Jean-Paul Sartre's "Existentialism"

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980); novelist, playwright, revolutionary journalist, joined the French Army and became leader of the French Resistance during World War II, was awarded the Nobel Prize on October, 22, 1964 but refused it. He was also a lifelong partner of feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir whose publication of The Second Sex (women’s social subjugation created by patriarchal forces rather than biological or psychological structures) became seminal to the modern feminist movement.

“We were never more free than during the German occupation. We had lost all our rights, beginning with the right to talk. Every day we were insulted to our faces and had to take it in silence…And because of all this we were free. Because the Nazi venom seeped into our thoughts, every accurate thought was a conquest. Because an all-powerful police tried to force us to hold our tongues, every word took on the value of a declaration of principles. Because we were hunted down, every one of our gestures had the weight of a solemn commitment.” – From Situations, 1947.

Jean-Paul Sartre asks, “What is meant by the term existentialism?” It can be defined as being of two kinds; one who follows religious belief and one that is ‘atheistic’ having no active belief. What is common is existence precedes essence or as Sartre states, subjectivity is the starting point. We can conceive in our minds an object and produce this object in a certain way having specific use. For this object its essence precedes existence. This object is assembled of both the production routines and the properties which enable it to be both produced and defined, a technical view of the world whereby it can be said that production (or its essence) precedes existence. Conceptions of God (such as Descartes and Leibniz) is that He is a superior artisan and when God creates He knows exactly what He is creating.  The concept of man's essence inside the mind of God is the concept of the product in the mind of the manufacturer. If God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before we can define by any concept and that being is man (or as Heidegger says, human reality). Man knows that he exists and defines his essence through the choices and actions he makes.

This is embedded with Sartre's concept of the self. Sartre would say that our theories about the self that are found in our consciousness are not accurate. The self is not thinking, nor is it memory of the past. The self lies in the future, it is the goal as we create ourselves into something. As long as we are alive there is no idea of ‘self’- not a fixed or finished self. We can point out that circumstances of birth are what shape our identity but for Sartre it leaves out the moment of choice. One can take their random circumstances of birth and be proud of it, embarrassed by it or indifferent to the fact. One can fall in love, but, one can also choose to ignore it, embrace it, make it a tragedy, post all of their embarrassing photos on Facebook, or any possibility or any dimension where there is choice. We can transcend the facts that are true of us, those facts, called facticity (referred by Heidegger and Sartre). The self is defined not of these facts but what we make and continually make of these facts. We can make what we will out of these certain facts. But there are no “correct” choices; Like Kierkegaard, all choices are a subjective truth, true for the person who makes them, not necessarily true for anyone else. [Unlike Kierkegaard, there is no ultimate stage (the religious) or figure (God), which could correct the absurdity and paradox of the world].

The self never exists as complete; it is what we choose for ourselves, our projection into the future, our intentions to become a particular type of person. We never actually achieve this for new situations and more choices will arise. The sense of oneself as always incomplete and responsible for itself is called the authentic self. This self is something created not found. Traditional theories that state ‘the self simply is’ are self-deluding of not recognizing our responsibilities for creating the ‘self.’

Denying responsibility is what Sartre called Bad Faith which includes (among other things), that you try to excuse yourself of being responsible for what you or what you will become by letting you be defined by the facts of your accidental circumstances instead of recognizing these facts and doing what you wish of them.

Man is “Condemned to be free,” because he did not create himself, but he is free because once he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does. As we create ourselves we continually create an image of what we think man ought to be. Our responsibility is greater because it involves all mankind and this may project moral values (such as maybe committing a truly Altruistic act may inspire or convince others of acting Altruistically, by showing an example as being a particular type of person, it allows the possibility of others following that example).The idea that God does not exist is terrifying because there is no A priori (knowledge independent of our experiences, i.e. 2+2=4) ‘Good’, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to conceive it. You cannot explain things as being a fixed human nature because there is no being to create human nature. There is nothing that justifies our conduct; no excuse behind us nor need to legitimize because we are in control and create what we are. It is to understand that reality alone counts. 

Sartre affirms that existentialism is a doctrine of anguish, forlornness, and despair, because the existentialist has intense feelings of responsibility, has to suffer the consequences of his actions, (also being responsible for their passionate actions such as anger, rage, lust). There are no excuses or justification for actions and choices, and there is no grand design or figure that guides or dictates actions. We alone are responsible for what we continually create of ourselves out of our actions and choices.

Yet, this detour through atheistic existentialism leads, as Sartre suggests, to a surprising conclusion: The existence of God is not really the issue. Even if we could prove that any God existed it would not matter anyway. because we would not have any deeper understanding of his identity (or, of his essence).

“You are nothing else than your life,” (God ed.,Robinson pg.314) does not imply that someone like an artist, will be judged by his art alone; a thousand more components will contribute to his summation as an individual through the freedom of actions and choices he has made. 

What is meant is that humans are nothing more than a series of undertakings, that we are the sum, organization, and ensemble of the relationships which compose these undertakings and above all responsible for these undertakings.

Can we know of God's existence before we are able to understand his essence? 

Do you think we are able to define his existence with knowledge independent of our experiences? 

Or, are our choices and actions not free but confined to determined or predetermined sources of nature or a source transcendent of nature?

Random Links

Jean-Paul Sartre  Being and Nothingness A Summary (Philosophybro.com) [Disclaimer:Explicit]

Jean-Paul Sartre NoExit (audio adaptation) 

Sartre on Intellectualism

1967 Interview with Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir