Sartre’s Existentialism: Freedom, Being, and Bad Faith
Sartre’s Existentialism
Freedom and Essence
Sartre argues that we create our essence through freedom, breaking with traditional conceptions of human nature. This freedom implies a denial of preordained essence and the absence of a divine plan. Taylor’s philosophy emphasizes absolute freedom in every moment. Sartre’s Being and Nothingness explores this freedom, arguing that shirking responsibility for it is bad faith.
Our Interpretations Shape Reality
Sartre illustrates how our reactions to events, not the events themselves, define our freedom. He uses the example of hikers encountering a landslide. Their reactions vary, demonstrating that objects don’t restrict freedom but are interpreted through it. Our past doesn’t condition us; we reinterpret it constantly. Sartre’s example of the gambler illustrates how we can break with our past through our choices.
Being-for-Itself and Being-in-Itself
Sartre distinguishes between being-for-itself (open and free) and being-in-itself (closed and fixed). Humans, as beings-for-itself, are not classifiable due to their freedom. Surrounded by nothingness, we are condemned to be free, a logical consequence of our ability to interpret. Our projects and future are not guaranteed; we can relinquish our freedom but also reclaim it. Death is the only escape from this freedom.
Nausea and Anxiety
Sartre’s novel Nausea explores the anxiety caused by freedom. This ‘nausea’ is not its common meaning but the distress of confronting absolute freedom. Those who don’t experience it may be in bad faith, justifying actions through external conditions. We are neither fully free nor fully conditioned but constantly navigate between these states.
The Presence of Others
Sartre famously states, “Hell is other people.” The presence of another limits our freedom by becoming a competitor for our space and judging us. The example of someone looking through a keyhole illustrates the shame and loss of freedom experienced when observed. The other creates an image of us, classifying and objectifying us.
Existentialism as Humanism
In Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre proposes an ethical project. Choosing for oneself implies choosing for all. We should treat others as free beings, not objects. Language mediates our relationship with things. Nausea’s protagonist experiences the loss of conceptualization through the loss of words, highlighting the importance of language.
Moral Judgments
Sartre critiques moral judgments as objectifying subjective values. He contrasts the Christian view of a necessary life with the existentialist view of contingency. Nothingness, the absence of being, is a precondition for freedom. Bad faith, while sometimes necessary for navigating the world, becomes harmful when it leads to forgetting freedom.
Sexuality and Freedom
Sartre’s view on sexuality emphasizes individual choice. He argues that choosing one’s sexuality is an exercise of freedom and should not be criticized.
The Influence of Others
Sartre uses the example of authoritarian and permissive parents to illustrate how others influence our freedom. He highlights the difficulties of developing a universal ethic based on existentialist principles.
Simone de Beauvoir and Bad Faith
Simone de Beauvoir’s work expands on Sartre’s ideas, proposing models of bad faith: the sub-man, the serious man, the nihilist, the adventurer, and the passionate man. These models illustrate different ways individuals cope with freedom.
Ethics and Aesthetics
Sartre compares moral judgments to aesthetic judgments, arguing that we should judge the consistency of individuals’ projects, not the projects themselves. He acknowledges the difficulty of creating a universal ethic while maintaining individual freedom.
Conclusion
Sartre’s existentialism emphasizes freedom, responsibility, and the anxiety they produce. While optimistic about human dignity, it poses challenges for developing a universal ethical framework.