Am I stupid for having some of this go over my head...

Am I stupid for having some of this go over my head? It's the first "philosophical fiction" I've read and I really enjoyed it but I've had to re read a lot of passages to make sure I had a t least somewhat of an understanding of what was said. I feel like this is supposed to be one of the easier things to absorb but I don't think I fully "get" all of it. Thoughts?

lol you must be a women

Do you think you're particularly smart?

No, I just like to read for pleasure. But also enjoy the feeling of learning new things from what I read I just didn't know if this would be considered difficult for someone with no prior experience with philosophy.

>learning new things
or really? lol

>No

And that's why you're reading Sartre.

No same here: i had to reread pages two or three times, but i know most philosophers have ideas that aren't sound; it's up to you to discern that.

Thanks for not being a dick

Sartre wasn't the best novelist.
It helps greatly to be familiar with his existential philosophy when reading his novels. Luckily his philosophical work is much more readable and accessible than his novels.

After familiarizing yourself with existentialism I would read his play No Exit. That isn't very much reading, but it sheds a lot of light on his work

Why the fuck would you waste your time reading Sartre's "philosophy"?

kekworthy i guess

Not him. But I did, as well, feel the same way as you do.

Unless you are really attracted to his notions and therefore see them particularly applicable and helpful towards your life, then I would continue reading Sartre. But I don't fret on continuing: Nausea should have been what Meditations was to Marcus Aurelius.

because he's the only one that synthesized the existentialist themes of (who we now refer to as proto-existentialists) Kafka, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, etc. into something more focused and dialectical; he's the only one who explored and wrote about these themes to the degree that he did and in the way that he did.
Politics and celebrity aside, Sartre has a relevant and legitimate, albeit small, place in philosophy on the whole

Every second I have nearly infinite options, realizing such makes me a wee bit queasy, not to mention, now to mention, whats beneath the surface

It's about the contingency of existence. Once you realize your existence isn't necessary, your whole perception of things surrounding you makes you incomfortable.

It's a translation and regardless the original was written by a child-molesting hack.
Sartre is for stupid people. He doesn't understand Nietzsche either. Nietzsche is a much better read even in translation and is much better overall. Sartre and his horsewife only appeal to 'bohemians' like themselves, and all a bohemian is, is a fashion of modernity. A herd of black sheep, if you will. Utterly boring.
The fan fiction of a chomo is helpful towards ''''life'''' (another ideology attached to existence)? I was not aware.
Oh my goodness! He systematized a number of people, including two major anti-Hegelians! What a genius! Robert Zimmerman, back off -- give THIS idea-thief a nobel prize!
My existence is necessary, though.

It was ok. I'd suggest you read the Stranger by camus though.

>My existence is necessary, though.
Not according to Sartre.

Sartre is a non-entity.

Sod off, troll.
Did you just assume OP's gender?
Maybe OP is. Smarter than you.
Typical genuine response of positivity.
We learn new things everyday, user, regardless of how.

Great post mate :) Keep it up

Thanks user!