At the Existentialist Café MP3 CD – Unabridged, October 25, 2016

In the opening scene of At the Existentialist Café, philosopher Raymond Aron says to his friend Jean-Paul Sartre, “If you are a phenomenologist you can talk about this cocktail and make philosophy out of it”. After reading this book, I say, “If you are Sarah Bakewell, you can take existentialism and make sense out of it.”The existentialist themes of freedom, political activism, and “authentic being” became watchwords of the middle and late 20th century. When I first encountered existentialist writing, I was simultaneously entranced, repelled, and confused. (Bakewell tells us that even Beauvoir said that when she and Sartre tried to read Heidegger’s lecture “What is Metaphysics?”, “we could not understand a word of it.”) Not only did the existentialists not always agree with each other, sometimes they did not even agree with themselves. National Book Critics’ Circle Award winner Bakewell’s clear writing and carefully researched portrayal of the context in which existentialism developed gave me a much better understanding of this school of thought that both influenced and reflected most of the last century.In addition to a providing a lucid discussion of the various expressions of existentialist philosophy, Bakewell really brings to life the thinkers behind it. Names like Husserl, Heidegger, Beauvoir and lesser known figures in their milieu became real people. One of my favorite chapters introduced me to “the dancing philosopher” Merleau-Ponty, whose personality was as engaging as his thinking. Unlike Beauvoir and Sartre, “journalists did not quiz him about his sex life---which is a shame, as they would have dug up some interesting stories.” Photos throughout the book were a nice complement to the narrative. My favorite, which is on the last page of the book, shows Sartre and Beauvoir together laughing and obviously enjoying life, a stark contrast to the angst usually associated with the existentialists.The existentialists’ lives spanned almost the entire twentieth century: World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War with its threat of nuclear attack. They were profoundly affected by what was happening around them and to them. Bakewell does an excellent job of showing how, as Merleau-Ponty put it, both their lives and ideas were “contingent…---at the mercy of historical events and other changes they could not control”. It was heart-wrenching to envision Edmund Husserl fleeing the German persecution of the Jews while his former friend and student served as a leading apologist for the Nazis.In the final chapter, Bakewell lets the reader in on some of her own feelings about existentialism and the existentialist figures, from her original fascination thirty years ago to how her feelings shifted in the course of writing the book. It was an excellent summation that gave me more insight into the author as well as the philosophy and people she writes about.I’m not sure whether to call At the Existentialist Café biography, history, or philosophy. What I will definitely call it is worth your time. This book could be a contender for another major award.

Although I have some reservations (below), I liked Bakewell's latest and recommend it as a good read about the cadre of leading existentialists, their key ideas, and how they did (or did not) live the philosophy they espoused. I was led to this purchase because I particularly liked her previous, excellent thematic biography of Michel de Montaigne ("How to Live"), as well as her friendly writing style. In some respects, this book continues to address the question of "how to live," considered not only philosophically but in actual practice. Bakewell also has a fine writer's knack not only for clarifying sometimes complex ideas but also in bringing the reader into the conversation.It may be helpful to say that Bakewell's book is more a biographical look at a half-dozen or so of the leading proponents of 20th century existentialism (originating in phenomenology) than an in-depth examination of the philosophy. One does, in fact, learn about fundamental ideas or themes associated with the philosophy, although Bakewell is perhaps more interested in exploring the extent to which the adherents lived or "inhabited" their philosophy. Her treatment is often fairly personal, referring to her own interests in the ideas and personalities of these existentialists. As such, she has her favorites: As a rather more critical comment on Amazon by Drew Odom observes, she arguably short-changes some, while perhaps being too quick to justify others. At one point, Bakewell observes that philosopher Hanna Arendt (a young student and lover of Heidegger) while deeply critical of his later thinking and behavior may be "overgenerous" in the image she ultimately paints of the man. I am inclined to say that Bakewell is similarly overgenerous in her treatment of Sarte, in particular: Although rejecting his support of odious regimes (e.g., shifting loyalties from an increasingly embarrassing Soviet Union to Mao and Pot Pol, among others), she emphasizes that he was well-intentioned and ultimately a "good man." Well, maybe. Anyway, she is earnest about factual balance, and if she has some biases that I do not share, she is not disingenuous.On a smaller, stylistic note: Although I enjoy Bakewell's very personal interest in the ideas and personalties examined, some of her "asides" smack of notes one might write to oneself in the margin of a book and are occasionally distractions. I can't say this troubled me too much, as I find her opinions mostly amusing and sympathetic, but a bit of self-editing might be warranted. That said, I enjoy her light and personal tone, and think she usually strikes a good balance between scholarship and conversation with the reader.If I didn't "love" this book to the extent of my 5-star opinion of "How to Live," I nevertheless found it stimulating and enjoyable, and will look forward to any future writing by Bakewell.

I believe Sarah Bakewell's comments below sums up the book better than any impressions I might give. I just want to add that whatever shortcomings people have about the work, and some criticisms might be valid, that they pale in comparison to the insights we get from reading this book. I just wish she had more work in English so I could participate in how she frames the other more often. But at any rate, read her passage below to get a feeling of how she writes about a very complicated subject. The book reflects the same optimal flow."When I first read Sartre and Heidegger, I didn’t think the details of a philosopher’s personality or biography were important. This was the orthodox belief in the field at the time, but it also came from my being too young myself to have much sense of history. I intoxicated myself with concepts, without taking account of their relationship to events and to all the odd data of their inventors’ lives. Never mind lives; ideas were the thing.Thirty years later, I have come to the opposite conclusion. Ideas are interesting, but people are vastly more so. That is why, among all the existentialist works, the one I am least likely to tire of is Beauvoir’s autobiography, with its portrait of human complexity and of the world’s ever-changing substance. It gives us all the fury and vivacity of the existentialist cafés, together with ‘a sulphur sky over a sea of clouds, the purple holly, the white nights of Leningrad, the bells of the Liberation, an orange moon over the Piraeus, a red sun rising over the desert’ — and all the rest of the exquisite, phosphorescent bloom of life, which reveals itself to human beings for as long as we are lucky enough to be able to experience it."

I have just finished reading ‘At The Existentialist Cafe,’ by Sarah Bakewell. It allowed me to assess and understand the minds of some of the greatest thinkers of the last century in the field of philosophy. Even the progenitors of the movement that became Phenomenology and later Existentialism, like Husserl and Brentano, failed to engage me as much as that of those caught up in the war years and after, like Sartre and Heidegger and whose relationship with that world was just as strained as the battlefield and ideology of Naziism and Communism. In other words politics could not be as clearly separated from philosophy as some would like or hope it could be.I think Heidegger and Sartre didn't get on because the former's philosophy was about doing and will, hence Nazi party connection and the latter was on about being. This breaks down further into individual freedom and creative thought as opposed to group conformity and idealism (conscience and the eye/I of the intellect, found in stillness versus the emotional wave of the ego that carries you away in self righteousness motion (the hammer of action)).Sartre emptied his mind all the time but like a bath where the tap cannot be turned off, it soon filled again with new ideas. Heidegger however emptied his mind and slammed the door on any other further experiences – pouring himself out into the world but never allowing that world to pour back into his world, in a reciprocal action.This is separatism (individuality / freedom to be yourself) versus conformism (forcing things to stick together / tyranny): spiritual revolution, not physical rebellion - ideas not actions, peaceful change not violent attacks upon others. When Sartre had problems with communism, it was because despite the idealistic goals, the methods employed by Stalinists were no different than those employed by the fascists under Hitler.As for the excuse used by people nowadays that nobody is responsible for anything, based on Existentialist thought. This is obviously not true as this implies no choice in our actions (no control, no morals, no ‘off’ as well as an ‘on’ switch). Age I think is our growing ‘off’ switch as birth is it turning ‘on.’ This is because at birth we have no self image, no introspective thought, just experience and the urge to add to it (explore the world we find ourselves in). Only with time do we become aware of the other and the rights of the other to exist, apart from ourselves as the arbiter of all things. This is when morality hits us as an entity, when death approaches us and we stop thinking of ourselves as immortal beings.

I'm about a quarter into this and love it. It just works for me. It has rekindled my interest in Existentialism and its philosophers. I shall be sad to finish it.

really loved this book - philosophy and society and culture and history, combined in a very well written story! highly recommend!

Good read!

I'll read anything by Sarah Bakewell.