Sartre And Beauvoir Existentialism Analysis

1885 Words4 Pages

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…

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

Open Document