This anthology has been the first introduction to existentialism for English readers since it first appeared in 1956. It collects nine authors but devotes unequal amounts of attention to them, with the selections from Jaspers and Sartre being the longest. Every collection is a selection and always leaves room for discussion of what was included and left out. In this book, I missed Simone de Beauvoir and wondered about the inclusion of Rilke. Even Camus’s presence is questionable; he claimed he wasn’t an existentialist, nor did Sartre recognize him as one.
I was struck by the variation in readability, especially in the principal two authors represented. At times, Jaspers lapsed into jargon. I imagine a serious read of one of his books in German would involve coming to terms with him. With Sartre, it was more extreme. I had a hard time following the chapter on self-deception (“mauvaise foi”) from Being and Nothingness. Sartre seemed to pursue his own dialectic, negating every term he introduced. The lecture, “Existententialism is a Humanism,” on the other hand, was easily readable. ( )

Nice collection…some tougher to digest than others. Definitely need a second read ( )

Loved it. Looking forward to reading again! ( )

Ekzistencializmi është term që i është vendosur punimeve të disa filozofëve të fundit të shekullit XIX dhe shekullit XX, të cilët, pavarësisht dallimeve thelbësore doktrinale,besonin se mendimi filozofik fillon me subjektin njerëzor.

Somewhat "old" now, I still view this as an excellent anthology, most especially the intro by Kaufmann himself. It's rather ironic, because in looking at reader reviews, ratings, comments, etc., now, currently, years later, they seem to reinforce a thesis I got from him, and that the entire concept, if not the term itself, of existentialism is subjective for more reasons that I have time or space to go into. But there are plenty of people complaining about the authors and selections in this book, which reinforces the point that even the so-called "Existentialists" themselves couldn't agree on who or what comprised a "true" existentialist or existentialism. Which is why it probably will prove to be a twentieth century fad, and not a longterm philosophical school. I made peace with this a long time ago and have patterned much of my life's outlook, behaviors and existence on the principles of several noted existentialist writers/philosophers, and I feel comfortable I can back up my stance, but I feel no need to argue it either, nor defend it, because I think even those in question would question the need or point in even doing so. Who really cares who is an "authentic" existentialist? I know of some who do -- they've got too much damn time on their hands. A good book, a classic. Perfect? No. It's subjective. ( )