is bad faith. Bad faith is the attempt to see yourself as an object. We try to define ourselves, by acting noble, by being good. But we are only those things if the other says we are. Ultimately we are defined by other people—we acknowledge other people’s definitions of us through shame and pride. From my secondary source: “All my life I aim at defining myself, at becoming what I am, at being a definite in-itself.” This is a broader theme in Sartre’s ideas concerning the human condition. Our possibilities are all aimed towards being in-itself (ie. God, as explained by Sartre, God is the only being who has both the properties of for-itself and in-itself), we strive towards the in-itself (inferring from the text, trying to be in-itself may mean trying to define ourselves as the other defines us), which is unattainable in life. But, the other is able to do this for me, as in his world I am in-itself, an object. I am still, however, eternally separated from this defined self, as in I cannot control what the other makes of me. I can try, through manipulation, but ultimately the other has the freedom to decide what I am. This makes clear the problem Sartre proposes when he mentions being held as an object in the other’s gaze.
A term that I’ve known through Sartre’s work but always just vaguely is facticity. Again, the secondary source has helped me a lot in understanding this term. Consciousness is, exists simply as a brute fact. There is no reason for it to exist, but it does nonetheless. My being is absolutely without explanation, which is a “fixed and determined” fact—this is facticity. Consciousness always refers to the in-itself (theory of intentionality). And when we contemplate our own existence, this is also referring to a question of in-itself. Thus the in-itself “haunts” both sides of consciousness—non-reflective and reflective. Here arises a problem, how can I be responsible for my facticity, as Sartre says, when I have no control over my facticity? What Sartre means by this is that you are responsible for what to do with your spontaneous existence. Facticity is the starting point, and from there after everything is up to my freedom to carry on and make decisions.
So far I think I’ve neglected the secondary text a bit. Going through it this week I’ve realized just how useful it is in clarifying the inevitably plentiful things I am confused about in B/N. For my final project I think it will have to cover concepts such as being-for-others and facticity, and I am beginning to see a narrative/overarching theme in Sartre’s work that could be very well suited for a final project. That being the intimate relations between in-itself and for-itself, and how essential this relation is in the human condition as per Sartre. For example, just a rough tracing of the human condition could be: Facticity-> striving towards in-itself in possibilities (bad faith)-> defining own essence through actions (existence precedes essence)-> death (finally reunited with in-itself). And throughout all of this would run Me-Other interactions/relationships (presence to others). Obviously missing a lot of steps, but I think I have a pretty good direction as to where to go from here. Also, these ideas are all tangible and have real world connections, I don’t think I have to abridge it all that much for accessibility.
Journal april 23
Information gathered from recent readings of B/N: 2 ways to apprehend the body
- The body is known and objectively defined in terms of the world (through spacial relations and whatnot)
- The body is given concretely and fully as the arrangement of things in so far as the for-itself surpasses towards a new arrangement (as an aggregate of the various possibilities and actions of the for-itself?)
- My body is a permanent structure of my being and the permanent condition of possibility for my consciousness (facticity, I am given this body and am forever in it)
- The body is a POV
-ended off on a description of pain and how it leads to an elucidation of the nature of consciousness
april 30
Continued reading from B/N
-pain is the "translucent matter of consciousness, its 'being-there'"
-pain also makes clear the idea of coenesthnesia
-The body is the perpetual condition of the "pysche" and is the basis of all "chemical and mechanical" metaphors used to explain the psyche (psychology/biology)
-illness is the synthesis of each individual pain that is projected into the in-itself(?)
-Coesnesthesia is a "pure apprehension of the self as a factual existence," it is the "dull and inescapable nasuea which perpetually reveals my body to my consciousness" (we are forever in our bodies and made aware of the fact)
May 7
Continued:
- the body can be defined two ways, as the contingency which the for-itself exists (coesnesthesia?) and a center of reference indicated by the instrumental objects of the world (POV)
-When we see the other, his facticity and freedom is made apparent to us
-2 rules in apprehending other bodies:
1) I can never apprehend the other's body except as a total situation
2) I can not perceive any organ of the other's body in isolation
(for example, a finger poking from behind a door always indicates a hand behind the door, an arm, which refers to a torso etc etc until we arrive at the totality which is the body of the other)
- I can never reach the body for others (my body as perceived by others as much as I may want to)
-We give the body-for-other as much reality as the Body-for-us ** (The perception of ourselves from others is just as real as our own self-perceptions, they are equal in value)
With this, the chapter on the body ends.
may 22
After the chapter on the body, Sartre goes in-depth on our relations with the other. This chapter recontextualizes interpersonal relationships in a Sartrean framework, analyzing concepts such as love, sadism, masochism, sex, hate, fear, etc. This makes this chapter particularly relevant, as there are always psychological underpinnings to whatever argument he may be making on our interpersonal conduct. First off, Sartre begins with the intuitive motive of the for-itself, that is, to attempt to "escape its factual existence as an in-itself for which there is in no way the foundation" (as a body with consciousness) towards an impossible future where the for-itself is an "in-itself-for-itself" ie. God (only God can have both the properties of in-itself and for-itself--the human body isn't strictly an in-itself bc our body is conscious).
Love comes as a part of this desire to be the foundation of my own being (going towards the direction of the in-itself). In order to do this I must claim my being-as-object (how I am percieved as an object by other POVs--unreachable by me). So according to sartre, this is "assimilating the Other's freedom." Some additional points on the properties of love:
-The lover wishes to "capture a consciousness"
-we don't want to enslave of "posses" our beloved, we want them to have the freedom to choose us. Love is cheapened when deterministic forces are said to be involved (ie. a love potion)
-To want to be loved is to want to be the whole system of values upon which the other bases himself on (ex. "would you kill for me? steal for me?")
-when I am loved, the effects of the look no longer malign me, I cannot be seen as ugly, small etc.
The ultimate motive of love is to justify our existence. According to Sartre, we demand our lovers to make the ultimate choice of us, "to be for the sake of founding my object-state and my facticity" and thus "saving my facticity." (I don't completely grasp the logic of this part, it's kind of confusing). Through the lovers choice, we are no longer "de trop" and our existence is given a name, justified. But we learn soon that this goal is a failure, that "love as intuition is an ideal which never can be reached" (lovers can escape the danger of the other's freedom, but cannot escape their own existence, their contingency or facticity. Once a lover begins to perceive the other as an object, which can happen anytime, and whenever there is a third person around, the spell of love is broken).
This isn't Sartre making some argument against love. Sartre is setting up and continuing this narrative of the individual as being condemned to exist under certain terms, with no way out. Love doesn't solve the problem (more so it is a natural reaction to the human condition, the seeking of love), bad faith (or ignoring the problem) won't help-- the only thing we can do is take responsibility for our freedom and all that other stuff covered in EIAH. I think this chapter deserves at least a portion of my project, and as can be seen helps in setting up an overarching conflict/narrative.
May 28 journal
For my final:
Essential aspects of Sartre's philsophy, in an order that makes sense
1.) Being vs nothingness (in-itself vs for-itself)
2.)Consciousness as a contradiction, and as the foundation of its own nothingness
3.)Freedom
4.) Anguish and Bad Faith
5.) Fundamental motivation of all human beings, the ultimate end of our existence (to be GOD)
6.) Relations with other people (which are also aimed at that fundamental motivation)
7.) "Man is a useless passion"
8.) Resolution: Authenticity, existence precedes essence, "man makes himself"
This is the order my final project will take.
FINAL PODCAST
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness: an Essay in Phenomenological Ontology. Citadel Press, 1964.
Sartre, Jean-Paul, and John Kulka. Existentialism Is a Humanism: (L'Existentialisme Est Un Humanisme). Yale University Press, 2007.
Spade, Paul, Being and Nothingness, 1995.