Sartre: Criticism of Existence Precedes Essence and of Choice

I’d been listening to a popular Philosophy podcast recently called Partially Examined Life. It’s quite good and I’d recommend for all who read this!

When listening to one of their podcasts on Sartre, some criticisms against him I found quite off base.

Choice

A main theme in Sartre’s body of works is that of radical freedom, that one always has a choice so to speak. It does get complicated, given Sartre also acknowledges facticity, or the factual components of a human being.

A criticism that came up was on considering a person drowning with no way to survive. Is it true that this person has no choice but to drown? Yes (lets assume that’s true in any case). Does that then provide criticism of Sartre’s conception of choice? No. That does not mean that you do not have a choice. What you may have is nothing but bad choices. That does not leave you without choice though, nothing about the idea of radical freedom suggests that you have good and bad choices, it simply means that your actions are your own, regardless of what those actions may be.

You could be completely incapacitated and have no ability to move your body except for your eyelids, and you still have a choice between blinking and not blinking. It may not be meaningful choice, but it’s still choice.

Existence Precedes Essence

Sartre’s argument is that if there was a god, humans essence would be pre-ordained. When we examine our lives however we find that we are ultimately free in our actions, we have no ‘likeness’ to anything in particular, no innate or inbuilt purpose or nature that we must pursue, unless we will it ourselves. Because we have no predetermined essence, we exist first, encounter ourselves, and are then free to define ourselves however we like, and pursue what ever projects we see fit.

Sartre’s example of something whose essence does actually precede its existence is that of a knife. A knife was a concept first, it’s project defined by our need to cut things. In realising that concept we create the object second. A knife does not come into existence without its essence being first created in our minds, in the same way a god would create us for a specific purpose (or to create us in his image).

In any case, the major criticism against this position is pretty clear. It’s clear that Sartre’s task here is merely to establish human freedom, and not actually provide a metaphysical account of the nature of things, because if we take this reasoning further, we find that there really isn’t anything whose essence precedes existence except for human artefacts.

If it is true that humans are free because our existence precedes our essence, why is that not then true of plants? It would seem to us that plants and rocks and other natural things are incapable of making action, but for Sartre’s theory there is no accounting for this.

I think Sartre’s position is redeemable (though not a particularly strong position) by assuming Sartre means that it is true only for humans that if our existence precedes our essence then we are free. That it is not necessarily true that this means other things are free, and because Sartre’s task is an existential one, he simply disregards theorising about the nature of other things, because he simply doesn’t care. It might not impact his theory at all…

Existentialism is among my favourite topics, though Sartre’s arguments are perhaps the weakest at the best of times, and the most infuriatingly unclear arguments at the worst. Let me know what you think in the comments down below!

Existentialism: The Other and The Look

The concept of the Other can be found in various other disciplines, most notably sociology and psychology, but in existentialism (and phenomenology, where the concept originates for the existentialists), the concept is utilized somewhat differently. In this article, I will talk about the concept of the Other within the frameworks of Jean Paul Sartre’s existentialism, and the Look.

What is the ‘Other’?

The Other is the concept of another person like yourself, in no way other than they are just another person. It sounds pretty simple, but the idea needs to be expanded on and detailed quite a bit if we are to provide any reasonable metaphysical or phenomenological account of the world.

So what exactly is the big deal, let’s say there are two people in the room, one is me, and one is not. What’s the difference? What makes one the Other and one me?

Intersubjectivity

For one, we share an objective world. We both experience the world in the exact same way, because we are both human. We both strive toward things (in existentialism this is referred to as projects, or projections), we have the same needs and desires, even if the content is different, the format and structure of life and reality is the same.

This concept is referred to as inter-subjectivity in phenomenology and is the cornerstone of the philosophy. We have different subjective experiences of the same objective thing. We both see the same thing, but they see it from ‘over there’.

The difficulty comes down to the internal aspects of the Other. Unlike myself, I do not have access to the inner workings of that other person. I do have that access to myself, I can think and feel my own thoughts and feelings, not someone elses, and nobody else has access to it. From my perpective, I am subjective first, I am that inner content, and in my perception is the Other, an objective thing first. It is in this moment that one recognizes that though I do not have access to their inner content, they are a person like me and must therefore have it (This is an oversimplification of the existentialism argument, but to elaborate would take up too much time).

What is the ‘Look’?

Also called the Gaze, is the action of you literally being looked at by the Other. This has the effect of objectifying what ever the Other sees. Consider the following example that Sartre gives.

Imagine attempting to peer through the lock of a door, on the other side, something you know you probably shouldn’t be looking at. While you’re attempting to look through, you hear footsteps behind you.

Your mind is immediately drawn to yourself as an object. You are aware of yourself kneeling down, about to be caught in a position that you would rather like not to be caught in. You can literally see yourself in your mind as well as you start to think how another may see you metaphorically, as in what they may or may not think about you if they discover you.

The interesting part about the Look is it doesn’t actually require an Other. In the example nobody ever actually shows up, you just think they will. You could easily have been mistaken. The effect however is the same, the Look draws you to yourself objectively, in a literal sense because you start to contemplate your objective parts (being in the world, kneeling down, all of the parts an Other can comprehend about you through perception).

For those familiar with Sartre’s philosophy, you may notice that the Look has a secondary affect of forcing oneself to see yourself as something, instead of the ‘blank slate’ that Sartre proposes.

Sartre’s Facticity and Authenticity

Facticity as it is found in the Existentialist tradition, particularly in Sartre’s works, embodies the limitations of freedom. Facticity refers to the factual components of a human being, things we cannot choose that are necessarily a part of us. Some of these things are completely concrete. Your birth and where you grow up are two examples that are completely concrete in nature, they are essentially unchangeable by you, in yet are factors in your life that will influence who you are and how you see the world. Other things that are not exactly concrete include your history or past actions. They are still yours, and are made objective through your actions.

The main importance of facticity in Sartre’s works is in recognising the factual influences that a person must deal with in their lives that provide a limit to freedom. As those of you familiar with Sartre’s work, a person is fundamentally free to choose to be whomever they wish. Your identity is always your choice. You however obviously cannot choose to fly, as you don’t have any means to do so. Recognising these limitations to your freedom is critically important. It shows you the boundaries of your choices and actions, and that if you come to understand those boundaries, you can maximise the effect of your choices and actions.

The major virtue in Existentialism is authenticity. To be true to ones self. To fully, and radically embrace the freedom that comes with existing, and recognise that meaning has no inherent value outside of what you choose things to mean. Recognising and understanding facticity is critical to achieving authenticity.

Two important aspects of facticity as it relates to authenticity are, 1) you recognise and embrace the objective, concrete parts of yourself, and 2) you recognise that they do not define you.

In regards to your own history, to be fully authentic one has to embrace the factual matter that you have done things, perhaps things you disagree with and are ashamed of. To reject that would be inauthentic, and essentially pretending that we as human beings do not have histories. The critical part is, any persons history does not define you. You define yourself, you have to determine what your history means to you. Even if you’ve done things you think are downright terrible, it is still on you not to be those things in the future, and by embracing your past, accepting that it is a part of you, but refusing to be that person and instead changing is to be fully authentic, to be driven by your own choices, and not by facticitious things.

If that sounds appealing, I’d recommend checking out the following links.

Sartre, Jean Paul: Existentialism

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) is a beginner friendly / intermediate level resource in Philosophy.

Chapters 3 and 4 are relevant and briefly outline Facticity (Sometimes referred to as Being-in-itself)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/

The chapter on Sartre’s Ontology is the relevant starting point.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is for advanced readers only. These consist of published, peer reviewed articles by professionals in the relevant fields. If you’re not familiar with existentialism and haven’t read any of the relevant literature definitely steer clear of this one for now.

Existentialism is a Humanism: Thoughts

After finishing the book, I had intended to write a series of blog posts regarding the various ideas contained within, in the way that they are presented. Having read Being and Nothingness, Sartre’s main work, I thought it could be interesting to have a look at the ideas and how they are different in Existentialism is a Humanism.

I decided to scrap that. I posted instead about Sartre’s ethics presented therein, something that has interested me for a long time.

Existentialism is a Humanism: Sartre and Ethics

As those of you who have been following will probably know, I’ve been reading through Existentialism is a Humanism, an impromptu lecture called by Jean-Paul Sartre to defend his philosophical approach against what he saw as public ignorance and profound misunderstanding, borderline hatred, of his Philosophical works.

(Note that when I refer to ‘man’, I refer to humans. I would use the word human, or humanity, but that has specific meaning in these contexts and I would rather not make it more confusing)

In it, Sartre attempts to counter the claim that Existentialism promotes subjectivity, and that subjectivity results in amorality, that ‘anything goes’. Sartre argues that it is both true and false. First lets examine a story Sartre told.

Earlier in the lecture, Sartre tells a story of a young student of his, who comes to him during the war (1943) and asks for his guidance. The student does not know what to do, his mother needs him, and implies that him being in her life is all that is keeping her going. He does not know whether to stay with her, for her sake, and out of his own emotional attachment and love for her, or to leave France and join up with the Free French Forces in Britain.

The student continues, saying that his choice to stay with his mother is far more concrete and certain, that he is quite sure that the outcome of staying with his mother will be likely positive, and a good thing. He unsure though how joining the Free French will go, whether he will arrive in Spain, looking to travel to Britain, and instead be detained and imprisoned for the rest of the war. Or perhaps succeed and end up in a desk job in Britain, with negligible or questionable impact, with no way to take back his decision.

Sartre’s guidance was short and quite direct. “You are free; So choose”.

Sartre’s response is based on two premises. Sartre believes that he cannot actually give the student moral guidance. First, he believes that you cannot derive action from any current ethical theory, no axiom or rule can actually tell you what to do. YOU must choose, even if you use a moral theory as guidance, YOU must choose so.

Second, the student has already decided what kind of guidance he would like, he already is choosing. When someone looks for guidance, one looks towards some sources and not others. Christians will turn to a priest, because they already believe that their guidance will have value. Similarly, this student had turned to Sartre, who gave him guidance in turn.

Back to Sartre’s response to the criticism that he promotes subjectivity. This is, as we can see, in some sense true. Sartre holds that mans existence precedes essence. That man is fundamentally free, to choose whatever action, there is no God, or concrete objective value that determines action. However, that does not imply the kind of subjectivity that Sartre is being criticized for.

Sartre holds that, while the actions that you take are individual, you take them on behalf of all mankind. When you choose, you choose for all. You essentially declare, this is the right action. This is contrary to a traditional relativist position in Ethics, and Sartre certainly does not advocate relativism, or nihilism. What is right for you is not somehow different than what is right for others. He gives an example of a man choosing to have a kids and family. If he then decides to reject that responsibility, he is through his actions proclaiming that this is just action, and that all men ought to do the same. Note that he is not claiming that it is just. You are free to act, but morality is not subjective, human reality is. Just because God does not exist, or objective meaning is fictitious, does not justify relativism.

A secondary criticism Sartre received was that because of this outlook, existentialists could not judge others, because by what metric or value could they? If there is no objective set of rules with which to point, they could hold people to no standards.

This criticism is perhaps the one that missed the mark by far. Sartre in Existentialism is a Humanism does not touch on whether or not he believes Existentialists should talk about moral values as they are traditionally thought of, for example, he does not actually give his personal opinion to the young student as to what decision he should make, precisely because there is no abstract guidance that can help. One must choose, that is all. It is in this choice that morality is realized, a man must make himself. There is no morality outside of choice.

Existentialists like Sartre however, will absolutely judge, not morally, but factually, others who act in bad faith. Bad faith is when one acts in any way that denies or otherwise avoids having to choose. If one blames their decision on circumstance, or bad advice, they are acting in bad faith, because they are pretending that they had not made a choice at all, when in reality the only thing that mattered was their choice, as man is “…condemned to be free”. You have no choice but to choose, so choose.

If a man put a gun to your head and told you to kill someone, or they will kill you, you may very well do what they say. But if you for a second think that it was his choice and not yours, you would most definitely be acting in bad faith. One cannot have their freedom taken away.

For the existentialists, this judgement is simply saying, your reasoning does not make sense, it is impossible for this to be the case, a man chooses, it is the human condition to have choice. You cannot pretend otherwise. This is also why he abstains from giving any moral guidance to his young student.

Sartre’s thoughts on Ethics change throughout his works. His position in Existentialism is a Humanism is quite rudimentary, and he is (quite rightfully) focused much more on explaining Existentialism, so his discussion of ethics focuses mostly on freedom, along side abandonment and anguish, which I have not discussed here.

I’d definitely encourage others to read this text, it’s quite short, but most definitely keep in mind its historical context. It’s an interesting introduction into the ideas, but Sartre himself eventually regretted its publication, and backtracked one some of the ideas presented. It’s particularly easy to follow, but it doesn’t replace a reading of Being and Nothingness if you’re intent is to understand Sartre’s Existentialism.

Philosophy: A Reading list…

I’ve recently been taken up by an interest to read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason again… It was very hard to type that sentence without screaming.

Anyway, as usual I was distracted by finding a plethora of other interesting books, and have compiled a small reading list for myself, containing the following:

 

Existentialism is a Humanism. Jean-Paul Sartre.

On Virtue Ethics. Rosalind Hurstouse

Discourses on Power, from Hobbes to Foucault. Barry Hindess

History of the Concept of Mind. Paul S. MacDonald

Using Foucault’s Methods. Gavin Kendall and Gary Wickham

Critique of Pure Reason (abridged). Immanuel Kant

Cartesian Meditations. Edmund Husserl

 

As I read through these again, I hope to do a series of blog posts on each. I’ll start with Existentialism is a Humanism, because it deals quite significantly with Sartre’s relationship with the French Communist Party in 1945, which I can relate to eerily well, because those same difficulties and disagreements led me to leave a political party that was generally Marxist centric.

If any of those sound interesting, please watch this space in the coming weeks 🙂 If anyone has recommendations as to what you would like me to address specifically, or if you have any further readings to add to my list it would be greatly appreciated.

The Value of No Answer

After reading a few posts recently, as well as reflecting on my own writing style on various issues I’ve come to realise there is quite an appeal to texts which explore a situation or question in depth, without even attempting to provide or guide the reader to a certain conclusion or explanation, or not even revealing the authors conclusion, if they have one to begin with.

This kind of writing style feels much more realistic. Humanity is not so much about answers as it is more the pursuit of them. We rarely ever encounter a solution or answer and then everything ends. We are always becoming, always searching, always yearning for some answer but we never end that pursuit.

“Man Is Nothing But That Which He Makes Of Himself.” – Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism 

In an existential framework I think that is quite fitting, and touches on the idea that Sartre gets at in the above quote. As Sartre puts it, we are condemned to be free. In each and every day, we recreate ourselves, and start the process anew.

To really embrace this, and to be authentic I think is to throw off the idea that we will ever really find that ‘answer’ that will somehow solve all our problems. Answers exist of course, but they are never the end, and they certainly never end the pursuit of questions, least of all the question the answer actually answers! If it were, we would stifle all progress in our own life, and grow stagnant and dogmatic. To fully embrace our freedom, we must recognise that there isn’t anything intrinsic to ‘be’ other than being itself.

To look at ourselves as a blank canvas first and foremost, and each and every day we paint on ourselves and renew what we are, but what we truly are is that process of painting, and while it can hurt struggling to find the right painting to place upon ourselves, and hurt worse when we lose the painting we’ve cherished for so long, that pain only serves as a reminder that the ‘answers’ and roles and certainty with which we cover ourselves in is not permanent. The pursuit to renew ourselves never ends.

We are not who we are, and we are who we are not.

Honesty and Authenticity

 “The high minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” Aristotle

 

Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. Jean-Paul Sartre

I’ve often thought that honesty was the most pivotal virtue, along side courage. What good is any other virtue if you’re not capable of standing by it when called for and willing to present honest information to others so as not to mislead them? You cannot abide any virtue without first having the courage to do what you think is right, and the honesty not to mislead anyone or misrepresent the state of things so that others may have the chance to act virtuous, including yourself.

While I still very much agree with the place of honesty and courage within my ethical framework, it has started to become quite difficult in ascertaining where exactly the appropriate amount of honesty is. I generally hold honesty in a very high regard, and hope to only lie in extreme situations. To mislead others I believe is one of the gravest immoral actions to be had, primarily because it denies another person the opportunity to act in accordance with the world around them. By lying to somebody, I essentially condemn them to failure on their attempts to be ‘good’ if I knowingly hand them faulty information, knowing full well that if they act on that information it will lead to consequences that person has not intended. In light of this view though, I feel I’ve run into some difficult situations where it would seem like lying becomes a necessary evil, but I’m still not sure to what expense. I will attempt to detail how I think honesty works, and then attempt to highlight the issue, particularly how it relates to Sartre’s concept of authenticity.