The Anguish of Freedom
Existentialism as a philosophy is
often mired in misconception and misunderstanding and it is easy to see why when you put some context around it. The term was explicitly claimed by Sartre and disseminated
amongst his peers and by the 70’s the image of the movement had become cliché
and was often parodied. The parodies often capitalized on the popular awareness
that Sartre’s writing was notoriously dense and difficult to read and understand.
Occasionally, it is suggested that the philosophy is more of a long since passed
cultural movement than an actually identifiable philosophical position, but
while the definition of the term may be heavily affected by its cultural fate
and the looming presence of Sartre as a leading thinker the concept certainly
helps to identify a distinct group of philosophers in the fields of theology
and psychology alike.
-
Existence Precedes Essence
There can be no general account of
what it means to be human because the meaning of one’s humanity is determined
by existence and the act of existing. Other entities, for example, a pen, have
properties that are determined by what kind of a thing they are, a pen is used
for writing and thus has ink inside and must be able to be held in someone’s
hand. Humans have no such properties. Instead who we are is not fixed,
but dependent upon what we make of ourselves. This is a rejection of Plato’s
theory of Forms, as far as humanity is concerned, and development on Descartes’
idea of his own existence. The slogan, “existence precedes essence” echoes
Heidegger’s idea that we are entities with no other purpose beyond existence.
It follows thus that the nature of people cannot be determined through the lens
of any predetermined systems regardless of if they are scientific, historical, or
philosophical.
-
Man is Condemned to be Free
Because our existence precedes our
essence humanity is condemned to freedom. We are thrust into existence and made
aware of ourselves and immediately we must make choices. Even choosing not to
make a choice is ultimately a choice. Because there is no “design” for a human
being there is no particular way we necessarily have to be. Sartre took this idea
as far as it could go saying there is no human nature determining how we should
act and no god giving us a purpose. As a result of the lack of inherent purpose, many see this whole idea as condemnation and thus the idea is born that man is condemned
to be free.
Sartre did not see this condemnation
as a bad thing necessarily as with choice and freedom one could decide to be as
happy or sad as they please. Being without any particular purpose is not a
terrible thing but it is certainly a scary thought and that is where the
anguish comes from. Adding to the stress of these ideas Sartre also insisted
that with every choice a human makes they define the essence of humanity, or at
least what they think humanity should be. Because your actions define humanity’s
essence Sartre believes you should always act as if everyone is watching you.
-
Sartre and Marxism
I occasionally see Sartre cited in amateur
revolutionary or Marxist writing even though his ideas were not explicitly Marxist.
However, Sartre did identify with Marxist ideas and believed that capitalism
could be overthrown if humanity made the choice to do so, but he never joined
the communist party and his philosophy developed a more anarchistic bite. Regardless,
he admired and met with many revolutionary figures, like Castro and Guevara,
and the FBI kept tabs on him because of that.
Sartre laid
out the basis of his historical perspective in a section of Being and
Nothingness that describes the idea of the social “Look” of the other. In
making one an object of another’s projects, the other alienates one from itself
and defines it as something. Therefore, what one is, is a function of the other’s
project rather than being determined by oneself. For example, one could be constituted
as a “man” through the resentment of a woman, or more commonly, a “woman” may
be constituted on the basis of the other’s sexism, and a “Jew” is determined by
other’s anti-Semitism, et cetera.
Sartre believed that the current
Marxist movement had abandoned any promise of a rational approach to the social
realities of the time and favored reasoning that came out of theoretical
deduction rather than lived experiences. This is a problem that continues to persist
within modern Marxist circles. Sartre wanted to solve this issue by redefining the Marxist idea of praxis in his own existential terms. Hopefully, restoring dialectical
flexibility to what he saw as rigid economic determinism, but his ideas were
rejected by traditional Marxists who saw it as “bourgeois idealism.” There is
no natural law that states the overthrow of capitalism to be an inevitable outcome,
but there are men who sculpt history just as much as they are sculpted by it.
This ideal is crucial to Sartre’s view of history and resulted in his belief that
dialectical materialism is the necessary philosophy of existentialists who choose
freedom. Thus, it follows that Marxism’s political claim over us rests on the
idea of authentic existence as choice.
The historic
and the political side of authentic existence states that all choice is observant
of history and must contextualize itself in relation to history to foster a
temporal understanding of its place. That doesn’t mean that the authenticity of
existence is reliant upon the “correctness” of the understanding developed as
authenticity does not rely on any particular view of history. Utilizing this perspective,
it is perhaps best to view the historic view of different existential thinkers less
as empirical accounts and more so as the idea the author believes the situation
demanded. These views are not justifications for their writer’s ideas as much
as they are invitations for others to see things as the author does.
Quiz
Did
Sartre accept the existence of God?
Why did
the FBI have files on Sartre?
DQ
If Sartre were alive today do you think
he would support modern Marxist movements?
Is the idea that humans are free agents something that scares you or gives you anxiety?
I think it is extremely interesting how you used the existence precedes essence argument to defend existentialism. It makes sense: a pen has ink in It and is therefore meant to write. However, humans only innate purpose is to exist. I have never thought of this before!
ReplyDeleteGood summary.
ReplyDelete"Existence precedes essence" is an exaggeration, of course, since there are many aspects of our existence (genetic, familial, social, cultural) that we inherit at birth and must work with, as we try to "make something of ourselves."
And, the link to "Heidegger’s idea that we are entities with no other purpose beyond existence" helps me pinpoint something disturbing about this view... given what we know about Heidegger's Nazi affiliation. If you think humans have no purpose beyond existing, there may (for some) be a temptation to dehumanize, brutalize, even murder those whose difference from one's own preferred modes of existence are reviled. We should attribute to one another the "purpose" of peaceable coexistence and humane sympathy, surely. It's hard to see how that threatens our authenticity or represents some form of "bad faith."
I like the general idea of this report, as it is a different take on existentialism than what I know about the topic. I also liked the idea of " existence precedes essence" as it provides a very different perspective to existentialism. Your discussion questions were also very tasteful as they actually made me think.
ReplyDelete