Sartre Minutes (Thank you, Nikki)

Sartre says that there are both atheist and theist existentialists. Most of the article follows the path from no God to existence precedes essence. But he mentions that there are Christian existentialists so you could start with God and get to the same point: existence precedes essence. So the article’s not really about God.

(A) Sartre says that the very core of existentialism is the idea that, for a human being, existence precedes essence.

1. What does this mean? (p. 3) (a) To explain the idea that essence precedes existence, Sartre gives the example of the paper knife and explains that it exists to cut letters. It would not exist if it did not have a purpose to it. “We wouldn’t produce a paper knife without knowing what it’s for” So if you use it to stab somebody, that’s not good because that’s not its purpose. So, in this case, essence precedes existence. If human beings came about in the same way as paper knives, then God was thinking something: I want something that does x. So God created humans. Just as there are things that you should and should not do with paper knives, there are things that we as humans should and should not do. (b) But Sartre says that for human beings, existence precedes essence. Basically, we exist first and then we do things that define ourselves and live our lives in whatever way we choose (and this determines our essence, and what it means to be a human being.) Through existing, we create our essence.

2. What are the implications for the way we should live? (p. 4) The implications for the way we should live: We have a god-like responsibility to create what it is to be human, since there is no pre-set human essence. We should live our lives as a model for all mankind. We need to set examples and pattern our lives so that others will follow. Don’t think of yourself as an individual because what we do makes up mankind. As you live your life, what you’re doing is producing what it is to be a human being.

3. He says there are Christian existentialists. Is that puzzling? Can you explain how a Christian could believe that existence precedes essence? (p. 17) It can be puzzling, but it makes sense because you can believe that there is a God that made us as a blank slate, with no conception of how and what we should be. It is a God that is not so involved with our lives and we are still responsible for them. So God is in the picture, but not playing the role of an artisan as he does in the example of the paper knife. It is a God that gave us a greater degree of freedom.

(B) The awareness that existence precedes essence leads to anguish, says Sartre. Anguish is what we feel when we recognize that we must choose for everyone, not just for ourselves, but cannot have any proof of being right.

1. Expand on the meaning of anguish (pp. 4, 5) Anguish: Make every decision by thinking that all of humanity is watching you… you have the burden of making a decision for everyone. The “for everyone” is the key to anguish. If an alien anthropologist came here, picked one person, and said: You are human and you define it… that’s what Sartre is saying. He’s giving everyone that burden. The pain of anguish comes from the fact that we choose for everyone in this way, yet we don’t have any proof that we’re choosing the right thing.

2. Explain in terms of some of Sartre’s examples (marriage, Abraham, the military leader). Examples: Military leader – when you make a decision like sending troops to their death, you are choosing what you think is best for a humanity. You should take the responsibility as your own, and it is inevitable that you will feel anguish. Sartre says that you never really choose for yourself, you choose for everyone. Marriage – he says someone who chooses monogamy chooses it for everyone. Since you’re the one creating what it is to be a human being, you have a god-like role, which creates anguish.

3. Does it make sense to you that we ought to feel anguish? Do we have such a burden if we are just tiny little drops on the canvas of life? Do we need to feel anxious? On the other hand, although it’s one little drop you never know which drop will percolate, permeate. Or what about the idea of “six degrees of separation” – you can influence six people, and they in turn will, etc. (although Sartre is probably not thinking about that.). Or maybe there is no collective canvas and your canvas is just yours, and everything on it matters, and you should do things knowing that they all make a difference. “In fashioning myself, I fashion man” – the whole burden of it.

(C) Sartre talks about the dilemma of the young man choosing between staying home with his mom and joining the French resistance to explain abandonment.

1. What is abandonment? (pp. 6-7) Help SEEMS to surround us…Kant, God, self-help books, greatest happiness principle, etc. So we don’t feel alone at all. Abandonment is the sense of losing all of this. Abandonment is realizing that these other things can’t determine how we actually behave and we can’t depend on them. If you depend on them, you’re committing to what they are telling you to choose. You’re the one in the driver’s seat. You can pretend it’s otherwise, but you would be deceiving yourself.

2. What does it have to do with the quote from Dostoevsky: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted”? (p. 6) Do you think that sentence is true? Dostoevsky’s quote. In ethics, it’s generally believed that God is not required. Sartre makes it seem that it’s obvious that without God there’s no morality, but in reality it’s not that obvious. Sartre thinks if there is no God, Kantian morality cannot be the true morality; categorical imperative cannot be true. Without God, utilitarianism also must be false. Basically, morality’s just up for grabs. [very controversial]

3. How could the young man really be in a state of abandonment if there are moral standards, scriptures, and religious leaders he could consult? What does Sartre say about all these options? (pp. 6-8) It’s up to us to judge some standard correct, to interpret scriptures, to choose a religious leader. We are not passive receivers of any of these things. When we see ourselves that way, we are just kidding ourselves.

(D) The young man (see C) comes to Sartre, and says “In the end, it is feeling that counts; the direction in which it is really pushing me is the one I ought to choose.” Sartre does not approve of this attitude.

1. Explain in detail why not. (pp. 7-8) He does not approve because you can’t estimate the strength of a feeling: “I can only estimate the strength of this affection if I have performed an action by which it is defined and ratified. But if I then appeal to this affection to justify my action, I find myself drawn into a vicious circle.” He’s basically saying that you determine how strong a feeling is based on the actions you commit, but if you’re determining whether to act based on a feeling, it’s like a vicious cycle. That’s why Sartre doesn’t approve.

2. When the young man asked for Sartre’s advice, what did he say to him? (p. 8) What Sartre said to the young man: You are free, therefore choose, that is to say, invent. No rule of general morality can show you what you ought to do: no signs are vouchsafed in this world.

3. Explain and assess this advice. Sartre says get yourself to feel anguish and abandonment, have a sense of responsibility, and then just choose/invent. As long as you see yourself as a free painter to the artwork of your life, then you are fine. You’re supposed to invent after you’ve gotten yourself in this anguished, abandoned state. He would find the objective list theory absurd because there is no list of what’s

(E) What is despair?

1. Explain, using Sartre’s examples. (p. 9) Despair comes from the realization that we must depend on others without being sure how they will act. Sartre’s examples come from the 1940s political setting, He is thinking of resistance members who had to rely on each other, as they battled the Nazis. He’s also thinking of Marxist struggles, and the difficulty of counting on one’s “comrades.” In a modern setting, we can feel despair in all kinds of situations. You go out and work hard for a political candidate on election day. This will only make a difference if other people do the same across the country. But will they?

2. How is despair related to the idea that existence precedes essence? We can’t be sure how others will act because there is no built-in human essence.

3. Does it make sense to feel despair? There is much more predictability to human behavior than Sartre is prepared to admit, but there’s also unpredictability. It’s true that in situations requiring cooperation, we have to take the risk that the other party won’t do what’s required. You can even experience this in completely everyday situations like driving through an intersection on a green light. Will the people driving in the other direction really stop on red?