Existentialism
for Beginners
I
took a lot of philosophy classes at NYU when I was younger. I studied
Existentialism quite rigorously. In fact, on the test, I chose
not to answer any of the questions and I got 100%.
‘Stardust
Memories’ (Woody Allen)
Though
some of the main ideas now associated with existentialism can be
found in many earlier writings, principally of Kierkegaard,
Heidegger, Jaspers and Nietzsche[1],
it was the French novelist, playwright, literary critic,
psychoanalyst, Marxist, political revolutionary, and philosopher ,[2]
Jean Paul Sartre who shaped, refined and in many ways invented the
doctrine of what became known as existentialism.
Sartre is
certainly credited with being the most powerful advocate for what is
effectively a contemporary school of thought, but it was some of
Sartre’s contemporaries like Simone de Beauvior, Gabriel Marcel and
Albert Camus who were also the principal figures in the movement of
the 1940’s and 1950’s [3]
and helped Sartre materialise some of the core features of
existential philosophy.
So what are
the core features of existential philosophy?
Sartre
clearly states that “man is nothing but that which he makes of
himself” as the first principle of existentialism.[4]
That is to say man defines himself in the world by the choices he
chooses for himself.
Though no
great ‘movement’[5]
or theory to come out of the western world can ever be summed up in a
sentence – indeed it is the very purpose of this essay to summarise
and shed light on half a century’s worth of ideas – Sartre gives
an accomplished and very credible attempt: “Man is nothing but what
he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises himself, he is
therefore nothing but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what
his life is.”[6]
Existentialism
can be compared to the American Dream, Protestant and general
Capitalist conceptions in that each strives for and puts enormous
emphasis on ‘making something for yourself’.[7]
However, unlike the materialistic objective to that which
particularly the American Dream and Capitalism emphasises – namely
financial success/security, social status, family values, property
achievements, investment attributes (mostly wealth prospects, let’s
be frank) – the existential doctrine differs from the ambiguous
notion of ‘making something for yourself’ in that it decodes the
adage a lot more literally. There is no need for an interpretation
between the lines. For the existentialist, to ‘make something for
yourself’ quite literally translates to making every decision for
yourself.
A fundamental
principle of existentialism is that “existence precedes essence”[8]
But what exactly does this mean?
Sartre gives
an analogy of an artisan manufacturing a paper-knife. Put briefly:
the artisan has a conception of the knife’s existence. This is the
essence of the knife. He makes the paper-knife using pre-existing
production techniques, and viola!
the paper-knife now exists. So from a technical standpoint,
production precedes existence. In this case, essence
precedes existence.[9]
What
existentialism argues is that existence
precedes essence.
There is no essence of man until he is. Now that he is, his essence
becomes what he makes of himself.
This
ultimately brings forth the question of God. If there is a deity,
surely he/she preconceived the notion of man, so in this sense the
essence of man precedes his existence. Sartre’s argument is simple
and empirically logical – there is no God. “There is no human
nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it.”[10]
According to Sartre,
if God exists, man cannot be free; and if man is free, then God
cannot exist.[11]
This, however
does not rule out the possibility of religious existentialism.
Atheistic existentialism is merely a personal belief held by Sartre.
He has said that “nothing will be changed if God does not
exists”,[12]
which at the same time – effectively, paradoxically – proves just
the opposite as well, that nothing will be changed if God does exist,
because the point of existentialism is not to argue the existence of
God – it doesn’t matter either way – rather it’s whether we
choose to believe in a God. As Kierkegaard, an existential
philosopher and devout Christian, once said, “Christianity is not a
doctrine but an existential communication.”[13]
By choosing
to accept the moral codes insinuated in many religious creeds is a
choice that the individual makes for himself. If he chooses to agree
and accept these codes, then that is the essence he will create for
himself. No man is born with the 10 Commandments imbedded into his
moral psyche or ethical cerebrum. Determinism is rejected in
existentialism (however it is accepted – or at least not rejected –
by the existentialist in science[14]).
An example could be a princess, born into royalty. The decision to
‘live’ the princess is entirely subjective and although there may
be external pressures to be
the princess, the decision (once she reaches an intellectual capacity
to understand the consequences of her actions) is completely her own,
irrespective of family expectation, threats or even physical
coercion. You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it
drink – the horse in this case epitomises the existential ethic.
Sartre says
“you are free, therefore choose, that is to say, invent.
No rule of general morality can show you what you ought to do.”[15]
This is considered a weak point by most religious doctrines, which
would argue that the text/creed (Bible, Koran etc.) would act as a
“rule of general morality”, or as giving us signs (signifiers)
about how to live our lives. Man has chosen to accept his faith
post-existence, which
is accepted in existentialism. Sartre debates this: “Very well;
still, it is I myself, in every case, who have to interpret the
signs.”[16]
Another
weakness sited is that existentialism is elitist, because for Sartre,
only a few choice people are able to escape what he calls ‘mauvaise
foi’, or ‘bad faith’, the willingness to face up to the fact
that we are free and responsible for ourselves. The vast numbers of
people, the “herd”, are incapable of realising this[17].
This is retorted by accepting that existentialism is merely
culturally elitist, not
social, meaning it does not correspond with social hierarchy; i.e.
not necessarily related to education – it solely relies on the
individual; outstanding individuals, who in odd cases, in peculiar
environments, “pop up”[18].
Sartre argues
that there is no set standard for self-identity, either for
individuals or for people in general, and therefore there is no such
thing as ‘human nature’. What it means to be human, according to
Sartre, are always matters of decision, and these decisions do not
accredit a ‘correct’ choice; merely choice
in itself is the only true thing we can expect to encounter as part
of our ‘human nature’.[19]
In every
case, opting out of a decision is still a decision. Existentialism,
in the words of Sartre, frankly states that choosing not to choose is
still a choice.[20]
This brings
us to the fact that we are “condemned to be free”.[21]
Condemned because we did not create ourselves, nor ask to be born,
but we are here – that is to say, we do exist, our being is
realised – and therefore entirely responsible for our freedom.
Sartre notes, however, that we cannot even ask the question of ‘why
was I born?’ or curse the day of our birth because of our facticity
(the facts or specific circumstances that are true of a person) being
that we are
alive, is ‘inapprehensible’; we never encounter anything except
our responsibility.[22]
If a choice
presents itself as a lesser of two evils, we are condemned because we
must make a choice (remembering that not choosing is still choice),
and consequentially we are held entirely responsible for our
decision. We are condemned because we are abandoned; alone and
without help.[23]
Condemned because it is “in anguish that we become conscious of our
freedom.”[24]
A military commander will (if he has not previously) fully realise
the extent of his freedom in anguish, when he alone takes full
responsibility for sending his troops out into battle.[25]
With this in
mind, we can consider that Sartre purposes that “in choosing for
ourselves, we choose for all mankind.”[26]
Our choices invariably affect others, as noted in the above example.
Sartre says that what we choose is always the best option for all
mankind because we are unable to ever to choose the worse option, and
in this sense, by fashioning man as I myself wish to be fashioned, I
will create a ‘mankind’ that I wish to be part of; thus since I
am a part of this ‘mankind’ for the entire epoch in which we find
ourselves in, our responsibility is much greater than we suppose, for
it suggests our actions concern all mankind.[27]
This is a
very valid point to suggest the optimism associated with existential
philosophy. Contrary to feeling ‘condemned’ or viewing the weight
of responsibility as a negative, accepting that the implications of
our actions has a palpable effect on our fellow human being confirms
a sense human camaraderie. You do not have to anything; everything is
essentially a very free personal decision, but the fact that
everything you do, you do for all mankind, undoubtedly makes
existentialism a noble humanitarian philosophy for us to live by. My
personal belief is that existential philosophy, by placing enormous
emphasis on individuality, defining oneself by free and unadulterated
choice, allows a freedom and responsibility that should be cherished.
It is the apotheosis of what particularly the western world ascribes
as being free; a free country, a free individual. I believe
existentialism is so much more optimistic and enabling than any
religious creed could ever allow for – agreeing with Sartre and
Camus who both believe that religion alienates man from his true self
and provides him with an excuse to evade the full responsibility of
his freedom[28]
– but be reminded that existentialism places absolutely no emphasis
on whether there is a God or not, which is, in itself, is an
excellent example of existentialism: you are free to decide for
yourself whether you choose to believe in a deity or follow certain
creeds. The decision, and hence responsibility, is entirely our own,
which is where the ironic humour lies in Woody Allen’s joke.
Bibliography
- 1. Max Charlesworth, The Existentialists and J-P Sartre (University of Queensland Press, 1975)
- 2. Robert C. Soloman, Introducing Philosophy, 8th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)
- 3. Jean-Paul Sartre, ‘On Existentialism’, pg 352 – 353 in Robert C. Soloman, Introducing Philosophy, 8th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)
- 4 Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm\
- 5. Jean Paul Sartre, ‘Absolute Freedom’, pg 495 – 498 in Robert C. Soloman, Introducing Philosophy, 8th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)
- 6. Jean Paul Sartre, ‘Sartre’s Existentialism: Existence, Freedom ,and Responsibility: Brief Overview’, in Paul Healy (HAH 100 Blackboard – Learning Material, Topic 1)
- 7. Jean Paul Sartre, ‘Existentialism as a Humanism’, pg 580 – 584 in Robert C. Soloman, Introducing Philosophy, 8th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)
- 8. David E. Cooper, Existentialism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1990)
- [2] Max Charlesworth, The Existentialists and J-P Sartre (Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1975) pg. 79
- [4] J-P Sartre, ‘On Existentialism’, in Robert C. Soloman, Introducing Philosophy, 8th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) pg. 353
- [6] Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm) pg. 6
- [7] Robert C. Soloman, Introducing Philosophy, 8th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) pg. 350
- [23] J-P Sartre, ‘Sartre’s Existentialism: Existence, Freedom ,and Responsibility: Brief Overview’, in Paul Healy (HAH 100 Blackboard – Learning Material, Topic 1) pg. 1
No comments:
Post a Comment