Philosophy
Philosophy
Philosophy
in
Philosophy 11
Members:
Reheca Repollo
Frances Casey P. Alcantara
Kylie Ira R. Olpos
Jahm Rose P. Alicante
EXISTENTIALISM: JEAN-PAUL SARTRE
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
In ‘Existentialism and Humanism’, Sartre clarifies and partly revises his view of
existence and essence. He divides the things that exist into three kinds: human beings,
artifacts, and naturally occurring objects. In the case of human beings, existence
precedes essence. In the case of artifacts, essence precedes existence and in the case
of naturally occurring objects, existence and essence coincide. The idea of the object is
also necessary for the object to exist. Essence precedes essence in this case because
there is an answer to the question ‘what is it?’ before, and independently of, a correct
affirmative answer to the question ‘is it?’ The essence of the paper knife predates and is
required by its existence. In the case of naturally occurring objects, such as stones and
trees, their being does not predate their being what they are. In the case of human
beings, Sartre means there is no predetermined human essence and there is no human
nature fixed in advance of human existence (Priest, 2001: 25). Sartre, like other
philosophers of existence, had the idea “existence precedes essence” which meant for
him that all existing things in the universe are meaningless. Only through our
consciousness they have meaning, which means that it is we who create meaning.
Sartre explains “abandonment” as: “it is we ourselves, who decide who we are to
be” (Sartre, 2007: 34). As for "despair”, Sartre argues that despair means: we must limit
ourselves to reckoning only with those things that depend on our will, or on the set of
probabilities that enable action (Sartre, 2007: 35). By “abandonment”, existentialist
mean to say that God does not exist and that it is necessary to draw the consequences
of his absence right to the end. The existentialist strongly opposed to a certain type of
secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. For
existentialism, everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in
consequence forlorn (Priest, 2001: 32).
Sartre’s existentialism is based on human freedom. Sartre’s view of freedom is: “I
am condemned to exist forever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of
my act. I am condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom can be
found except freedom itself (Sartre, 1992: 439)”.
One of the most famous claims of ‘Being and Nothingness’ by Sartre is that, we
are aware to some extent of our freedom, and the responsibility that comes with it, but
we try to hide this from ourselves. We are aware, claims Sartre, that the pressures and
demands that the world presents to us are the result of the ways in which we see and
engage with things, and that this in turn is the result of our changeable characters rather
than any fixed natures.
This is what Sartre calls “bad faith”. To be more precise, he uses this term in
more than one way. In its most general sense, it labels the attempt to deny the basic
structure of human being, that the way an individual sees the world is determined by
that individual’s character, which in turn can be changed by that individual. We deny this
by pretending that our characters are fixed and unchangeable (Webber, 2009: 89).
Sartre thinks there are fundamentally two manners of being: being-for-itself and
being-in-itself. Roughly, being-for-itself is subjective being and being-in-itself is objective
being. Being-for-itself is the kind of being that pertains to one’s own existence. Being-in-
itself is the manner in which the world external to one’s own reality exists. Being-for-
itself entails the existence of consciousness, and consciousness of itself. Because it
entails consciousness, it entails that directedness towards the world called
“intentionality” which consciousness entails. Being-for-itself is free and entails a kind of
lack or nothingness (Priest, 2001: 115). Sartre suggests that “I am a kind of nothingness
because there is nothing that I am independently of my self constitution through those
choices” (Priest, 2001:116). Being-in-itself is opaque, objective, inert and entails a
massive fullness or plentitude of being. Being-in-itself is uncreated, meaning that
although it is, it never began to be and there is no cause and no reason for it to be
(Priest, 2001:117).
In existentialism drama, the dramatist examines the metaphysical life of man and
protests against it; existence becomes the source of his rebellion. It is made of utmost
restriction, a cry of anguish over the insufferable state of human being human.
Existential drama is impotent and despairing. The existential dramatist makes his
characters subhuman. Existential drama exaggerates human bondage (Exiri, 2009).
‘The Flies’ was written by Sartre in 1943. ‘The Flies’ is a call to people to
recognize their freedom. The play, ‘The Flies’, is about finding freedom which is an
important theme of existentialism. “Once freedom lights its beacon in a man’s heart, the
gods are powerless against him” (Sartre, 2.102). In the play, Sartre wants to
showfreedom through the protagonist of the play Orestos. Human freedom is very
important according to existentialism. Sartre has got the idea that people have the
ability to create their own world through freedom. Sartre’s opinion is that people are free
to make a choice and to act according to that choice. Orestos is free in the play so he
can make decisions about future, however his sister Electra who always thinks of past
to get her revenge, is not free, so she cannot look ahead and have freedom; “for fifteen
years I dreamt of murder and revenge” (Sartre, 3.2.114). “I had a dream. I saw our
mother lying on her back. Blood was pouring from her, gushing under the doors. A
dream” (Sartre, 3.2.109). In the play, it is pointed out that if one wants freedom, he
needs to get rid of past issues and look ahead. In the play, human freedom is the most
important issue, it is more important than deeds of the gods. We see another
existentialism theme in here, the lower situation of the gods in the play decreases our
reverence for the gods. In the play ‘No Exit’, Garcin cannot leave the room where they
are together because he needs the others to judge him; we have the same idea in ‘The
Flies’. Sartre in his 'Being and Nothingness’ argues that so as to have freedom, one
needs to ignore what others think about him or how others judge him; Sartre calls this
“being-for-others”. “Ah, if I only knew which path to take! ... yet this you know: that I
have always tried to act aright. But now I am weary and my mind is dark; I can no longer
distinguish right from wrong. I need a guide to point my way.... And yet -- and yet you
have forbidden the shedding of blood.... What have I said? Who spoke of bloodshed”
(Sartre, 2.2.89)? Orestos who was not free at first is in need of what other people think
of him or how they will guide him. “It’s now you are bringing guilt upon you. For who
except yourself can know what you really wanted? Will you let another decide that for
you” (Sartre,3.2.115)? One cannot act freely, if he takes the judgment of others into
consideration. “Only yesterday I walked the earth haphazard; thousands of roads I
tramped that brought me nowhere, for they were other men's roads. Yes, I tried them
all.... But none of these was mine. Today I have one path only, and heaven knows
where it leads. But it is my path” (Sartre, 3.2.105).
Orestos is aware of his freedom. Another issue that prevents people from
recognizing his freedom is not to get rid of the effects of the past. Electra cannot have
freedom because she is always busy with the past memories and this situation affects
her moving to the future; “But I don’t feel free. Can you undo what has been done? And
we are no longer free to blot it out. Can you prevent our being the murderers of our
mother for all time” (Sartre, 2.2.105)? In ‘No Exit’, three characters were in a room in
hell, who admit their sins to each other and want others to judge them which prevent
their acting freely; in ‘The Flies’, people in Argos do the same thing. But when they are
judged by others, they cannot move freely. Religion in the play is ignored because
nothing in existentialism is important than human freedom. Orestos says: “Orders?
What do you mean? Ah yes the light round that big stone. But it’s not for me that light;
from now on I’ll take no one’s orders, neither man’s nor god’s” (Sartre, 2.1.90). “We are
free Electra. I feel as if I’d brought you into life and I, too had just been born, I am free
Electra. Freedom has crashed down on me like a thunderbolt” (Sartre, 2.2.103).
Religious values do not have a chance to control human behaviors. Moral values and
sins people commit can rule people’s lives and behaviors but they prevent people from
absolute freedom. We have the issues of “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself” in the
play as Sartre pointed out in his ‘Being and Nothingness’. Another existentialist issue in
the play is nothingness. The protagonist Orestes who has absolute freedom in the play
notices vacancy around him, “why distort a past that can no longer stand up for itself”
(Sartre, 3.2.115)? Things are meaningless for him and this vacancy, as Sartre stresses
in his ‘Being and Nothingness’, is nothingness. Orestos says “what do I care for Zeus?
Justice is a matter between men, and I need no god to teach me it” (Sartre, 2.2.103). He
means that gods cannot affect his decisions and judgments; “You are God and I am
free; each of us is alone” (Sartre, 3.119). As Sartre points out, absolute freedom and
being-for-itself are very related to each other. Without being-for-itself, one does not
have absolute freedom. Being-in-itself is like a simple object, and does not have
capability to make a decision or judge itself. Therefore, being-in-itself cannot be related
to absolute freedom.
Dr. Michael Delahoyde in his article ‘Sartre, The Flies’writes what Jean-Paul-
Sartre thinks about his own play ‘The Flies’:
Orestes makes a choice, and thereby exercises his freedom, when at the end of
the play he takes on the fear and guilt of his people and thereby experiences alienation.
At the beginning of the play, Orestes wants to acquire the memories of the people and
thereby fill the void of homelessness in himself. But at the end of the play, by killing
Aegisthus and Clytemnestra, he takes on the remorse of the people and frees them
from their guilt. By making his choice, Orestes exists and creates his self (Delahoyde,
2011).
Another existentialist drama by Sartre, ‘Dirty hands’, written in 1948, is about the
assassination of a leading politician. The play tells us how the killer carried out his
mission. In the play ‘Dirty Hands’, we see that the protagonist Hugo feels emptiness in
his life. “We’re in a play. Nothing seems to me to be entirely real” (Sartre, 3.175). We
see a theme of existentialism in the play, nothingness. “All that is here lies” (Sartre,
3.177). Hugo experiences this nothingness issue in his life. Life seems to be
meaningless for Hugo and he says “what are we” (Sartre, 5.204)? Hugo even
experiences the nothingness in the idea of death. “A murder. I say, it’s so abstract. You
pull the trigger and after that you no longer know what goes on” (Sartre, 5.208). His own
life is meaningless for him. “I have no wish to live” (Sartre, 2.143). Hugo does not have
freedom at first, because he is a member of a party, he has to obey their orders. “If an
assignment is given, you gotto carry it out” (Sartre, 2.172). Karsky, another character of
the play, says “I don’t have the authority to accept, I am not the only one who has to
decide” (Sartre, 4.194). Another existentialism issue despair is seen in the play. “May be
you think that I’m desperate? Not at all: I’m acting out the comedy of despair” (Sartre,
4.199). But one thing made him realize his freedom. When he saw his wife with
Hoederer (another character in the play); Hugo killed him. He says “and besides, you
have freed me” (Sartre, 6.233). “I have not yet killed Hoederer. Not yet. But I am going
to kill him now, along with myself” (Sartre, 7.241). Realizing freedom, Hugo has
changed.
Haim Gordon and Rivca Gordon in their essay, 'Sartre on Our Responsibility for
Dead Lives: Implications for Teaching History” argue that in his play ‘Dirty Hands’,
Sartre has challenged the maxim that each generation creates its own interpretation of
history. He held that historical research discloses truths so as to obtain knowledge; it is
a realm of relative judgments. Indeed, ‘Dirty Hands’ and many of Sartre's other writings
resolutely indicate that an authentic responsibility toward the dead must include a
responsibility for the truth about these dead lives - even if that truth is cruel, harsh,
embarrassing, or painful. If you act as if each generation creates its own interpretation
of history, or as if history is a story written by the victors, your regard for the truth about
the lives of the dead vanishes, as does your concern for truth as guiding your daily life.
Furthermore, ‘Dirty Hands’ shows that by such disregard you give way to banal and evil
approaches. Respect for facts disappears. Cynicism very often thrives. Genuine
knowledge is banished to the sidelines. Frequently, bewitching myths and loathsome
fantasies based on partial truths prevail unchallenged. Note that responsibility toward
dead lives is part of Sartre's overall understanding of our responsibility in the world.
Central to this responsibility is respect for the freedom of others and the willingness to
struggle that this freedom will not be abused or destroyed. ‘Dirty Hands’ clearly
indicates that a person's death in no way relieves me of my responsibility to respect that
person's freedom which existed on earth until his or her death, and to struggle that the
memory of this freedom will not be distorted or destroyed. In ‘Dirty Hands’, Hugo is
willing to die so that the truth about the dead Hoederer's freedom, and deeds, will not be
erased from history. By assuming responsibility for Hoederer's death - even if he himself
has to die for such a decision - Hugo is also assuming responsibility for the world as a
place where truth deserves to be heard and known by all and sundry. This point
deserves to be emphasized. Through his courageous decision to respect the dead
Hoederer, Hugo is helping to create a world where truth is not erased from history so as
to serve the current interests of banal politicians and narrow adherents to the
communist (or any other) party line (Gordon and Rivca, 2001).
CONCLUSION