exegesis (notes) on jean-paul sartre's "existentialism and human emotions"

8/12/2019 Exegesis (Notes) on Jean-Paul Sartre's "Existentialism and Human Emotions"

1/7

Nolan Harris JrIndependent StudyExegetical Essay I: Existentialism and Human Emotions by Jean-Paul Sartre

Sartre begins his 19!Existentialism and Human Emotions"ith a #$-page de%ense

and exposition o% existentialism& He commences "ith a series o% criticisms that ha'e been

le'eled against the philosophy(charges that he belie'es betray erroneous interpretationsor understandings o% existentialism& )he charges he enumerates are the %ollo"ing:

Existentialism is a philosophy o% *desperate +uietism, because action is

impossible o"ing to the lac o% any solutions to be arri'ed at in the "orld(solutions to ethical. political. social. personal +uandaries& )his. then. renders

existentialism a philosophy o% mere speculation. and. hence. a bourgeois

philosophy&

)he predilection %or d"elling on human degradation. su%%ering. and e'il(the

grotes+ue(comes at the expense o% noticing or appreciating the beauti%ul.

gracious or sublime& )he smile o% a child(as Sartre says existentialism has been

accused o% %orgetting(is lost on the existential engagement "ith the nightside o%human experience&

/ecause existentialism taes *pure sub0ecti'ity, or *the Cartesian I think, as its

point o% departure. it has been impugned %or its pretermission o% human solidarity.

and %or concei'ing o% manind in isolated. atomistic terms& inally. since atheistic existentialism denies 2od(this. a criticism %rom

3hristians(caprice and sheer desire rule4 and. in a sense. all is possible or

permissible since 2od does not exist&

)hese charges. argues Sartre. %ail to meet existentialism on its o"n terms& /eginning "iththese criticisms. he "ill mo'e to de%end the philosophy by explicating its central tenets&

)his exegetical essay "ill %ollo" Sartre5s dis+uisition on existentialism and include

critical +uestions. in the margin. to be explored in %urther discussion. reading and "riting&

)o begin then&

)here are. "rites Sartre. t"o strands o% existentialism: theistic and atheistic& In thetheistic camp. Sartre includes thiners such as 2abriel 6arcel and 7arl Jaspers& In the

atheistic party. Sartre places Heidegger. himsel% 8Sartre. that is and the rench

existentialists& hile. at bottom. these t"o threads. theist and atheist. di%%er on the 2od+uestion. they both hold in common the %oremost principle o% existentialism: *that

existence precedes essence,. or *that sub0ecti'ity must be the starting point, 81$&

Historically. in theology and philosophy. essence "as taen to precede existence&;ie an ob0ect produced by an artisan. 2od(in theocentric accounts("as taen to be a

designer or creator "ho %ashioned humans. as an artisan designed and produced. %or

instance. a table& )he artisan and 2od both employed some the "ild-man. the natural man. as "ell as the bourgeois. arecircumscribed by the same de%inition and ha'e the same basic +ualities, 8some essential

nature 81#-1&

Sartre notes a more coherent brea %rom the essence precedes existenceclaim inatheistic existentialism. "hich he represents& @theistic existentialism contends that i% 2od

does not exist. there is still a being in "hich essence does not precede existence(man.

1


2/7


him- or hersel%& )his existence be%ore. or preceding. essence is explicated by Sartre.

thusly:*It means that. %irst o% all. man exists. turns up. appears on the scene. and. only

a%ter"ards. de%ines himsel%& I% man. as the existentialist concei'es him. is

inde%inable. it is because at %irst he is nothing& Anly a%ter"ard "ill he besomething. and he himsel% "ill ha'e made "hat he "ill be, 81&

)he upshot o% this argument is that there is not a uni'ersal. essential human nature(and

to spea o% any sort o% static. necessary *human nature, is to utter a 'acuous term to the

atheistic existentialist. as no 2od exists to prescribe such a thing& Hence. *man is nothingelse but "hat he maes o% himsel%, 81&

)his *%irst principle o% existentialism, is "hat Sartre later re%ers to as sub0ecti'ity

(another aspect o% existentialism that had been oppugned by its critics. to "hich Sartreretorts:

*/ut "hat do "e mean by this. i% not that man has a greater dignity than a stone

or a tableB or "e mean that man %irst exists. that is. that man %irst o% all is the

being "ho hurls himsel% to"ard a %uture and "ho is conscious o% imagininghimsel% as a being in the %uture, 81-1C&

3onse+uently. since essence does not precede existence. manD"oman must be responsible

%or "hat heDshe is& )he indi'idual must bear the "eight o% their choices and actions in the

"orld& )his is. in part. "hat Sartre means "hen he later describes sub0ecti'ity as a pointo% 'ie" in li%e beyond "hich *it is impossible %or man to transcend, 81!& Human

sub0ecti'ity is the launching point %or all people. and is. thereby. a common %eature o% our

experience in the "orld& e cannot reach the 'ie" %rom eternity. or the


3/7


I belie'e all o% humanity ought to do or be& )here is a sort o% dynamism. then. that pits the

singular or particular in dialectical engagement "ith the "hole or the uni'ersal& )his

mo'e highlights a ind o% mutuality or solidarity. and adumbrates the ethical dimensionso% existentialism&

Next. ho"e'er. Sartre mo'es on to elucidate ho" the existentialist understands

the terms anguish.forlornness. and despair& I shall examine these in turn&

Anguish

@nguish arises. %or Sartre. %rom the indi'idual5s realiGation that in choosing. the

indi'idual is not simply choosing %or him- or hersel%: they are. concurrently. cast as a sort

o% legislator %or all humanity& Ane cannot elude the utter responsibility o% this %act. and.

hence. one %inds onesel% in anguish& Sartre belie'es those among us "ho seem at ease.those "ho display no signs o% anxiousness. are dissembling. hiding their anguish& In a

ind o% e'asion o% responsibility. the person hides %rom anguish. or casts it o%% as a minor

e'ent "hen ased


4/7


once thro"n into the "orld. he is responsible %or e'erything he does& 8F$, Humanity is

%ree. ironically. because humanity has no choice but %reedom& @nd humanity must be

totally %ree4 there are no apotropaic omens. amulets. talismans. to "hich "e might appeal4there are no ethical treatises. there is no system o% internal %eelings that can guide one in

the heat o% action& Humanity is thro"n onto *the pale blue dot,(in the "ords o% 3arl

Sagan(and must na'igate the %un and mess o% the "orld(the con%licting moral dutiesand impinging psychological pangs(utterly alone& *orlornness implies that "e

oursel'es choose our being& orlornness and anguish go together. 8F9, Sartre explains&

Despair

espair. %or Sartre. *has a 'ery simple meaning,: It gets at the choice o%

*=con%ining> oursel'es to reconing only "ith "hat depends upon our "ill. or on theensemble o% probabilities. "hich mae our action possible& 8F9, Employing a ind o%

stoic outloo. Sartre belie'es that one must in'ol'e onesel% in action in the "orld until

*the moment the possibilities I am considering are not rigorously in'ol'ed by my action,

8F9& @%ter this moment. the agent must. or ought to. *disengage, because. since there isno 2od. there are no means by "hich the "orld and all o% its possibilities can be

comported "ith my "ill&In sum. there is no ine'itability about the course o% human action as it concerns

our pro0ects. singular or common& )here are no guarantees that our choices. and the

actions "hich issue %rom them. "ill realiGe the desiderata "e aim %or& /ecause "e are all%reedoms. "e can choose. as "e "ill. according to Sartre. and all other %reedoms are

beyond our singular control or in%luence 8unless they so choose to mae themsel'es

amenable to our control or in%luence& Hence. despair has to tae account o% the

disappointment. nearly ineluctable. that "ill be occasioned by the %rustration o% our plans.aims and pro0ects in li%e. o"ing to the impossibility o% our "ills5 capacity to mae

possibilities in the "orld yield to our control&

Sartre5s esponse to his 3ritics

Desperate Quietism and Pessimism

An Sartre5s account. that "hate'er "ill be. "ill be because humans ha'e chosen

it. is not an in'itation to +uietism. or passi'ity. in the "orld& He says that "e ought to

in'ol'e oursel'es in the "orld. acting on the old saying *Nothing 'entured. nothinggained&, urthermore. Sartre ad'ises us not to "ithdra" %rom parties. groups or collecti'e

action necessarily& e ought to. con'ersely. *ha'e no illusions, and o%%er to the

collecti'e "hat "e can& oring "ith other %reedoms cannot(e'en i% our stated endsare in harmony(pro'ide us "ith any certainty that our shared goals "ill be achie'ed. or

that "e "ill persist. al"ays together. in the pursuance o% those goals& ispensing "ith this

most seducti'e o% illusions. on Sartre5s account. "ill orient us to"ard collecti'e action ina more honest. sober "ay&

Instead o% shrining %rom action in the "orld. or. as Sartre put it. saying *;et

others do "hat I can5t do 8$1., his doctrine contrarily a'o"s that *there is no reality

except in action., and that *man is nothing else than his plan4 he exists only to the extent

#


5/7


that he %ul%ills himsel% 8$F&, eality. not un%ul%illed dreams. plans or pro0ects. taes pride

o% place in Sartre5s 'ie" o% existentialism& )o spea. then. o% that "hich did not happen(

6ichael Jacson could hae recorded another great album. or I applied to /ucnellni'ersity and !ould hae made a "onder%ul undergraduate career there(is to. in

Sartre5s 'ie". *de%ine a man as a disappointed dream. as miscarried hopes. as 'ain

expectations& In other "ords. =it is> to de%ine him negati'ely and not positi'ely& 8$$,@ction in the "orld. then. is a choice& e should act and not recoil in light o% the

existential truths o% there being no 2od. no essential human nature. or a priori ethical

gi'ens& hat. I thin. Sartre "ants us to %ace up to. is the utter responsibility that is oursas %reedoms acting in the "orld. instead o% determined. %ixed. mechanical ob0ects through

"hich the %orces and motions o% determinism %lo"&

)he redeeming %eatures. on this account. then. net us certain. rather com%orting.

insights as "ell& No longer can "e. i% "e tae existentialism seriously. posit the*co"ardly, or *courageous, constitution& rites Sartre: *)here5s no such thing as a

co"ardly constitution4 there are ner'ous constitutions4 there is poor blood. as the

common people say. or strong constitutions? =but> "hat maes co"ardice is the act o%

renouncing or yielding 8$#&, )his disconcerts people. thins Sartre. because they "ouldrather co"ards and heroes be born co"ardly and heroic4 they "ould sooner ha'e them

dissol'es into thin air 8$C&, urthermore. existentialism is a

theory. "hich regards humans as sub0ects and not ob0ects& Sartre contends that *all,materialism reduces humans to ob0ects in the throes o% determinism(humans are no

more signi%icant. %or example. than a table or chair& Hence. Sartre posits a material realm

and human realm o% 'alues: *an ensemble o% 'alues., he claims. *distinct %rom thematerial realm 8$!&, @nd simply beginning "ith sub0ecti'ity does not necessitate the

atomist. isolated agents incapable o% human solidarity or intersub0ecti'ity. as *one

disco'ers in the cogito not only =hersel%>. but others as "ell 8$!&,

Aur sub0ecti'ity. our %orming o% oursel'es. is dependent on other sub0ecti'ities&


6/7


e cannot become anything or be said to be anything(honest. beauti%ul. en'ious(

"ithout others "ho *recogniGe =us> as such&, @s Sartre concisely puts it: *In order to get

any truth about mysel%. I must ha'e contact "ith another person 8$!-&, )here%ore. it isin the *"orld "hich "e shall call intersub0ecti'ity., a'ers Sartre. that all o% us come to

no" and choose "ho "e are and "hat "e "ill be. and "ho others are and shall be&

)here is a uni'ersal human condition. but not a uni'ersal essence& )he conditioncomprises *the a priori limits "hich outline man5s %undamental situation in the uni'erse

8$&, )here are no 'ariations "ith regard to humanity5s necessity to 81 exist. to 8F be

in'ol'ed in the "orld. acting. to 8$ be part o% a community or society. and to 8# bemortal& )hese %our a priori limits circumscribe. %or Sartre. the human condition& )hese a

priori limits ha'e both sub0ecti'e and ob0ecti'e dimensions& )he sub0ecti'e dimension is

the li'ed experience o% these limits. ho" "e *%reely determine =our> existence "ith

re%erence to them&, )he ob0ecti'e dimension re%ers to the ubi+uity o% these limits and theability o% these limits to be recogniGed e'ery"here&

Sartre re%ers to *an existence "hich chooses its essence, as a *con%iguration&, )he

con%igurations can be uni+ue. particular. indi'idual. but they all ha'e a *uni'ersal 'alue&,

)he uni'ersal 'alue arises %rom the %act that *e'ery con%iguration can be understood bye'ery man 8$9&, Hence. %or Sartre. anyone can *push =hersel%> to her limits and

reconstitute "ithin hersel% the con%iguration o% the 3hinese. the Indian. or the @%rican&,)he uni'ersality o% recognition o% the indi'idual con%igurations. then. lends itsel% to

*perpetually being made&, Ne'er is the uni'ersality a gi'en. it is built. or constructed. by

human beings e'ery"here&

Ather iscontents "ith Sub0ecti'ism

&he existentialist can do !hateer she desires' or( the charge of caprice)

)he absence o% a priori principles or ob0ecti'e morality does not lead to sheer

caprice. argues Sartre& )he possibility o% choice is al"ays there and al"ays in'ol'es all o%humanity& Since the indi'idual is a pro0ect. and %ully in'ol'ed. 0ust because there is no

recourse to eternal. uni'ersal 'erities does not mean that sheer caprice rules& Instead.

Sartre contends. "e must *say that moral choice is to be compared to the maing o% a"or o% art& 8#F, Since there are no a priori 'alues in ethical li%e. "e must in'ent and

create. as does the artist "ithout any a priori aesthetic 'alues& )here is a process o%

becoming& @s Sartre "rites: *6an maes himsel%& He is not ready made at the start& 8#$,

)hus. in'ol'ement is paramount(action and creation are prime& So. "rites Sartre. *it isthere%ore absurd to charge us "ith arbitrariness o% choice& 8##,

Ethical $udgments are impossi#le for the existentialist)

)his charge. Sartre belie'es. is both true and %alse in some respects& Sartre holds

that the charge is true because *"hene'er a man sanely and sincerely in'ol'es himsel%and chooses his con%iguration. it is impossible to pre%er another con%iguration 8##&, E'en

so. Sartre does belie'e one can retain a critical stance(i% not critical 'alue 0udgments.

then. at least. critical logical 0udgments concerning truth and %alsity& ;ogically. the

existentialist can see truth o'er error and is obliged. or able. to point out both&

C


7/7


Sartre then asserts that e'en he can mae moral 0udgments& I% humanity is le%t to

in'ent and create its o"n 'alues. and in their %orlornness must accept responsibility. then

*=humanity> can no longer "ant but one thing. and that is %reedom as the basis o% all'alues& 8#, E'ery person "ants %reedom. asserts Sartre. *and in "anting %reedom "e

disco'er that it depends entirely on the %reedom o% others. and that %reedom o% others

depends on ours& 8#C,)his issues in. Sartre "ill claim. his ability to *pass 0udgment on those "ho see

to hide %rom themsel'es the complete arbitrariness and the complete %reedom o% their

existence& 8#C,

*alues aren+t serious( since %ou choose them)

Sartre. simply retorts. that i% there is no 2od. someone must in'ent. construct the'alues humans belie'e in& )he

exegesis (notes) on jean-paul sartre's "existentialism and human emotions"

Documents