In his essay Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre defends existentialism from
the claims that his philosophy is not human oriented and is merely a
contemplative philosophy. Sartre points out that the concept of existentialism
must be humanistic and ought not to be reproached as it has been. Throughout
his essay Sartre brings up multiple points, examples, relations, and all that
jazz. But for now I would like to discuss the quote that has been become the
mantra of existentialism, the famous (and unintuitive) line: “existence
precedes essence”.
This line reverses the traditional
metaphysical principle that essence precedes existence (thanks to Plato’s
forms, Descartes’ ramblings, and nearly every other philosopher up until the 20th
century), meaning that the concept of human nature is only but a myth, for
human beings begin from a subjective point and develop their own nature. Human
beings, according to Sartre, emerge into the world and come by way of existence
to define their own unique essence.
Of course this line, while the
promise of a person taking their fate into their own hands and constructing
himself or herself through sheer personal responsibility is uplifting, this
line comes with its complications. Trying to label human beings as being a
freedom by which one acts their will upon the world ignores much of, if not
all, neuroscience, physics, as well as social theory. Of course Sartre is well
aware of his claims (being the anti-determinist that he is) being contrary to
previous arguments, to try and ignore that 1) laws of nature do in fact exist
and 2) every effect has a cause seems to me to be taking human freedom too far.
For example, if we cannot try and determine how human beings act in relation to
their world and to others, how can we possibly construct social theory?
If human beings are pure freedoms,
it appears as though we cannot properly categorize how a human being may act,
but this is not so. True, while a human being does have several options as to
how to act, it is possible that
persons can make predictions based on probability as to how a person may act.
Human beings do have a kind of instinct about themselves that is seemingly
hardwired into our brains (fight or flight comes into mind).
While I do feel a rush from reading
Sartre’s philosophy, it does ignore too many details that I believe are
essential towards understanding being, as well as human beings. What do y’all
think?
Though I don't know the extend of Sartre's Marxist leanings near the end of his philosophical career, I would speculate that Sartre's idea of a human being a "pure freedom" transformed more into Marx's idea of "species-being"; that is, the capacities that differentiate humans from other animals. I think one could then use Sartre's language and call this species-being the ability to transcend. And as Dr. J pointed out in class, one's ability to transcend does not at all mean that the desired outcome of the transcendence be fulfilled. Dr. J's transcendence of the material realities/facticity inhibiting women from gaining presidential office In other words, would require only that she actively try to become president, not that she actually succeed. Thus, one can factor into Sartre's theory material realities that affect the probability of a particular transcendent goal being fulfilled. Being a "pure freedom" means that we all have common potential to transcend facticity, though this potential becoming kinetic can be manipulated by material conditions.
ReplyDeleteI think Sartre's claim that human beings are a freedom is a little too strong. While existentialists admit that humans have certain facts about themselves that cannot be changed, this seems largely to be relating to physical attributes rather than predispositions. I think the claim should be weakened to allow for the "blueprint" (as I understand it) that our body has at birth as a result of various conditions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Schaeffer that Sarte's seeming dismissal of social and biological tendencies can be assuaged by associating Sarte's 'human being' with Marx's 'species-being,' however, though such a move makes Sarte more compelling, I think it is still a bit underwhelming considering the incredible connotations of 'pure freedom.' To retain the weight of that term, I believe we should focus less on the vast scope of that freedom that is implied and rather on the fact that some semblance of pure freedom the essential human quality which sets us infinitely apart from all other creatures and circumstances.
ReplyDelete