LECTURE NINE EXISTENTIALISM EXISTENCE & ESSENCE SARTRE

Transcription

1 LECTURE NINE SARTRE EXISTENTIALISM Jean-Paul Sartre ( ) Presents a view of what makes human beings unique We are beings for which existence precedes essence This makes us different from the rest of the world for which it can be said that essence precedes existence Sartre defines Existentialism as the belief in this view of human uniqueness EXISTENCE & ESSENCE The essence of a thing is its nature, its meaning, its purpose Sartre divides things into two broad categories

2 EXISTENCE & ESSENCE 1. Beings for which essence precedes existence With this being there is an idea or nature that precedes its existence and determines its presence This being is not free and is an object Sartre refers to it as en soi or the in itself EXISTENCE & ESSENCE 2. In contrast there is: Beings for which existence precedes essence Such a being first exists, and then determines its own nature, meaning, or purpose This being is free and is a subject Sartre refers to this being as pour soi or the for itself Human beings are the only beings who fall into this category It is in this sense that we are unique EXISTENCE & ESSENCE In Existentialism and Humanism, Sartre does not seek to prove that we are free This is his starting point or basic assumption Rather than prove our freedom, he seeks to explain its nature and its consequences Sartre s description of these consequences is intimidating Our freedom entails that we are forlorn, as well as in anguish and despair

3 FORLORN One consequence of our freedom as Sartre has defined it is that we are alone or forlorn We are alone in that there is no higher power or creator outside of us that we can turn to for support or guidance Sartre contends that Existentialism must be an atheistic doctrine FORLORN Why Atheism? The existence of a creator God would make us beings for which essence precedes existence, we would become objects God would have an idea of us first, which would then determine our existence as well as nature or purpose We would now be objects and not free FORLORN Why Determined? Why is God incompatible with freedom? Can t human beings rebel against the nature or image that God has assigned to us? The Abrahamic faiths all see human freewill as compatible with God s creation Sartre contends that this freedom to rebel is not enough

4 FORLORN Why Not Enough? Sartre equates freedom with responsibility To limit one is to limit the other As pour soi, our freedom and hence responsibility must be unlimited The existence of an assigned nature would limit our responsibility as it would provide the possibility of excuses When we act within our nature or image, we would be excused from responsibility for what occurs FORLORN No God, No Nature, No Absolute Value Sartre is also opposed to any moral or scientific theory that would limit human responsibility or provide excuses Thus no psychological view that would discuss inherent drives or dispositions Thus no moral view that would discuss absolutes concerning what is good or right Through our choices, then, we not only define ourselves we also invest things with value The recognition of our unlimited freedom and responsibility is painful We wish to flee or run from this reality This is the feeling of anguish

5 First, I am responsible for myself Given that existence precedes essence, I define myself through my choices or actions Each choice, then, is momentous: In each choice I am deciding who I am With each choice I also determine what I value E.g., Sartre s example of the student torn between loyalty to his mother and his country This is hopeful as well as frightening Hopeful: I have no determinate nature, meaning, or purpose At each moment, then, I can choose to redefine myself It is never too late to change This is hopeful as well as frightening Frightening: My nature is not determined or fixed, thus each choice is critical In a moment I can redefine myself, and there is no sense in which I can separate myself from my action I must accept responsibility for, or authorship of, my action I cannot say this is what I did, but not who I am I am what I choose, which is painful to accept

6 Second, I am responsible for all humanity Through my choices I define myself, but also my own vision of humanity or what it means to be a human being With each choice, I define the thing chosen as good, and as such recommend it to others Thus I must accept responsibility for others following my example This, though, does not absolve others of responsibility for their actions Responsibility is the only constraint on action or choice I must be able to accept responsibility for, or authorship of, my actions The only sin is bad faith or the attempt to deny my freedom and responsibility If I can accept the image of myself that my actions entail, then all is fine With no absolute value, no action is inherently right or wrong Others, though, may still choose to interfere with my actions as they are as free as me

7 DESPAIR Though my freedom is unlimited, my control over the world is not I must recognize the limitations of my power, and not attempt to flee this reality by joining associations or collectives DESPAIR The hope is that through collective effort, I might transcend the limits of my power and lifespan But being free, my associates can always choose to abandon the goals or purposes that we initially shared QUESTIONS Could Sartre s Existentialism be consistent with adherence to a religious view based on choice? Could religion be one way in which I choose to define myself? In this sense, I would be responsible for my religious view and what it entails Is this radically different from how we ordinarily conceive of religious affiliation?