So, I was trying to explain to a work collegue my feelings on existence the other day, shortly after reading Sartre's Nausea. He looked at me like I was quite mad.

See I was explaining my own feeling on this concept of existence and I felt that I shared a similar viewpoint to Sartre.

What I equated to Sartre was this feeling of disconnectedness from the world and my example to my friend at work was a spoon, einem Löffel,

Most times lets say 99% of the time its just a spoon. You dont think about it or acknowledge it, its part of your world and your universe and it fullfills its purpose, which is to be a spoon, part of the background of the exstence that you occupy.

But, just sometimes, is this feeling that it becomes itself.

Like when you look at the spoon and it isn't just a spoon anymore, but really A Spoon. It's more itself, it doesnt need the rest of the world to define it anymore, but rather you get a sense of its existence, of the reality of that object, that spoon, and it actually occupies a space it doesnt just fill the background it actually has its own space and that space it occupies is as defined as the spoon itself and you look at it and really get a sense of it being there and it feels alien and disconnected and quite strange.

After some minutes it fades again into the background, but just for a short while theres this feeling that you got a "true" glimpse of what it means for something to exist which is at the same time both profound and completely absurd.

So anyway, do you have any thoughts on my thoughts, besides as my collegue had, to back away slowly and look for work to do, in a completely different building, for the rest of the day?

Have I completely missed Sartre's point and not got it at all, is what I equate to Sartrean Existentialism, something entirely different?

Answers on a postcard.

I know what you are talking about regarding the spoon. I've exerpeinced it many times myself.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Sartrean.

But you are not alone!

Renee Descarte was a drunken fart, "I drink, therefore I am."

<---caffrey

Um I hope I'm not totally missing what you were trying to say, but would it sound crazy or stupid to say I sometimes do the same thing with a specific word while I'm programming? Usually a word doesn't have as much meaning unless you put it into context with the rest of the sentence but with coding there are no sentences. So the word can have it's own existence sort of like the spoon? Sometimes I start saying the word out loud to myself in different ways and realize alot of words by themselves can sound kinda odd and alien.
Not sure if that made sense, but that's what your post reminded me of.

Ah, the spoon-experience (XD) is definitely something I've had before. Also, with a word. I've spent a few minutes repeating the words "maybe" and "very" over and over.

Wow, 'maybe' is one of the words I spent alot of time on too.

Well, I think Sartre would actually say that the spoon -is- pre-defined by the world around it. It's people that aren't.

For instance, someone made that spoon with a specific function in mind. That desired function is responsible for the spoon's design and, in fact, its very existence (if we didn't need spoons to... uh... spoon stuff... they wouldn't exist).

People, by contrast, do not have a pre-defined function (in Sartre's mind, anyway). They do not derive their meaning from any pre-existing considerations. They just find themselves in the world, and therefore are completely free. Their moral responsibility is to use that freedom to establish their own meaning, because it doesn't come from anywhere else.

I don't know if you've read "No Exit," yet, but the main character finds a paper cutter. This was Sartre's little nod of the head to himself, because he always used the paper cutter as an example of something whose existence follows a pre-defined meaning, whereas the person who finds it does not.

EDIT: The phenomenon you describe of "experiencing" the spoon apart from its environment to focus on the spoon as it is "given to you" is called "bracketing" and is part of phenomenology - the big name there is Edmund Husserl - who developed a sort of empirical/existentialist fusion built on Sartre. He saw himself as sort of the logical conclusion of existentialism as well as fixing some of the problems that plague classic empiricism.

Thanks Demetrios that's exactly what I was looking for! I'm quite new to Philosophy and I'm starting an Introduction to Existentialism class on Tuesday, didn't want to make a complete fool of myself if what I experienced had nothing to do with Sartre at all. I will look up Husserl. So far I've read Nausea and The age of Reason, but I have the other two books in the Roads to Freedom trilogy and Le Mur, I will have a look out for No Exit. Currently reading Kafka - Amerika, but I have so little time for reading at the moment

and @ everyone else, thanks for replying, glad to see I'm not the only one who has felt that way

Are you riding the white pony?

This topic reminds me of The Doors of Perception (by Aldous Huxley, if you haven't read it already), especially with everyone saying 'omg wut r u smokin'.

While not so much a philosophical text as it is a case study on the effects of mescaline, it's still interestingly relevant and insightful regarding the 'experience of being'.

No, nothing like that involved, it's never been my thing My only vice of that nature is and the only other mood altering substance I partake of is But without caffein I probably couldn't function before 12 noon

However, that kind of reaction is exactly why I wanted to air my thoughts on an internet forum first, rather than infront of a group of people in a philosophy class I dont mind so much if you lot think I'm slightly disturbed

Hey, glad it helped. You'll like "No Exit." Sartre was one of the few philosophers who knew how to write stories that embodied his philosophy in ways that didn't involve main characters launching into long diatribes where they espouse the philosophy. It's also the play that has the famous line, "Hell is other people."

The "Hell is other people" line is one I've used several times! I knew it was Sartre but not which book. I found Sartre's style to be really accessible. They are enjoyable novels in their own right but with a deeper meaning too! I read Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" last year and I can't say I picked up that much from it, the style and language wasn't accessible at all! I have also read some works by Bertrand Russell, which was very easy to read, but seemed to be completely lacking in substantial Philosophical content. So I think I have found my level with Sartre!

That's a great book, and I also recommend it. I'm not sure Huxley's explanations make the slightest bit of scientific sense, but his description of how he felt under the influence of mescaline is fascinating. Sorry to continue the derail.

Recommending a book is a worthy derail!

I have only read "Brave New World" by Huxley, I shall add "The Doors of Perception" to my mental list of books to look out for as it sounds interesting! Being under the influence of a psychedelic drug is not something I'd try, as I decided long ago that I often have a tenuous grip on reality as it is. Reading about it is the safe alternative.

I find Ayn Rand a good substitue for Nietzche She also writes "novels" that are really philosophy works without long soliloques.

Hmm, Ayn Rand? I haven't heard of her before, but from small bit I just read about Objectivism, it sounds interesting.

I already have soo much to read, damnit. Has anyone seen a Groundhog? I need to be trapped inside a day for a while so I can catch up with all the classics after wasting so many years reading Fantasy. Curse you, Tolkien, for your imagination-inspiring works.

well, I guess if I havn't heard of sarte its all good that you havn't heard of Ayn Rand ... you have heard of Kant right? (though he is more about the knoweldge of knowledge...)

anyway, read either Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead. For a short read, you can read "We the living" or "anthem"

As I recall, Ayn Rand was both an appalling writer and a hateful bitch.

Still, Objectivism is good to know.