Talk:Being and Nothingness

message: Why is there no discussion or explanation, however brief, of the being-in-itself, the being-for-itself, and the being-for-others? These are fairly important concepts that I think should be explicitly addressed on this page. If no one else does so, I'll add in a cursory discussion of them soon. -Tinpatches 03:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally, these had articles of their own.  I think they are all covered, briefly, in the article being, currently.  -Smahoney 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modes of Being?

message: This is from the article, and tell me, does it make any sense to anyone?  Is it supposed to be a quote, or is a translation of some french existentialist's criticism? : 
Connection to No Exit
Men and women will always be in a world of other people, who can capture him within their gaze, reducing him to his external materiality. They will take his measure, call him hero, coward, nonentity, fool, etc. And then, at last, they will tote up the balance sheet of his life after his death.
:Your comment was unsigned so I'm not sure when you posted this, but to answer your question IMO the cited text is non-encyclopedic. Fortunately, it has since been removed from the article. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Edit?

message: The opening few sentences have me a bit confused. Being and Nothingness shows consciousness as transcendent and it advocates rationalism? This doesn't seem to capture the spirit of the book at all as far as what I've heard. Existence precedes essence. We are what our choices define us to be, not some kind of transcendent rational animal or featherless biped. Johnor 11:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consciousness as Transcendent?

message: The photograph of Being and Nothingness shown is of a (badly) abridged version.  It would be better to provide a photograph of the unabridged English translation.
No, it isn't. I have the same book and it is full length (800 pages)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.148.49 (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that comment was outdated, the picture's probably been changed since then. SSBDelphiki (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  cover photograph 

message: Cleanup Co-ordination	Cleanup Co-ordination
                     	This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:
*the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English. 
*the article has multiple overlapping problems. 
*the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article
For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.
===Discussion===    	
===Discussion===
The definitions section is pretty useless I think. I found most of the article enlightening, but the definitions are too technical and I doubt anyone who has not already studied Sartre in a University course will gain anything from them. These ideas could all be rephrased to make them more understandable, and this would be a great boon to anyone hoping to understand Sartre.Folding Chair 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is far too long. If you look at other entries on philosophical texts, they contain a brief summary of the ideas espoused by the author. Admittedly, Sartre is unusual in the sense that a superficial account of his philosophy is unlikely to be very enlightening, but I do not think that the article is satisfactory at present. Not only is it too detailed, but its style is very clumsy, containing such coloquialisms as 'Bear with me on this paragraph.' I would volunteer myself for cleanup, but I have exams in four weeks' time. --129.67.2.200 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point 

message: |}</div>
The definitions section is pretty useless I think. I found most of the article enlightening, but the definitions are too technical and I doubt anyone who has not already studied Sartre in a University course will gain anything from them. These ideas could all be rephrased to make them more understandable, and this would be a great boon to anyone hoping to understand Sartre.Folding Chair 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is far too long. If you look at other entries on philosophical texts, they contain a brief summary of the ideas espoused by the author. Admittedly, Sartre is unusual in the sense that a superficial account of his philosophy is unlikely to be very enlightening, but I do not think that the article is satisfactory at present. Not only is it too detailed, but its style is very clumsy, containing such coloquialisms as 'Bear with me on this paragraph.' I would volunteer myself for cleanup, but I have exams in four weeks' time. --129.67.2.200 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Would it be better to replace the existing cover with the Routledge Classics cover , or remove it altogether?  For example, Being and Time does not feature a book cover, as well as most other articles on philosophy books. Differo 11:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's deleted now, so that would be better. But it should at least be free.  Marlith (Talk)  03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book cover 

message: The opening paragraph currently states: [The book's] "main purpose was to define consciousness as transcendent." Shouldn't that be "...to argue that consciousness is transcendent."? What exactly did Sartre understand by consciousness anyway? The article offers no explanation.--Adoniscik (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phenomenology (in principle) describes; it does not argue. The problem with this sentence isn't the "define" part, it's the "transcendent" part. Transcendence has at least four meanings for Sartre. One of them is precisely how consciousness relates to the world (in transcending itself), not how it 'goes beyond' the world. -Silence (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consciousness 

message: I woudl like to see more information on the physical book. When was it published, who published it, how long did it take to write. I hope that this information will enable an analysis of the historical context of this work. I, myself, do not have this knowledge --Frozenport (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishing 

message: The reception section doesn't have anything about Heidegger's summary judgement of Sartre: 'Dreck.' I've heard this story in a few places but don't have any better sources for it right now, but it seems relevant. Maybe someone might have a better one and include it?  
http://hedgehogphilosopher.blogspot.ie/2011/02/day-32.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Being and Nothingness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120825085107/http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/being.htm to http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/being.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A Third Opinion has been requested.  However, the above discussion is so lengthy that I cannot quickly parse what the question is.  Will each editor please state in one paragraph what their view is so that I can decide which I agree with?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for offering to do this. The page previously included claims in the lead about Sartre's work on the philosophy of sex in Being and Nothingness, something which plays a very minor role in both the original book and in the secondary literature on it (see my 03:29, 16 May 2019 post above for evidence backing this up; an extensive search showed in quantifiable terms that there is very little secondary literature on this topic). FreeKnowledgeCreator maintains that it is worthy of a mention in the lead because of one philosopher (Scruton, a specialist on the philosophy of sex) whose opinion on the topic is cited in the Reception section, along with a mention in a sociology book (Davis). He has also been claiming that a source I removed from a book written by a medical doctor supported the claim, but given that it was written by someone whose qualifications in philosophy seem questionable, I'm not sure how the inclusion of that source could bolster the claim that this topic is prominent in the secondary literature. Given the dearth of philosophical literature on the topic, and given that only a very small part of the original book actually deals with sex, it is not prominent enough to be brought up in the lead at all (especially given that the number of papers and books on it is in the single digits, while there are central topics of the book with well over a hundred articles or books about them that are not included in the lead). Discussing it in the lead as if it were a central part of the book and/or its reception clearly contradicts the manual of style and seems like an instance of assigning undue weight to a topic. --Drevolt (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

text: WP:LEAD states, "The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Since the article's "reception" section discusses multiple authors who credit Sartre with making important contributions to understanding human sexuality in Being and Nothingness, it is not only acceptable for the lead to state that the book "is a noted contribution to the philosophy of sex, and Sartre has been credited with original insights into sexual desire" but inappropriate for the lead to exclude such information. MOS:LEADREL states, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources". Drevolt appears to believe that this means that the exact proportion of the literature on Sartre that discusses his views on the philosophy of sex is what determines whether the topic is important. That is a misunderstanding. What determines the importance of Sartre's discussion of the philosophy of sex is what the sources that discuss it say about it. Both Roger Scruton and Murray S. Davis indicate the importance of Sartre's views on sex, with Scruton stating that Sartre provided "perhaps the most acute philosophical analysis" of sexual desire, and Davis crediting Sartre "with being the first author to present a phenomenological analysis of sex". They both indicate that Sartre's discussion of sexuality is of great importance and originality. Maxine Sheets-Johnstone is another philosopher who has indicated the importance of Sartre's work on sexuality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]] comment

message: As it stands right now, the lead includes no mentions of many ideas often mentioned in the secondary literature as central to the work, most notably bad faith and nothingness. This seems like a major oversight that needs to be addressed. I'll try to add some material myself, but it seems like the lead needs a significant overhaul, which I don't myself have time for right now. --Drevolt (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of that comment? No one is doing anything to stop you from adding material about bad faith and nothingness to the lead. Feel free to add such material; it sounds like a good idea. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn’t I just say that I would? I’m adding this comment as a note about something that needs considerable improvement in the page for future reference, which is common practice. I don’t see why you felt the need to reply here. —Drevolt (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It has never been common practice to discuss completely uncontroversial changes to an article before making them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspicuous absence of book's central ideas from lead 

message: Is the philosophy of sex prominent enough in the secondary literature on Being and Nothingness to warrant inclusion in the lead? --Drevolt (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on discussion of the philosophy of sex in lead 

message: Drevolt, thank you for this edit. I believe it is reasonable for both of us to respect the outcome of the request for comment, whatever it proves to be. However, I am not sure that I prefer the exact wording that you added ("Many have praised the book's central notion that "existence precedes essence", its introduction of the concept of bad faith, and its exploration of nothingness, as well as its novel contributions to the philosophy of sex."). The lead should certainly note what Sartre's main contributions are seen as being, but the precise wording should be open to discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead wording 

message: The article contains the following line in 2.2: " "bad faith", the condition in which people cannot transcend their situations ". This 'cannot' itself seems to me like a piece of 'bad faith', if I've correctly understood the concept. Might it not be better put as something like " "bad faith", the condition in which people, identified with their facticity, fail to transcend their situations "? 84.68.113.9 (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad faith about bad faith? 

message: Could somebody please add "Nihilate"?  Barnes says that Sartre invented the word (néantir) and her summary is not easy to follow. The article might comment on the use of "nihilation" in Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (1966).  Errantios (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  #Special terminology 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed