Rakhi Dalal's Reviews > Existentialism and Humanism

Reading Sartre’s Existentialism is a Humanism has been as arduous as it has been stimulating, for while I did try to understand his philosophy, I could also acutely discern what challenged my understanding of his work.

To begin with Sartre explains Atheistic Existentialism. He says:

Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world –and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him 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.

The first principle of Existentialism according to him is: Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.

By this he places the entire responsibility of a human self on himself. In this World where “God is Dead”, we humans are condemned to be free. Condemned because we do not exist out of our choice but our existence is, to begin with, imposed upon us i.e. we are here first and then once we become aware of this existence, are only we free to make out whatever we wish to from it, any action that we will to, in a world which doesn’t offer any objective, guidance or consolation.

Sartre speaks of abandonment. The ‘abandonment’ implies that since there is no God to lead the humanity, we are on our own. This abandonment may result in anguish or despair. Anguish, for being aware of the weight of responsibility of our freedom, for if God does not exist we are left without excuses. Despair, for being unable to accept things as they happen outside our control.

While explaining existentialism, he strongly opines that there is no human nature because there is no God. By this he means, there is no conception prior to the existence of man, but that man simply is. So, he is responsible for what he is and what he makes of himself. Hence, man is defined by the sum total of actions that he takes and his relation with the world.

Answering his critics, he further says:

And this is what people call its “subjectivity,” using the word as a reproach against us. But what do we mean to say by this, but that man is of a greater dignity than a stone or a table? For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower.

Also:

Quietism is the attitude of people who say, “let others do what I cannot do.” The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, “Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.”


It is here that the question arises: what about the people who cannot take actions according to their will? First, because they may not be free to do so. Second, even if we argue that this cannot be the case, [Sartre gives the example of a coward whose actions determine the way he live his life (cowardly)] still what can be said of people who are not even remotely aware of their freedom i.e. even the freedom to think, let alone to choose or act. In other words, who are not conscious of their will but accede to their circumstances mechanically. Why, aren’t we aware of the oppression of certain classes/ races in the form of slavery? Can we say for sure that when they didn’t oppose, it was because of only cowardliness, a fear of things falling apart from even the tolerable? Couldn’t it be that they were so numbed of the continuous oppression/ exploitation that they were not even conscious of their own will?

Also, what can be said of the people whose minds are not as evolved as those of their fellow beings? Those who depend entirely upon a help to even go through their daily routines because they are not conscious of their surroundings or even of their body? What can be said of their life since it is not a life which is a sum total of their actions, because strictly speaking they do not act themselves for they cannot even think. Can we then conclude that their life is not a subjective life but is equivalent to that of a moss or a cauliflower? Surely, we cannot say this because it is not humane and lacks the virtue of kindness or empathy.

The humanism that he(Sartre) endorses emphasises the dignity of human beings; it also stresses the centrality of human choice to the creation of all values.[1]

But for Existentialism to be truly Humanism, shouldn’t there be an emphasis on right action, rather than just action? How one can justify the individual choices / action which can bring upon wars / anarchies in this world? How can then such individual choices be responsible for whole human kind? And the question which may still arise is who can justify what “right action” is?

I think it is time for me to read Kant.

Sartre, while publishing this work in translation, had changed the title from “Existentialism is a Humanism” (French) to “Existentialism and Humanism”. I wonder what his reasons were for doing so.

Of course I, in no way, possess wisdom or knowledge adequate to justify my thoughts on the subject of Existentialism. Further, it cannot be ignored that Sartre was an eminent philosopher who influenced, and still influences, the views held on this subject by not only literati but also common readers like me. And I do believe that this work is quite important in understanding the philosophy of existence.

Should definitely be read.

-----------------------------------------------------

[1] Source: http://philosophynow.org/