Existentialism Is a Humanism

I like searching for things like a meaning to life or the proper way to act. This book didn't give me that. Instead, this book gave me relief. Food for thought. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in philosophy, both theological and secular. I just wish Sartre could be alive today to talk more about it.

For Sartre Man is thrown into the world without having being asked whether he wants to be here or not. This means in Sartre's terms that Man is born without an Essence, a fundamental nature. That Nature is shaped instead by decisions, by conscious choice, by our freedom. But human beings, contrary to Sartre are born into family, communal , national , religious traditions. They are born into worlds in which there are values. They do not begin their journeys in life as blank slates. This means that the ' freedom' which Sartre tends to make his absolute (i.e. while denying that we have a nature he makes Freedom our nature) is qualified and limited for all of us in many different ways even before we begin to make conscious choices. Nonetheless the pessimistic doctrines of Marxism and certain forms of Christianity which tend in the direction of a total determination of our collective nature , are rightly criticized and qualified by Sartre. Sartre's celebration of the possibilities of human self- creation and transformation of reality certainly provide a special kind of hope, and youthful sense of our own humanity. "We are the makers of what we are, of what we are, and what we are not" I would see parallels here between Sartre's existensialim and James- Dewey American pragmatism. Nonetheless I would want to argue that in negating the importance of our connection with Transcendence i.e. with God, Sartre woefully, and unnecessarily limits human freedom. For for many human beings the greatest free act of their life is their choice to devote their lives to making closer connection with God.

Last night I read Jean-Paul Sartre's short manuscript Existentialism and Humanism, in which he set out to defend the existentialist philosophy against criticisms that had been made against it, particularly by Marxists, and particularly for its being (perceived as) overly subjective (amongst other things). I think there is a lot that Sartre says that is just right. Such as, every action is a moral action, including the action of doing nothing. And most importantly, Sartre makes the connection between freedom and morality. This is something that Musil is really sharp on, as well (particularly with the Moosbrugger case in The Man Without Qualities) -- in order for any action to be perfectly moral, it must be perfectly freely chosen; and to the extent that various extra-agent factors impinge on the action, the action is subsequently less moral. This is built into our very idea of what it is to be moral: an action you initiate is something you are morally accountable for; an action that happens from outside of you is something you are not morally accountable for. Now, if as (arguably) the Marxists say, the individual is inextricably determined by the social, there can be no morality, since everything is determined from without. Seen from this perspective, it is clear why many of the existentialists were Christians: Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, and Jaspers, for example. However if we are to take the atheistic line (which I believe with Sartre to be the most consistent with the existentialist principles) we say that even God couldn't help us act morally. Sartre illustrates the point with an example (which is appropriate, of course, since existentialism is a form of moral particularism, in that it says we need to act in each new case on the basis of information we have at hand, and no rules can guide us rigidly from case to case). A young man approached him (Sartre) and said that he had a choice to stay at home and care for his sick mother, or to leave and fight in the war. Caring for his mother had concrete calculable benefits over the short term; fighting in the war has abstract, generalised benefits that may, moreover, have been thwarted (he may have been stuck in a camp or pushing paper at a desk, or whatnot). Sartre says, what can guide the man here? No moral rule can determine what his course of action should be; the decision is the man's freely to make; and this free action is what confers the status of a moral decision on it. And so Sartre simply said to the man, do what you feel is right (or something similar). I think Sartre is absolutely correct to say that existentialism is not mired in subjectivity, or in despair. It is not mired in subjectivity, because your morality is something that is exhibited by your actions (we might even say there is no such thing as a moral thought, only a moral action: something that fits well with liberal political principles [as an aside, one of the interlocuters at the end of the manuscript accuses Sartre's moral

This book will either make you want to read more about existentialism or it will lead you into making quite the opposite choice by leaving existentialism to others possibly more patient than yourself though not necessarily more intelligent.Whatever your choice you will nonetheless be making a choice even if that choice is not to make a choice.Or as Sartre would put it, in a far more philosophical manner, you can always choose but you must know that even if you do not choose that would still be a choice. For what is not possible is not to choose.This is the first book I have read about existentialism so I cannot judge whether it is a good introduction to this philosophical movement yet the very fact that the purpose of the lecture delivered by Sartre is to offer a defence of existentialism against certain reproaches laid against it, seems by itself to shape the content of the lecture into an attempt by necessity to capture the essence of existentialism. In particular, in relation to the reactions existentialism has provoked.There are certain key ideas that are very plainly put across to the reader which may well capture one's attention and actually lead to a further exploration of other books about existentialism.For example, Sartre after referring to the two kinds of existentialists that there are and declaring that he is a representative of atheistic existentialism explains that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, that is to say a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it.That being, of course, is man.Thus, existence precedes essence. Man first exists and then defines himself.Basically, in conclusion to his reference to atheistic existentialism, Sartre adds that the first principle of existentialism is that man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. Not as what he conceives himself to be after already existing but that which he wills himself to be subsequent to a necessary leap towards existence. Basically, man only attains existence when he is what he purposes to be. Whereas, before that projection of the self, nothing exists.Doubtless this first principle of existentialism gave rise to a reproach against the subjectivity of existentialism. Other ideas and terms used are also examined always with reference made to the particular reproaches Sartre has to answer in relation to such ideas and terms.All in all, he makes out quite a solid and intelligible defence of existentialism as he explains that the first effect of existentialism is to put every man in possession of himself with the entire responsibility of his existence being placed on his shoulders.The emphasis in the doctrine presented by Sartre is that there is no reality except in action. Man is described as nothing else but what he purposes with his existence being attained only in so far as he realizes himself. Man is therefore, nothing else but the sum of his actions.He clarifies further this

EXISTENTIALISM AND HUMANISM did not start life as a book. It is actually a translation of a lecture delivered by Sartre in Paris in 1945 at a time when the term "existentialism" was being bandied about rather loosely. My 1947 copy also incorporates the discussion which immediately followed the lecture. It is interesting to note that, after a few legitimate questions, the discussion became a series of challenges to the existentialist philosophy by a M. Naville who was a leading French Marxist in post World War II Paris.Contrary to some comments contained in reviews of Sartre's books and collections of his essays, existentialism is not an easily understood philosophy and there were, and still are, differences of opinions regarding existentialism, and what it might mean, between major proponents of the philosophy such as Sartre and Gide. (Sartre alludes to this in this lecture.) For this review I will attempt to stick to the opinions stated herein by Sartre.He led off his lecture by making the point that existentialism was under attack by The Church on one side and the Marxists on the other. He stated that both attacks were based on misunderstandings of the existentialist philosophy.As is to be expected, his starting point for his discussion is the basic concept that existence precedes essence, or, putting it into his own words, "Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, he is also only what he wills himself to be." Carrying this to its logical conclusion; man, individually and collectively, is responsible for his own choices and actions. No excuses accepted.Another often misunderstood term used in defining existentialism is "anguish." In layman's terms, anguish in existentialism has to do with the doubts surrounding making choices. Sartre uses "the anguish of Abraham" to illustrate. When Abraham was instructed to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham had to decide if the instruction really came from a messinger of God, or, conversely, was the messenger a tool of Satan. Then, when he was told not to perform the sacrifice, he was faced with exactly the same dilemna.What I have covered in the last paragraph was merely the beginning of Sartre's discussion on anguish.Another aspect has to do with being forlorn. In oversimplified terms, this means that we have nothing such as "human nature" or some predetermined value system to fall back on. Even when relying on someone else's advice our final decision is our own. We are truly responsible for our choices. How much more alone can one get.Although Sartre discusses many other aspects of the existentialist philosophy, I'd like to leave these discussions to those who choose to read this lecture. I would, however, like to sum up with the following quotation."(Existentialism) can not be taken for a philosophy of quietism, since it defines man in terms of action; nor for a pessimistic description of man--there is no doctrine more optimistic, since man's destiny

This book is what got me started on Sartre, it's fairly easy to follow and it explains the basics of Sartre. Quality reading that gets you thinking... GET IT NOW!