[.ca] Existentialism: A Reconstruction (ISBN 0631213236)

Existentialism clarified and made practical:
I enjoyed the well-written book (and I came as a sceptic). Cooper not only synthesizes the different strands of existentialism, but nicely fills in weaknesses before showing how the existentialistic argument can deliver a reasonable philosophy to live by. To help you judge where I am coming from, consider two other books of practical philosophy that I liked: Peter Singer's "Essential Singer: Writings on an ethical life" and Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs".

...Not for blokes....:
David E. Cooper shows how many of the popular views on existentialism are actually misconceptions about the philosophy - this book is very helpful in dispelling the dictionary definition of existentialism. The idea that Existentialism is irrational or an anti-rational form of philosophy is shown to be an incorrect interpretation of what existential thought is about. Cooper shows that the existentialists where not against reason or rational thought but where really against a narrow form of rationalism -also empiricism- which attempted, through non-involvement in the human world, to gain a god-like perspective; a detached and impersonal view from nowhere within the world. Against this the existentialists wanted to show that we are all participants in human affairs and not mere spectators. Other misconceptions mentioned in the book were; that existentialism is just a phenomena born out of post-war Europe; that existentialism is a form of subjectivist philosophy; and that there was a large gulf between Sartre and Heidegger, Sartre -it is often claimed- was a Cartesian while Heidegger was Anti-Cartesian etc.. Some other misconceptions are also mentioned. I thought the book was missing many of the insights from literature into existentialist thought -although some people will think that is a positive thing. Dostoevsky was not mentioned; I don't remember Kafkas great existential novels (the Trial or the Castle) coming up; and Camus is only mentioned long enough for us to see that he was neither philosophical or systematic and therefore not included. Cooper is not as hostile towards Camus as Sartre was in his review of the Rebel in Les Temps Modenes, but if you are a Camus fan you might want to look away. Of course every book has to make some cuts and Cooper does give reasons for his omissions. I found the book very helpful and enjoyable, it would probably make a good introduction, but I wouldn't base all my opinions of the philosophy on it.