This book review was written by Eugene Kernes
“Pleasure cannot be distinguished – even logically – from
the consciousness of pleasure. The
consciousness (of) pleasure is constitutive of pleasure, as its very mode of
existence, as the matter of which it is made, and not as a form that is
subsequently imposed on some hedonic matter.
Pleasure cannot exist “before” any consciousness of pleasure – not even
in virtual form, or as a potentiality. A
potential pleasure can exist only as a consciousness (of) its potentiality;
there are no virtualities in consciousness that are not conscious of being
virtual.” – Jean-Paul
Sartre, Introduction: III: The Prereflective Cogito And The Being Of The
Percipere, Page 82
“We cannot find or disclose nothingness in the
way we can find or disclose a being.
Nothingness is always an elsewhere. It is the for-itself’s obligation never to
exist except in the form of an “elsewhere” in relation to itself, to exist as a
being that is constantly qualified by its own inconsistency in being. This inconsistency, moreover, does not
involve another being; it is only a constant referral from itself to itself,
from the reflection to the reflecting, from the reflecting to the reflection.”
– Jean-Paul Sartre, Part Two: Chapter 1: I Self-Presence, Page 181
“I exist my body: that is its first dimension of being. My body is used and is known by the Other:
that is its second dimension. But,
insofar as I am for the Other, the Other is disclosed to me as the
subject for whom I am an object. That is
even my fundamental relation with the Other, as we have seen. I exist therefore for myself as known by the
Other – and, in particular, in my very facticity. I exist for myself as known by the Other in
the capacity of a body. That is the
third ontological dimension of my body.” – Jean-Paul Sartre, Part Three:
Chapter 2: III: The Third Ontological Dimension Of The Body, Page 474
Is This An Overview?
What gives life meaning are the
choices people make. Choices for which
each person is responsible for. The
ability to choose is what defines freedom.
Freedom is not necessarily logical, as choices are not necessarily
logical. Choices made contribute to
defining who a person is. But a person
is defined by more than the choices being made, as society, history, and
environment shape the person. Other
people can prevent choices. Freedom to
act, is not the same as freedom of being.
Being is contingent
of itself. Being is not derived from
something possible. Nothingness is a
negation of being. Nothing is relative
to being, nothingness is a reflection of a reflection. Being can be found, being has a presence, but
nothingness is always an elsewhere. Value
is contingent on being. Choices have
value as they are made in the present.
The past is evanescent, something that resembles values, but is not value. The future is an illusion, for the future
cannot be its own project. The future is
a nothingness, as the future constantly changes by the choices made in the
present.
Caveats?
This book can be very difficult to
read. The book is filled with various
philosophical concepts and jargon. There
are various reflections on ideas from other philosophers, without providing an
appropriate explanation or context for the ideas from other philosophers. The reader would need the have a broad
philosophical background to understand the information presented in the book. Information and ideas which have been updated
and improved upon since the publication of the book.
