Published in 1943, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology, is considered a cornerstone of the philosophy of existentialism. If Nausea is his most important fictional work, this is his most non-fictional book. While in a German prison in the 1940s, away from all the fightings, Sartre sat down and read one of the most difficult philosophical books, Martin Heidegger’s magnum opus, Being and Time, in which the German philosopher settled on the idea of death giving life a meaning it lacks. In other words, to be authentically alive, one must fully realise death. So Sartre wrote his book in reaction to Heidegger but most crucially in response to the religious notion that we are created by god. Sartre says, no, we are nothing prior to our birth or being. We are born first, and then we become something.

that has an essence. We have no divine essence, 
or divine creator. Like a flower, we germinate, grow and blossom to become a flower, 
but nobody plants us, we are self-made. Sartre also responds to the psychoanalysis 
movement led by Sigmund Freud who argued that beneath the conscious mind, there 
is a whole new and hidden world called the unconscious mind where all sorts 
of suppressed emotions, repressed urges and thoughts are kept. According to 
psychoanalysts such as Freud and Carl Jung, the unconscious is a much bigger pot 
than the conscious mind. In other words, we are only aware of a fraction of what’s going on 
inside our minds. Sartre says that is rubbish. He argues that we do not have a hidden self floating 
in the unconscious cave or soup, but we are what we know. Anything we are not conscious of is 
not us. So Sartre agrees with Rene Descartes.

I think, therefore I am. But unlike Descartes, 
Sartre doesn’t believe in innate knowledge from birth. For Sartre, existence precedes essence. 
We are born, and then we develop the self. Edmund Husserl, a German philosopher, was 
Sartre’s teacher at one point. Husserl’s philosophy, called phenomenology, argues that our 
consciousness is always conscious of something. When we know something, we know something, 
an object or idea or an image. This goes back to Kant who divided knowledge into two: the 
world of phenomena which is knowable through our animal senses and perception, and noumena 
which is the unknowable world of things in themselves. So phenomenology is the philosophy 
of consciousness through the world of phenomena that we get to know through our senses, which 
removes or ignores the unknowables such as god or afterlife or even the psychoanalytical hidden 
unconscious posited by Freud. So for Sartre,

our consciousness is rooted in objects, not some divine essence or hidden unconscious. So Sartre says consciousness is tied to objects. It doesn’t come from itself and neither from god. But Sartre also adds that not only consciousness allows us to be aware of the world, but consciousness is also aware of itself as a kind of transparent phenomenon. Not only is it aware of objects but simultaneously it’s aware of this awareness. It knows that it knows. It’s like a camera that can see but also knows that it can see. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre starts with nothingness as the basis of existence, then moves on to how we fill this void with social role or fake identity and finally he also rejects psychoanalysis of Freud. But first, what’s nothingness. To Understand Nothingness let’s imagine an object we call Mr. Self who bumps into objects.

and obstacles like rocks in space. Through 
these random collisions, it shapes itself into something. Quote: “Nothingness carries 
being in its heart.”—Jean-Paul Sartre. To understand Sartre, let’s go back to Martin 
Heidegger. The German philosopher said that our existence can be summed up by two ends: birth 
and death. So we exist in time. In other words, our life is finite, meaning we have limited 
time as a being. So being and time are two sides of the same coin, so to speak. One cannot 
separate existence from time. Sartre takes this as a starting point and then just focuses on the 
being itself, but instead of talking about time, he shifts his focus to nothingness. Since we have 
no divine essence or purpose, we exist as nothing. In other words, our nothingness makes us totally 
free to float around. But this nothing being has

to deal with the external world, such as objects 
and other people, which curtail our freedom.   Through our interactions with the world 
and other people, we have to make choices,   which limits our freedom but also causes us 
to feel anxiety. To escape these constraints,   or this limit on our freedom, we escape into 
our imagination, or rely on someone else for   guidance, or defer authority to a figure, such 
as god, to make choices for us. In other words,   existence is like walking in the wilderness 
that’s full of dangers and pitfalls, which   limit our freedom, so to escape this 
non-freedom, we seek answers in our mind,   by imagining things or inventing things. This 
often leads us to act unconsciously, or take   roles in life, or take refuge within an identity, 
given to us, like nationality, job, activist,   etc., like some flushed out characters in a novel. 
I’m a YouTuber because I want to fill the void.

of my existence. We take on roles in order to 
escape our anguish for the lack of choices, but   also for the abundance of choices we experience. 
So since we are sandwiched between an unbridled   imagination or thought and tightly constrained 
world and regulated actions, we develop a sense   of self. In other words, the self is created 
by free thoughts floating in nothingness,   colliding with the unfree outside world of 
existence. Hence, we are beings in nothingness. A good analogy might be a planet. It started 
as a misshapen rock floating about, until it   lost its edges through gravity or collisions 
with other objects in space, and took a more   spherical shape and found a stable orbit in 
which it can exist. Although, for Sartre,   humans are different because we exist, not 
like an object-in-itself like a rock or a tree,   but we also exist for-itself, which means we 
are also aware of our existence. To escape

this awareness, we take a role, like a teacher, 
which means we exist in-itself. In other words, we fulfil a role, which means we exist for others, 
not for ourselves. But we can never fully become a thing in-itself. We can only manage it for a time 
and we have to convince ourselves to be a teacher, a thing in-itself. In an attempt to become a 
teacher, a Frenchman, or a YouTuber, we try to convince ourselves to be what we are not. This 
is bad faith. So we come out of nothingness, but we want to be something. To fill the 
void, we almost fake it, which is bad faith. Bad faith, for Sartre, simply means living a false 
existence or self-deception, which is also close to a Marxist notion of false consciousness 
prevalent among the working class who buy into their pride in nationalism or identity 
as peaceful, moral citizens, or good workers

which prevent them from rebelling against an 
exploitative system. Marx wanted all workers   to unite to overthrow the system, but they rarely 
did. So he blamed on false consciousness, which   prevent the workers see themselves as victims. 
Today, another term often used is internalised   racism or repression, in which one goes against 
their interest in accepting the status quo. For Sartre, bad faith means the negation of 
existence as a thing for-itself. For example,   when we take a role or job, we act as if 
we exist for others or a thing in-itself.   A waiter acts as though he or she is 
someone whose only purpose is to wait.   Quote: “Society demands that he limit himself to 
his function… There are indeed many precautions   to imprison a man in what he is, as if we lived 
in perpetual fear that he might escape from it,   that he might break away and suddenly 
elude his condition.”—Jean-Paul Sartre.

In other words, their entire being is reduced to 
their job. This is also true in terms of social   status, nationality, a fan of a sports team, 
etc. For Sartre, humans as sentient beings,   we cannot fully become a thing-in-itself, so 
what we often do is attempt or pretend to be   a teacher or a YouTuber, reducing our entire 
existence to one role. This is bad-faith or   self-deception. Why do we do it? It limits our 
freedom or endless choices we face in life, which   is in a way a coping mechanism, because a defined 
role or action can calm us down. We don’t have to   worry about making choices or mistakes. In other 
words, endless freedom or choices can paralyse us.   To escape bad faith, Sartre says we must accept 
our existence as what it is, not something that   is not. An authentic person has endless choices 
at any moment as he or she is facing the future.

but as a waiter, he or she limits it to one choice, which is inauthentic or bad faith. For Sartre, bad faith also includes social norms, moral values, religious dogmas, and legal obligations, which limit our existential journey of fulfillment as true authentic beings. While social or moral values are created by others, Sartre also considers thinking too much about our own past as bad faith. We always limit our future projections to what happened to us in the past, so this is also bad faith. If we had a bad romantic experience with one person, we project that onto our future partners, which is a form of bad faith. Proust spent his entire novel talking about the past, in an attempt to regain or recreate his past selves or lost time. Sartre says that’s living inauthentically because you only see yourself in the past that no longer exists.

not now or in the future. Sartre’s philosophy is a teleologically progressive one, similar to Hegel and Marx, that we are heading towards perfection or completion. Sartre spends a large portion of the book talking about sex. He treats sex as a social act, not just as biological or physical. Being for others is another form of bad faith. When we build relationships with others, we tend to limit our freedom for acceptance. Sartre gives the example of a shop mannequin that we sometimes mistake for a real person. We behave differently when we realize it’s not a person. This shows how much we regulate our behavior for others, depending on the kind of relationships we have. The closer, the more we curtail our own or their freedom to be for themselves rather for others. So our purpose becomes being for others, not free existence per se. We exist to maintain the happiness of the other. For instance, you do everything to make

your partner happy. Which Sartre says is nothing, but emotional alienation because our entire being is taken hostage by how they make us feel and how we make them feel. So love is nothing but a bad faith conflict or battleground for control of the other. You want them, and you want them for yourself, and nobody else. No wonder, Sartre had an open relationship with Simone. In reality, Simone didn’t exercise that freedom as much as Sartre did, which perhaps shows that men and women are different on a biological level. Men have millions of sperm ready at any moment, while women only have one egg, which dictates the level and intensity of sexual urge among the sexes. Sartre, however, rejects a biological reason for sex. Sex for Sartre is our attempt to create a completion, but upon orgasm you go back to square one. This stems from nothingness and emptiness.

of existence. You hike up a mountain or jump on 
a bungee, and at the end, it’s never complete. I   think Sartre stretches it a bit by saying that 
there is no biological basis for sex. Evolution   doesn’t care about Sartre’s opinion because he 
failed to procreate, so his genes died with him.   But Sartre does make sex different from other 
basic human urges such as food and survival,   because for sex to happen, you need another 
person. Unless you go the DIY route.  The third major point in Being and 
Nothingness is consciousness. For Sartre,   our consciousness makes us who we are. Anything 
we are not conscious of or aware of is not us.   This goes against the fundamental point 
psychoanalysts make that consciousness   is just the tip of the iceberg. The unconscious 
controls much of our choices and actions in life. According to Sartre, the psychoanalysis of Sigmund 
Freud removed the responsibility from his patient.

by blaming the hidden unconscious for their 
behavior. Sartre argues that there is a paradox   in psychoanalysis that relies on patients 
reporting a hidden world of unconsciousness, where repressed emotions are kept. You either 
know, or don’t know. If you don’t know, how can   you repress those emotions, urges, and ideas? 
Repressed emotions hidden in the unconscious   is just an excuse, according to Sartre. He says 
if a patient has repressed certain emotions or   urges, and they refuse to divulge such unsavory 
ideas, on some level they are conscious. So the   hidden unconscious theory is flawed. Pretending 
you don’t know is self-deception for the sake   of self-preservation. We lie so we can 
avoid responsibility. If we self-censor   or hide something in our unconscious, it 
has to be a conscious decision. You do   not hide something that you do not know. We 
knowingly hide treasure or past mistakes. So

for Sartre, the theory of the unconscious 
posited by Freud and Jung is nothing but an excuse to make their patients feel 
better about their bad choices in life. To sum up, in Being and Nothingness, 
Sartre, just like Heidegger, makes a distinction between being-in-itself 
like non-conscious phenomena such as a tree or rock, and being-for-itself like humans. The 
difference is that the thing-in-itself exists yet is neither aware of its existence nor has 
freedom, while the thing-for-itself is not only aware of its own existence but also because of 
this consciousness, we are condemned to be free. So Sartre’s existentialism is founded upon 
nothingness in which existence comes about.

Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness Summarized

Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness Summarized

스크립트