• Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    Doesn't the sense of nausea originate with that sense of the unreality of everything? That we're 'thrown' into a meaningless cosmos, from which we alone are obliged to create meaning where really there is none.Wayfarer

    Not exactly so: Sartre's notion of the absurd springs from what to his view was a revelation of existence, a revelation of "the absolute" - a deeper contact with reality - in some sense linked to the mystical quest for enlightenment - the holy grail at times also formulated as "the absolute."

    This odd counterpoise can serve as a vista into a deeper understanding of the Nausea.

    Some preliminary remarks:

    After his vision under the chestnut tree, Roquentin writes:

    I can't say that I feel relieved or satisfied; just the opposite. I am crushed. Only my goal is reached. I have understood all that has happened to me since January. The Nausea has not left me and I don't believe it will leave me soon; but I no longer have to bear it, it is no longer an illness or a passing fit; it is I.

    ...I couldn't remember it was a root anymore. The words had vanished and with them the significance of things...It left me breathless. Never, until these last few days, had I understood the meaning of "existence". I said..."The ocean is green; that white speck up there is a seagull," but I didn't feel that it existed...usually existence hides itself...

    ...existence had suddenly unveiled itself....the chestnut tree pressed itself against my eyes...
    — Sartre

    It seems as though Roquentin is having a kind of illumination, a positive revelation of the reality of the universe, whereas prior to his communion with the Nausea he existed in a state of dull unreality. (The early, pre-chestnut-tree-illumination, pages of the Nausea are suffused with boredom.)

    Then this queer turn:

    The word absurdity is coming to life under my pen; a little while ago, in the garden, I couldn't find it, but neither was I looking for it. I didn't need it: I thought without words, on things, with things. — Sartre

    Further down the page, Sartre links "the absolute and the absurd". "I made an experiment with the absolute and the absurd."

    The significance of this odd response, to my view: Roquentin had been in search of a deeper reality, in the mystical tradition. Unfortunately, due to his natively absurdist psychical formation and content* and cultural context, he perceived this deeper reality as indeed "the absolute" but also as "the absurd."

    The link between schizophrenia (where a sense of unreality also pervades) and mysticism is, to my mind, reaffirmed.



    *In one of his numberless books, Colin Wilson attempts a psychological evaluation of Sartre, including Sartre's description of reality as perceived under the influence of mescaline (a highly self-revealing hallucinogen) - and drew a similar conclusion: Sartre's mind tended to the vision of the absurd. Hence, the absolute in his eyes - the revelation of existence - took the absurdist form of the Nausea.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    2.1k


    Sartre is giving account of the person who attempts a removal of meaning to them, to arrive an account of existence itself.

    Roquentin, who is searching of the meaning of existence, cannot find anything because any meaningful connection he experiences is of him. He is assaulted by Nausea in finding all the things he expects to be meaningful are not. In removing what he put with existence as it appears to him, he finds an empty world. Since he removed various meanings with existence to his consciousness, he has nothing to see, hear, taste, touch, smell, etc. He has nothing to possess or seek. He has no-one to laugh with or love. He doesn't even have a sky too look at. In existence itself, there is no ocean and green, white spec or seagull. Positively sickening.

    The Nausea is in coming a realisation the meaning of the object to oneself is located within one's own consciousness experience, rather than in the object--that one will never be able to find the meaning of the existence itself. The existence itself is empty of these human meanings and so cannot amount to a discovery of how the things "really work" or what they "essentially are."

    Sartre is drawing a sort of similar point to Kant, only about meaning instead of epistemology. Since the meaning we experience is our experience, the meaning of things cannot be given to us otherwise in any case. Just as what we know must be of experience for Kant, Sartre is pointing out the meaning we feel or encounter must be of our experience.


    It seems as though Roquentin is having a kind of illumination, a positive revelation of the reality of the universe, whereas prior to his communion with the Nausea, he existed in a state of dull unreality.

    Indeed so, existence itself has been illuminated to him. He now realises it is not merely equivalent to the various meanings which appear to him (e.g. green, ocean, white specs, sea gulls), but is instead something else which exceeds and is other to them. He learnt, for example, that there is more going on than just ocean [that] is green.

    "Ocean is green" is merely one account of meaning which appears to him. Existence itself is much more. Not only a fact not mentioned in "Ocean is green," but a fact of consequence to existence--who knows what other meanings existence might be with? No longer can we say existence must necessarily be limited to the concepts of ocean in green. Someone else might come along and notice a purple ocean. Someone else a desert. And so on.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    Roquentin, who is searching of the meaning of existence, cannot find anything because any meaningful connection he experiences is of him. He is assaulted by Nausea in finding all the things he expects to be meaningful are not. In removing what he put with existence as it appears to him, he finds an empty world.TheWillowOfDarkness

    Sartre's notion of the absurd springs from what to his view was a revelation of existence, a revelation of "the absolute" - a deeper contact with reality - in some sense linked to the mystical quest for enlightenment - at times also formulated as "the absolute."ZzzoneiroCosm

    I take it as basically a form of nihilism. In the distant past, it was supposed by philosophers that everything possessed an essential nature, which originated with the ‘participation in the Ideas’ of Platonic or Aristotelian thought. With the abandonment of classical philosophy and theism, the world is then seen as empty of any intrinsic nature or meaning, save what the observer chooses to see in it. So the reference to ‘the absolute’ is ironic, because in Sartre’s view, this is precisely what doesn’t exist, or holds no significance or reality; the quest for enlightenment must always end in disappointment, because there is none to be had.

    At least that’s how I read it.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Ridding oneself of nausea by listening to jazz is not at all unreasonable, although I find blues and folk rock more agreeable.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    Ridding oneself of nausea by listening to jazz is not at all unreasonable, although I find blues and folk rock more agreeableBanno

    Even better - playing it.





    Meditation - and it's power to permanently alter brain wave patterns - is a more responsible solution. One can't always listen to jazz.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    I take it as basically a form of nihilism.Wayfarer

    Yeah, definitely an existential nihilism in the Nausea.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k
    . So the reference to ‘the absolute’ is ironic, because in Sartre’s view, this is precisely what doesn’t exist, or holds no significance or reality; the quest for enlightenment must always end in disappointment, because there is none to be had.Wayfarer

    It is. It's a little silly of Sartre. But I think it works well in the context of an upside-down hero myth.

    A Holy Grail to vomit in.
  • Deletedmemberzc
    2.5k


    I dredged up that quote from Colin Wilson - actually, it turns out, De Beauvoir:

    About a year before the writing of Nausea, Sartre took mescalin. Mlle de Beauvoir says: 'He had not exactly had hallucinations, but the objects he looked at changed their appearance in the most horrifying manner; umbrellas had become vultures, shoes turned into skeletons, and faces acquired monstrous characteristics, while behind him, just past the corners of his eye, swarmed crabs and polyps and grimacing Things...His visual faculties became distorted; houses had leering faces, all eyes, jaws...'...[contrasted with what Huxley saw, as described in The Doors of Perception]...'what Adam saw on the morning of his first creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence.' — Colin Wilson - Beyond the Outsider, p. 104

    Both had a sense of an encounter with "naked existence" - but the contrast is striking.

    The distinction between (let's say) Illumination and the Nausea may well mirror the distinction between a good trip and a bad trip. That both are "trips" of one kind or another in part excuses Sartre's - sadly ironyless - deployment of the expression "the Absolute."

    It also says here that Sartre had been coping with a fear of impending psychosis at this time in his life. So the link of mysticism to psychosis is corroborated as well.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.