Reading Solomon's Existentialism Without Getting Lost
Robert C. Solomon's Existentialism is the most useful single-volume introduction to the movement, and the most likely one to actually change how you think if you read it carefully. It covers the usual suspects — Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus — but it does something most textbooks don't. It treats existentialism as a living set of concerns rather than a period in the history of philosophy. That distinction matters more than people realize. I ran into this when advising a student who had just finished an intro survey course and came away convinced existentialism was basically nihilism with better fashion sense. The problem wasn't Solomon's book. The student was reading it backward, starting with Sartre and working back, which makes everything look like a gradual collapse rather than a sustained response to a specific problem. Existentialism Robert C Solomon presents is actually much more constructive than that reading suggests.
What Solomon Actually Argues
Solomon frames existentialism around a few core commitments: existence precedes essence, authenticity matters, anxiety is a legitimate epistemic tool, and freedom is inescapable. Those sound abstract until you see how he ties them to actual lived experience. His chapter on Kierkegaard, for example, doesn't just summarize the leap of faith. He shows why the leap isn't irrational but instead a recognition that some decisions cannot be settled by calculation alone. His treatment of Sartre is where people get tripped up. Solomon pushes back against the popular reading of Sartre as a doom-and-gloom determinist about freedom. He points out that Sartre's whole point is that we are condemned to be free, which is a heavier burden than most people mean when they complain about existentialism. The word "condemned" is doing important work there. You didn't ask to be free, but you're stuck with it. De Beauvoir gets fair treatment, which is rare in survey texts. Solomon doesn't relegate her to a footnote. He engages seriously with The Ethics of Ambiguity and shows how it addresses the gap between Sartre's abstract freedom and the actual constraints people face. That gap is where a lot of beginner confusion lives.
How to Read It Without Wasting Time
Read it in order. Solomon designed the progression intentionally. Kierkegaard sets up the religious anxiety angle. Nietzsche handles the death of God and value creation. Heidegger gives you being-toward-death and the structure of care. Sartre formalizes the freedom problem. De Beauvoir and Camus push the consequences into ethics and political life. Skip ahead and the connections disappear. The companion reader Solomon edited, called Existentialism, is worth grabbing alongside the main text. It includes primary source excerpts that make the jump from his summaries to the actual philosophers much shorter. You'll spend less time guessing what Kierkegaard actually wrote and more time evaluating his arguments. Here's the part most people miss. Solomon argues that existentialism is best approached as a set of exercises, not a set of doctrines. Each chapter is structured around a question you're supposed to answer for yourself, not a conclusion you're supposed to accept. If you read it passively, you'll finish it and remember almost nothing. If you treat the prompts as invitations to actually do the work, the book becomes something closer to a training manual.
Get the Full Details
A Practical Edge Case I Dealt With
My students regularly hand me papers arguing that Sartre's bad faith is just cowardice dressed up as philosophy. The argument sounds clever until you test it against a real scenario. I had a student last semester who wrote a twenty-page paper claiming that every compromise is bad faith under Sartre's framework. That would mean every rational decision is self-deception, which makes the concept useless for anything except moral grandstanding. The fix was straightforward but uncomfortable. I asked them to apply Sartre's concept to their own major selection. They chose business because their parents wanted it, not because they cared about the field. Sartre would call that bad faith. But if they had chosen philosophy at age eighteen without any genuine interest, that would also be bad faith. The concept doesn't target compromise specifically. It targets self-justification that avoids acknowledging your own freedom. That distinction collapses if you treat every compromise as equally damning. When they rewrote the paper with that narrower focus, it became actually useful. Not groundbreaking, but useful. That's a reasonable bar for an undergrad philosophy paper.
Common Mistakes That Make This Text Harder Than It Needs To Be
People treat existentialism as pessimistic because they conflate it with nihilism. They aren't the same thing. Nihilism says nothing matters. Existentialism says nothing matters until you make it matter, and that's a responsibility, not a relief. Solomon spends considerable effort drawing this line, and it's worth paying attention to because misreading it as nihilism will make every subsequent chapter feel like a complaint session rather than a program. Another mistake is treating Heidegger as the center of the movement. He's important, but he's not the model. Most existentialists are responding to different problems than Heidegger is. Kierkegaard is wrestling with religious commitment. Sartre is wrestling with intersubjectivity. Camus is wrestling with absurdity as a lived condition. Heidegger's framework is dense and often misapplied when people try to use it as the master key. Solomon knows this and handles it by giving Heidegger his proper place without letting him dominate the narrative. The worst mistake is reading Solomon as neutral commentary. He has positions. He sympathizes with the existentialist project but disagrees with it on several points. His chapter on Camus, for instance, acknowledges Camus's insight about the absurd but pushes back on the idea that revolt alone is sufficient. Solomon wants ethics, not just stance. That's a real philosophical disagreement, not a textbook compromise.
What This Approach Doesn't Do Well
Solomon's existentialism is anglophone and individualistic by design. It doesn't engage deeply with phenomenological traditions outside the German and French lines. If you're looking for engagement with Asian existential thought, postcolonial existentialism, or disability studies applications, this book won't give you that. It's not a comprehensive reference. It's a focused introduction with a particular philosophical bent. The prose is accessible but occasionally over-eager. Solomon sometimes flattens difficult distinctions to make a point land cleanly. His reading of Heidegger's concept of being-toward-death, for example, is serviceable but doesn't capture the full ontological weight Heidegger gives it. If you plan to move beyond Solomon, you'll need secondary sources that go deeper on specific thinkers. I recommend pairing this with a more technical companion for whichever philosopher interests you most. There's also a datedness issue. The later editions improved things, but the book still treats certain debates as more open than they are now. The feminist critique of Sartre, for instance, has moved well beyond what Solomon addresses. De Beauvoir gets her due, but contemporary debates about care ethics and existentialism aren't really engaged here. That's a limitation of the genre, not a failure of execution, but it's worth noting if you're using this for research rather than general reading.
Where to Get It
The main text is Existentialism by Robert C. Solomon, currently in its second edition published by Oxford University Press. The companion reader is Existentialism: A Comprehensive Anthology, also edited by Solomon. Both are available through standard academic retailers, university bookstores, and used book markets. The second edition of the main text is significantly revised and worth the upgrade if you can find it. Older editions have the same structure but weaker treatment of later developments. If you're on a tight budget, the companion reader is often cheaper on the used market and includes the primary sources. You can supplement with open-access translations of the original texts for the passages Solomon references. Most of the major existentialist works are available through Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries and Internet Philosophy Encyclopedia articles that summarize and contextualize them adequately.
Final Note on Usage
Use this book as a starting point, not a destination. Solomon's strength is opening doors, not closing them. The questions he raises are the ones worth continuing to pursue after you close the cover. That's the entire point of existentialism, actually, though he'd probably tell you to work that out for yourself.
