I agree with Sartre’s ‘existential imperative’ as communicated in his lecture Existentialism Is a Humanism (1946-7). He begins with the fundamental principle of existentialism, ‘existence precedes essence’ by contrasting something that does have essence prior to its existence. Anything that a human would craft for some purpose, he uses the example of a paper-knife, as something that is designed with a specific use in mind. The essence of the thing precedes its existence because the creator of the item determined that essence before they made it. A human being had in mind what the function of the object would be, then went about crafting it. (Sartre 206)
Sartre’s discussion moves to the idea of god as the ‘supernal artisan’ of man, just as man was the creator of the artifact. Hypothetically, if god created man as man creates artifacts, then it would seem reasonable to believe that man’s essence precedes existence, just like the paper-knife example. However, Sartre takes the position of atheistic existentialism, where one cannot rely on the belief in god to define man’s essence or explain existence. (Sartre 207)
Sartre distinguishes his perspective from the concept of human nature given by Kant. Sartre states, “Man possesses a human nature; that ‘human nature,’ which is the conception of human being, is found in every man; which means that each man is a particular example of an universal conception.” (Sartre 207) Sartre disagrees with this connection to a categorical imperative, in that the universality of man is represented in a pre-civilized bushman or a corporate executive both demonstrating fundamental qualities of ‘Man’s’ essence that precedes existence. (Sartre 207)
Without god or kant to ground human nature, Sartre is able to profess his principle of existence precedes essence as he states,
“whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man…the human reality. …man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards. If man …is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no god to have a conception of it. Man simply is.” (Sartre 207)
Man exists first, he ‘is’ and from that point he wills his essence. Only after his existence does his will establish his essence. What man ‘is’ is what he makes of himself as a project possessing subjectivity. (Sartre 207) This projection of self is dependent on the existence of man willing his own purpose. Conscious decisions of the will establish a responsibility for man’s existence that places him in possession of himself. A specific man is not only responsible for himself but for all men, as Sartre states,
"When we say that man chooses himself, not only do we mean that each of us must choose himself, but also that in choosing himself, he is choosing for all men. In fact, in creating the man each of us wills ourselves to be, there is not a single one of our actions that does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be" (208)
The existential imperative is seen in the connection between the part and the whole. This is the main reason why I agree with Sartre; because there is a connection between properties of the instance of a category and the category itself. The decisions of one man has implications for man in general. Sartre takes the implications of the existence of ‘a man’ to the larger category of ‘Man’ to the essence of what a specific man chooses to do is also reflective of ‘Man’ in general.
When we make a decision, we are also deciding for the category we are representative of. He is specifically addressing the quote above in demonstrating that every individual person is part of a larger category of ‘persons’ or every man is part of ‘Man.’ Existence of man is not your own individual existence but evidence of the existence of the category of man. You are one of many that create a group. What you do as one person is also a reflection of that group.
When we make a decision, we establish our values by choosing one option over a poorer choice. This is how our choices connect to the ‘image of man as we think he ought to be’ in the above quote. As Sartre explained previously, when we make decisions we are making those decisions not only for ourselves but also for man in general. When we make a choice, the value embedded in that choice is a normative ‘ought’ that we also decide for man in general. (Sartre 208)
Sartre discusses how when we make a decision we face anguish, that we have chosen one possibility amongst all others. We commit our decision for all of mankind and are bound to our responsibility of our existence. (209) He explains how when one does not accept that their decisions are that which humanity is to regulate themselves by, they are avoiding the anguish embedded within their choices. He identifies how leaders feel this emotion when they make important decisions. (Sartre 210)
Our freedom is hence relative to the fact that there is no determinism captured in the existence precedes essence principle. Sartre states,
“man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nonetheless at liberty, and from that moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.” (Sartre 211)
Our freedom is established in disbarring ourselves from the containment of preconditions of human nature and tales of gods stipulating man’s essence. Our capacity for awareness gives us the ability to determine how we create our own project of our ‘self’ through our decisions and development of our values.
Not only are we acting on behalf of ourselves, but we are humanity. Each individual person is a representation of us as a group. When we act with value, we determine the values of humanity as a whole. It is our freedom based on our existence preceding our essence that gives us the responsibility to choose who and what we will become.
Given what Sartre has communicated, it is liberating knowing that we can write our own personal narrative in becoming who we want to be. It is important to know that being human as we experience it, is within a certain context. Even though we may define our essence, it would be limited to that which we control. For whatever is outside of our capacity for choice and decision cannot be considered by Sartre as part of our essence.
Essence for Sartre is what we make of it, it is of a different kind than the psychological properties that facilitate or compose the experience we are having. It is within those psychological predispositions that we make these decisions and act from. There may be two different kinds of essence, an equivocation, for one would be the subjective freedom of creating our own story based on our decisions, and the fundamental category that supports our decision making capacity, our psychology is the other.
De Beauvoir's Freedom
De Beauvoir’s conception of freedom is about not allowing the obstacles in life prevent one from existing in the pursuit of projects. We have the freedom to overcome that which obstructs our path and are not limited to it. (295) She believes that freedom is where our values come from and the justification of our existence. (292) Willing morality and freedom from ourselves are the same thing. When we exercise our freedom in our decisions, there is a moral component in them. (293)
De Beauvoir believes that humans are predominantly free in a spontaneous act of contingently casting ourselves into the world. She states,
“The human spontaneity always projects itself toward something.” (De Beauvoir 293)
The meaning of what we project ourselves towards is justified only through our capacity to decide for it ourselves. When we motion towards the end of our project, we must accept that project by being present, not absent, for it to be part of our will. (293)
Sartre’s conception of freedom is based on his existential principle ‘existence precedes essence.’ The definition of man happens after his existence as sartre states,
“to begin with he is nothing…he will be what he makes of himself.” (Sartre 207)
The essence of man is what he wills for himself, what he makes himself into. In this making he is aware of pushing himself into the future as a subjective project. (207)
Sartre discusses how the existence of man is based on his purpose in projecting himself into the future through the decisions he makes. These decisions can be prior manifestations or momentarily spontaneous. Man is responsible for himself relative to the decisions he makes. (208) This responsibility for our existence based on our decisions leads to anguish that we have chosen one possibility over another. (210)
These implications mean that there is no determinism for humans based on the principle of ‘existence precedes essence.’ Sartre states,
“man is free, man is freedom.” (211)
He communicates how we have no justification or excuse to base our behaviour other than ourselves. We can not use god or any other concept as a crutch for our essence and must claim responsibility for ourselves. Sartre states,
“man is condemned to be free…he did not create himself, yet is…at liberty…from that moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.” (211)
De Beauvoir and Sartre are similar but different in some respects. The language De Beauvoir uses is not as dark as when Sartre says we are ‘condemned to be free.’ De Beauvoir has a much more optimistic tone to how she views our freedom, that we can transcend obstructions. Sartre focuses on anguish from committing to a value/decision among other possibilities, whereas De Beauvoir focuses on transcendence of obstacles in our existence. They agree on the principle of existence preceding essence, that our values and meaning of existence are created through our freedom of choice, and the spontaneity of decisions that project ourselves into becoming.
References
Sartre, Jean Paul. Existentialism, edited by Robert C. Solomon, Oxford, 2005.
Comments