When I see it, I feel like saying: ‘Enough!’” (Sartre, 8). Roquentin says, “Everywhere, now, there are objects like this glass of beer on the table there. This idea of naming objects (nouns) is one that distracts the mind from the fact that the object is there, in existence, without any real explanation as to why it exists. Roquentin’s nausea manifests itself as a reaction to the nominal nature of objects. Therefore, any individualism is a mere illusion, and further claims made by persons concerning ideologies are simply efforts at distracting oneself from the confounding mystery of existence.
All their other attributes are merely decoys blinding people to the real truth about themselves and their world. People and objects exist that is all that can and should be said about them. This nausea that is experienced by Roquentin is in direct contrast to individuality, because at root he believes that all comes down to existence.
These plural objects he finds himself disgusted with-beginning with the stone he held in his hand at his moment of epiphany. In fact, he finds that the deepest mysteries are hidden by a more frivolous veneer of plurality, to which people give names based on their attributes. Throughout his experience, Roquentin realizes that much of what is touted as important in life is really non-essential. In Jean Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea, the origin of Roquentin’s nausea is shown to be the essence by which things are named and which acts as a façade over the more genuine nature of their existence.
0 kommentar(er)
