A review by blueyorkie
Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology by Jean-Paul Sartre

4.0

What is essential in the context of the phenomenology of being? Being & Existing, the memorable and subtle space separating being from non-being, the possibility of non-existence constitutes a distinct phenomenon from death. These are some of the countless questions that Sartre addresses uniquely in "Being and Nothingness", in an intellectual exercise that sometimes touches on the absurdity of the denials of the apparent evidence. According to Sartre, the subject-object relationship inevitably passes through the conception of the self and the self's consciousness so that knowledge can assume compelling cognition perspectives. The object is perceptible if the consciousness of the being situates and references itself outside the item, and, in turn, it exists independently of the being. "Before any comparison, before any construction, the thing is what is present in the conscience as not being the conscience" (SARTRE, 1997). When objects exist, they imply an order of things independent of being and knowledge itself. Likewise, the Sartrian exists before self-awareness, and when he refuses, he assumes a negative characteristic that only realizes it as a non-substantial structure. Being is before thinking because it (pre) exists for self-awareness. Although for Sartre, consciousness constitutes the original absolute, insubstantial and external to all reality, it exists when being and self-awareness meet in thought and prove an ability to integrate and perceive the existence of being. The Sartrian problem of being part of and not being for the other's knowledge is the same phenomenological problem. And between being and non-being, there is nothing, the non-existence that shapes death, as a negation of the existing and self-conscious being. This fact refers to another order of questions: the value of conscience as a normative reference for perceiving reality and convergence with a world defined according to previously elaborated categories. It will end up assuming conventions and prejudices from proof to proof. In other words, madness and death would, to be so, be equal concerning the ontological question of being and nothingness. The fundamental thing is to mention that through this superior work, it will be possible to raise numerous questions of existential content that will take us further in the knowledge of ourselves and others. And isn't this the primary role of Philosophy?