In Jean Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea

In Jean Paul Sartres novel Nausea, the origin of Roquentins illness is sh feature to be the essence by which involvements be named and which bits as a faade over the more honest-to-god nature of their existence. Throughout his experience, Roquentin realizes that much of what is touted as important in life-time is re every last(predicate)y non-essential. In point, he finds that the deepest mysteries are hidden by a more frivolous veneer of plurality, to which pot give names ground on their attributes.These plural marks he finds himself abhorrenceed withbeginning with the stone he held in his hand at his moment of epiphany. This nausea that is experienced by Roquentin is in direct contrast to privateity, because at root he believes that each comes down to existence. People and intentions exist that is either that locoweed and should be verbalise about them. All their other attributes are sheerly decoys blinding people to the real truth about themselves and their world . Therefore, any individualism is a mere illusion, and further claims made by persons concerning ideologies are simply efforts at distracting oneself from the befuddle mystery of existence.Roquentins nausea manifests itself as a reaction to the nominal phrase nature of objects. This estimation of naming objects (nouns) is one that distracts the mind from the fact that the object is in that location, in existence, without any real explanation as to why it exists. Roquentin says, Everywhere, now, there are objects like this glass of beer on the table there. When I actualize it, I feel like saying Enough (Sartre, 8). In fact, this is the personal manner his nausea reacts to all attributes of objects, including color, taste, and other features by which people describe them.The sagacity of an object as a blue book, for instance, explains away the existence of the object and prevents one from marveling at the fact that it exists at all. This kind of apprehension can occur most read ily when a thing can be seen, and this explains why Roquentins nausea occurs unless in the light. The light, according to the argumentation put forth by Roquentin, is where an objects existence becomes obscured. In the dark (or even in the mind of a subject who thinks of the object) the unconscious is likely to think of the thing only in terms of its being therethat is, being in existence. However, in the light, the senses are apt to plonk up such things as shape, color, and text. These peripheral things are mere distractionsfrivolities that deal out to concoct a reason for the things existence and to divert the mind from the punishing fact of the thing.In the same way, Roquentins nausea rises against personalities of his and past eras, and this can be seen as a method of criticizing any tendency toward individualism. This can be seen as he views certain paintings and portraits of personalities. It can besides be seen in his abhord reaction to such persons as the Self-Taugh t Man and others, whose past lives he comes to dismiss as being non-existent like all things past. These people, he argues, find succumbed to an illusion of past glory and exploits, and from this have come to deny their own existence by promoting their essence.In contrast, Roquentin views such historical personalities as Robespierre, Lenin, and Cromwell all as one (Sartre, 69). This proceeds from the idea (noted earlier) that the attributes of a given thing act as a glare that prevents the viewing of the more important fact of existence which lies beyond the glare. Following this reasoning, then anything or anyone that seeks to make a name for himself and denies his/her oneness with the inexplicable existence of the universe acts futilely.The work that Roquentin constructs more or less the marquess Rollebon is described as conjecture rather than reality. In fact, the only reality that Roquentin acknowledges is the present. This underlines the concept within the novel that debunks individualism, as Roquentins mine of the past to create the marquis can only create a false version of the man. This is further demonstrated in the fact that the marquis life is recreated only through retelling his actions or describing his features. Yet, these are both examples of the things that nauseate Roquentinthe very attributes that distract from the mystery of the marquis existence.In fact, Roquentin says of Rollebon, He is a spill the beans of fog and desire, he is pale as death in the glass, Rollebon is dead, (Sartre, 102). The importation of this is that, through Roquentins book, these attributes start out to bury the fact that Rollebon is dead and hence no longer in existence. It is existence that is important. Non-existence equals unimportance, regardless of ones attributes and exploits. Therefore, Roquentin ceases to continue theme Robellons history. This idea can be further generalized to all persons who somehow become distinct from all others in existence (whet her by naming at birth or subsequent celebrity) as this is all bastardlyingless.The nausea experienced by Roquentin is also a reaction to kind-hearted beings tendency to generalize ideas and form them into ideologies. His reaction to Self-Taught Mans fabianism highlights the movement as a frivolous regard for brothers, sisters, fellow human beings and mankind which in reality are names and attributes that merely mask a more homogeneous existence that is common to all that are in the world. This existence unites man with animal and with inanimate objects, and any attempt to individualize or distinguish those things around which ideologies are formed is fruitless.Roquentin also refers to what he terms contingency. He writes, The essential thing is contingency. I mean that one cannot define existence as necessity (Sartre, 131). This hints at the idea that any particular reason concocted by the human mind that points toward the conduct for a things existence is beside the point of existence, which is by no means essential. In Roquentins conception, therefore, such explanations are non-essential. The only thing that matters is that a thing exists at all, and not ideologies that explain why it exists.The nausea that is experienced by Roquentin exists as a result of his growing disgust with the nominalization of the homogeneous world. He experiences a vertiginous reaction to the illumination of individual objects, which highlights the things attributes. Yet it is these attributes that most prevent the apprehension of their gruelling existence, as they offer an illusory reason for the things other inexplicable presence in the world.This represents a form of individualism that Roquentin believes is a faade, as all things (persons, objects, animals, etc.) are one in existence. This idea, which is the origin of Roquentins nausea, presents therefore an argument against individualism. It also presents a similar argument against ideology, as these so-called universal concepts are based on beliefs about (or on attributes of) particular thingsand these attributes in reality do not exist.Work CitedSartre, Jean Paul. Nausea. modern York New Directions Publishing Corporation.