Book · 1943
Being and Nothingness
by Jean-Paul Sartre
A waiter performs the role of waiter so completely that Sartre uses him to explain how people hide from their own freedom.
What does Reddit think of Being and Nothingness?
r/askphilosophy carries most of this book's traffic, and the recurring note there is a warning, not a rave. The ↑61 comment states the difficulty plainly: harder than expected, since it draws on Heidegger, and if what you actually want is a clear statement of Sartre's existentialism, go read Existentialism Is a Humanism instead. That comparison isn't a one-off. A separate ↑65 reply calls the book 'a bit complicated' before getting into 'the Look,' the way another person's gaze confronts and objectifies you, then adds that this probably isn't where a beginner should start. r/philosophy's contribution (↑53) is the waiter example, Sartre's case study in bad faith, someone reducing their entire being to performing a role. Elsewhere the fights are about interpretation, not the book's difficulty: one commenter (↑113) corrects a popular misread of existentialism as 'do whatever you want,' another (↑63) rejects the idea that Sartre simply swapped freedom in for God. Nobody disputes the book matters. The recurring verdict is that it's not where you start.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Bad faith and the waiter who over-performs his role
- · The Look, and being confronted by another person's gaze
- · Correcting popular misreads of what existentialism claims
- · Its debt to Heidegger, and why that makes it harder
Common praise
- + r/philosophy's summary (↑53) treats the waiter example as the clearest way into Sartre's idea of bad faith.
- + The Look gets explained in real detail on r/askphilosophy (↑65), functioning as an actual answer rather than a brush-off.
Common criticism
- − The ↑61 comment says flatly it's harder than people expect, since it leans directly on Heidegger's framework.
- − That same comment redirects beginners toward Existentialism Is a Humanism instead of this book.
- − A separate ↑65 reply calls it 'a bit complicated' and adds it might not be the best place for newcomers to start.
Who it's for
Read Heidegger first, or at least be willing to, since the ↑61 r/askphilosophy comment says this book draws directly on that framework and gets harder for it. Want just Sartre's basic pitch on existentialism, freedom, and responsibility? Grab Existentialism Is a Humanism instead, that's the redirect r/askphilosophy gives more than once. Curious specifically about the waiter who over-performs his role, or about what it feels like to be seen and judged by someone else? Bad faith and the Look are the two ideas that actually get explained in this sample, not summarized past.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for Being and Nothingness?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“Here are two perspectives from my favorite existential authors 1. Jean Paul Sartre says that meaning is created by the individual and their actions. "Existence preceeds essence". This means that first you exist, then meaning in your existence is created after that fact. According to him, the point …
“Except existentialism isn’t about the freedom to do whatever you want or to invent some identity out of thin air. It’s about taking radical responsibility for the meaning of what you already have to be, of what you have already chosen to be. So you might be stuck in a dead end job struggling to make…
“The German Idealists are basically all difficult, but there are actually some German universities that teach Fichte in the intro course (although I think they focus on some of his less confusing work like *The Vocation of Man*). In my opinion, Fichte is more confusing than Kant and Hegel. I also ag…
“Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but Sartre wrote about something like this in Being and Nothingness. His work is a bit complicated, especially if you're not used to reading philosophy, so it might not be the best place to start. Basically, "the look" of another subject confronts…
“This is a bad take, most existentialists have not replaced God with something else. For instance, Sartre’s existential freedom is nowhere close to what God is. Sartre describes human-reality as “a being who can realize a nihilating rupture with the world and with himself” and claims that “the perm…
“**Excerpt of an interview with Jacques Lacan by Gilles Lapouge (my translation):** *Gilles Lapouge*: Sartre sends you some more specific criticisms: "in Lacan, the disappearance or 'decentering' of the subject is related to the discredit of history"... *Jacques Lacan*: That's it. All of Sartre's p…
“*Being and Nothingness* is likely more difficult, as it draws on Heidegger's philosophy. If you want a straightforward statement of Sartre's existentialism, you should probably look to *Existentialism Is a Humanism*.
“**Article summary** In his 1943 work *Being and Nothingness*, the French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre offers his view of inauthenticity with his famous discussion of a waiter who takes his role too seriously. The problem is not serving as a waiter; the problem is *reducing one’s enti…
“A key distinction is that Sartre does *not* make the claim that life is inherently meaningless (at least in *Being and Nothingness*). He recognizes the absurd and discusses it at points, but his existentialism claims life to have inherent meaning insofar as we live our values. Now we do encounter t…
“Why would the nature of the world hinder our freedom? Do you expect freedom to mean infinite power over the world? Sartre (in *Being and Nothingness*) had an interesting take on this - that the fact that the world doesn't automatically bend to our will is what creates value - the more we struggle …
“Yeah... just read the entirety of *Critique of Pure Reason* in a month, then the entirety of *Being and Nothingness* in a month, and then the entirety of *Being and Time* in a month. This is totally unrealistic. Each of these books would take the better part of a year to read properly in full,…
“> Do you think existentialism would hold up with the recent advancements in neuroscience and physics? Sartre certainly would’ve thought so. From *Being and Nothingness*, p.79: “Psychological determinism denies the transcendence of human reality... but this determinism, a reflective defense against…
“I think you're doing too much to define phenomenology there, you should just understand it as a method of doing philosophy that seeks to see what phenomena (writ largely) are in themselves, independent of any assumptions. No need to bring questions of meaning and existence into it at such an early s…
“Disagree slightly with this comment. While the conclusions of both concepts overlap significantly, Sartre's formulation of existentialism is arguably much more philosophically rigorous than Camus' absurdism. In _Being and Nothingness_, Sartre outlines a clear and distinct ontology of consciousness a…
“Maybe Sartre’s fictional works, but *Being and Nothingness* is pretty darn tough (and probably not worth it).
Convinced? Pick up Being and Nothingness
Readers also mention
Books that share discussion threads with Being and Nothingness — counted from the comments, not curated.
Being and Nothingness — frequently asked
Is Being and Nothingness a good place to start with Sartre?+
No, according to the clearest r/askphilosophy answer here (↑61). It says the book is likely more difficult because it draws on Heidegger's philosophy, and recommends Existentialism Is a Humanism instead for a straightforward statement of Sartre's existentialism. A separate ↑65 comment agrees it's 'a bit complicated' for newcomers.
What is 'the Look' in Being and Nothingness that Reddit keeps explaining?+
It's Sartre's account of what happens when another person's gaze confronts you, the moment you become aware of yourself as an object under someone else's perspective rather than just a subject moving through the world. An r/askphilosophy reply (↑65) walks through this specifically when asked about the concept.
Does Being and Nothingness argue that existentialism means doing whatever you want?+
No. A highly upvoted r/askphilosophy correction (↑113) pushes back on exactly that reading, arguing existentialism is about taking radical responsibility for the meaning of choices you've already made, not inventing an identity out of thin air. That comment treats the freedom-means-anything-goes take as a basic misunderstanding.
What is the waiter example in Being and Nothingness about?+
It's Sartre's illustration of bad faith. An r/philosophy summary (↑53) describes a waiter who takes the role too seriously, the problem isn't serving as a waiter, it's reducing one's entire being to performing that single role rather than acknowledging the freedom underneath it.