Every time I’m all “maybe I’ll major in Philosophy,” something like this happens. The one-pager I am turning in today, after having Sartre forced upon me:
Readings from Group 2. Also Not-Group-Two. Also The Nihilating Interrogation of Both Group to and Not-Group-Too. Also Peter Wears Skis to the Café. Also My Mother Would Be So Confused.
I get Peter and the café. I get the nothingness of the café, the nihilation of its parts and sounds and smells into a ground that exists only to serve as a backdrop against which I get to know whether Peter is there or not. And I get why Peter not being there is a persistent nothingness – the café simply cannot help itself from showing me Peter’s absence absolutely everywhere in it:
“Look! There’s not Peter!”
“Thank you, café!”Wellington and Valery don’t matter, and that’s cool, too. I have no expectation, and therefore have not initiated any nihilation to ground, and they remain unrelated to the café.
But WHAT IS GOING ON after this? I am the questioner, and I want to know whether Peter is at the café. My question supposes both Peter-at and Peter-not-at-the-café. My question creates the possibility of the non-being of Peter, because that’s what all questions do. My question supposes Peter, not-Peter, the café, and my question instantiates the nihilating withdrawal (to nothingness?) of the café. But why do I need to “wrench” myself “away from being” in order to make this possible? Is it because if the question originates from me, is connected innately to my being (“determined in the questioner”), then it no longer has any necessary tether to Peter or the café or their negations and nihilations at all?
It would definitely be easy to do the old “why bother” in a case like this. But I’m not a 41 year old Junior in college for “why bother.” I’m gonna bother, until it bothers everyone how much I’m bothering.
Andy Havens 
If I was going to force any Sartre on you it would be the play Les Mains Sales (Dirty Hands). It’s a fascinating study of idealism and the perverse relationships that arise in the context of strong opinions.
I find his philosphising tedious (much prefer De Beauvoir) so I was really surprised and blown away by his other writing. Jo_2439.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll take that recommendation when I can, Jo. Thank you. And thank you for commenting.
Sartre is tedious, indeed. That’s the peril of philosophy, though – you’re often the only one who knows what in the hell you’re talking about. My professor is awfully good, and as dense as the readings are, the class discussions are equally light and useful
LikeLike