Existentialism, Fall Paper 1 Addressing the critics of Existentialism was a necessity for both Sartre and de Beauvoir, as it was initially dismissed by many critics, such as the Communists and the Christians, as nihilistic or overly pessimistic. While understandable at a superficial level, Sartre and de Beauvoir challenged these critics to rethink their idea of existentialism and foster a deeper meaning of the philosophy of existentialism. Many Christians rejected the philosophy of existentialism on the grounds that it denies “the reality and seriousness of human affairs” and that man will “be incapable… of condemning either the point of view or the action of anyone else.” (Sartre 1). Sartre denies this claim later in Existentialism is a Humanism by rejecting the misconception that an existentialist holds no conviction. Rather, he states, existentialists have the most conviction of anyone, because in “choosing for himself he chooses for all men.” (Sartre 4) Sartre claims this to be the “deeper meaning of existentialism.” It is the subjectivity of what is good or evil, the essence that man decides for himself, that has an impact on everyone else; within this subjectivity lies the responsibility for bettering mankind, a responsibility few men would choose to ignore. Both de Beauvoir and Sartre emphasize the complexity of existentialism, which …show more content…
de Beauvoir states cannot “be concentrated in one or two immediately efficient, simple expressions.” (What is Existentialism? 323) However, de Beauvoir addresses critics in a different manner than Sartre. Whereas Sartre addresses critics of existentialism’s perceived pessimism, de Beauvoir addresses critics of existentialism’s perceived “simplicity” and meaninglessness. For de Beauvoir, much of the distress of existentialist critiques comes from critics who dismiss existentialism as having little meaning, because it rejects many common beliefs in religions or philosophies that were popular at the same time. de Beauvoir heavily stresses in What is Existentialism? that existentialism cannot be defined in a few simple words or phrases. She explains on page 325 of What is Existentialism? the many facets of existentialism, such as its emphasis on individualism, but also its emphasis on social ethics and the societies of the world. In her shortest definition of existentialism, de Beauvoir explains that it seeks only one task for mankind: to fashion the world by giving it meaning. She states “this meaning is not given ahead of time, just as the existence of each man is not justified ahead of time either.” Therefore, in her address to critics, de Beauvoir shuts down critics who reject the social impact and connectedness existentialism contains by countering it with a humanitarian view of existentialism as a social philosophy that encourages people to seek out their own growth and thus advance the growth of society. Existentialism does not advocate for complete absurdity, apathy, or nihilism as many critics claim it to do. It acknowledges, however, that these beliefs or philosophies are part of the existentialist idea of complete moral freedom. While not encouraged, at least by Sartre, de Beauvoir, or their contemporaries, they must still be seen as valid in the world of existentialism, otherwise it would negate the philosophy of self-created essence. Both Sartre and de Beauvoir emphasize that existentialism is unique in that it is a living, fluid philosophy. As such, it is subjected to individual interpretation of its meaning, which, at its core, is the true meaning of existentialism. Sartre heavily emphasizes the “existence precedes essence” maxim that has become the basis for the existentialist argument in writings such as Existentialism is a Humanism. The idea that humanity’s lack of a clear, defined essence does not negate that existentialism is a humanistic philosophy; rather, it seeks an alternative approach to humanistic values through the promotion of the idea of complete freedom. “Existence precedes essence” simply means humanity has no human “nature.” The concept of “human nature” is a social construct designed by humans to explain certain behaviors and to enforce certain rules. Truly this idea of “human nature” has been a major influence on the creation of many societies and their laws, but Sartre argues that it does not exist until one believes it to exist. Our essence can only be defined once our existence is defined. Sartre’s quote “In life, an individual commits himself, draws out his own portrait, and then is nothing but that portrait” is roughly an extension of the “existence precedes essence” argument in that humans define themselves only when they decide to define themselves. In other words, what one creates of themselves is who they become – the definition of our being is defined by us, not by any definition assigned to one person by another. It is antithetical to Sartre and de Beauvoir’s theories that one person has been predefined by another, because one person cannot “create” or develop how another human being will conduct themselves, otherwise that person would be on the level of creation that would be exclusive to only a God. Sartre’s rejection of the idea of God is a core base for existentialism and his refusal to accept the predetermination of human nature. If God exists, human nature also must exist, because God would have created humans with a clear reason for existence, therefore their nature would have been predetermined. But, if God does not exist, humans can have no predestined meaning because there was no being to instill that meaning in them. Existentialism and humanism are not destined be mutually exclusive; rather, humanity must open itself to the principles and ideas of existentialism to fully realize that it is a philosophy that is pro-humanism, as it aspires to reconnect humans with the most significant idea they can possess – a sense of self. When this sense is attained, one can begin to decide the definition of their own life. It’s freeing, but humans are “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.” (Sartre 7) While the choice to create one’s own path through actions can be frightening to many, it is in this choice that one can truly find their own freedom. However, it can truly be frightening to have that much power to decide one’s direction in life. It means, most importantly, that every decision made is in their hands, and if tragedy occurs, it can be, partly, attributed to one’s decisions. That is not to say something can happen that is out of the control of one’s own will, but how one chooses to address and confront that tragedy is part of their will. The existentialists beliefs can, in this way, be extremely complex and debatable, but the most indispensable facet of these beliefs is that the interpretation is left to the individual. There is not a single interpretation defined by any existential philosopher; the meaning of their works must be evaluated and deciphered by the reader. The attainment of the total existential belief is not quite realistic either, because certainly genetic or mental attributes exist that can hinder a person’s ability to think critically or make proper decisions. In some ways, essence must precede existence; mental disorders are an example of this essence. However, existentialism does not seek itself to be a metaphysical truth; rather, it is an ethical standard to which one should seek to apply themselves in accountability and actions. Sartre defines four dimensions of existentialism: in itself, for itself, for others, and for myself as known by others. A human being that is in-itself is the existence of a human that precedes their essence. Being in-itself is a mode of existence that is detached from the external world – it is not conscious, nor transcendent. It is an existence that can only be ascribed to inanimate objects, because for a human being to be completely in-itself is a human being without essence or choice. Sartre uses the example of a café waiter in Essays in Existentialism as a human being that is living in-itself. He deems the waiter to be too “waiter-esque” i.e. he allocates too much of his sense of being in his occupation as a waiter. Sartre would argue this is bad faith, because it denies the waiter’s freedom of choice to remain free from defining himself in this manner. Because this man sees himself as a waiter foremost, he is acting in-itself, as he rejects his freedom, and his humanity, by defining his essence as his occupation, rather than his being. Being for-itself is the conscious extension of being in-itself. Being for-itself is one of the most complex dimensions Sartre gives in his writings, as it is so closely intertwined with being in-itself. Being for-itself, in the simplest description, is the conscious awareness of self. Sartre bases being for-itself on a “pre-reflective cogito” or consciousness. For example, Sartre explains Being and Nothingness that reflective consciousness is the process of counting cigarettes, and the pre-reflective consciousness is the awareness of counting. Being for-itself is an extremely abstract idea that Sartre proposes as part of existentialism.
It is “being what it is not and not being what it is.” (Being and Nothingness 28) Therefore, being for-itself is roughly being nihilistic, because for-itself is nothingness. It is the opposite of being in-itself, which is not self aware and is merely consciousness. The being for-itself is self aware and creates the meaning of the in-itself, but on its own exists as nothingness, because the for-itself cannot exist unless the in-itself also exists. In the simplest terms, it is the intrapersonal dimension of consciousness and
being. The mode of being for-others is one that concerns our encounters with other people (“Others”). This sense of being is part of the subject vs. object argument that plays a large role in Sartre’s work. When we are being for-others, we are acknowledging that we exist in a world with other people, and that we are not alone in our endeavors. The “Others” are part of our mode of being, and they influence our in-itself and for-itself. The “others” are not merely a subject nor merely an object, but they are both. Just as one person may experience an “other” as an object in their world, the “other” may experience that subject as an object in their own world. It’s a complex interrelation of objectivity and subjectivity that is the basis of the human concept of relationships. The least discussed dimension is that of for-myself as known by others. This mode of being is the perception of the self as seen by others and the self’s reaction to that perception. It allows the influence of others to interact with the self, and thus influence how one sees his or her self. It is complex in that with a lack of for it-self or in-itself, a person can lose their own value or personhood to the opinion or perceptions of others. All of the dimensions in Sartre’s existentialism are deeply intertwined with each other, as they are all reliant on one other to form any real meaning. Sartre’s central argument in defining these modes of being is that humans are dimensional, and that one must exist for another to exist. And, since humans are dimensional, it further extends on the main existentialist argument – that people create their own self and their own identity.
The term existentialist, according to Sartre, means existence precedes essence. This means that an individual first exists, and then they exercise free will over themselves to do things that define themselves, thus their essence. For this ideology to work for Sartre, an atheistic stance needs to be taken. This is so because of how he defines God. God is compared to an artisan producing a knife, through a definition and a formula. Thus, “when God creates he knows precisely what he is creating.” Under this identification of God, that Sartre dictates is a common implication in philosophical writings, God creates with intent and seemingly, purpose. Hence, God
Existentialism prescribes individuals to adopt their own values and life direction; although Gardner feels this will lead to nihilism. In a PBS television documentary in 1978, Gardner stated Sartre's philosophy as “paranoid and loveless and faithless and egoistic” (The Originals: The Writer in America). Gardner’s remark exemplifies a belief in organized society that benefits its citizens--he most likely wouldn’t be opposed to socialism. This is nothing Gardner fears more than passionless and sacrilegious human beings, per what Grendel
the play may be pass to modern society, that one may not learn, or even
In order to answer the question of whether existentialism is atheistic in nature or not one must first of all answer the question: does it conflict with a religion’s ideology. Throughout the course of my essay I shall be focusing on exploring the compatibility, or lack thereof, of the existential ideas belonging to Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, Søren Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich with those of Christianity. To begin with, the definition of existentialism is one that varies from writer to writer and it is not an easy task to agree on one particular description. Having said this, for the purposes of this essay I would like to establish a simple working definition of existentialism as: a philosophical movement, esp. of the 20th century,
Sartre’s theory of existentialism and de Beauvoir’s existentialist feminism theory are similar on some points. Sartre’s theory of existentia...
In their book, “Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview,” Phillips, Brown, & Stonestreet (2008) describe existentialism by saying, “Each person must find
...vious objections. In this paper argued that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I did this first by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
The Merriam – Webster Dictionary defines existentialism as a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad (Merriam, 2011). In other words, an existentialist believes that our natures are the natures we make for ourselves, the meaning of our existence is that we just exist and there may or may not be a meaning for the existence, and we have to individually decide what is right or wrong and good or bad for ourselves. No one can answer any of those things for us. A good example of existentialism is Woody Allen’s movie, Deconstructing Harry. A man is haunted by his past and his past has followed him into the present. He is a wreck not because of the things that happened to him, but because of the choices he made. He is consumed by regret and insecurity and he tries to find blame in his situation with someone other than himself, however he cannot (Barnes, 2011). Throughout the rest of this paper I will be discussing two of the most prominent existentialists, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
Contrary to popular belief, existentialism does not focus on trying to argue whether God exists or not. Sartre makes some allusions to religion to make a connection with Christian readers. He shares another anecdote about a young Jesuit man who felt like he messed everything up on his life. “He very wisely looked upon all this as a sign that he was not made for secular triumphs”(Sartre 1235). Sartre understands that the man believed that God had a hand in all the hardships in his life. However, Sartre argues that it is obvious that the young Jesuit man was the only one who decided what that sign meant. He alone interpreted his hardships as a sign from
John Paul Sartre is known as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. He wrote many philosophical works novels and plays. Much of his work is tied into politics. The essay Existentialism is a Humanism is just one of his many works. Existentialism is a Humanism is a political essay that was written in 1945. Its purpose was to address a small public during World War II in Nazi occupied France. This essay stressed the public not to conform. Sartre introduced a great number of philosophical concepts in Existentialism. Two of these concepts are anguish and forlornness. They are simply defined, as anguish is feeling responsible for yourself as well as others and knowing that your actions affect others and forlornness is realizing that you are alone in your decisions. These two concepts are interwoven throughout the essay and throughout many of Sartre's other works. Sartre's view of anguish and forlornness in Existentialism is a Humanism addresses his view of life and man.
Existentialism is a term that was coined specifically by Jean-Paul Sartre in regards to his own life. Sartre had adopted the Atheistic approach to life and its meaning, and while he was not the first or only one to do so, was the first and only one to come up with a way to describe it. Under Existentialism, man lives without higher power or guidance and must rely solely on himself and what he is aiming to do in order to lead a fulfilling life. This can be anything. Critics of Sartre propose that, because such a vast array of options exists within the meaningfulness of life, this philosophy is obsolete and trivial in nature. This is not true, as it is seen in everyday examples – celebrities, namely – that a thirst
In his defense of existentialism, Sartre first defines the unifying factor of existentialism, (for both atheist and deist alike), as the belief that existence precedes essence. To help illustrate his point he presents the example of a paper knife, an object that possess a set of qualities that enable it to carry out its purpose. He states that it would not have been created without a particular purpose, therefore its essence precedes its existence. (Sartre) Sartre rejects this idea when it comes to mankind and declares that humans in themselves have no nature and define themselves after coming into existence. This stems from his atheistic worldview, in which the rejection of a higher power leads him to accept the fact that humans are the “Creator”, the first to exist, and it is our job to give meaning to the rest of the world.
Sartre discussed a situation that involved one of his students having to choose between staying with his mother or fight the Nazis with the Free French Forces. Thus, the idea of ‘God’, a being whose existence entails purpose, seems absurd to Sartre. The one being that satisfies the first principle of existentialism is man: “Man first exists: he materializes in the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself” (22). This simply implies that a human being is thrown into this world without any essence, meaning, or characteristics.
Existentialist discuss these ideas of Nothingness, Indifference, Absurdity, and Ambiguity in all forms of Art - Visual, Musical, and Written. Existentialist portray the small importance of humans; even to critique the attitude of men towards women as a way to feel better, or the questing for God and hope. It is this frightful awareness that gives Mankind the harsh reality: life, our importance and decisions, are in the end utterly meaningless. Through Sartre’s belief that existence precedes essence, many of the things held dear, and valuable, by society suddenly become worthless; Beauvoir restates Sartre’s ideas of Nothingness and Being, and proposes the cause for the historical inferiorization of women. The two go hand in hand with one arguing for the lack of an essence, and the other arguing for the desperate pursuit of an essence, or a way to feel meaningful and not indifferent to the world. Camus then adds with the philosophy of the Absurd, and how the guilt of humanity outweighs the mirth they attain when the murky truths are masked. To him, all are guilty and the condition of a concrete human existence is clear: there is little humans offer to the world, and each other, but each one wants everything all the same. Together with the modern day ideas in Music, and the eyebrow-raising paintings of Post-War Artists, Existentialism defines what is a concrete human existence. Shield away in a shell of things that seem valuable, and live happily in ignorance; however, only when the weight of the emptiness of the world envelops you, and you accept is, only then can you truly be
exist as part of a philosophical tapestry aimed at revealing the nature of Being. In many ways, the stream of considerations in Being and Nothingness are parts of the examination of a single question – what is the nature of our existence? Sartre attempts to answer his question of existence in various ways, primarily through examining consciousness and its juxtaposition between existence and nothingness. The position in which Sartre places consciousness is forever qualified by self-perception and the perceptions of others, as applied to ourselves and others, so as to create a continual subject-object relationship through which being finds for itself a place to be.