Existence is a meaningless Nothingness.

Antoine Roquentin, the main character of Sarte’s Nausea, is a 30-year-old adventurer who is settled down in a town called Bouville. He seems to be a antisocial type; in fact, from his earlier meditations on his diary, he seems to be a quietist. Roquentin’s struggle to cope with others’ existence and also his own is shown throughout the book. Roquentin is in a pursuit of meaning of existence, if there is any. On the process of observing himself and the surrounding people, he definitely beholds distinct difference between him and the others. “All these creatures spend their time explaining, realizing happily that they agree with each other.” While only thing one needs is to be “lonely enough to get rid of plausibility,” people are so bound to one another and society that they don’t actually know of their self-individuality. (8)

Then strange sensation, which seems both physical and mental, plagues Antoine Roquetin immensely. Although it seems to involve physical feeling, it is not like repulsive motion sickness or acid indigestion. It is nausea. He feels nauseated because of his observation that life is absurd. Fortunately we have freedom to create our own essence of existence. Although nausea, like fear of Spinoza’s theory, never goes away; our created essence of existence is capable of prevailing the nausea. “I receive nothing and give nothing” (6). Everything is so absurd that existence of things that is outside of our body is meaningless and yet we have nothingness within ourselves.

Meaning of existence for people is to be defined by others and define others. Yet he cannot even grasp the reason to exist: “Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness and dies by chance” (133). In spite of that, people all think that they are “necessary, causal being[s]” (131) and; therefore, their existence also is necessary. However, in fact, existence is contingent. It is true that we, the human beings, exist but we exist with absence of necessity. The fact of our existence insofar is being so without having to be so, the absurdity is the fundamental principle of life. Our existence doesn’t justify that we have reason to exist.

It’s all about the Nausea

Roquentin seems to be a person who is depressed and the nausea itself is one of the symptoms of his condition. I believe that Roquentin’s nausea is stemmed from him dealing with his own existence and the existence of the people around him. He is unemployed. His living condition my not be the best and he does not have much contact with the outside world. He reflects back in time and in the present. His past and his new beginning.
He cannot bear for objects to touch him. He believes that an object should not touch because they are not alive. He is afraid to be in contact with them as they are living beast. (10) He recalls his experience with a pebbles and how it was like nausea in his hands. (11)
Roquentin is not much of a social butterfly. His existence is surrounded by his stories and the stories of others. He observes and listens to other people’s conversations. When he is at the café’ and he sees Adolph, the bartender he feels the nausea. Roquentin says, “ The nausea is not inside of me: I feel it our there in the wall, in the suspenders everywhere around me. It makes itself one with the café, I am the one who is within it.” (19) What really brought on this nausea? It seems like the mere observation of Adolph’s looks and clothing brought on his nausea. His encounter with Adolph is very different from his encounter with an object touching him. This is confusing because it seemed like objects brought on the nausea. After his encounter with Adolph, he asks Madeleine to play the something on the phonograph. For some reason this music from the rag-time has an affected on his nausea. He says, “ I grow warm, I begin to feel happy”. The nausea that had taken over him is now subsiding from the broken seats he sat on at the café to his encounter with Adolph and the purple suspenders.
Roquentin’s frequent visits the library enables him to encounter with the self-taught man. His relationship with the self-taught man has helped him to reinforce his own existence. When he reflects on his experiences and the people has encountered in his past/present he begins to understands the nausea. He realizes that he posses the nausea. According to Roquentin, “to exist is simply to be there; those who exist let themselves be encountered but you can never deduce (you can only make a judgement based on the information that you have) anything from them.” (131)
Inclusion Roquentin realizes that the nausa will no go away. He is able to have some control over it but should not allow the nausea to take over his existence.

Is our existence meant to be? Or is it just a pure accident?

According to Sartre, the answer to my title would be our existence is just a pure accident, but we invent “a necessary, causal being” (131) or an essence in order to explain our existence.

In other words, the necessity cannot define our existence which overrules the traditional thought of our existence; rather, Roquenitn claims, in order to exist, it merely means “to be there”, not like we exist for a certain purpose, necessity or essence. (131) Moreover, Roquentin asserts that “[we] can never deduce anything from [existence]” which implies that nothing can be derived from our existence and thus, there is no derived purpose or essence from our existence. (131)

The principle of Sartre’s “no essence from our existence”, relates to Roquentin’s conversation with the Self Taught Man at a restaurant. The Self Taught Man claims that he ought to love every human being as a socialist and Roquentin inquires if the Self Taught Man loves the couple who is sitting behind him. (119) Although the Self Taught Man wouldn’t recognize them if they were in the street, he still states that he loves them for their youth. (119) And, Roquentin responds that the Self Taught Man loves only the “symbols” such as “the Youth of Man, the Love of Man and Woman, [and] the Human Voice” which according to Roquentin, the essence such as the Youth or the Love from one's existence does not exist. (120) And yet, the Self Taught Man exists to love the symbols since “all men deserve [his] admiration.” (120) As a result, the Self Taught Man covers up his existence or hides from his existence by replacing essence in the place of his existence.

In addition, the “contingency” of our existence is “the perfect free gift”, however people “hide from themselves”, themselves meaning their existence by creating an essence to justify their being while “they are entirely free.” (131) Moreover, Roquentin tells when he was thinking about his existence, nothing was in his mind and his mind was empty. (127) And, if someone was to ask him what existence was, he would answer existence is “nothing, simply an empty form which was added to external things” (127) which leads back to Sartre’s principle that essence cannot precede existence since existence is nothing but an empty form.

However, Sartre claims existence precede essence since we are “entirely free” (131) we can create our own meaning of our existence rather than following what seems to be the essence of our existence. Therefore, we have the absolute freedom over our lives and in the end of Nausea, Roquentin commits himself to write a novel since writing the novel is only way for him to “succeed in accepting [himself.]” (178) Therefore, a purpose or an essence doesn't make us to exist, but we exist and then, we understand our absolute freedom and create our own meaning of life.

Despair and Optimism

Nausea is a slow realization; a journey through the familiar to the essential strangeness of reality. It is the story of Roquentin’s awakening to the realization of his absolute freedom, and it is born of the slow demolition of everything he thinks he is. This is called despair. In Roquentin’s case, he is conscious of his despair. He loses everything he thinks he is: his book, his history and, eventually, Anny. All of this is lost because he sees the contrast between himself and the Other. The familiar faces, their familiar attitudes, and the insurmountable gulf between them and him.

Roquentin, in the beginning of the novel, doesn’t talk, doesn’t think, and in fact his very thoughts are in a mush. Throughout the book he is confronted with the masses; how they talk in order to realize that they happily agree with each other, (pg. 8) and hide themselves in the chaos of everyday life. A prime example is that of Lucie in the alley. The woman he thought he knew is something else; something she could not have been in the “quiet, pink streets” (pg. 27). Is this extension of feeling possible in a crowded room? Is raw emotion possible in the world of preset desires and concrete opinions?

The Self-Taught Man is another case in point. He is the thorough reader of other people’s opinions; a lover of humanity (perhaps too much) and all of its accomplishments. He is so completely unsure of himself, unsure that he may have the wrong opinions. He is a sad lonely person with nothing to his name except all the books from A-L. Such circumstance are usually conducive to the Nausea, or to some sort of awakening, but the Self-Taught Man finds solace in something larger; in a humanity that he cannot touch. He is a man like Rollequin, but one who tries to find his way into the steady stream of humanity, if not in actuality, then at least in ideology. He is like a drowning cat; he’s wet and useless but he’s still mewling.

Rollequin himself loses everything one by one. He discovers the facticity of time, and the falsehood of his past. His past can no longer comfort him; his woman is not the same as she was before. Who is it that exists in other people’s minds? It is not him. His consciousness is there, he cannot deny, but for no a priori purpose. Consciousness is superfluous, and the Nausea is just the projection of this onto his physical surroundings. Following this train of thought to it’s logical conclusion he discovers that he is only what he is at this very moment. He discovers freedom. He does not hide from this thought; there is nothing behind which to hide, but he decides to live and to write. This is the only form of true optimism. After going through the very depths of despair to emerge, not to a rosy world, but to reality.

I'M PRESENT, BUT YOU’RE IN THE PAST

What is existence relative to time? A man who seems to be obsessed with the past, Antoine Roquentin shifts through multiple periods of time. Once eager to give life to the dead Marquis de Rollebon, he slowly loses his interest in recreating the past and becomes overwhelmed with nausea. Life seems to be a field of flowers filled with colors and life. But is there more to life than what meets the eye? When we see a rose, the first thing that catches our eye is the beauty that is outlined by the vivid colors of the petals. What we see next is the vivid color of the stem, followed by the pointy thorn. We see the thorn last because it is something our minds tend to look past, as it is only natural to look past the poison and find only the pure. What we get when we begin to analyze past the beauty and research the true skeleton of being, is exactly what Roquentin received once he realized the truth of his existence. Nausea.

Like Roquentin, the past seems to be an important time for Anna as well. "I live in the past." (page 152) But what connection does the past have with the present, relative to existence? It is not possible to understand the meaning or the basis of existence without first living through the experiences (or, in other words, the veil of lies that blinds a man from the truth) that cause your existence to have a particular essense. All creatures develop within a case, and none are born with the nausea of truth. Once they emerge from the case, they see the world for the first time, and the last thing on their mind is why they exist. Following their birth, they develop memories, and deal with the many "lies" of life that create their essence. And therefore causes them to forget what they truly are, and it is that exists within them. "The function explained nothing: it allowed you to understand generally that it was a root..." (page 129) It is once the essence is destroyed or moved aside that men realize the truth, that it is possible to define one's own essence. Therefore, in order for a being to define an essense, a being must first define its own existence; but this cannot be done without fluctuating between the past and the present. Realizing what defines a person's essence becomes the key to defining his existence, and in doing so, allows them to redefine their own essence.

Not Your Average Nausea

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?

Existence is in the Eye of the Beholder

At least that's what Quine implies. But in a discourse permeated with as much a concern for linguistic philosophy as general ontology, it seems Quine makes more of a point on what can be said to be, rather than what actually is. His analysis on the subject has him cross over varying ‘schools’ of ontology, scrutinizing each and developing arguments with purportedly equal objectivity. Most notably, however, he develops the "semantical formula" “to be is to be the value of a variable”[141] not in an attempt to pinpoint which ‘school’ of ontology, or rather which ontology, is most viable, but in order to better evaluate how we should commit to an ontology.

In the tenth paragraph, Quine does away with the word ‘exist’ in favor of the simple verb ‘is’ which can also be taken as the present form of ‘to be.’ He does so in order to compensate for Wyman’s “ill-conceived effort to appear agreeable” [136] by distinguishing between existing and subsisting. Wyman’s ontology allows for what Quine considers an “overpopulated universe” by vouching for an endless regurgitation of possible values that undermine the state of existence. In allowing possibles into our ontology, we would be inviting an effect similar in nature to the idea of infinite regress. Quine elaborates on this point ad nauseam, questioning the existence of the possible bald man standing at a doorway and his relation to other possible figures with varying properties. This is where I come across my objection.

As far as I understand, which I might concede to say is not very far, Quine’s slogan or formula only argues for more convenience in ontology rather than more efficiency or truthfulness [and by truthfulness I mean, resulting in more truths]. In discerning what is, concerning one’s self only with variables that have set values would result in an ontology that disregards shifting values or values that may or may not fluctuate in and out of existence. One may only totally discover what there is by either stopping time all together, or being efficient enough to figure out all there is in one instance. However, even if either was possible, what there is one moment may not be what there is another moment, effectively creating an ever-swelling margin of error proportionate to the rate of change in the universe. I understand how this may be beside the point, but considering it thoroughly, it actually might not be, and I’ll explain why shortly.

Another issue with his formula is that it inadvertently argues for a teleological universe, or rather a universe [proverbially] ‘embedded in stone.’ If it were the case otherwise, an ontology that abides by his formula would be stuck deciphering ‘what there is after this series of circumstances’ rather than actually ‘what there is.’ That being said, using the rationale that it would be an assumption to declare the conformity between past, present and future, it would similarly be an assumption to conform to the idea that this series of circumstances, or rather the collection of happenstance, or occurrences, both macro- and micro-, that has led to what we call the present is either the only state of existence, or the only state of existence viable for examination.

To put it plainly, if the ontological question is “what is there?”, an ontology adhering to Quine’s “semantical formula” would only prove to pierce the surface. Though it can be argued that it is this surface that matters, and that as such his “semantical formula” simply acts as an aid to better examine the ontological question, this argument is a subjective one, predicated on a series of meta-ontological assumptions including the assumption that objective answers cannot be ascertained. Still, based solely on my very limited and fallible knowledge of philosophy as a whole, it seems this frustrates the point that ontology aims to find out what there is, not what there is that matters, affects, or can be perceived/understood by us.