Yash Yadati - sartre2

Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher, wrote the piece, “Existentialism is a Humanism” in which he defends the title by debunking critical statements made against existential humanism. In the process, he uncovers some of the key aspects of it from an atheistic position.

Over the years and particularly during the middle of the 20th century, existentialism was referred to as a doctrine that emphasized the “quietism of despair” and the solitude of man that neglected the brighter side of life (Sartre, 1a). People also identified it with traits such as gloominess, negativity, ugliness, one of pure subjectivity, without hope, naturalistic, a form of sad wisdom, and one that meddled with matters such as restrain (did not have firm rules) and romanticism (Sartre, 1b). Sartre says that these harsh comments against existentialism are inaccurate and that in fact, people are much more agitated not by its pessimism but by its optimism (Sartre, 1b). Not taking the word ‘existentialism’ for what it stands for, people do not realize that existentialism is actually the “least scandalous and most austere” (Sartre, 2a).

The primary foundation of an existentialist is to acknowledge the fact that “existence precedes essence” (Sartre, 2a). This is to say that the personality of a human being is not pre-established for him, and in other words, there is no purpose or destiny, that he himself takes up the arduous effort to create his own moral values and determine the meaning of life. Sartre uses the paper-knife analogy to describe this. The essence of a paper knife precedes its existence because to create it requires the inventor to determine its purpose. But human life is created with no predetermined purpose or essence. Although this plays with the concept of nurture over nature, Sartre is able to use it to suppress the conception of God (Sartre, 2a-b). The process begins with nothing and man just exists. He then “encounters himself “, grows up in the physical world, and defines himself (Sartre, 2b). For this reason, man is responsible for himself and in a broader sense is responsible for all men (Sartre, 3a).

The human subject has the freedom to act in whatever way to this, this is his ‘choice’, but he can only do so much because he cannot go beyond the realms of human subjectivity (Sartre, 3a). Only he can choose (to say what is good and what is bad) and ‘no choice’ is also a choice (a). Moreover, once he chooses, only he can deal with the choice, and control over how the choice is carried out is defined only by probability (d). This is fundamentally what anguish (a) and despair (d) are, they are by-products of this freedom (Sartre, 3b). To be able to live in this world without conflict, measures need to be taken to make sure that the actions people make are setting an example so that in choosing or “fashioning” himself, man chooses for all men or fashions Man. Anguish is responsible for his choice and all leaders know this anguish well (Sartre, 4a). By adding the burden of responsibility and choice to the existence, there is an underlying optimism and that is no choice is better than the choice that is undertaken because only the subject can set the value for his/her choice, this value is by feeling. And since existence precedes essence, one’s action cannot be rooted in his nature, hence there is no determining cause, the man is free to act on his will and he doesn’t need to worry about being blamed for it (abandonment - 6a) (Sartre, 4b).

This allows for a person to recognize himself and choose to be what he wants. In life, a man commits himself, performs actions and there is nothing else but the sum of his actions (Sartre, 7a). There is no reality but that of his own actions and what really matters is the commitment that he makes (Sartre, 7b). Therefore, by this Sartre is able to condemn all false notions of existentialism as a negative and sad doctrine.

One more reproach against existentialism is that it “confines man to his subjectivity”. To this, Sartre uses Rene Descartes's statement, “I think therefore I am”. This statement cannot be disproved and is the most fundamental truth of consciousness. Outside this, all theories and facts are merely suppressing the truth, for everything outside this is merely probable. To understand what is probable, one must know what the truth is, and the truth, in this case, sets the reference to the human subject (Sartre, 8a). Man can no longer be called an object. The statement also reveals something more intricate and that is, the “I think” sets the reference to the “I” in the presence of others and “he cannot recognize himself unless others recognize him”. Therefore, in identifying himself, he will identify what others are and we find that we identify ourselves among others in a world of “inter-subjectivity” (Sartre, 8b). Through this Sartre is also able to say that every purpose has a universality (Sartre, 9a).

At the very heart of existentialism is the “character of free commitment”, a commitment that can be understood, by which every man recognizes himself and by which he can recognize a type of humanity. Since commitment defines him and he has the freedom to choose, his actions result as a “quest for freedom” itself and hence, freedom has no limit nor any end but itself (Sartre, 10b). Therefore, his choice and action are only true to their significance, if they are “made in the name of freedom” (Sartre, 11a). An existentialist always sees man as a process and not an end because he is still yet to be determined, “life is nothing until it is lived” (Sartre, 11b). Since everything is with respect to him, there is no other universe but his own, “the universe of human subjectivity”. This is Existential Humanism. (Sartre, 12a)

Jean-Paul Sartre // "In a word, man must create his own essence: it is in throwing himself into the world, suffering there, struggling there, that he gradually defines himself."

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse