Thoughts.com Blogs

View Blog

073a

Jean-Paul Sartre: a second lecture

Folowing Heidegger, Sartre argues that mankind is abandoned in the world. This is not to say mankind has been abandoned in the sense of 'left behind' or 'neglected' by somehting or someone.

For Sartre there is nothing "out there" that could have abandoned us in this way. Rather, mankind is abandoned because there is no God to give human life purpose of moral direction.

Sartre's adoption of the notion of abandonment is the clearest possible expression of his profound atheism, his view that mankind is a cosmic accident and not the product of some higher design on the part of God or gods.

This conclusion brings us to the quintessence of Sartre's existentialism. As the human being is uncreated the idea or essence of each person does not precede his existence. Thence existence precedes essence.

With this maxim Sartre wants to say that the human being first exists without goal or definition and finds himself in the world. As a reaction on this awareness he defines the meaning of his existence.

This is the very opposite of philosophical idealism which we already find with Plato and Aristoteles. For Sartre it is not ideas, essences or minds that are primary but pure existence in the form of Being-in-itself.

Being-in-itself, like a stone just IS, does not depend on anything else for its being, whereas Being-for-itself, the basis of consciousness and ideas, arises through the negation of Being-in-itself.

Sartre places negation at the centre of his ontological theory of consciousness, his theory of Being-for-itself. In "Being and Nothingness" he argues that the only kind of being that can exist as a relation to reality or the world is a being that is, in itself, nothing, the negation of Being-in-itself.

This may sound pretty abstract and you may wonder what he means by this. Let me try to explain. We are in the world in two ways. On the one hand we are a material object, a body and as such we exist in the same way a stone exists.

Consciousness, however, makes us aware of our Being and is as such the negation of our Being-in-itself. We become without purpose or design a Being-for-itself. Impossible to be in the world like a stone is.

The designer of the meaning of our live are we ourselves. We create ourselves by making choices, groundless choices, but we have to choose for even not choosing is a choice.

Sartre's general claim is that ultimately choice is always and unavoidably based upon arbitrary decisions. His view is that if a choice could be guided and influenced in any way by beliefs, convictions or values, it would be a caused phenomenon rather than a genuinely free choice.

Unwilling to take ful responsability for our (past) actions calls Sartre a proof of bad faith. Sartre explores bad faith extensively in his novels, like "Nausea" and the three volumes of "Roads to Freedom".

Last February I bought the three volumes of "Roads to Freedom" on a secondhand bookmarket in Amsterdam. The first books by Satre, which I read when I was 18.

Now they patiently stand and wait on my bookshelves ready to accompany me on my coming vacation, which I now have to define as Being-elswhere and not at home (^_^).

The Discussion

[13:18] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: ;-)
[13:18] Alarice Beaumont: hahah.. so we shouold have waited wiht the sartre lesson ;-)
[13:18] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: :)
[13:18] Herman Bergson: Why so Alarice..?
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: until after you read them again
[13:19] herman Bergson smiles
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: some new insights
[13:19] Herman Bergson: I dont remember their content, so I am very interested to re-read them
[13:20] Herman Bergson: especially now that I have reviewed Sartre himself too
[13:20] arabella Ella: perhaps Herman may consider another class on Sartre after he has re-read the books
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: good thought
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: i was thinking the same
[13:20] Herman Bergson: Oh..that might be interesting
[13:20] arabella Ella: great gemma
[13:20] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: did satre ever say anything about randomness as a physical thing?
[13:21] Herman Bergson: comparing the novels with his philosophical writings
[13:21] arabella Ella: yes
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont: you could tell us much more
[13:21] Herman Bergson: I'll keep it in mind
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont: so after your vacation we have to talk about sartre again ;.-)
[13:21] arabella Ella: we all seem to be so thirsty for new knowledge
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont: :-)
[13:21] Herman Bergson: yes...seems so..:-)
[13:22] arabella Ella: that is why we are here
[13:22] Herman Bergson: What do you mean by randomness AP?
[13:22] Vladimir Apparatchik: Did Sartre therefore believe in "free will " and if so how did it work?
[13:22] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: random - not able to be predicted exactly
[13:22] Gudrun Odriscoll: herman, I really liked the exit, with all the dead people living besides the alive ones
[13:23] arabella Ella: sartre has such a realistic and vivid imagination he is brilliant
[13:23] Herman Bergson: I cant place that Ap...
[13:24] Herman Bergson: Yes Vladimir....according to him we are even convicted to freedom
[13:24] arabella Ella: and are we fearful of our freedom Herman?
[13:24] Vladimir Apparatchik: so where did it come from - was mind separate from matter to him?
[13:25] Ap4ch3 Xingjian: His view is that if a choice could be guided and influenced in any way by beliefs, convictions or values, it would be a caused phenomenon rather than a genuinely free choice.