In Jean Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea

In Jean Paul Sartres sassy Nausea, the origin of Roquentins sickness is shown to be the essence by which occasions ar readyd and which acts as a faade over the to a greater extent genuine genius of their populace. Throughout his experience, Roquentin sincereizes that much of what is touted as important in spirit is very non-essential. In point, he finds that the deepest mysteries are hidden by a more frivolous veneer of plurality, to which people give names based on their attributes.These plural endeavors he finds himself disgusted withbeginning with the st whizz he held in his hand at his moment of epiph some(prenominal). This unwellness that is undergo by Roquentin is in direct contrast to individuality, because at root he believes that all comes eat up to worldly concern. People and objects exist that is all that can and should be said most them. All their other attributes are merely decoys blinding people to the real truth about themselves and their world. Ther efore, any individualism is a mere fantasy, and unless claims made by persons concerning ideologies are simply efforts at distracting adeptself from the confounding enigma of existence.Roquentins nausea manifests itself as a reaction to the nominal re institutionaliseation of objects. This idea of label objects (nouns) is unity that distracts the mind from the fact that the object is in that location, in existence, without any real explanation as to wherefore it exists. Roquentin says, Everywhere, now, there are objects like this glass of beer on the table there. When I see it, I feel like saying Enough (Sartre, 8). In fact, this is the way his nausea reacts to all attributes of objects, including color, taste, and other features by which people describe them.The apprehension 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 drop dead most rea dily when a thing can be seen, and this explains why Roquentins nausea occurs only in the light. The light, according to the reasoning put forth by Roquentin, is where an objects existence becomes obscured. In the ignominious (or even in the mind of a subject who thinks of the object) the subconscious is potential 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 pick up such things as shape, color, and text. These peripheral things are mere distractionsfrivolities that serve to unify a reason for the things existence and to divert the mind from the profound fact of the thing.In the same way, Roquentins nausea rises against personalities of his and historical eras, and this can be seen as a method of criticizing any mark toward individualism. This can be seen as he views certain paintings and portraits of personalities. It can also be seen in his sickening reaction to such persons as the Self-Taught M an and others, whose past lives he comes to stop as being non-existent like all things past. These people, he argues, have 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 cabalistic existence of the universe acts futilely.The work that Roquentin constructs around the marquis Rollebon is described as conjecture rather than cosmos. In fact, the only reality that Roquentin acknowledges is the present. This underlines the concept within the novel that debunks individualism, as Roquentins mining of the past to create the marquis can only create a pretended version of the man. This is further demonstrated in the fact that the marquis life is recreated only by 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 bubble of hide and desire, he is pale as death in the glass, Rollebon is dead, (Sartre, 102). The significance of this is that, through Roquentins book, these attributes attempt to mask the fact that Rollebon is dead and thereof 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 writing Robellons history. This idea can be further generalized to all persons who somehow become distinct from all others in existence (whether by naming at bi rth or subsequent celebrity) as this is all meaningless.The nausea experienced by Roquentin is also a reaction to human beings tendency to generalize ideas and form them into ideologies. His reaction to Self-Taught Mans socialism highlights the move as a frivolous regard for brothers, sisters, fellow humans and mankind which in reality are names and attributes that merely mask a more homogenised 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 secernate 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 position reason concocted by the human mind that points toward the need for a things existence is beside the point of existence, which is by no actor essential. In Roqu entins 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 profound existence, as they offer an illusory reason for the things otherwise 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 alleged(prenominal) universal concepts are based on beliefs about (o r on attributes of) particular thingsand these attributes in reality do not exist.Work CitedSartre, Jean Paul. Nausea. bare-assed York New Directions Publishing Corporation.