Jean-Paul Sartres Existentialism

No Excuses

Novels

Sartres Writings
Autobiography: Words (1963) Philosophical works
(1937)

Nausea (1938)
The Wall (1939)

The Age of Reason (1945); The Reprieve (1947); Troubled Sleep (1950) (3
parts of a 4-part series)

The Transcendence of the Ego The Psychology of the Imagination (1940) Being & Nothingness (1943) Existentialism is a Humanism Search for a Method (1957) The Critique of Dialectical Reason

Plays
The Flies (1943) No Exit (1944) The Condemned of Altona

(1960)

(1946)

Biography & literary criticism

Baudelaire (1947) Saint Genet (1952) The Idiot of the Family (on
Flaubert) (1971)

(Vol. I, 1960; Vol. II, 1985)

In 1964 Sartre was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature

which he REFUSED on the grounds that such honors could interfere with a writer's responsibilities to his readers.

Sartre did not believe in bourgeois marriage, but

he had an intimate life partnership from the late 1920s until his death in 1980 with . . . .

Simone de Beauvoir
She, too, was an exponent of Existentialism. Among her numerous works are The Mandarins (1955), a novel; The Second Sex (194950), a profound analysis of the status of women; The Coming of Age (1970), a study of society's treatment of the aged; and two collections of memoirs, Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter (1958) & The Prime of Life (1960). To make oneself an object, to make oneself passive, is a
very different thing from being a passive object.

(1908-1986)

Existentialism before Sartre

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Danish Christian Existentialist philosopher -Focused heavily on the experience of faith -Came to the conclusion that belief in God could not be based on reason, the claims of religion are ultimately absurd -But we must choose to believe something in life; living a life of atheism is just as or more absurd. This occurs with a choose to do so.

Leap of Faith: We believe not because of reason, but because we

Existentialist themes: focus on absurdity of certain lifestyles and belief systems, the necessity of our choosing who we want to be without reason as a guide, individual choice, giving life our own meaning, total engagement in a project we decide upon

Existentialism before Sartre

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), German/Swiss philosopher Belief system focused on the awareness that God does not exist ("God is dead!") Ethics is a human creation and should serve human needs God's nonexistence, ethical conflict, individuality, the central role of humanity Christian ethics is used destructively: represses our instincts, keeps us from the pleasures of the body, makes us focus on an otherworldly existence rather than on becoming the best sort of people we can on earth Advocated a new sort of morality based on individual excellence and the bermensch (Superman)

Sartres Historical Context

Occupied Paris of WWII, active in resistance movement through newspapers/theatre Denunciations of fellow Frenchmen for their cowardice, hypocrisy and collaboration The Excuses (after R. Solomon)
What can I do? Individual Omnipotence I didnt start the war. Personal Innocence Everyone else is doing it. Herd Mentality Im just looking out for myself. Self Interest I had no choice. Appeal to Helplessness I was afraid. Appeal to Emotions

Sartres Response

We are absolutely Free!

Our Absolute Freedom

This does not mean that we can do anything we want. This does mean that there are no ultimate

constraints on consciousness.

Our choices are not unlimited, but we always have choice. We determine our emotionsour behaviour is not determined by our emotions.

Sartres Phenomenological Starting Point

What is Phenomenology? An approach to reality from the standpoint of subjectivity (consciousness)

If I approach reality from that point of view, what do I find?

Assignment

Reflect on your consciousness. Describe it now.

Phenomenology
From Descartes to Sartre:

The Cartesian Starting Point

Descartes began by doubting everythingand focusing on the nature of consciousness Cogito ergo sum The only thing of which I can be certain is that I am a thinking being.

The Cartesian Starting Point

Descartes conclusions:
He starts with methodical doubt Rationally proves that God must exist from his own existence, using forms of the ontological argument and arguments from causality

The Birth of Phenomenology

Edmond Husserl (1859-1938)
Czech-German philosopher Phenomenology= a descriptive science; the study of the essential structures of consciousness Very Cartesianthrow away every day belief in the nature of reality and just focus on what is going on in our experience

The Phenomenological Method

I start with the Cartesian method of doubt
There is a cogitatioa mental process

This requires a phenomenological reduction .standing back, bracketing the experience (epoch). I suspend my nave or natural view of the world I then describe my experience as experiencewith no presuppositions or values added.

The Phenomenological Method

Consciousness is always consciousness of something Intentionality is the word used for this notion. The action of bracketing the experience and describing it allows us to examine how consciousness is structured.

The Phenomenological Method

Husserl arrives at an Archimedean point,a foundation for all knowledge, which he calls the Transcendental Ego, or Transcendental Consciousness Husserls Phenomenology provides a method for the existentialist investigation of the self in the work of Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Existential Phenomenology
Martin Heidegger (1889-1978)
German existentialist/phenomenologist Student of Husserl Being and Time (1927)

Human Existence= Dasein or being there The world must be understood in relation to Daseins experience of it.

Existential Phenomenology
To understand the world is not to understand it merely in terms of material objects around us. Our there is more than our physical there. It includes the constellation of roles, expectations, hopes, desires, fears, emotions, relations to others,etc. which shape the character of each experience from moment to moment.
A hammer is not just an object in the world. What is important is how it fits into Daseins world. It is a tool. It has a use.

Sartres Phenomenological Ontology It is phenomenological because it holds to the subject matter of experience and the firstperson standpoint. Cartesian distinction Being-in-itself (tre-en-soi) = the existence of things Being-for-itself (tre-pour-soi) = the being of consciousness (Being-for-others = ones essential relationships with other people)

I find a difference
between subjects & objects, between persons & things, between beings that are conscious & beings that are not conscious.

What is the difference?

From the subjective standpoint of individual consciousness,

I am not a manufactured object with a preconceived essence or specific use (function) (unlike, for example, a paper-cutter). nor am I a creature manufactured by God in accordance with a concept (essence) in the divine mind. nor am I merely a particular instance of a universal human nature that precedes and determines my existence.

I exist first and then I take on an essence through my own actions, through my own manner of existing and acting.
"What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, the human individual exists, turns up, appears in the world, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If the human individual, as the existentialist thinks of him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive of it. Not only is the human individual what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence." (217)

The human mind just finds itself in a certain situation, that is, it finds itself existing But what the human mind is is of its own choosing. The mind is consciousness, but consciousness is a "nothingness", a room/space/void for other things to enter. Consciousness is not itself a something. It is not complete and self-contained the way that being-in-itself is... we are always conscious of something else. We are conscious of a certain fact, of a certain emotion, of a certain object, of a certain desire, of a certain value, etc. By making choices with regard to how to direct our consciousness, we define and determine the nature of our consciousness, and thus the nature of our reality.

Human Existence is both being-in-itself and being-for-itself. As consciousness, we have what Sartre calls transcendence. We transcend the facts. Desires or plans reach beyond facts (our facticity). We transcend the present for the future We are described by our personalities and our plans. I am what I am not. I am not what I am.

Our facticity limits us. Our transcendence is our freedom. Confusing facticity for transcendence is what Sartre calls bad faith(mauvaise foi) This is a form of self-deception about ones self, about who one is. Sartres examples:
Parisian waiter Nazi soldier Hesitant homosexual

Self-Creation & Personal Responsibility

Another distinction between subjects (persons) & objects (things):

Subjects (persons) are
free, self-creating, & therefore personally responsible for what they create & do.

Objects (things)
have no freedom, are not self-creating, & thus have no responsibility for what they are or for how they function.

According to Sartre
What I am (my essence) is a product of my choices & actions (my manner of existing). Thus, since I freely create myself (my essence), I am responsible for my choices & actions and what I have created. But Sartre also claims that my choices have universal import. In choosing [for] myself, I am choosing [for] humanity. This leads to anguish and despair. Why? We are entirely responsible.

Sartre on Emotions
In an early essay Une esquisse dune thorie des emotions, Sartre argues that emotions are choices, magical transformations of the world. They are not mere physiological disturbances or brute forces. Emotions have finality , they are purposive strategies for coping with a difficult world. They are pre-reflective. Example: fainting to avoid an intolerable situation

Existential Anguish
a response to the burden of responsibility

Whats wrong with the following claims?

But everyone doesnt act that way (in response to the question, What if everyone acted that way?). An angel of God or God Himself commanded me to do it. My anguish keeps me from acting.

Implications of the nonexistence of God:

No foundation for objective & absolute values. All values are human creations. Man is condemned to be free. We are alone, with no justifications and no excuses.

Being-for-others
Hell is other people. (No Exit)
We are necessarily influenced by how other people see us. Being-for-others is being objectified according to the judgments of others. Bad faith is seeing ourselves only as others see us. Our relations with other are essentially confrontations and relations of conflict.

Sartre on Sex and Love

Love, even friendship, is a struggle for self-definition, a struggle for authenticity. Love is a seductive strategy to win the other over. Sexual desire is also conflict, the desire to turn the other into a sex object. The aim of sex is power, not pleasure.

A Philosophy of Action

Each of us has a plan of being, a pattern of choosing into which all our day-to-day choices and desires and values fit Consider how much of who you are and what you do is determined by the sorts of long-term goals you have. Why are you sitting in this class? Different reasons, for most, to get a high school diploma? Why? To get a job? Why a job? Think about how everything you do fits into your individual plan of life, a pattern of choosing and imagining yourself in your future.

Sartre suggests that what you are, your essence, resides in your relationship towards this pattern of choosing. Each of us must determine our own plan, our own project Sartre calls this our "original project", "original plan", "original choice" or "fundamental project", etc. Our being is always directed into the future and ultimately towards death--the milestone that completes the pattern of our existence. The contradiction of our existence as for-itself is that our essence only becomes complete when our existence is no more.

The Unavoidability of Choice & the Call of Freedom

The Unavoidability of Choice & the Call of Freedom

Anguish, Despair, Forlornness and the like are all intrinsic parts of all our experiences. What if I say that I don't feel one of them? Or that there are times in which they are not present? It's possible to mask our anguish, to "flee from it", to shove it out of our consciousness.

The Unavoidability of Choice & the Call of Freedom We can either accept freedom and make choices with the absurdity of each choice in mind, or we can try to pretend that the choice is not totally free. To do the former is to live authentically.

The Unavoidability of Choice & the Call of Freedom To pretend as if there is no choice, that we could not help being in the situation we are, to blame it on environment or genetics is to live in bad faith.

The Unavoidability of Choice & the Call of Freedom

You can live in bad faith by not taking responsibility for actions, by pretending as if your actions are the result of genetics or environment or human nature or the actions of others, etc., by acting not as if you are choosing for all people, etc., by pretending God exists and prescribes what is right and what is wrong.

The Unavoidability of Choice & the Call of Freedom Is there anything bad about living in bad faith? Not absolutely. There are no moral absolutes. Nothing is moral or immoral except relative to a certain person's choices. Can I choose to live in bad faith? Wouldn't that then be good for me?

The Unavoidability of Choice & the Call of Freedom

Sartre's response: There's nothing stopping you from deciding that ignoring your forlornness and anguish, etc., is right. But it is nevertheless a form of self-deception or dishonesty, and that's what I'm going to call it. If you want to live in a state of selfdeception or dishonesty, you can, but that's what it is nonetheless.

Existentialism in the Face of Contemporary Western Industrialized Civilization Are your actions based on a plan by parents? the education system? your peers? the media? How do you define yourself? As a consumer of goods and services? Through how much of life are you sleepwalking?