A Critique of Jean-Paul Sartre's "Existentialism"

In “Existentialism” (Gary E. Kessler, Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy Reader, 4^th ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001, 496-503), Jean-Paul Sartre defines the philosophy of existentialism and demonstrates that it is clearly defined by action and involvement rather than quietism and pessimism.

Sartre begins with separating the true meaning of existentialism from the layman’s view. Often when a new term or word gains notoriety or fame, it is used frivolously and loses its intended meaning; existentialism is no exception. Although he defines existentialism easily, he admits the theory can be complicated because there are two types of existentialists: Christian and atheistic. Still there is a common factor between them in the theory of existence preceding essence.

Sartre notes existentialism is the “most austere of doctrines,” but he insists it can be easily defined as “existence precedes essence or if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the starting point.” Unlike man-made inventions where there is a purpose for creating an item, machine, etc. – the essence is preceding its existence, man, in a sense, arrives first and then develops and defines himself; therefore, his existence precedes his essence (497).

The first principle of existentialism is that man is nothing prior to what he makes of himself; his is what he will have planned to be, not what he will want to be. There is a conscious decision; therefore, man is responsible for what he becomes. Its aim makes man aware of what he is and makes him fully responsible for his existence in the individual and collective sense of the word.

The essential meaning of existentialism, according to Sartre, is subjectivism in the sense that “it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity”; and so, while man may make his own choices, his choices include all of humanity to some degree. When one’s choices involve all of mankind, there is a much greater sense of responsibility. Sartre gives a simple example demonstrating this philosophy: even a common everyday choice like marriage and having children involves other people and requires extended responsibility to others (498).

Sartre further describes the existentialist philosophy by giving its view on anguish, forlornness and despair. The view on anguish is that when a man comes to the realization that he is not just his own person but is an integral part of a community, he cannot help but feel “total and deep responsibility.” This is not to be confused with the mental illness connotation associated with anxiety. It is not the sort that keeps people from action, but rather, it is the motivation for their action (499). The sense of forlornness is explained as a wavering between two kinds of ethics: an ethics of sympathy and a broader version reflecting the greater good. Forlornness, according to Sartre, is an implication that man chooses his own being. Despair comes from confining ourselves to the probabilities that will affect our action. In comparison, Descartes is quoted, “Conquer yourself rather than the world.”

Jean-Paul Sartre’s purpose in this writing is not only to define existentialism but also to illustrate how free will and responsibility are linked. He targets the critics of existentialism, perhaps those whose philosophies are rooted in heredity, environment, biology, or psychology.

While there is no denying our decisions affect others and we need to be considerate to our communities, we should not give ourselves blindly to any group; Sartre makes that abundantly clear. The realization is that man has free will; and, therefore, one cannot always depend on another in the hope that “human kindness” will be bestowed upon him. Sartre states, “I cannot count on men whom I do not know by relying on human goodness or man’s concern for the good of society…I’ve got to limit myself to what I see…Given that men are free…I cannot be sure that (others) will carry on my work.” Men should be involved, should not have illusions, and should contribute what they can. His doctrine asserts, “there is no reality except in action,” which is a radical departure from religious philosophies or those philosophies that rest in heredity, environment, biology, or psychology because it lays moral responsibility on the individual, which, in my opinion, is the appropriate place. Too often we look for excuses to avoid responsibility.

While this philosophy is an incredible stretch of the imagination for may who feel like victims of their circumstances, for those who feel they have no control over their life, and for those who refuse to accept their own responsibility, it has tremendous value and encourages self-evaluation and reflection for how their lives are being lived.

By Liza Lugo, J.D.

See my related hubs at:

http://lawdoctorlee.hubpages.com/hub/A-Critique-of-Warren-Kesslers-Is-Affirmative-Action-a-Second-Wrong

http://lawdoctorlee.hubpages.com/hub/response-to-film-religions-of-the-world-buddhism

Copyright © 2012. All Rights Reserved.