PHIL 2010-h: Sartre

Three charges against Existentialism

Jean Paul Sartre begins his "Existentialism and Human Emotions" by describing three charges against his philosophy and to remind us that Socrates and his philosophy also began the history of philosophy with three charges against it (though not exactly the same charges).

Before defining existentialism, he points out these charges or criticisms against it:

1. Existentialism was thought to be a philosophy of contemplation and luxury, meaning a bourgeoisie philosophy of the upper middle class and the rich. Sartre argues against this view of philosophy.

2. Existentialism was thought to be too negative and pessimistic, focusing on the "dark side" of human nature (which Sartre will argue does not exist).

3. Existentialism was thought to be too relative "allowing everyone to do at he pleases" and it was thought existentialism offers no solutions.

Subjectivity (as Sartre uses it in this text)

Subjectivity is the event of self-awareness or self-consciousness and when you (not your biological body) in reality begin. It can be connected with Descartes' "cogito" argument in so far as Descartes is also arguing the first most foundational certainty is that I am aware of myself as a thinking conscious being. This type of self-awareness Descartes is claiming is a certainty is subjectivity.

Essence

The word "essence" here encompasses a lot of meanings which extend all the way from Plato to the present. By "Essence" Sartre means: a Platonic form, what something is, Aristotle's formal and final causes, a purpose, the goal of something, the plan of something, the idea of, the concept of, the nature of, the definition of, the method of production for some product, the designed function of something, among other meanings.

Existence

In existentialism, existence cannot be defined, but we can point to it or can recognize that it has already happened to us, is happening to us and that we are happening to it (that is we are actively living existence).

To discuss this undefinable existence, Sartre and other existentialists resort to poetic/creative uses of language to convey some aspects of what is means to exist. For example, Sartre talks about "throwness" which is about our feeling/sense of being "thrown" into existence and just waking up one day in the middle of existence wondering what I should do next. Our parents don't consult us when bringing us into being or existence, they simply "throw" us into the world without having a predetermined essence for who we are to be. Existence happening to us is part of the feeling of being "thrown" into the middle of something which one does not understand -- kind of like philosophy class which is as good as any metaphor for existence.

"Essence precedes Existence"

This is Sartre's way of describing how manufactured objects exist or how any objects exist. He calls this the "technical view of life" which means for objects, first their essence is thought in some inventor's or creator's mind.

The main point is that for "objects", their essence precedes and thus determines their existence which cannot be otherwise than what the essence is.

Existence cannot really be defined for an existentialist, only pointed to and recognized to have happened and to be happening.

The sentence "essence precedes existence" is associated with determinism regarding the identity of the object and therefore the absence of freedom.

Sartre furthers argues that most Christians who believe God was the chief creator of humans must ultimately think "essence precedes existence" describes human beings in addition to manufacture objects. The implication is if humans are captured/described by this sentence, then humans are NOT FREE to determine their own essence (i.e. who they are) because that essence preceded their existence (i.e. their identity/essence was determined before the human being ever showed up with their subjectivity).

If God had any idea of who humans were prior to creating humans, then that idea is our essence over which humans have no control and are not free to determine otherwise. This would be like the inventor of a stapler having the idea of a stapler in his mind prior to the existence of the first stapler being created. Whenever that first stapler does come into existence, its function, its plan, its essence, its identity has already been determined preceding its existence.

What prevents "human life" for Sartre?

Believing that humans have an essence or nature which has preceded human existence prevents human life. Human life requires the belief that humans are free to determine their essence which can't be done if it was created prior to the human's existence.

When human believe human "essence precedes existence", they prevent human life from happening in themselves and are trying to act like determined manufacture objects (without freedom). Humans end up denying their own freedom in this way thereby denying their own human life.

What makes human life possible?

Living the doctrine of "existence precedes essence".

Existentialism (as Sartre defines it)

Existentialism is the doctrine that "existence precedes essence" or that "subjectivity must be the starting point". He argues that this definition/doctrine "makes human life possible".

Without living the meaning of this sentence, not just believing it intellectually, one ends up undermining one's own human life even if one does biologically continue to live.

Living this doctrine means that first a human being/subjectivity happens and then that subjectivity must make up and choose its essence, its plan, its function, its identity without having any pre-determined idea of what one should be.

One must choose an essence without any basis whatsoever. This choice which has not basis is precisely what it means to be a human life. You are choice without a basis, without guidelines and without knowing beforehand any consequences of your choice. This is what genuine freedom means to Sartre and why he connects it with this definition of existentialism.

How is human freedom and human life identified if it cannot be defined or captured in an "essence"?

After arguing that human life requires living human freedom, the question then becomes, how do we know or identify this freedom since it is NOT define-able. To define it would be to turn it into an "essence".

Sartre's answer is that human freedom and one who lives the doctrine that "existence precedes essence" can be identified by the experience of three particular emotions or moods that are universally present in all human existence (though many humans try to repress or hide these emotions from themselves).

These three emotions are more like states of being that persist in all that one does rather than a transitory feeling. These are indicators that human life and freedom are genuinely happening, not just talked about.

These three emotion indicators of human life and freedom are:

1. Anxiety (or anguish)

2. Abandonment (or forlorness)

3. Despair

Anxiety (or Anguish)

Anxiety (or Anguish depending on translation) is the total and deep responsibility felt regarding our choices which represent all of human kind. Each of us represents all of humanity and chooses all of humanity when we make our individual choices. In other words, individual choices are never just individual choices; your choice involves all of mankind.

For example, if you personally chose to do something like cutting off another human being skin and making a lamp shade out of it, then you by doing so have establish that ALL humans are capable of doing that. Humanity has done that. Just as if you were the first to set your foot on the moon, then ALL humanity has also been to the moon which is precisely why Neil Armstrong said, "One small step for man [meaning the individual person], one giant leap for mankind." I get to say now "we" have been to the moon even though personally I have not been.

If you realized that you are always representing a model of what humanity should be when you act, then you would feel great anxiety at the extra responsibility of your choices. Whatever you do, you prove that humanity does it too, so be careful where you take humanity in your illusory individual choices which are not individual.

Abandonment

Abandonment (or Forlornness): In a religious context, Sartre describes this as having to face the consequences of God not existing. What "God not existing" means is that there is no being who has already determined our essence before our existence.

The feeling of abandonment means also that no guidelines for choices can exist since all guidelines are appeals to essences prior to the choice. We are alone with no excuses is also a way to describe this emotion.

Each time you give an "excuse" for anything, you are actually claiming you are not free and are in denial of your human life. If a student says "I could not turn the paper in on time, because my car broke down", the student is denying their own freedom and responsibility (for example in waiting to the last minute to do the paper in the first place or for not changing the oil in the car regularly, for not maintaining the car, and for all the other little real choices that went into missing the deadline).

A Sartrean existentialist student would say to the teacher: "I don't have my paper for you; I have no excuse; I choose not to get it done on time" and leave it at that. But, one can see how this is a very risky approach since such a student most definitely would feel anxiety regarding what happens next and abandoned without any reasoned essence to appeal to. That student is living free according to Sartre even if they don't get a good grade.

Abandonment means "we are all condemned to be free" one of Sartre's most paradoxical points.

Despair

Despair (the opposite of hope): Despair is the emotion of confining ourselves to only to what depends on our own will. Despair means not trying to use consequences as a basis for your current decisions and choices. Only your choices matter and they must be made without hope of knowing any future consequences.

To pretend to know the consequences of your actions prior to acting is to construct an essence that precedes your choice and on which your choice can be based. This is an evasion of freedom; an attempt to let something else (in this case the hoped-for consequences) determine your choice when in reality nothing determines your choice. Fully realizing nothing determines your choice but your own will is what Sartre calls despair.

The comfort of determinism

Sartre points out that probably most people are evading the three emotions which make human life possible because they prefer to think of themselves as determined. Determinism is psychologically more comforting than freedom because thinking one has no choice allows one to avoid the feelings of anxiety, abandonment and despair which accompany genuine human choice.

Sartre is pointing out that determinism is easier to believe in and live than freedom which is more difficult to live. Consider that each time you give an excuse for your actions (whatever they may be), you are essentially affirming to someone else that you had no choice, that you were determined. Thus, excuses are always affirmations of one's determinism, not one's freedom, but most people find excuses comforting both to themselves and to others.

To prefer freedom over determinism is for Sartre to prefer human life over the existence of a manufactured object; to prefer difficult emotions over easy avoidance; and to prefer choice to the belief that one has no choice.

A Sartrean Test Question: Is it possible for a person to choose not to choose?

Can a person choose to think of herself as a determined object without choice if she chooses to?

Choose your answer -- or would you prefer I objectively tell you what the pre-determined essence-answer is?

Human life's final exam is far more difficult than mine.