Jean Paul Sartre and Existentialism

[halfassedjedi]

"Existentialism is a Humanism"

Lets talk about existentialism. Lets talk about essence preceding existence, and vice versa.

I love sartres idea of existentialism because it teaches you that you manifest the events in your own life. It teaches you to take responsibility for your actions.

Interesting theoretical stuffs.

[overgrowthegovt]

I like his ideas, too. I think a philosophy of that kind is one of the most empowering from a human perspective...our lives being entirely in our own hands. I think that's true to a degree, but I also think there are definitely other forces at work besides our wills. The control we have seems to be illusory to a large extent.

[Reefer Rogue]

I had to read this for my philosophy class, his atheistic existentialism inspires me to this day. Embrace existence, turn the nihilism upside down and create your own meaning through the choices that you value. Man is free, man is freedom. I don't necessarily agree with the concept of in fashioning myself i fashion man, in some ways but not all it works. I definately agree with Anguish abandonment and despair. I'll give you guys a treat and let you see my coursework for this:

'Explain and discuss Sartreâ??s understanding of the implications of atheism.



â??Only man can be the future of man.â?� These words from Jean Paul Sartre explain that as humans we must rely on ourselves to essentially create ourselves, to make ourselves who we desire to be. These words exemplify that Sartre was an Atheist and that he believed God does not exist. We can not rely on God to perform miracles from above to help better our lives. Only we can better our own lives through the choices in life that we ourselves make. We are wholly responsible for all our actions we commit. These actions can affect others as well as ourselves, so when we come to realise this, we make such actions while taking in to account the concept of morality. Not because of God, morality exists without God. Man is said to supposedly have been made from God and in his image but I believe the concept of God is made in manâ??s own imagination. God cannot make choices for us, in fact no-one but ourselves can make these choices. We are all different because we all make different choices. There is no human nature because there is no divine plan for humanity because there is no divine creator. There is no determinism as such, instead we determine ourselves through the choices we make due to the beliefs which we value. Our actions will always be for the better in our own lives. When making these actions we are prescribing a way of life which we enjoy, thus bettering mankind as a whole who can perhaps benefit from learning about our personal philosophy. When we choose, we choose for all.

As an atheist existentialist, Sartre believed in juxtaposing the views of nihilism. In which he recommends embracing existence while we are here, living, due to the belief there is no God, thus there is no afterlife to rely on. â??We must begin from the subjective.â?? The existentialist doctrine is based on subjectivity, from the Cartesian â??I think.â?? There cannot be any other truth than this, I think therefore I am. The cogito sums up our place in the universe, that we are not only conscious but also self-conscious. Aware of who we are, where we are and where we want to go. Sartre is interested in how the world appears for the self-conscious being. All philosophical enquiry should begin with subjectivity. Sartreâ??s phrase â??point of departureâ?? could be describing the place where existentialism begins, its departure point. Though he could be making a further claim: That this is where existentialism differs from mainstream philosophy. Its focus is on all that we can know, our own individual subjective experiences.

For Sartre God does not exist and therefore we must draw the consequences of his absence to the end. In absence of this designer, there is no ultimate design or purpose for man. This means that man first of all exists and defines himself afterwards. Man is nothing else but which he makes of himself. The essence of a physical object such as a paperknife is its purpose and how it is made, and this essence is in the mind of its maker before the paperknife exists. If there were a God, then humans would be like the paperknife: God would make us with a certain essence, or â??human natureâ?? that was shared by all humans, and which we could do nothing about. Since there is no God, Sartre claims, therefore there is no human nature. Thus, each human is what they choose to be, they possess a â??subjective lifeâ?? in which they are conscious of being ultimately free.

To choose our essence is to act. I canâ??t define myself a brain surgeon without partaking in brain surgery. Sartre is only talking about fundamental choices. Most choices flow from more basic commitments. For example if I vote as a Liberal it is because I have previously chosen certain political ideals that I think this party is like to achieve. Each individual is therefore responsible for who they are. Sartre claims that we are also responsible for all of mankind. He says when we make fundamental choices we are implying that this is the way that all humans should live their lives. His argument is:

1) What we choose is always the better

2) Nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all

According to existentialism every human therefore experiences anguish. This is a feeling of profound responsibility. Denying this is self-deception, bad faith. If you challenge someone with â??What if everyone did that?â?? and they reply â??Everyone doesnâ??tâ?? then they are lying to themselves, and so must know what they are lying about, they must become aware of their anguish. There is an example where Abraham has to decide whether itâ??s an angel that is in fact talking to him. Anguish doesnâ??t lead to quietism because itâ??s the very condition of action. One does not go to make a decision, feel anguish and so fail to make a choice. Rather, the anguish is part of making the choice, the very fact that you are feeling anguish shows that you are in the process of choosing. We must choose alone, only we can choose for ourselves, no one can choose for us.

Abandonment is the claim that there is no God and the consequences of this. The main consequence is that there are no a priori values, so we have to choose what moral values there are to be, there is nothing to help us choose. We are abandoned in the sense that we have to choose totally alone. We arenâ??t governed by passions, we choose them. Take an example of a young man who is in a dilemma to fight for the freedom of France or to aid his dying sick mother. No moral doctrine could help him choose, because any rule has to be interpreted. Christianity says â??love thy neighbourâ?? but how is he best to love his neighbour, by staying with his mother or going to fight? Feeling does not help us choose, because it is only defined and ratified by action. The young man would not know whether his feeling to fight was strong enough to make him fight until he had actually fought. Also, Sartre goes further, by claiming that feelings are formed by our actions. If the young man stays with his mother and acts out of love for her, he will feel love for her. Asking an adviser cannot help you make a choice, because it is still you who has to choose which adviser to ask. No sign can help you choose either, because any sign has to be interpreted. The Jesuit failed at a number of things in life, but took this as a sign that he was meant to follow a religious life instead of seeking secular success. He could have interpreted this sign differently and ultimately, it was him who made the choice.

Despair, according to existentialism is where we should act without hope of some very unlikely, lucky event helping us out. This means that we should only rely on your own actions and probably actions of others. Suppose a very poor person bought a lottery ticket each week, with money they could ill afford, living in desperate hope that a big win will get them out of their situation. In effect they are living in a fantasy world, being totally unrealistic. Sartre is implying we should face up to reality. This also does not encourage quietism, because existentialism is saying you are nothing unless you act, so it is encouraging you to act. Circumstances are no excuse for it is what we have actually done that defines us, not what we might have done, â??if only.â?? People sometimes try to give themselves a sort of credit for what they might have been. The fact is that they are not what they might have been .

There is a criticism that existentialism confines man within in his subjectivity. Sartre rejects this and says the Cartesian starting point is unavoidable. The only certainty is â??I think therefore I amâ?? so everything else is only probable, and probabilities must be based on something that is certain. Subjectivity, awareness of oneself is awareness of oneâ??s freedom, and this freedom is what gives us our dignity. Thus, subjectivity is a good thing. This subjectivity is really â??intersubjectivityâ?? because awareness of yourself implies awareness of others. To have a notion of yourself as being a person involves the notion of someone else commenting on you. If no one had ever commented on you in some way then you would not have even acquired a sense of yourself as being any sort of person. Perhaps a human, not a person. Thereâ??s a common human condition, namely we all have to be in the world, work and die, and in the face of these â??limitationsâ?? we have a menu of choices. We can try to surpass these limitations; widen them, to put off dealing with something, deny them or accommodate ourselves to them. Any human therefore faces the same basic choices we can understand anyone elseâ??s choices, no matter how different their specific circumstances. This gives us a certain human solidarity.

Another criticism in the form of subjectivity is that it does not matter what you do. This can appear in one of three ways:

Anarchy, anyone could choose on a whim.

Reply: According to existentialism, choice is not due to whim because we are responsible for our choices. Both morality and art are inventive, in both there are no a priori values, but that does not mean anything goes; rather, we create values in each case. For example it is obvious that paintings by Picasso are not intending to depict the physical world literally, like a photograph, so one would not judge them by that standard. So the picture creates the standard by which it is to be judged. You have to look at a Picasso and try to work the things the picture is trying to achieve: these are the aesthetic values that it is creating.

You cannot judge others.

Reply: You canâ??t judge sincere choices, but you can judge self deceit. For example when someone blames their actions on their passions or determinism, implying that they could not help what they did and so are not responsible. Or when someone says that certain values are â??incumbentâ?? on us, i.e. the values, or duties, impose themselves on us so we have to follow them, we have no choice. If someone chooses to deceive himself you canâ??t judge this morally, but can judge it as an error. Furthermore you can judge it morally, because freedom can have no end but itself. To value anything is to choose it. So if we were not free to choose anything there could be no values. So freedom is the foundation of all values. So to value anything we are thereby valuing freedom itself. But we cannot value our own freedom without valuing othersâ?? freedom. So if someone else denies that they are free, they are denying something that we value, and so we can judge them morally.

You take with one hand what you give to the other:

This is the claim existentialism gives us our freedom, but then says that anything you choose it right, and so takes away the point of having freedom, by making choice trivial. Sartre replies there are indeed no absolute values, so values can have no higher than human authority, but the advantage of this is that we can choose what to be. This is optimistic, a type of humanism. This is not traditional humanism, which is the view that humans are ends in themselves, and have supreme value. Sartre has two objections to traditional humanism: Humans cannot pass such a judgement on themselves, because they cannot see themselves from an objective standpoint. Only a non-human could have a standpoint as regards the human species. Also, it does not make sense to say that humans have supreme value, because in themselves humans are indeterminate, i.e. they are not anything until they, themselves, choose to be. Instead of the traditional view, existential humanism is the view that humans have two aspects, transcendence and subjectivity. Transcendence is the ability to step beyond ourselves by choosing what to be. Is it â??stepping beyondâ?? because we are choosing to be something that we are not, as yet. This is humanistic in the sense that the ability to choose what to be is a special ability that humans have. A tree, cannot transcend itself. Subjectivity is the fact that we create our values by our choices; there are no a priori values, therefore there is no higher authority than human authority, so far as humans are concerned. Sartre also mentions that this subjectivity includes the fact that â??man is not shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe.â?? We are aware of others and of the fact that we are choosing for all â??intersubjectivity.â?? Perhaps Sartre is implying that this is humanistic in the sense that there is an element of human solidarity. Existentialism is not, after all, affected if there is a God. This is because we still have to choose what to be: we still, like Abraham, have to decide what Godâ??s will is.



It has been argued against Sartre and the concept of free will that we are determined. Determinism is not the same as fatalism, destiny or predestination. It means that the way things are at one moment is the necessary result of the way things were the moment before. Every effect has a cause and that nothing, not even the will is exempt. It does not mean that the future is already established. If this claim is true then we are not absolutely free, thus if we are determined, then by whom or what causes? Arguably only a divine creator has the capacity to determine us if we do not determine ourselves. Free will differs from freedom of action, which refers to things that prevent a willed action from being realized. If I am in prison I am not free to walk the streets, to eat when I please etc. Being paralyzed means not being able to move your limbs. Free will means being free to try to escape (or not), to try to move your limbs (or not). Free will is not liberty as political or social freedom. One may be executed for taking the dictators name in vein but we are still free to try or actually do so. There will just be consequences.

Will is a matter of intent, to engage in certain actions or non actions. â??If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.â?? It is the perceptual, cognitive and emotional processes we endure before making a choice. Before I eat my pizza I can smell it, feel it, I remember positive past experiences. Then I decide. I intend willingly to eat the pizza. Whether I am free to eat it or not is irrelevant, I have made up my mind.

The determinist says we are not aware of the causes of our decisions and have labelled this ignorance â??free willâ??. There were only neurons and chemicals in our brains all deterministically resulting in me eating the pizza. In reply, I experience these choices and they are only determined by myself. The determinist says indeterminism is far from free will, a roulette wheel is more random then humans can be. But, free will is unpredictable, I can scream at the top of my lungs at any time, by my own choice. The determinist says this is a practical problem, not philosophical. The fact I canâ??t pinpoint the location and velocity of all particles in the universe doesnâ??t mean you arenâ??t determined by them. It only means I canâ??t predict, not that you have free will.

The free willist could point out that without free will morality would be meaningless. Generosity, bravery, kindness, etc, have no meaning if they are merely determined. If we are determined, then Hitler could be no more blamed for his atrocities then Mother Teresa for her good deeds. Sartre says we can ignore something real and imagine something unreal. I could imagine there is no pizza or view the cheese as worms. This imagination is a powerful tool at our disposal. But the determinist would claim this is yet another neurological mechanism, explainable by deterministic principals. However, the free willist can challenge this claim that the imagination is something physical. We need not accept this.

Creativity is arguably a foundation for free will, I can create a new pizza, with new ingrediants or toppings. The determinist would claim â??creativityâ?? is only a word used to describe our unconscious neural events. If someone steps on my pizza, no one would claim this is a new creation. Though now, the determinist is claiming the creativity is mechanical, he is on the back foot. When I bought my pizza, was it cause and effect determinism that made me do it? Or did I notice my appetite and make a plan intending to satisfy that hunger? I decide on the pizza, go purposely to buy it and order it because I want it. The fact a lady sneezed on a bus or an advert was on television is irrelevant, these causes do not effect my choices of preference of satisfaction. I was not â??pushed from behindâ?? instead I follow my own reasons. If we possess this freedom then we posses the responsabilty for our actions, as Sartre claims. We are culpable is we ignore moral and legal concepts passed down to us by our parents and others. This ties in with whether a person knows right or wrong and whether that person has the capabilities to choose right over wrong. I side with Sartre and the free willists, I reject determinism as I believe we are self-determined, we create our own essence by the choices we make through what we desire and value.

Marx would argue we are not absolutely free as Sartre would claim. He would point to the vast inequality of life, that the proletariat must work for the bourgeoisie in order â??to work to liveâ?? instead of â??living to work.â?? He says people are not absolutely free because they are restricted by circumstances beyond their control. They donâ??t have the time to fulfil other worthwhile faculties. The rich can afford freedom while the poor can not. Under capitalism the majority, the workers, are compelled to sell their ability to work for their bosses, in order to survive. As a result, they control neither the product of their labour (what they make), nor their labour itself (how much or how hard they will work). This is what Marx refers to as â??alienationâ?? as the workers are at the mercy of forces outside of themselves. Underlying this concept is an understanding of what human beings are. Common to all humans is the creative capacity to fulfil oneâ??s own potential, what Marx terms â??species-being.â?? Aristotle made a similar point regarding virtue ethics saying humans exist to fulfil their function, and while doing so this leads to eudaimonia, flourishing. Drawing on utopian socialists before him, Marx believes man is a social being and if freed from the brutalising conditions of capitalism, people would be able to pursue higher pleasures such as art and philosophy etc, alongside fulfilling work according to their own free and rational choices. These claims seem to contradict Sartreâ??s implications about absolute freedom. The most pressing issue for man is survival. Marx argues morality changes through time periods based on the productions of materials people make. The relationships people enter to produce those things for survival are not static. Unlike animals, people consciously shape their environment. They think about how to better to meet their needs and desires and as a result, this environment, relationships and morality changes. A minority has always owned the means of production and the majority has had to â??work to liveâ?? instead or â??live to work.â?? This is a historically unequal relationship from the slave societies to the feudal up until todayâ??s capitalist society. Human nature changes as society changes. In the present day, people value freedom more because they have the freedom to enter into contracts to work freely. So we can say thereâ??s an objective element to morality in that moral ideas stem from the predominant relations of production. For example, there was no idea of individual rights in slave owning societies but once capitalism had become the dominant system of production which necessitated free contracts between workers and bosses.



Sartreâ??s moral theory seems to contradict his claim that there are no objective morals. Boldly asserting that â??freedom is the foundation of all valuesâ?? certainly seems like an objective moral principal. Sartre says that it is part of the universal human condition. His defence could be that freedom is a subjective value which we all individually discover in ourselves when we embark on a phenomenological analysis of our being. In this way it can be universally known among humans, without being objectively known. Also, it is not true that what we value for ourselves we also value for everyone else. Someone with a sweet tooth would not want a diabetic to eat what they eat. Arguably there is an objective morality, that certain acts are objectively right or wrong regardless of human opinion, such as murder, a baby would cry if he saw his mother being murdered in front of itâ??s eyes, he can feel the act of wrong doing, though he can offer no opinion on the matter. It is said that happiness is the only thing desirable in itself, so from a utilitarian philosophy, there is an objective morality. They believe everyone values happiness, defining it as pleasure instead of pain. It is the final goal of any activity. It doesnâ??t make sense to question why someone does something because it makes them happy. So this is a naturalistic morality based on happiness which is arguably a common condition of human nature. â??Actions are right in if they promote happiness and wrong is they produce the reverse of happiness.â??

In conclusion, the implications of Sartreâ??s atheism are absolute freedom and objective morality. These are questioned and challenged by other philosophers. Specifically from a determinist, a Marxist and a Utilitarian point of view. However, I donâ??t believe these criticisms are strong enough to derail the arguments made by Sartre. For I believe we are absolutely free, we have the free will to decide who we want to be and the rational capacity to decide why we want to be what we arenâ??t at the present time. We are free to transcend ourselves into philosophers if we wish, at our whim. A tree cannot do this, it can never change, only eventually dissipate. There is no one set purpose for humans, there are many purposes for many humans. Everyone is born atheist, not believing in any gods, though when we come into contact with humans, we encounter ideas and concepts that we may previously had not thought of. The idea of God. I reject determinism because it claims creativity and imagination and spontaneity are mechanical. Also, there is no bearing of responsibility for people and their evil deeds, Hitler was not determined to murder, he did so voluntarily, the only causes which led to that were from his own accord and thoughts and desires. We are not determined by anyone but ourselves through the choices we make based on what we value. We choose to do something, thus the choice is valuable, because why would we choose voluntarily to do something unless we would value the consequences of our actions and the action itself. The implications of Sartreâ??s atheism encourage us to embrace existence; inform us of the anguish we face based on the profound responsibility of our actions, inform us of our absolute freedom and abandonment from a divine creator and advise us not to act in bad faith by lying to ourselves that we are not free, denying ourselves freedom. Lying too ourselves that we are determined by anyone but ourselves. Sartreâ??s understanding of atheism is to base his beliefs on what we know factually, starting from the cogito. We can prove our existence but we can never prove the existence of God.'

[Zarbedan]

You just about wrapped that up, now didn't you. :thumbsup: