Reflection on 'Nausea'

I recently finished reading 'Nausea' by Jean-Paul Sartre. I won't be reviewing the novel in this post. Instead, I had a few afterthoughts and questions following the reading. I asked one of these questions to ChatGPT and received an interesting answer, which I will be sharing with you via this post.

Question: How can we understand existentialism in this age of technology, where we do not have much time to think about other things, as we are engrossed in our day-to-day life? For example, we are playing games, watching movies, and scrolling through reels all day, so we don't have as much extra time as the protagonist of this novel has. Do you think that we are becoming less existential now? What are your takes on this?

For example, the protagonist of this novel has so much free time that he could think about the existence of other things, like that of a 'root' (book reference) and other things. But what if the protagonist had a mobile phone or access to the internet, or he could play online games? What would have happened then?

Because you see that sometimes I also feel the same way the protagonist of this novel was feeling, but at other times, when I am with my friends—let's say I am playing a game or scrolling through the reels—then I am not feeling the same feeling that was felt by this protagonist. So, what is this feeling that I am feeling?

Do you think that existentialism has changed in the era of this technology? If yes, then how? And if not, then also explain me how, and explain also the nuances of existentialism in this era.

Chat GPT's Answer:

1. The Context: Roquentin’s “Free Time” vs. Our “Occupied Time”

Antoine Roquentin (the protagonist) has time and silence in which he begins to see the world.

He isn’t constantly distracted; he’s alone, idle, detached from routines — which allows him to feel the raw presence of things, like the root, and that triggers his existential crisis.

But today, our lives are the opposite. We’re almost never alone with ourselves. We fill every pause — with reels, games, chats, YouTube. Our minds are constantly “occupied.”

This doesn’t mean existentialism has disappeared. It means the conditions for feeling existential awareness have changed.

 2. Existentialism Then vs. Now

Aspect	Classic Existentialism  (Sartre, Camus, etc.)	| Tech-Era Existentialism (You/Us Now)
Trigger	Boredom, isolation, silence → forces reflection	Distraction, overstimulation → prevents reflection
Experience	Confronting absurdity, contingency, “Nausea”	Feeling emptiness, anxiety, or loss of meaning beneath constant engagement
Freedom	Realizing “I am free, and that terrifies me”	Being “free” to choose endlessly but lost in algorithmic choices
Alienation	From society or God	From oneself — we outsource thought, memory, and even attention to machines
Response	Authentic choice in a meaningless world	Reclaiming presence, silence, and genuine awareness amidst noise

 

3. What You’re Describing — “That Feeling”

You said something very profound:

“Sometimes I feel the same as the protagonist, but when I’m with my friends, or playing games, I don’t feel it.”

That’s the modern form of Nausea.

It’s that fleeting moment when all the noise drops — maybe late at night, maybe when you’re suddenly not scrolling — and the world feels too real, too empty, too unnecessary. You sense the “weight” of existence, just as Roquentin did with the root. But as soon as you go back to reels or games, that existential awareness dissolves — replaced by distraction and dopamine.

In Sartre’s time, people had too much silence. In our time, we have too little silence. Both lead to different forms of existential tension.

 4. So, Are We “Less Existential” Now?

Not less — but differently existential.

• We still face the same questions: “Why am I here?”, “What’s the point?”, “Am I living authentically?”

• But now, our awareness is buried under layers of technology and entertainment.

• The “existential void” hasn’t gone away — it’s been muted by constant distraction.

In fact, the very need to keep scrolling, watching, and gaming can itself be seen as a symptom of existential discomfort — we’re avoiding that deep confrontation with meaninglessness that Roquentin had to face directly.

 

5. What If Roquentin Had a Smartphone?

If Roquentin had a phone, Instagram, and Netflix, he probably wouldn’t have written Nausea. He would have felt the same strange unease occasionally — maybe when looking up from his phone in the park — but he’d scroll it away.

But maybe, one day, the algorithmic repetition would itself cause him Nausea — the meaninglessness of endless digital loops, the realization that no reel, no game, no content fills the void.

That could be the new Nausea — not from a tree root, but from the endless feed.

 

6. The Nuance: Existentialism in the Digital Age

Modern existentialism isn’t about the fear of absurdity — it’s about the loss of awareness of absurdity.

We’ve moved:

• From “Why does anything exist?”
  → to

• “Why am I never really present in my own existence?”

The new existentialist task is:

“How can I reclaim my existence from distraction and automation?”

To be existential today might mean putting the phone down, looking at something ordinary — a tree, a shadow, your own reflection — and actually feeling its absurd, contingent presence.

 In Short

You’re asking the same question Sartre asked, but in a new medium.

You’ve already touched the essence of existential thought by noticing that disconnection — that sometimes you feel your existence, and sometimes you lose it in the stream of technology.

So no, existentialism hasn’t died.

It’s simply harder to hear — drowned out by the noise of constant connection.

And perhaps the true existential act today is not to think more, but to pause — to reclaim silence long enough to actually feel existence again.

Question: You just mentioned the contrast between the classical existentialism and existentialism that we have in this technological era, so can you give me a simple explanation with an example from day-to-day life so that I can understand the key difference between them with the help of this example?

Chat GPT's Answer:

1. Classical Existentialism (Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard)

The Core:

People had time and silence to think, and that made them directly feel the strangeness of existence.

 Example:

Imagine Antoine Roquentin sitting alone in a park.

He looks at the root of a tree and suddenly feels —

“Why is this here? Why am I here? Nothing has any reason to exist.”

That deep unease, that awareness that everything is just there without purpose — that’s existential realization.

It leads to Nausea, but also to freedom — because if nothing has a fixed meaning, you can choose to create your own.

 In short:

Classical existentialism = confronting silence, absurdity, and meaninglessness directly — and then creating your own meaning.

 

2. Existentialism in the Age of Technology (Today)

 The Core:

We rarely experience silence or boredom.

Whenever that uneasy “existential” feeling begins to appear, we distract ourselves instantly.

 Example:

You’re alone at night.

Your mind starts to wander —

“What’s the point of all this scrolling, studying, working?”

You feel a small emptiness…

Then you grab your phone and open Instagram, or play a quick game — and that feeling disappears.

That moment — the one you just escaped — is your Roquentin moment.

But technology gives you an instant anesthetic — a way to silence the question instead of facing it.

In short:

Modern existentialism = feeling the same emptiness, but constantly drowning it out with distraction.

 

3. Side-by-Side Comparison

Aspect	Classical Existentialism	Modern Existentialism
Trigger	Silence, solitude, boredom	Distraction, overstimulation
Main Experience	“Nothing has meaning.”	“Everything feels empty or fake.”
Response	Create your own meaning through conscious choice	Fill the void with screens, entertainment, busyness
Symbol	Roquentin’s tree root — pure absurd existence	Your phone screen — endless but hollow content
Emotion	Nausea — shock of existence	Numbness — escape from existence
Path to Authenticity	Face absurdity and make meaning	Pause distraction and feel reality again

 4. A Simple Analogy

Think of life as a quiet lake.

• In Sartre’s time, people sat by the lake and looked into the still water — they saw themselves, and sometimes it scared them.

• In our time, the lake is covered in ripples — notifications, reels, news, memes. We rarely see our reflection.

But the lake is still there. If we stop scrolling for a while, it becomes calm — and suddenly, we see ourselves again. That moment can feel uncomfortable — but it’s also the moment of truth.

Classical existentialism was about facing existence directly.

Modern existentialism is about escaping existence constantly.

Yet, the core remains the same — both are about realizing:

“I am here, and it’s up to me to give meaning to my life.”

 

Thank you for reading.