Download Existentialism: Existence Precedes Essence by Sartre and more Study notes Painting in PDF only on Docsity!
Freedom & Existentialism
1. Existence Precedes Essence: You’ve probably heard of existentialism. But, what is it? Sartre explains that its central tenet is this:
Existence precedes essence.
What is Essence? But, what does that mean? Traditionally, in philosophy, ‘essence’ refers to the true nature of something—the ‘ what it is ’ of a thing. It includes all of the NECESSARY features of a thing—i.e., features without which it could not exist.
For instance, you have the property of ‘being a mammal’ and ‘being a student’. If you lost the second property, you’d still exist. But, it is impossible for you to lose the first property (and continue to exist). Being a mammal is a part of your ESSENCE. It’s a part of the definition of WHAT YOU ARE.
[ Just fyi: Philosophers call the former property an ‘essential property’ and the latter an ‘accidental property’ of you. ]
Design: Sartre has a slightly broader understanding of essence in mind, and includes in a thing’s essence also its PURPOSE, and facts about how a thing OUGHT to be.
The Paper Knife: For instance, he gives an example of a “paper-knife”. [ I think he means either a letter opener, box cutter, or exacto knife. ] Anyway, the designer and maker of the knife had in advance a vision about what the knife would be like— its shape, its sharpness, what materials it would be made of, its purpose, and even some ideas about what a GOOD paper-knife is versus a BAD one. In short, for this knife, its essence preceded its existence.
We Have it Backwards: Sartre criticizes the tradition of all of history, which, (he thinks) has always acted as if essence precedes existence (rather than the other way around). Since forever, human beings have always acted as if—or PRETENDED as if, according to Sartre—WHAT YOU ARE has already been pre-established since before your birth. You were born into a world that told you:
What you ought to value How you ought to act What your purpose is
In short, you were born into a world that already had a set view about what it is to be human. It is in this sense that he thinks society is structured so that essence precedes existence. …Sartre thinks we have it all wrong.
Atheism: One big reason that we got it wrong was theism. Theists believe that humans have a maker; a designer. That designer has a PURPOSE for us, and some ideas about what a GOOD human being is like versus a BAD one. In short, theism invites the belief that essence presences existence.
As an atheist, Sartre rejects this worldview. There is no “human nature”; there is no “essence” of mankind, says Sartre. You are simply what you make yourself to be. You come into existence as a blank slate, and then you invent yourself. He writes,
What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man … is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. … Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills …
2. Implications: Here are some implications of Sartre’s view:
Abandonment & Moral Nihilism: Sartre believes that, if there is no God, then there is no morality; there is no universal purpose for human beings. No way that we “ought” to be. This realization leads to a sense of “abandonment”.
However, Sartre finds this liberating. This only makes us MORE free. If moral truths exist, dictating how we “ought” to be, how we “ought” to act, then we are bound by those truths. (This would lend itself to our essence preceding our existence.) But, if there are no such truths, how we OUGHT to be has not been pre-determined for us. There is nothing OUTSIDE of ourselves to point to, to justify or excuse our behavior.
Sartre thinks that people sort of “hide behind” morality, rules, laws, etc. They can always claim that they acted a certain way because that was what morality required, etc. If there are no such rules, there is nowhere to hide. You are utterly free, and unbound.
God
Authority Roles/Duties (abandonment) ----------------------------> Morality Expectations (nowhere to hide)
Condemned to be free: In short, there is NOWHERE TO HIDE. You can never appeal to any external reason for any of your choices (not rules, not psychological passions or feelings, not authority). There is just YOU and your action. You are utterly free, and utterly responsible. Sartre writes,
there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom. … [M]an is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.
We are CONDEMNED to be free. It almost sounds as if freedom is a BAD thing. (And, in a way, it is. It’s scary. And that would explain why people have gone to such great lengths to hide behind God, morality, their superiors, “uncontrollable” passions, etc.) But, Sartre really just means that it’s the one thing we’re NOT responsible for (namely, being born utterly free). Everything else about yourself is up to YOU.
[ Rejection of Determinism: Clearly, morality, meaning, & purpose are not pre-determined on Sartre’s view. But, he seems to reject CAUSAL determinism too. He discusses how some people claim to be sometimes swept up by their passions, and use them as an excuse. Sartre says that “man is responsible for his passion.” Again, belief that all of your actions are determined is just another thing that people try to hide behind to avoid responsibility.
Yet, elsewhere, he says, “ we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better .” Isn’t this all that the hard determinist is saying? ]
Anguish: Sartre says he’s an optimist. He actually finds the abandonment LIBERATING. In fact, he thinks his view is the ONLY sort that makes man truly free, writing, “this theory alone is compatible with the dignity of man.” If essence DID come before existence— and if we were NOT truly abandoned to make ourselves—we would not be truly free. In the end, you are ONLY your choices, and nothing else. “Man makes himself.”
Yet, this realization leads to a sort of “anguish”. You are utterly free. When you understand this, the burden is very great.
Responsibility & Universality: Part of the reason for this anguish/burden comes from the fact that Sartre doesn’t seem to think that you can make choices ONLY for yourself. Rather, every choice you make has implications for all humankind.
Every decision you make, says Sartre, you make on behalf of all human beings. If you become a Christian, you are endorsing a worldview for ALL people.
If you marry, you are endorsing monogamy for ALL people. In short, every choice you make is a declaration about how all mankind OUGHT to be. Thus, you are not only responsible for yourself. In a way, you are responsible for EVERYONE:
If, however, it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. … [I]n choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. … I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.
No Morality, But Self-Deceptive Errors: Sartre has presented a view which rejects the existence of all morality. Thus, nothing is “wrong” in the moral sense on his view. How could it be?, he asks. For, we make ourselves from nothing, like an artist who creates a painting on a blank canvas. It wouldn’t make any sense to say to her, “You’re painting it wrong!” There are no objective aesthetic rules. Similarly, there are no objective moral rules for Sartre.
Nevertheless, he does believe that one can act inconsistently by deceiving one’s self. He says, “any man who takes refuge behind the excuse of his passions, or by inventing some deterministic doctrine, is a self-deceiver.”
He says that such people are acting in “ bad faith ”. To live an “authentic” life in “good faith”, you have to accept the truth that you are utterly free, utterly responsible, and that you entirely invent yourself by your own choices.
[Some great videos about Sartre’s view can be found here and here and here.]
