存在と無
From the time the "Critique of Dialectical Reason" was published in 1960, there has been much discussion about where it stands in relation to Sartre's earlier, seminal work, "Being and Nothingness". Some Sartre scholars and critics, like George Kline, see the work as essentially a repudiation of Sartre's existentialist stance. Marjorie Grene thinks that the "Critique of Dialectical Reason" can be readily translated into the categories of "Being and Nothingness". Hazel Barnes and Peter Caws see a shift in emphasis between the two works but not a difference of kind. Barnes observes that the title "Critique of Dialectical Reason" "suggests both Kant and Hegel." According to Barnes, the "Critique of Dialectical Reason" resembles Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" in that it is concerned "with the nature, possibilities, and limitations of human reason." She sees this as the only similarity, however, since Sartre's interests are not primarily epistemological or metaphysical and he is more indebted to Hegel than to Kant. Josef Catalano argues that the "Critique of Dialectical Reason" gives a historical and social dimension to the being-for-itself described in "Being and Nothingness". Finally, Fredric Jameson believes that a reading of the Critique forever alters our view of what Sartre meant in "Being and Nothingness", that the label "existentialist" as applied to Sartre can no longer have its previous meaning.