Sartre’s Existentialism: A Comprehensive Overview
Elementary Exposition and Contextual Conception of Human Existence: Sartre
Sartre, along with other thinkers like Jaspers and Marcel, considers human existence as a starting point of his philosophy.
Primacy of Existence
Existentialists accept the idea championed by Kierkegaard: real existence can only be individual. Hence, existentialist philosophies reject the imposition of a universal reality on daily existence and place the human being as a starting point. Sartre expresses the primacy of human existence with the concept: “Existence precedes essence.” This means that no previous concept can define existence since it is rooted in pure possibility, not a pre-determined “being.”
Existentialists, particularly Sartre, often view human existence from a dramatic and pessimistic perspective. This is understandable considering the context of post-World War II France. Originating from the thoughts of Husserl and Heidegger, this pessimism reflects a philosophy grappling with the ruins of the past while striving to build a new future.
Two Kinds of Beings
For Sartre, the world comprises two kinds of beings:
- “Things in themselves”: These are beings determined to be a certain way, not previously possible and then actualized. Examples include a mineral, a tree, or even the human body as an object.
- “Beings for themselves”: These are beings defined by freedom, existing as pure possibility that never fully materializes. Human existence embodies this “being for itself.”
This Sartrean dialectic connects to Husserl’s intentional consciousness: “beings in themselves” represent the “content of the act,” while “beings for themselves” represent “the act itself.”
The Impossibility of Synthesis
Sartre highlights a contrast between the manner of existence (“for itself”) and other beings that exist as “in themselves.” The “for-itself” continually attempts to become an “in-itself” but always fails. This striving to be an “in-itself” is a constant, defining characteristic of human existence. Sartre terms this the “impossible synthesis”—two irreconcilable concepts. This failure stems from the belief that the only being capable of being both “self” and “for-itself” is God. Therefore, human existence becomes a “useless passion,” forever unable to achieve Godhood or synthesize these incompatible essences. This notion underscores the atheistic foundation of Sartre’s existentialism, demonstrating the nonexistence of God.
Freedom and Responsibility
Sartre grants freedom an ontological status, defining it as the core property of human existence. Freedom also encompasses the autonomy of choice. The original choice of the “for-itself” is the key project that determines its ultimate possibility—the full realization of its freedom “to do.” For Sartre, this freedom “to do” manifests in both future plans and life decisions.
Projects are always future-oriented designs (“bridges over nothing”) subject to change. They are never definitive. Sartre views the existential project as a direction for existence, a way of interpreting it that enables action. This explains why projects can often be stressful, filled with fear and uncertainty, as they lack a predetermined path. However, projects also specify the way of being for human existence, allowing for the realization of freedom. By freely choosing their project, humans become responsible for their lives.
The Choice of Situation
Choosing a project also involves choosing the situation of the “for-itself.” While freedom is subject to actuality, it doesn’t diminish the unconditioned nature of existence. “Being in a situation” characterizes the “for-itself.” The “for-itself” must adopt a position—a stance towards existence.
Every situation possesses a particular character, illuminated by the aims of human existence once projects are undertaken within it. Situations are not products of freedom nor are they opposed to it. A situation is facticity illuminated by the free project unfolding within it. Sartre uses this to explain the identity of existence: humans exist due to their situation and their project. Humans choose their situation to exercise their absolute freedom, and because of this freedom of choice, they are entirely responsible for their situation.
Bad Faith
Sartre also addresses the concept of “bad faith.” This occurs when humans attempt to prioritize factual “things” over their freedom to make decisions or confront a situation. This attempt to evade responsibility is unacceptable to Sartre. Humans can never hide behind a situation they weren’t free to choose at some point in their project. By attributing decisions to psychological or social factors, humans deceive themselves as factual beings, acting in bad faith to mask their freedom. Human existence always precedes any decisive act.
Moral Responsibility
Sartre links moral responsibility to a commitment to life situations. Responsibility is the awareness of being the conscious author of the existential project. Humans are decision-making beings who create their world and are responsible for their chosen project. Responsibility becomes a logical consequence of freedom. Humans are committed to the situation they freely choose. This reinforces the earlier point about the responsibility inherent in choosing a particular situation.
Existentialism as Humanism
Initially, Sartre didn’t identify as a humanist. He opposed both Marxism and religion in their approaches. He defended existentialism as a doctrine of freedom, responsibility, commitment to the situation, action, and an optimistic outlook. Sartre’s existentialism represents a stance on morality and responsibility. He generally opposed the concept of a generic “human,” rejecting the idea of man as a preconceived notion, an end, or something superior. To Sartre, these were mere reifications. Man is nothing but pure freedom and possibility, a continuous process of transcendence. Therefore, existentialism becomes a transcendent humanism, conceiving of man as capable of projecting themselves, responsible for their existence, regardless of their chosen situation.
Dialectical Reason and History
Finally, it’s important to note Sartre’s critique of dialectical reason in his 1960 work, “Critique of Dialectical Reason.” History, for Sartre, is a totalizing movement that encompasses individual human existence. Individual freedom cannot exist outside the social group to which one belongs. From the perspective of dialectical reason, existentialism is seen as a parasitic bourgeois ideology. However, Sartre considers Marxism, within the philosophical context of his time, to offer an adequate vision of freedom through historical materialism. He argues that the individual is truly free when participating in the historical dialectical process.
Sartre believes that truly dialectical history is driven by human groups who see their freedom reflected in the freedom of others, synchronizing their actions to transform society. They agree on the expression of freedom and are attuned to the expression of individual liberty. However, for Sartre, human existence remains fundamentally individual because the project is the work of an individual. Therefore, freedom also possesses an individual character. While one individual alone cannot change history, individual liberty remains crucial. Historical change cannot be solely an individual project; it must be a group endeavor. This group, as explained earlier, shares the same expression of freedom.