Sartre’s nausea

by aepxc

Seems Sartre’s problem is that he wants to put ‘reality’ as separate and underlying (as opposed to emergent and defined by) the things within it. After all, are not ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ (real) human contributions to reality? I.e. rather than “we can give meaning”, it is “only we do give meaning”. What sense does it make to investigate a gnarled root’s rationale independently of rationality?

Advertisements