Friday, 3 January 2003

up­on reread­ing Nausea i am in­ter­est­ed in the ex­is­ten­tial­ist take on re­gret. Roquentin seems less alien­at­ed to me than he did the last time i vis­it­ed him, in­stead he seems more con­cerned with what used to be and what has changed. he does not ac­cept this change to Nausea and mourns for his past. is this Sartre’s ex­am­ple of Kierkegaard’s ‘knight of in­fi­nite res­ig­na­tion?’ and why is the ex­treme aware­ness of be­ing-in-it­self so dis­gust­ing? why is this knowl­edge of dif­fer­ence nau­seous in­stead of eu­phor­ic? it doesn’t sick­en me…

I must not put strange­ness where there is none. I think that is the big dan­ger in keep­ing a di­ary: you ex­ag­ger­ate every­thing. You con­tin­u­al­ly force the truth be­cause you’re al­ways look­ing for some­thing.

Jean-Paul Sartre — Nausea