Scholarly Essay. Phil-

Existentialism: From Sartre

In our text, Sartre, in effect, provides three ways to understand Existentialism:

“Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position.”

· Atheism is Sartre’s starting point.

“There is no human nature. . . . Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.” Again, Sartre says about this claim, that it is a “given that . . . there is no human nature for me to depend on.”

· Atheism generates the claims that no human nature exists.

“Existential philosophy is above all a philosophy that asserts that existence precedes essence.”

· This third claims is probably the most well-known, and the most fundamental to Existentialism. Thus, let’s add a few points:

For Sartre, both “essence” and “existence” mean what they have always meant in philosophy: by essence, Sartre refers to the qualities that enable one to “define” a given X: “the ensemble of . . . the properties which enable it [the given X] to be defined.” By “existence” Sartre means that which is actually present in the world: existence is “presence . . . in front of me.”

So, what is so unique about Sartre’s formula: the uniqueness derives from Sartre’s way of relating these two traditional concepts: traditionally the formula was: “Essence precedes existence.” Hence, this formula radically converts the traditional formula, the result of which, transforms the traditional, philosophic view of the world.

To explicate his claim, Sartre introduces the manufacturing of a paper cutter: the maker of the tool knows in advance what he or she plans to make; he or she is aware of “what” a paper cutter is; he or she knows the “essence” of a paper cutter, thus, the “essence” of the paper cutter precedes its “existence.” Hence, the one who designs the object is the one who knows best the essence or nature of the thing being made.

Now, let’s relate this to the first two formulas above: the traditional religious view of the world posits God as the designer of the human being and, because there is a designer, the thing being designed must possess an “essence,” one that precedes its “existence.” Thus, note the following three points:

· “What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first, man exists and only afterwards, defines himself.”

· “Man . . . is indefinable.” Thus, the definition of the person “remains forever open.”

· “There is no human nature.” Hence, the claim that no human nature exists follows from the rejection of God’s existence: “There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it.”

So, let’s now ask: What, then, is the human being? Sartre: “At first, he is nothing.” And, later? Later, the person is “nothing else but what he makes himself.” Hence, human beings invent themselves without the benefit of any pre-given design. And, here, we encounter a key notion in Sartre: freedom. Yet, this freedom is not the sort associated with liberal politics, but is, instead, a freedom “from” any sort of pre-determined essence, hence, Sartre’s freedom opens an abyss of nothingness out of which emerge the experiences of:

· Forlornness: “We are alone, with no excuses.” And “forlornness implies that we ourselves choose our being.”

· Anguish: “Forlornness and anguish go together.”

· Despair: “The term has a very simple meaning. It means that we shall confine ourselves to reckoning only with what depends on our will.” And, “to say that we invent values means nothing else but this: life has no meaning a priori.”

Now, with all of this in place, let’s step back and note a few additional points:

· The rejection of God is akin to a rejection of any sort of philosophical system. Why? Because philosophical systems are abstract, while existence is concrete. The horse I ride is the only real, existing horse, not the abstract, universal horse.

· Abstraction does not, as a rule, correspond to reality – abstraction “resides” in the other world. Yet, only in the abstract do concepts exist and philosophical systems are constituted by concepts which leads to the claim that Existentialism is tragic; it can’t make arguments; it must both be abstract and concrete. We reason with concepts, but concepts do not exist in reality.

· Philosophical systems, as a rule, generate truth in advance of the system. Hence, the choice of concepts utilized by a given system are not generated from an argument; they are chosen in advance: reasoning, then, serves only to justify a previous choice.

Three Fundamental Characteristics

· Self-Consciousness

· Self-Interpretation

· World-Interpretation

Chapter 1: Value Orientation

What is a value?

A value might also be called an “ideal.” An ideal or value is that which gives one’s life its model of success. It, therefore, provides the activities of a life with purpose, unity, truth, and hence meaning.

PUT in Triad

· As noted by our author, Aristotle long ago declared that the ordinary person considered the good life to consist of physical pleasure, wealth, or honor.

· Later, Spinoza reaffirmed Aristotle’s claim except he used the word “fame” in place of honor.

Many philosophers endorse this description of the ordinary person’s values. Yet, many have denounced these values and have sought to substitute for them a mode of life that overcomes the frustrations that tend to accompany the pursuit of such values.

· The Existentialists, generally, endorse the above. Yet, they tend to focus their attention upon certain values that both the ordinary person and the traditional philosophers overlook.

Traditional Philosophy

Within the framework of traditional, Western philosophy, the pursuit of the values of the ordinary person have been condemned in three ways:

· First is the claim that the values pursued: wealth, honor, fame depend too much on external circumstances beyond the reach of the individual’s will. These external circumstances might interfere at any moment with the individual’s pursuit of his or her ideals.

· Second is the claim that even if the individual does obtain these ideals, he or she can’t be secure that these values will remain.

· Third is the claim that even if the individual did obtain these values he or she would soon be dissatisfied and would then revert to a life of painful striving. The values of the ordinary person are values that bring brief satisfaction.

Within the framework of traditional, Western philosophy, the means to free oneself from the ordinary person’s values consists of the Stoics, the Enlightenment, the Eternal.

The Stoics

· The Stoics advocated, somewhat like Buddhists, a renunciation of the desires that move the ordinary person to pursue the values of wealth, honor, and fame.

Epictetus: “Seek not that the things which happen should happen as you wish; but wish the things which happen to be as they are, and you will have a tranquil flow of life” (p. 4).

· The Stoics were pessimistic about what a person could achieve in the world, but they were optimistic about what a person could achieve within himself or herself. Their aim was a radical mode of independence through the self-discipline of the will.

The Enlightenment

· The Enlightenment thinkers may have agreed with the Stoics that the individual can’t achieve and secure the ideals of wealth, honor, and fame. They, however, disagreed that the solution was then to renounce those desires.

· The Enlightenment thinkers, instead, advocated for a rational and concerted effort to reshape the very world that prohibits the ordinary person from fulfilling his or her desires. Hence, the aim should be to act to modify the world instead of acting to modify human desires. Read second paragraph on p. 6.

The Eternal

Many philosophers have taken this path: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas, Spinoza, and Hegel.

· If, as noted above, the values pursued by the ordinary person are fleeting, then why not pursue a value that is not fleeting, that is, in fact eternal?

· Let’s abridge a great deal from this category: most of the philosophers in this category, following Plato, divided the “world” or “reality” into two categories: Being and becoming. In the realm of becoming things come and go; in the realm of Being belong those things that are immutable, self-sufficient, and eternal.

· Hence, for Plato the Ideas were the objects of greatest value; for Thomas it is God; for Spinoza it is “nature;” for Hegel it is “Absolute Spirit.”

Now, it is precisely the presumed failure of these “highest values” of the philosophers that led Nietzsche to announce the “death of god.” And it out of the “death of god” that the Existentialists generate their unique form of philosophy.

Existentialist Values

Now that we know the ordinary person’s values, the critique of those values, and the means to overcome those values, we can shift our attention to the values on which the Existentialists’ focus.

· The Existentialists consider life to be tragic. The ordinary person can’t refrain from pursuing the world’s values and can neither achieve the detachment advocated by the Stoics.

“Frustration, insecurity, and painful striving are the inescapable lot of humankind, and the only life worth living is one in which this fact is squarely faced” (p. 14).

· Now, if this is true, then this claim itself is one that generates its own values and hence these values are values that one might actualize.

Read second paragraph: p. 14

· The Existentialists’ critique of both the ordinary person and the traditional Philosopher is grounded in the Existentialists’ claim that both groups misunderstand the fundamental nature of reality: both groups desire some state of happiness or well-being that the world itself can’t deliver; if it could, it would reduce human beings to unconscious brutes.

· It is important to add: for the Existentialists, generally, it is not political circumstances, technology, nor lack of wisdom that prevents humankind from achieving its highest good: it is simply the human condition and the reality in which it is found that prevents the human being from achieving the happiness it seeks.

The happiness against which the Existentialists argue is the sort that the ordinary person pursues. This sort of happiness is the sort that recommends a state of being desirable for humankind. This sort of happiness emphasizes a sort of harmony, a sort of contentment.

Thus, the Existentialists embrace both anguish and suffering; and along with this an emphasis is placed on personal love, creative activity, freedom of choice, and individual dignity. These values lead the Existentialists to assert three claims:

· An acceptance of anguish and suffering is the condition within which the above values are experienced.

· For the ordinary person and the traditional Philosopher who reject or fail to take up the inevitability of anguish and suffering, this very anguish will still manifest itself in apathy, fear, and boredom.

· Existentialists, thus, value “intense consciousness,” aroused passions, and actions that will stimulate and engage a person’s total energy.

Hence, as noted on p. 18: The Existentialists value a common source: the inherent tragedy inherent in the human condition; a common function: the liberation of the tedium, fears and frustrations of daily life; and a common characteristic: intensity.

Defense of Existentialist Values

Note: Recommend the reading of the first paragraph p. 19.

Now that we know the values of the Existentialists, we need to consider the justification for these values. The justifications take two distinct forms:

· The argument that claims that both the values of the ordinary person and the traditional philosophers are impossible to realize.

· The argument that claims that even if the values of the ordinary person and the traditional philosophers were achievable, their realization would be at the expense of superior values.

Our author claims that the second argument is the more important because the Existentialists spend more time on it, and because if it is sound, it basically negates the first.

· The inability to achieve happiness is the key to the Existentialists’ tragic view of life and is the key reason for the claim that the supreme value in life is “intensity” without the promise of happiness.

· It is the Existentialists’ emphasis on this tragic condition that generates their elevation of individual freedom to its lofty status. Moreover, it is precisely this notion of freedom that reinforces their objection to the Enlightenment hope of remaking the world: read Dostoevsky quote on p. 21.

The Dostoevsky quote states well one of the key tenets of Existentialism: that if human beings are free, then their free choices will thwart the Reformers plans, and if freedom of choice is one of the highest human values, then its sacrifice would be unjustified, even if its sacrifice would lead to universal well-being.