Being and Nothingness is an original contribution, not merely derivative of Heidegger.
Evidence
Sartre’s early work owes much to Husserl and Heidegger, obviously, as well as to Beauvoir herself, but that does not mean that he was a mere Heideggerean manqué or simply an imitator or copier. No, Being and Nothingness is a great and in many important respects original contribution to thought, as was, in a very diff erent area having to do with the sociohistorical dimension of humanity, his still understudied, undervalued Critique of Dialectical Reason later on. — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 541
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the historiographical debate on whether Sartre merely reworked Heidegger — a long-standing charge in Continental philosophy scholarship. — connects to: Nothingness is logically subsequent to being, not its opposite. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 205; Both Hegel and Heidegger fail to ground negation in a negative being — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 216; Sartre’s for-itself is an active nothingness, unlike Heidegger’s Dasein — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 497
Broader Connections
- Both Hegel and Heidegger fail to ground negation in a negative being
#corroborates(0.80) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 216 - Sartre’s for-itself is an active nothingness, unlike Heidegger’s Dasein
#expands(0.80) — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 497 - Nothingness is logically subsequent to being, not its opposite.
#corroborates(0.75) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 205