You and I are nauseated by awful odors or disgusting food. Roquentin on the other hand, is nauseated by the thought of existence. Roquentin realizes that he does not know what the definition of existence is; or rather it is an abstract idea. Analyzing a chestnut tree, the definition of existence unfolds. He concludes that existence “hides itself” (page 127) Roquentin realizes that if you tried describing the tree, or any part of it, you are not proving it exists. The chestnut trees’ physical characteristics (its height, color, smell etc) are masking its existence. While analyzing the root's essence, or its physical characteristics, he says that simply saying the roots function as a “breathing pump” (page 129) does not prove anything about existence. “The function explained nothing… it allowed you to understand generally that it was a root…” (page 129) Thus, existence precedes essence. An object must exist first, and then each person can create the characteristics that complement or describe that object. Therefore you can not say that the root exists because it is long or that it is brown.
While something as simple as a tree or a piece of paper might seem simple and easy to describe, each individual observer might use different terminology to describe that same exact thing. I might say that a piece of paper is plain and white. Another observer might say it is a little transparent, with a “darker” white spot on the upper right-hand corner” So you can not say the paper exists because it is white or a little transparent. Thus a thing must exist first, and then each individual creates the characteristics he/she would like to use to describe it. The amount of descriptive variability an object can have contributed to Roquentin’s nausea. Roquentin describes the trees bark as black. But is it really black? Can’t it be “more than black or almost black? (page 130) Roquentin realizes that color does not prove existence rather it is a “confused effort to imagine black…” (bottom of page 130) Roquentin concludes that to exist means to simply “be there” ( 2nd paragraph, page 131).
Essence does not prove you exist because different things, although the same can be described in different ways. So the basis of existence can not be based on characteristics. But without essence the object can not exist because there is no way to describe it. They go hand in hand. If I were to say the table exists, and said say “it is brown and rectangular,” and someone else said it is a dark reddish/ brown, with a round-cornered rectangular shape, how does that disprove that the table’s existence?
