Discussion
Most western Philosophies and monotheistic traditions base the creation of man as a design of god. God is the primary artisan that is the creator for all, and god’s conception of man is conceived before the creation of man. For Sartre this means that because god created humanity through a conception, it must mean that we are all created to that conception and are created with a purpose, or as Sartre defines human nature (Sartre, p.206-207).
As an atheistic existentialist Sartre sees a problem with a notion of a divine creator, as this would mean that our essence precedes our existence. Jean Paul Sartre’s notion of existence preceding essence is his ideology that debates freedom and human choice. Sartre’s basic claim is that the existence of humanity exists before there is conception of values and morals, human nature (Sartre, p 207). For Sartre humanity is born with a blank slate, no predetermined value and no basic essence that humanity shares. Subsequently this means that because we have no particular ideal abstract of human nature, we are all responsible to create our own construction of essence through the choices we make. We define ourselves by the sum of choices and actions we make. (Sartre, p. 208) Sartre’s argument denies the traditional philosophy of an existing human nature, or an ideal abstract of being that we are all born with. Sartre’s theory articulates the absence of an omniscient creator (Sartre, p. 209). Sartre believes that man creates his nature and finds value though his free choices. Sartre elaborates this through his concept of freedom by establishing that our conscience is separate from the physical world; it is without restriction and therefore must be free. (Sartre, p. 239-241) The radical freedom Sartre expresses however does have restrictions of facticity. The limitations that are instilled in us, the situations we are all thrown in does restrict some possibilities of our freedom, this is called facticity. Facticity is the situation we find ourselves in, but this does not change that we are still more than our situation; we always have choice and are destined to it. (Sartre, p 240-241)
Analysis:
To accept that existence precedes essence one would have to come to the conclusion that there is no innate human nature and therefore no god to conceive it (Sartre, p.207). For many western philosophies and monotheistic religions this proves to be problem and they dispute existentialism in that respect.
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
...ating Sartre's attitudes towards the constituents of human action, that which constitutes human being. Even though it may, in the final analysis, prove to be an unsatisfactory account of consciousness, it serves to illuminate some possible further lines of study, if only as a negative example.
In his lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre discusses common misconceptions people, specifically Communists and Christians, have about existentialism and extentanitalists (18). He wants to explain why these misconceptions are wrong and defend existentialism for what he believes it is. Sartre argues people are free to create themselves through their decisions and actions. This idea is illustrated in the movie 13 Going on Thirty, where one characters’ decision at her thirteenth birthday party and her actions afterwards make her become awful person by the time she turns thirty. She was free to make these decisions but she was also alone. Often the idea of having complete free will at first sounds refreshing, but when people
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.
Sartre’s notion “man is responsible for what he is” is flawed because individuals have vastly different experiences, backgrounds, and intrinsic mental and cognitive functions, all of which affect their ability to make the choices they make. Sartre speaks of “abandonment” – that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted, and thus man is without excuse for any of his actions. As stated by Sartre, “Man is 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.” But is every single individual on earth fully responsible for every single one of their actions?
Rousseau believes that even when one votes in the minority they can obey the law and still be free. But, “how can the opposing minority be both free and subject to laws to which they have not consented?” (Rousseau, pg. 153) Rousseau’s response is that citizens must consent to all the laws because “ to inhabit the territory is to submit to the sovereign.”(Rousseau, p.153) In accordance with the social contract, when a citizen votes they should completely surrender their personal interest and vote for what they believe to be the general will. The general will of each individual is considered to be their real will when it comes to social policy. The majority vote will depict the general will, and the minority shows the citizens that are mistaken about the true nature of the general will. (Rousseau, p.153) Therefore, even if you voted with the minority and ended up being wrong about your real will, you still remained true to obeying your own reasons and deliberated freely. In the end what you wanted was the general will and voting is how you find out what it is. I do not believe that Rousseau’s reasoning succeeds because he does not give an adequate explanation for how the people voting are suppose to identify what the general will is.
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,
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
Existentialism, which spread rapidly over continental Europe after the First World War, is essentially the analysis of the condition of man, of the particular state of being free, and of man's having constantly to use his freedom in order top answer the ever- changing and unexpected challenges of the day. According to the Existentialists, the starting point of every philosophical investigation is concrete human existence. That means that human personality in itself should point the way to the absolute value of reality. A single definition of existentialism is impossible. Definitions, provided by dictionaries are only part of what existentialism is about. …central to each definition is the assertion that existentialism is a theory or statement about the nature of man's existence. (1) The term is so difficult to define because, unlike other terms, existentialism is not universal. In other words, there are no two existentialists, which share exactly the same values or beliefs. Although, here is one major theme: a stress on individual existence, subjectivity, individual freedom, and choice.
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue 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 will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
...ar idea with Stephen; they both wanted to do anything and create their own human nature, and our value of freedom through those free choices. Generally, Sartre suggested that men have freedom to construct their nature and essence through their actions.
Man goes through life, waking each day and participating in his own existence without truly existing. He is always in search of a greater meaning, and in the process fails to find one as he is on a constant search for something that cannot be grasped by the normality that is the human psyche. A similar example can be found in the capitalistic work force of modern day. Man works the majority of his life, always training and aiming for more, only to retire and live on a portion of what he was making. During his time working he lost out on his family, his sleep, often times his own enjoyment, for an ideal that often times is never achieved. This is a trivial situation, yet it is painted in a rather angelic light in our society. Why is it, then, that Sartre can be dismissed as trivial when trivialities exist in nearly every day to day life? Quite likely, this is because Existentialism is an “on-paper theory” so to speak, and in theory is looks quite differently than in reality. Man, as in this case, does not realise that he often follows the rules which he opposes. In addition, much of today’s society exists under a form of organized religion, a society with which Existentialism exists in
We choose, act, and take responsibility for everything, and thus we live, and exist. Life cannot be anything until it is lived, but each individual must make sense of it. The value of life is nothing else but the sense each person fashions into it. To argue that we are the victims of fate, of mysterious forces within us, of some grand passion, or heredity, is to be guilty of bad faith. Sartre says that we can overcome the adversity presented by our facticity, a term he designs to represent the external factors that we have no control over, such as the details of our birth, our race, and so on, by inserting nothingness into it.
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 based his views on the basic ideas of existentialism. The idea that existence precedes essence is the central factor in the atheistic view of man. The belief that existence precedes essence states that there is "no pre-existing concept of man." (2) In the existentialist view, man is what he makes of himself.