Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialism Is a Humanism

At the end of World War II, the people of France were beginning to hear about this growing cultural movement in thought called “existentialism,” and becoming skeptical of supposed nihilistic motivations within the philosophy. At the time, two French writers, Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre were emerging as the leaders of this post-war movement, but the tenants of existential thought had been written about a century before its modern iteration through the groundbreaking works of Søren Kierkegaard.

Though there’s a sharp contrast between the Christian ethics of Kierkegaard and the atheistic principles of Sartre, the former was an immense inspiration to the latter with his interpretation of Abraham’s despair, as he made the decision to kill his son due to an order from God. This raised the question of when man should make a “leap of faith” in the name of God, and the anguish this free choice creates. As we will soon see, these concepts became critical to Sartre’s philosophy as well.

A century later in Paris, Sartre returned from his internment as a prisoner of war and founded an underground resistance group, “Socialism and Liberty,” with another esteemed existential writer, Simone de Beauvoir. During this time, he wrote works of note, Being and Nothingness and No Exit, which laid the framework for his modern notion of existentialism.

As Paris became liberated and the war ended in 1945, a buzz of criticism began to surround Sartre as groups began interpreting his works as cynical and morally absent. From No Exit, the famous line “Hell is other people,” was taken out of context and both Christians and Communists saw Being and Nothingness as anti-humanist and demoralizing to a post-war France. It seemed then that an explanation was in order, which was delivered in the form of a speech at the Club Maintenant on October 29, 1945. The lecture was titled “Existentialism Is a Humanism,” and its eloquent defense of the philosophy became a fundamental starting point in understanding the 20^th century’s most influential school of thought.

Sartre’s speech begins simply, “My purpose here is to defend existentialism against some charges that have been brought against it.” In proceeding to state his defense against those who believe his philosophy stresses “the dark side of human life,” Sartre also manages to lay out the meaning behind the name existentialism and the true meaning of the words “anguish,” “despair,” and “abandonment.”

As Sartre describes, existentialism gets its name from the fairly revolutionary belief that human existence precedes its essence, that “subjectivity must be our point of departure.” This may sound confusing at first, but what he means is that unlike something that is made for a clear purpose like a paper-knife, humans aren’t made that way. We simply exist first, and the matter of our essence is something that must be discovered subjectively within each of us. This makes a clear break from essentialism, a belief perpetuated by many prior philosophers including Descartes, Leibniz, Diderot, Voltaire, and Kant.

“Atheistic existentialism, which I represent,” Sartre states, “is more consistent.”

                       

            “It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence—a being whose existence comes before its essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept of it. That being is man, or as Heidegger put it, the human reality.”

In just a few short sentences, Sartre then explains the entire ethos of the philosophy:

            “Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing more than what he makes of himself.”

The concept of only being beholden to oneself initially seems to be one that throws morality to the wayside. Christian critics would argue that without an objective doctrine from God—an inherent essence that makes our lives meaningful—what the point of living would be. How are we to know right from wrong if the very concept of right and wrong is subjective? 

In his speech, Sartre argues that the morality of existentialism exists in our duty to the entirety of mankind. Simply by doing an action, we are saying that the whole of humanity should do that action. If I joined a Communist group, it would mean that I believe that it is the most suitable solution for man. This responsibility is what existentialists mean when they use the word “anguish.” As Sartre says:

            “A man who commits himself, and who realizes that he is not only the individual that he chooses to be, but also a legislator choosing at the same time what humanity as a whole should be, cannot help but be aware of his own full and profound responsibility.”

There, in those words, and the entire speech surrounding them, lies the essence of existentialist thought. This French movement through the writings of Sartre, Camus, and Beauvoir inspired countless young thinkers in France and beyond to reject religious doctrine and recognize the absurd nature of life—allowing them to craft their own postmodern truths.

Below are a couple videos on Jean-Paul and the wider philosophy of existentialism for those looking to find out more on the subject:

Final Report posts I have commented on:

Marcus Aurelius: https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2020/05/marcus-aurelius-matthew-rigney-final.html?showComment=1588710342343#c5772102616991237880

Karl Marx: https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2020/05/karl-marx-final-blog-post.html?showComment=1588710750183#c2376064857104049945

I believe I have earned 8 runs since quarantine began, but do not recall my number before going remote... Cheers!