PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSONUniversity of San AgustinAY: 2014-2015: First Semester

CHAPTER 1: INTRAPERSONAL DIMENSIONLecture 5: The Human Person as Free Being

Man is condemned to be free.Jean-Paul Sartres ExistentialismRyan Calica

Biographical NoteSartre was born in 1905 in Paris. His father is Jean-Batiste, a naval officer and his mother, Anne-Marie Schweitzer. His father died when he was still a child. Consequently, his grandfather has raised him. He finished his high school in Lyce Henri IV in Paris. After two years of preparation, he gained entrance to the prestigious Ecole Normale Suprieure in Paris. He has exhibited at an early age a precocious gift for literary expression. While at Ecole Normale, he was attracted to philosophy by Henri Bergson, whose Time and Free Will (1889) left him, bowled over. In Ecole Normale Suprieure, when from 1924 to 1929 he came into contact with Raymond Aron, Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and other notables. He passed the agregation on the second attempt when he adapted the approach institution required. As a seeker of wisdom, he was not afraid to change his mind. I think against myself. Sartre was a great borrower. His early years were influenced by Descartes, Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. Later, his ethical ideas were from Kant and Marx. Sartres originality consisted in his creation of new syntheses from reinterpreted borrowed ideas and offered a new solution to traditional philosophical problems. Beauvoir said something about Sartre, For me, a philosopher is someone like Spinoza, Hegel or like Sartre: someone who builds a great system and not simply someone who loves philosophy and can use in it essays, etc., but it is someone who truly constructs a philosophy. And that I did not do.[footnoteRef:1] Sartre had a strong relationship with Beauvoir but they never got married. Their loyalty and love took the span of 51 years. [1: Richard Kamber, On Sartre, Wadsworth Philosophers Series, (USA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, Inc., 2000), 44.]

He lived simply and with few possessions. He only lived in a small apartment on the Left Bank in Paris. He was involved in a lot of political activity and he loved to travel. He died on April 15, 1980 at the age of 74 due to declining health and visual impairment. Existentialism Sartres existentialism is basically found on his novel Nausea, a novel in diary form about a fictional historian named Antoine Roquentin and on his essay Existentialism is a Humanism which was delivered on October 1945 at the Club Maintenant. He has expounded his existentialism on Being and Nothingness; however, I shall not delve on it in this paper. Sartres brand of existentialism is generally a doctrine that we exist before we have an essence or definitive attributes.Antoine Roquentin, In Nausea, discovered the things he perceives exist. When we say existence it is the independent reality of physical objects. The objects are considered being-in-itself which is apart from consciousness; being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is.[footnoteRef:2] Our typical idea of artefact is what the object is for, or means to our ends. As a result, we barely attend to them. Existence cannot be reduced to essence.[footnoteRef:3] To exist is simply to be there; what exists appears, lets itself be encountered, but you can never deduce it.[footnoteRef:4] In-itself: an object has no connection to any human concept, standard, expectation or intention[footnoteRef:5] The discovery oppresses him and gives him a physical nausea. Nausea, in the novel, is a special kind of consciousness: different from the nausea (stomach upset) in ways that it is experienced as a revelation of overabundance, contingency and absurdity[footnoteRef:6] yet at the same time, similar in ways that it is experienced with a feeling of disgust, repugnance and exhaustion. Sooner, in the experience of Roquentin, he realized his own existence and found it to be contingent. Contingent means that something exists but it is possible that it should not have existed; it is not necessary. From the fact that something is it does not logically follow that it necessarily is.[footnoteRef:7] Roquentin felt disgusted. Roquentin is contingent. I too was a superfluous I hadnt any right to exist, I had appeared by chance, I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe[footnoteRef:8] Essence is an illusion; only particular things exist. The world is divided linguistically and conceptually by imposing an organising framework upon it.[footnoteRef:9] Existence is inherently meaningless and pointless but brutally oppressive and present Only particulars exist and things being what they are depend on the fragile contingencies of human language and face the unsolved problem of induction.[footnoteRef:10] [2: Ibid. ] [3: Something exists is to say that it is and somethings essence is to state what it is. ] [4: Jean-Paul Sartre, Basic Writing, Ed. Stephen Priest, (London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2001), 21. ] [5: Kamber, On Sartre, 45.] [6: Ibid., 60.] [7: Sartre, Basic Writing, 22.] [8: Ibid., 23.] [9: Conceptualism generality belongs only to our conceptual scheme, of our modes of classification. Nominalism generality only belongs to language.] [10: Ibid., 24.]

Sartre distinguished things or objects around us. He divided these existing things into three categories: human beings (existence precedes essence), artefacts (essence precedes existence) and naturally occurring objects (existence and essence coincide). Chronologically, to precede means to occur before or predate and logically, it means, a necessary condition for or a prerequisite for. For artefacts, Sartre used the paper knife as an example: the manufacturer conceived first the idea of the object before it has come to be; the idea is necessary in order for the conceived object to fit in to the its purpose and the external reality. The what precedes the is.[footnoteRef:11] For naturally occurring objects like stones and trees: They are and they are what they are simultaneously. Their being and their being that they are are mutually dependent.[footnoteRef:12] For human beings, they were not created to serve a pre-existing purpose. Human beings: there is no predetermined human essence and there is no human nature fixed in advance of human existence.[footnoteRef:13] Human beings exist first, and thereby acquired his essence through his actions. We have no essence and it is only in the totality of our choices that we define ourselves. [11: Ibid., 25.] [12: Ibid.] [13: Ibid.]

Existence Precedes EssenceThis is the first principle of existentialism is: Existence precedes essence. Man simply is Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.[footnoteRef:14] Man cannot be likened to a paper knife which served a pre-existing purpose according to the mind of the artisan. If essence precedes existence, man would be treated similar to a knife which would serve a purpose according to the mind of a maker, of a creator, of God. Sartre is an atheist. Thus, for him, there is no human nature because there is no God who would conceive of it. First, we are, then confront ourselves, emerge in the world and define ourselves later. [14: Steven Luper, Existing, An Introduction to Existential Thought, (California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000), 266. ]

The first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his shoulder.[footnoteRef:15] The opposition to Sartres existentialism is that it is highly subjective that we can do whatever we wish to become and do. But Sartre would like to emphasize the dignity of man compared to a stone or table. What gives me dignity is the possession of a subjective life, meaning I am something that moves myself toward a future and am conscious that I am doing so.[footnoteRef:16] The consequence of existing before having an essence is not that we create ourselves but that responsibility for existence rests on squarely on each individual.[footnoteRef:17] Man is not just responsible of for himself but for the whole mankind. What he does in his self affects the whole humanity. He is tied up to the human race as a member and actor who can change the course of human history. Man is not just a stone or table for these things cannot be responsible. If essence precedes existence, we cannot be held responsible for what we are. [15: Ibid. ] [16: Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, Socrates to Sartre and Beyond, A History of Philosophy, 8th Edition, (New York: McGraw Hill Companies Inc., 2008), 434. ] [17: Ibid.]

For Sartre, man is freedom; an embodiment of freedom. AnguishHuman beings experience their freedom as anguish (anguish in the face of the future). This anguish is similar to Kierkegaards. Man experiences anguish when he realises that he is not just responsible for himself but for the whole mankind. anguish, he means the apprehension, anxiety and sense of burden we experience when are confronted with the inescapability of making a choice that will change the course of our lives.[footnoteRef:18] Man is not just responsible for himself but for others and rest of mankind. Sartre phrased this idea that one ought always to ask oneself what happen if everyone did as one is doing.[footnoteRef:19] Although he said that one is not always considering this question, but we are ought to ask ourselves such question. Everything happens to every man as though the whole human race had its eyes fixed upon what he is doing and regulated its conduct accordingly.[footnoteRef:20] Anguish is the very condition of our action, for action presupposes that there is a plurality of possibilities, and in choosing one these, they realise that it has value only because it is chosen.[footnoteRef:21] Sartre gives the example of a military leader who needs to decide on an urgent matter in a battle. The leader is confronted with choices wherein the possibility of letting the soldier under him to die or more casualty for the civilian of his nation. The anguish is felt at the moment of deciding. There is this kind of feeling that I dont want to decide on this matter or the feeling that one would refuse to decide. But there is the inevitability of deciding and so the leader decides in or with anguish. When Sartre said that man is freedom and he is condemned to be free, because he is not free not to be free there is that sense of anguish in freedom. We are condemned because we didnt choose to be but find ourselves existing, thrown into the world, yet free because as soon as we are conscious of ourselves, we are responsible for everything we do.[footnoteRef:22] [18: Kamber, On Sartre, 76-77. ] [19: Luper, Existing, 267.] [20: Ibid.] [21: Ibid.] [22: Stumpf and Fieser, Socrates to Sartre, 435.]

AbandonmentThis state of being thrown in the world without God caused man the feeling of abandonment a term inspired by Heidegger. God does not exist, and that is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end.[footnoteRef:23] We shall not consider God as the ultimate source of morality but there is such thing as good even without Him conceiving it. Our sense of abandonment is a curious consequence of the fact that everything is indeed permitted, and as a result we are forlorn, for we cannot find anything on which we can rely, either within or outside ourselves. We are without any excuses.[footnoteRef:24] Sartre gives the example of his student who was confronted with choosing between two important matters in his life: going to England to join the Free French Forces or staying near his mother and help her to live. The student was faced with two moralities: morality of sympathy and morality of wider scope (Christian or Kantian). Values are uncertain, they too abstract to determine the particular nothing remains but to trust in our instinct[footnoteRef:25], the student said. Further, from the students reflection, he supposed, In the end, it is the feeling that counts; the direction in which it is really pushing me is the one I ought to choose.[footnoteRef:26] Sartre argues feelings are formed by the deeds one does. It cannot be a guide for an action. If the student would ask an advice from a priest, the advice would reflect the person of priest, which would likely bias the Churchs doctrine or ethics. If the student would ask an advice to a professor, the same applies, the beliefs of the teacher would reflect in the advice. From the two advices, it would still be up to the student what to choose. The choice would still be his in relation to the commitment he gave to the advice. Even in the case of sign - the sign would still be interpreted by him. Thus, burden or responsibility still falls on him. Abandonment implies that we ourselves decide our being. And with this abandonment goes anguish.[footnoteRef:27] In abandonment, there is more God to blame mans actions, but only himself. [23: Luper, Existing, 267. ] [24: Stumpf and Fieser, Socrates to Sartre, 435.] [25: Luper, Existing, 269.] [26: Ibid.] [27: Ibid., 270.]

That is why, in abandonment, Sartre suggests that we invent and create values. He says that values are subjective. Despair Another element of human existence, according to Sartre, is despair. This is the feeling of being limited within the scope of our wills. we limit ourselves to a reliance upon that which is within our wills, or within the sum of probabilities which render our action feasible.[footnoteRef:28] We cannot expect more from our existence than the finite probabilities it possesses.[footnoteRef:29] We are just finite beings and we are limited. This finitude is related to nothingness. Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being, like a worm[footnoteRef:30] Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.[footnoteRef:31] It is in our actions that we make our realities. If I am a cheater, I make myself a cheater. It is not just a consequence of my incapacitated mind or my poor memory. I am a cheater because I made myself a cheater by my actions. But it is not also to say that it I am a cheater once or twice in the examination, I am definitively a cheater, that I am nothing else but what I have lived. On the contrary, man is no other than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organisation, the set of relations that constitute these undertakings.[footnoteRef:32] Man is the sum of his actions and purposes. [28: Ibid. ] [29: Stumpf and Fieser, Socrates to Sartre, 436.] [30: Ibid,. 436. Note: We will discuss more on this matter on nothingness for it shall fall on Sartres Ontology.] [31: Luper, Existing, 270. ] [32: Ibid., 271. ]

Human ConditionAlthough Sartre says that there is no human nature, there is, nevertheless, a universal human condition. By discovering myself in the act of conscious thought, I discover the condition of all people. We are in a world of intersubjectivity.[footnoteRef:33] We are always with other persons and all our actions affect others and others affect us as well. What one purposes may be the same as the other. In this human condition, one cannot just act according to his whims because what one chooses or does affect others. I am always obliged to act in a situation that is, in relation to other people and consequently, my actions must not be capricious, since I must take responsibility for all my actions.[footnoteRef:34] Man is free and his actions in every situation are always related to others since he lives in an intersubjective world. If man makes excuses through fate, mysterious forces, passion or heredity to account for his actions, man is guilty of bad faith (mauvaise foi) or self-deception. [33: Stumpf and Feiser, Socrates to Sartre, 436.] [34: Ibid. ]

Bad FaithBad faith is the act hiding something from myself. Bad faith is difficult to understand because we can hide something from ourselves only if we know what we are hiding.[footnoteRef:35] The act of denying or fleeing from our freedom through a psychological determinism the view that human nature is responsible for what we do, is what Sartre calls, flight. If this is mans belief, he reduces himself to never being anything but what who he is.[footnoteRef:36] Moreover, flight is the response to the feeling of anguish. When man is confronted by the inevitability of freedom, of acting in every situation and the burden our freedom causes us, the tendency is to flee; and to flee is to live in bad faith. Living in bad faith is to live in lie. Sartre says, consciousness, instead of directing its negation outward, turns it towards itself. This attitude is bad faith[footnoteRef:37] It is a lie to oneself. Moreover, The essence of lie is implied in fact that the liar actually is in complete possession of the truth which he is hiding.[footnoteRef:38] The liar is half victim of his lie. The one practicing bad faith is hiding a displeasing truth or presenting as truth a pleasing untruth.[footnoteRef:39] Sartre believes that most men live in bad faith; a constant lie and denial of ones freedom and the responsibility that accompanies it. [35: Luper, Existing, 262.] [36: Ibid.] [37: Ibid., 291.] [38: Ibid.] [39: Ibid., 292.]

For Sartre, existentialism is a humanistic philosophy of commitment. In his Existentialism is a Humanism he intended to define existentialism and to distinguish atheistic from religious existentialism; to show that it is not a philosophy of despair, solitude and hopelessness, but a kind of humanism; to demonstrate that it offers a viable alternative to Christianity and Marxism as basis for choice and action. ConclusionTo conclude, man is an existing being. He has no predetermined future and he has no (human) nature. He makes his own future and defines himself through his actions. Man is free. Man is freedom; he is the embodiment of freedom. With freedom, he is faced with the full responsibility that accompanies it. Consequently, this inescapability of freedom and the burden of responsibility in every moment he is called for action let him experience anguish. Another feeling arising from this experience of absolute freedom is abandonment wherein man finds himself accountable for his action because there is no God to blame for or account for his action. From this constant anguish, he withdraws, he flees. In this attempt to escape he lives in bad faith, which is a kind of self-deception the kind wherein he accounts that human nature or a kind of determinism is responsible for his actions. Man lives in bad faith when he tries to escape or hide from himself the truth that he is free and thus responsible for his action. Other Reference:Onof, Christian J. Sartres Existentialism. http://www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-ex/ (accessed on August 18, 2013).

1