Existentialism Books

There is no easy way to read Heidegger because he is such a thinker and philosopher who has mediated the thoughts from the West and the East. To understand him, we should have the background of Phenomenology, Hellenistic philosophy, Christian thought, also Eastern mysterious thought. How can we handle those complicated ideas when reading this remarkable philosopher. Now it is! This book presents a very easy way to catch who he is, and what he thinks mainly. To know his basic concepts, to catch his mind.

As far as the later Heidegger goes, Basic Concepts is as good a place to start as any. The book is short, there is not a great deal of discussion of books you might not have read (like in the Parmenides book, which is roughly contemporaneous). Basic Concepts is post-Kehre Heidegger, although the turn seems to me to be an elaboration of what is already present in Being and Time as the silent voice of the inaudible call. There is also a shart primer on the difference between ontology and modern physics--Heidegger always understands that his real opponent is the "dogmatic scepticism" that Hegel identified as the strange modern mixture of mathematics and materialism. Basic Concepts is best read once you have a good grounding in basic Heidegger: perhaps the second half of the Kant book and the Basic Problems of Phenomenology, then Being and Time, although reading the beginning of Husserl's Logical Investigations before tackling Being and Time would be a good idea. After that the Essence of Truth, where the relation of the whole to being and beings is treated, and then Basic Concepts would make sense, and perhaps the treatment of Plato to get a sense for what Heidegger thought had replaced the incipient thinking (the essay on Anaximander is just too difficult). It seems that by this point Heidegger no longer really had any students, that he is speaking for a general audience that is curious but not philosophically-trained. This lecture course, by the way, took place in 1941. Nazi-party member 3,294,586 is not in open opposition to the regime, but he cannot be mistaken for a supporter, either. And when are they going to run out of Heidegger pictures to put on the jacket covers?

Heidegger is sort of outdated but this short book on the concept of being with reference to the ancient Greek philosopher/astronomer Anaximander is beautifully written and cannot not help but inspire one to think, which is good because it saves Heidegger from the ash heap of his dismal antics against his illustrious peers and mentors who he dumped in favor of the unctious nazis.

Heidegger's unfortunate career choices aside, this book is well structured into 3 sections: an introduction, part I., and part II.

The introduction is an exhortation to the reader to shake off the cobwebs of the Idols of the Theatre and open our minds to simplicity, to Greekness, which pertains to his concluding thesis in part II. of the book, an interpretation of one of Anaximander's fragments which comments on ontology's centerpiece, being itself. Heidegger wants us to abandon ourselves and look inward to a sort of Platonic remembrance of what is most elemental, essential, and primary. In this way he believes we, the reader, might become prepared to find at least a glimpse of the incipient grounds of being itself, as it relates to humanity.

Part I. is essentially an examination of the concept of being, and the outline of this section is further subdivided into 3 divisions.

Part I., division I.: Here Heidegger makes the interesting distinction betweens actual beings and the state of being common to all actual beings. Everything that exists is a being of some kind or another, yet possesses being per se no more or less than one from the other. Therefore beings and being, Heidegger proposes, are distinct in this regard. He also delineates an interesting trope regarding the verb 'is,' in breathtaking Clintonian fashion, by examining it for content and showing us there really is none on the face of the matter. All particular beings may make equal use of the copula 'is,' rendering it no more than a link, an empty universal, the abstractest of all abstractions, and, being a generality, there finds its most efficacious application independent of its object. In this way, with 'is' as a marker for being, the concept of being itself becomes more and more tenuous, almost evaporating.

Part I., divivion II.: Since Part I., division I., has indicated 'is' as the linguistic device used to denote being, as being common to all beings and devoid of content, Heidegger seems to feel here that the apparent vacuousness of this verb conceals a surplus. Perhaps a surplus representing the sum of all beings, in that their commonality, their groundedness together in existence, is being itself. To me it seems an ever shifting tautology as to whether Heidegger's ontology has a specific content or not, the thought occuring perhaps, as more of a vacillation between everything and nothing at one and the same time, rather than some parlor trick contradiction as might appear at first glance. Here Heidegger becomes the metaphysician. Material essence, solidity, belongs to particular beings, not however, to being itself.

Part I., division III.: In this section Heidegger reiterates the anthropocentric necessity of at least some degree of idealism in terms of being's relation to living beings and humans in particular. This revalation may not help in trying to understand an already strained paradox, but it certainly wouldn't do to overlook this obvious caveat.

Part II. is the conclusion of the book, and here we are introduced briefly to the ancient Greek Anaximander and his thetic fragment which states, "...the source from which things come into existence is also the sink to which they return when their existence is finished, necessarily...and each is made right with respect to all others as determined by the unfolding of time..." Heidegger examines this fragment to the effect that since all particular beings constantly come from the source common to which they somehow go in the end, the being that all beings share in this regard is an infinite, permanence. Ergo and again, beings are temporal, being is not.

It all seems much ado about little, but as the title says, 'Basic Concepts' is the focus of attention here, in particular 'being' and what it may mean in reference to itself.

Prof. Kockelmans navigates the reader (even the uninitiated, as was I) through the prinicpal features of Husserl's thought. His writing is extremely well-structured, such that the reader's comprehension proceeds in equal rhythm with the author's careful explanations. After studying some medieval philosophy with Prof. Kockelmans I can confidently say that his understanding of the history of thought, art, and science are inspiring; all of this adds to the finish of the book. His style is never cumbersome--though he retains all of the slippery terminology of the discipline--and his summary is without superfluity. This is a highly important and recommendable work. Jason Stell

This book is an outstanding presentation of Husserl's philosophy. The book draws upon important texts that are not readily available to English-speaking readers (e.g., the Husserls' lectures in Amsterdam and Paris), and it provides a careful analysis of how Husserl's ideas evolved over time. It provides a lucid account of the relation between phenomenological psychology and transcendental phenomenology. Chapter Seven ("The Transcendental Problem: Its Origin and Its Quasi-Solution by Psychologism") describes the origins of the concept of the transcendental and presents an account of how that concept evolved in the thought of Kant and Husserl. That chapter also discusses the evolution of Descarte's concept of the cogito. Dr. Kockelmans' understanding of Husserl's thought and of Husserl's importance to the history of philosophy is impeccable. He is currently Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Penn State. I had the good fortune of attending quite a few of his classes and seminars in the 1970s. He is a man of deep and abiding compassion. He was a superb teacher who invariably presented his subject with elegance, grace, critical exactitude, transparent clarity, and sublime intellectual humility. This book is a fine book, and I highly recommended it to anyone with an interest Husserl, phenomenology, and transcendental idealism.

Unfortunately Kockelman's book turned out to be a encyclopedic summary of Husserlian phenomenology, and as such much poorer and less illuminative than the Brittanica article of Husserl's which was similar in aim, and which is the movement point for this book. Students of some intelligence need books that are really engaging and developing, and not just encyclopedic knowledge. Of course by reading this sort of a book we may learn definitions of concepts like noema and noemata, but I believe we would better have no idea of a subject than having a junk of poor and lifeless concepts. I would recommend the reader, especially the more sophisticated and good-willed one, to turn to Husserl's own numerous introductions like Cartesian Meditations or the Crisis even if he does not know much phenomenology, and put some sweat into them. Still this book might be helpful with some undergraduate exams- to'fill in' papers.

David Krell and Donald Bates trace the major sites of Nietzsche's productive period, tracing the French and Italian Riviera, Sils Maria, Turin, and the mountains of the Engadine in an attempt to examine the role of space in the creative work of this great philosopher. The book also serves the role of a miniature biography, the authors have done a great deal of research in the primary literature, reproducing a number of letters between friends, family, and colleagues. The book does not attempt to pinpoint the exact influence of landscape on the content of Nietzsche's work per se, still one does get the impression that the atmosphere of these places contributed to the dramatic flare of Nietzsche's style. The photographs are truly beautiful, but one still feels unsatisfied by the lack of analysis of the actual philosophy itself.

Although at first glance this book might appear to be simply a "coffee table" book, it actually presents a totally engaging, very personal view of Nietzsche by Krell and Bates. After I recently read various works by Nietzsche, and was somewhat astonished by the heart-on-the-sleeve baring of the soul that characterizes so much of Nietzsche's writing (e.g. Thus Spoke Zarathustra), I found it very interesting to read Mr. Krell's splendid prose as he shares with us highlights of the many journals, notes, and letters that document the inner life of Nietzsche. In particular, the wonderful way that Krell matches up Nietzsche's physical surroundings with the various images and metaphors of his published work provide a tremendous insight into both the meaning and the poetic beauty of Nietzsche's writings. I especially appreciated learning about the internal tension and ambivalence that Nietzsche experienced regarding whether his work would be interpreted as genuine philosophy or merely poetry. This is an excellent book to read from cover to cover as well as to browse.

just got the expensive book 'The Good European' last night at berkeley's Black Oak bookstore, 55$, phew. great idea for a book, kind of book where you envy the writer all the travelling they got to do in the process of writing it. Ressentiment, get thee behind me! this book is the first time i have seen a picture of the famous 'Zarathustra rock' the pyramid rock where N. was struck with the realization of the eternal return. Just wish it was in color and full-page. The photos are a little awkwardly placed sometimes. Lots of photos of doors. Was this an obsession of N. or the photographer? funny that author Krell does not mention Nietzsche's encounter with the flogged horse as the precipitator of his god-realized-madness though, Krell seems to buy in totally to the syphilis hypothesis. Truly, the west is still so naive re the vagaries and risks of metanoia/spiritual transformation. It really amazes me sometimes how these academic Nietzscheans like Krell and Yalom can completely disregard the insights of Bataille into the epic significance of N.'s 'madness' and its implications for our own illusory collective consensual sanity. oh well. not even a picture of the Piazza Carlo-(something) in Turin, as far as I could see, but might be there, havent read it closely. lots of good stuff in the book though. have always wanted to go on a hike along some of N.'s favorite paths, and this book is the next best thing.

I also disagree with the reviewer that left a negative review, who, apparently not having read Nietzsche himself, relies on the very appearance/reality distinction Nietzsche criticizes by denigrating Cox for deviating from "what Nietzsche actually said." Cox presents a compelling interpretation of Nietzsche in refreshingly clear prose. As he states in the forward, he came to Nietzsche through his reading of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze and the like, and he seeks to explicate the interpretation of Nietzsche that guided the work of those post-structuralist thinkers. Cox explicitly shows how Derrida's concepts of differance and bricolage, Foucault's understanding of intepretation and genealogy, and Deleuze's notion of Chaosmos follow from ideas developed by Nietzsche. As I read this book in order to enhance my understanding of post-structuralism, I found these sections particularly helpful.

But Cox's analysis of Nietzsche is by no means limited to setting up connections with post-structuralist thought (in fact, this is a very minor portion of the book). Cox is primarily interested in developing a comprehensive account of Nietzsche's theory of knowledge. A current debate over Nietzsche concerns whether he is best conceived as a postmodernist or a modern naturalist. Cox argues that Nietzsche is effectively a postmodern naturalist (although, I don't think he ever uses the word "postmodern" in the book), and suggests how Nietzsche's "postmodernism" (or, theory of interpretation) and naturalism mutually inform each other.

If you're looking for a clear and thorough "postmodern" interpretation of Nietzsche's theory of knowledge, this is your book. Also check out "Nietzsche's Theory of Knowledge," which includes a thorough discussion of Will to Power and its relation to Nietzsche's epistemology. If you're looking for a more "modern" take on Nietzsche's epistemology, check out Maudemarie Clark's "Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy" or Brian Leiter's "Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Nietzsche on Morality." But don't be so lame as to leave a postmodern scholar's work a negative review because you happen to be a modernist (and vice versa, for all you postmodernists out there).

Despite the previous reviewer's mixed-bag of criticism and unnecessary aspersions, I would have to disagree, and rate this book highly. I cannot, myself, put it any better than Peter Groff did, in The Journal of Nietzsche Studies 25 (2003) 100-102, when he described this book as, "clearly and elegantly written" and "a substantial and timely contribution to Nietzsche studies." I, too, found this book quite clear, and extraordinarily helpful in making sense of Nietzsche's thought, and situating it within the larger philosophical tradition. Anyone with an interest in Nietzsche would be well served by picking up a copy.

Christoph Cox's _Nietzsche: Naturalism and Interpretation_ is an example of the recent effort to reconcile Nietzsche, French post philosophies and analytic epistomological naturalism. There is indeed a good bit of similarity with Nietzsche's thought and contemporary trends in philosophy and Cox does an adequate job of pointing these out; however, there is also a vast and irreducible difference (to use a term Cox likes to invoke) that Cox, although he acknowledges, glosses over. Doubtless Cox is keen to cash in on the current (though certainly fading) popularity of the "radical chic" of postisms and various anti- driven philosophies. But no amount of overlooking on Cox's part can justify discussing Nietzsche's political philosophy in connection with the "radical democracies" and rejection of "social hegemony" found in the work of Laclau, Mouffe and other postmarxist attempts to hold on to some kind, any kind, of Marxism. Nietzsche is simply not nearly as "anti-Platonic" as he is often represented as being by those who, following Heidegger, see some kind of linear progression of Western philosophy that started with Plato and ended with Nietzsche. Having said that, there is an accurate description by Cox of Nietzsche's materialism vis a vis mechanistic materialism, and a fairly good explanation of why Nietzsche is not best seen, as some argue, as a strange kind of skeptical neo-Kantian, but rather as a monistic and naturalistic materialist. I cannot recommend this book, however, for there are much better and far more accurate treatments of Nietzsche to be found.

A fair review of continental and existential thought within the united states. Lacks the foundational precepts that allowed for the rise of influential thinkers of modern existential philosophy... such as Lesiu Niemoczynski, Melissa Anders, and friends from the East Stroudsburg University and Northampton academic circles.

This is a smart analysis of the introduction of Sartre's ideas into the American academy. Fulton sketches clearly three stages in the reception. She demonstrates how, after initial attempts to ignore Sartrean existentialism, philosophers in America were forced to examine his work. Often, the reception of Sartre was conditioned by the state of American philosophy (at this time its mania for analytic and the Cold War situation). Fulton also indicates how existentialism resonated particularly strongly with women philosophers, and how the slow translation process of Sartre's key works were part of the reception of Sartre. This book will be useful for any reader interested in the reception of existentialism in the US and for the history of philosophy in the United States after the Second World War.

One doesn't often come across a text that approaches existentialism collectively rather than focusing on individual thinkers. This book is thus unique in assembling these pieces but unfortunately falls just a bit short of being comprehensive. Noticeably absent are such essential precursors to existentialism as Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche.

This is a very insightful and concise anthology that may serve as a bible for those entering the world of existentialism and phenomenology; also, for those who already have a fundamental grasp of existential themes and existential ontology this book serves to both refresh the memory and cement a well-rounded knowledge of the topic in the reader.
Don't be overly alarmed about the omission of Nietzsche and Kierdegaard. The reader is informed of this omission in the preliminary acknowledgements and is given a reasoning for the omission in the introduction.
Dr. MacDonald has written an extremely comprehensive and lucid introduction - in itself the introduction is a valuable exposition of the subject matter. The energy, vigour and supply of intricate detail that is given in the introduction is followed through to all subsequent chapters. Furthermore, the selection of readings by the eight different authors gives the reader an invaluable insight into the thoughts of some of the 20th century's most prominant thinkers.
Overall, this is an exellent book that supplies the reader with an impetus for further existential and phenomenological inquiry.

Murdoch's essays each shine on their own, but collected here you get the full, accumulated brilliance in one volume. She is a needed voice in the post-modernist wilderness --- assuring the careful reader that there are works, though they may be formalist or outmoded or dated, that are worthy of the veneration and study of future generations. And, just as there are works of art that are "good" and that are superior to others, there are also actions and thoughts and moralities that are better than others. Her style is lucid and affecting and is never pedantic --- you are enthralled and rapt while you are being educated. Literature, like the other arts, is a form of communication that never ends. Art speaks to each generation; but some specific works of art transcend time and are contemplated anew by different human minds. Murdoch takes your chin and points your eyes towards these works, and you can see the eternal verities and the truths that shine out from them.

Except for Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, which is disorganized and verges on the incoherent, almost all of Murdoch's explicitly philosophical writing is here. So if you are going to be working on Murdoch's philosophy, this is a resource you need to have. However, if you're new to Murdoch's philosophical writing, you might do better taking a look at The Sovereignty of Good; it's got three of her best four essays, and it's a whole lot shorter and easier to find your way around in.

In the short imaginary interviews conducted by Solomon in Introducing The Existentialists, I quickly discovered that Existentialism is a far more profound and in-depth philosophy then I had first interpreted it to be. To me, Existentialism has been the baseless ness of the universe, the idea to destroy the traditional patterns of beliefs and methods and to replace them with a more universal set of categorical imperatives (as Immanuel Kant would say). However, after briefly reading the earlier mentioned book, I soon discovered I was incredibly mistaken. Not only did the three philosophers (Sartre, Heidegger, and Camus) seem incompatible in many aspects of their existential perspectives, two of them even broke away from each other due to their differences in their own philosophy (Sartre & Camus). This furthered my doubt and reliability of my earlier definition of existentialism even more so, almost to the point that it felt like I have been lied to all my life about this philosophy from textbooks and history teachers in my High School. Nevertheless I discouraged the simple concept of quitting and continued to plunge into Solomon's imaginary world.
Amongst all of the philosophers, it seemed one topic held the same power and influence on the human mind. That was the topic of death wherein after one is dead one no longer exists except in the written articles left behind in the material world (Sartre). Camus seems to adopt Heidegger's philosophy concerning death, which is that death is undeniably going to occur, but it is not until one's mortality is actually at risk that one becomes more aware and petrified of the outcome of death. I found this idea the simplest to comprehend and agreed to it automatically. Another topic the philosophers seem to hit similar cords on seemed to dissipate due to terminology and mere personality complexities. This is the topic concerning the human being's ability of just `being' and the actual actions the human being takes.
In accordance to Sartre, the human being's actions are always ruled by natural causes and the actually `free will' we believe in is just a mere idea of subjectivity. For instance, if one is going to be a coward, he will always be a coward and it does not matter if he breaks those bonds of cowardice or not. Heidegger seems to go for a more pessimistic ideal of consciousness (almost everything seems pointless or wasted to him), which consists of the fact one is never really conscious of anything and is just simply in the world. He supports this argument with the entity of Daesin and being, which seemed to cause electric shocks of incomprehension to rack my mind. In fact, I was so confused with Heidegger's beliefs that I soon began to realize it means nothing at all even if I did understand him (his indifference and impersonal way of thinking portrayed a concept below the human being way of feeling). Finally I came to Camus, who relieved my past mental tensions with his good humor and simple way of explaining things.
Like Sartre, Camus seems to focus on the idea that actual free will is just a matter of subjectivity. However, instead of being indifferent to his ideals like Sartre seemed to be, he personalized his arguments with the character Meursault in his novel, The Stranger. Meursault is a simple man who falls from innocence to self-destruction due to his death. The idea seems simple enough, but I, for one, seem to have lost my innocence when I entered Elementary school. Thus, the novel itself seemed like a romance written by Hemingway. However, I quickly denounced this previous thought when Camus and Solomon speak of how Meursault does not love his girlfriend (not that he is an evil man, but what would be the purpose of love; better yet, why would he love anything when that would be absurd because it would be meaningless). Although Camus portrays Meursault as a character who understands that most, if not all, of his actions are meaningless because they will inevitably lead to nothing particular that has a point, Meursault himself seems like a much better projection of the existentialist theory than the depressing and monotone voice of Heidegger. In conclusion, I found Camus much more compatible to my adolescent methods of thinking as opposed to Sartre and Heidegger.
All of these philosophers seem to have placed my mind in a paradox unknown to me before. I now remember during my pre-teen years I used to think like Meursault (or perhaps I should say Camus) in the sense what is the point of doing anything? Not that I had evil intentions for my fellow student, teacher, relatives, whatever, but it just seemed ridiculously pointless since I was inevitably going to pass away from this physical realm (hopefully into a better afterlife than Sartre's). I also understood the possibility that there was no Hell or Heaven, which would make my afterlife a real after-life, hence nothing is happening afterwards. If it's just game over when you're playing the game of life, then why do anything at all. What's the necessity of action? It is interesting to relive these ideas, but hopefully, considering my current relationships and situation, I will not completely embrace this philosophy again.

'Introducing the Existentialists' is an interesting book, but my all-time favourite group is STILL the Beach Boys.

Jurgen Habermas' Legitimation Crisis explores crisis tendencies in late capitalism and the possible order that might follow. Crises themselves come about from unresolved problems that begin to raise questions about the nature and efficacy of the system. When people lose faith in the values undergirding a system, the regime in power and, perhaps, even the entire system itself comes to be at risk.

The underlying engine of crisis is the economic system. He notes that "In liberal capitalism, crises appear in the form of unresolved economic steering problems" and ". . .crises become endemic because temporarily unresolved steering problems, which the process of economic growth produces at more or less regular intervals, as such endanger social integration." Economic crisis might occur when output declines and its distribution becomes increasingly unequal, so disproportionate that it raises questions about the fairness and viability of the system. In this way, the ideology supporting capitalism would come under question and cease generating loyalty from the people. If government capabilities are questioned too much by citizens, crisis develops, and people come to lose faith in the ideology supporting the system and the system's legitimacy in dividing up the pie so that all gain "fairly."

People will not be actively involved in politics as long as their careers, family lives, and enjoyment of consuming material goods continue. Under such circumstances, they allow the capitalist economy and government to operate with rather little question. By providing an appropriate level of "goodies" to the people, the system renders the masses quiescent and allows the elite to remain in power. When questions arise as to whether the system is generating consumer goods at the proper rate, then the political disengagement may end and a legitimation crisis begins as people begin to doubt the validity of the current system.

Habermas' ideal system would be based on dialogic communication and open discourse. The question here: If the current late capitalist system suffers a legitimation crisis and transformation of the system looms, how will new norms develop? Habermas answers: "Only communication ethics guarantees the generality of admissible norms and the autonomy of acting subjects solely through the discursive redeemability of the validity claims with which norms appear. That is, generality is guaranteed in that the only norms that may claim generality are those on which everyone affected agrees (or would agree) without constraint if they enter into (or were to enter into) a process of discursive will-formation."

Citizens will test the validity claims of the various ideas and norms under debate. In the final analysis, "The validity claim of norms is grounded not in the irrational volitional acts of the contracting parties, but in the rationally motivated recognition of norms, which may be questioned at any time." And what determines which validity claim is best? Habermas contends that the better argument that emerges from a cooperatively engaged in dialogue should rule--if a consensus forms around this one possibility.

This is a powerful work, whether or not one agree with the thesis. Habermas has faith in the ability of people to create the norms that will govern politics and society. Is he too optimistic? That is the key question that readers will have to grapple with.

The German political and social philosopher Jurgen Habermas is heir to the semantically rich tradition of Frankfurt School thinkers. These men (and sadly, they are mainly men, although Hannah Arendt is in some sense in this circle) were seriously threatened by the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Their decision to go into exile in the United States should probably be controversial. Habermas is profoundly influenced by Marx, Weber, Freud, and Talcott Parsons, and wrote this book in the context of uprisings against the Viet Nam War. What we are seeing right now, Bush versus Gore in a contested election in which the very structure of the United States government is being questioned, could be illuminated by careful study of this book. I commend it to the attention of anyone who would better understand a moment in United States history which has been descibed as a constitutional crisis.

I enjoy the two tape set very much. Often time, listening to spoken words has a different effect than reading them. I wake up to Nietzsche's reflections in the morning, by using these tapes in my clock/radio tape player.

I enjoy the two tape set very much. Often times, listening to spoken words has a different effect than reading them. I wake up to Nietzsche's reflections in the morning, by using these tapes in my clock/radio tape player.