In
No Exit (and again in Being
and Nothingness), Sartre aims to
expose the fiction of the notion that, regarding humanity, “essence
precedes existence”, by developing a thoughtful analogy out of an
ordinary object – a paper-knife (or letter opener). The analogy is
as follows: in order to create a paper-knife, one must first
have a concept of what a paper-knife is. In this example, essence
precedes existence; concept allows for creation. Just to clarify,
existence is beings fact of being, whereas essence is a beings
function or purpose. In the case of the paper-knife, essence precedes
existence because somebody recognized the need for such an object.
Once the need for an instrument that neatly opens envelopes and
separates pages of a book was recognized, its physical function and
appearance could be conceptualized. Thus, in this example, essence
clearly precedes existence.
So
the same must also be true of humanity, right? Wrong. Sartre proposes
that man is in fact, the only being in the world for which the
inverse is true. In the case of humanity, existence precedes essence.
For humans, there is no preconcieved purpose (essence). In the
absence of God, how could there be? Man just is. And after coming
into existence, each man establishes his own essence through his his
actions and the choices he makes. In this ideology, there are no
expectations, no presuppositions – there are only actions for which
the actor is responsible. And if I understand correctly (which is a
big if with Sartre) the
choice itself is not what matters, but rather it is taking
responsibility for the outcome, whatever that may be, that is
important.
Now, about responsibility. Sartre places so much emphasis on taking
responsibility, I think, because – even though it can be completely
paralyzing – our absolute freedom to choose is what distinguishes
us from all other beings in the world. If we are condemned, for
better or worse, to always choose, then we might as well respect (and
I use respect for lack of a better word) this freedom and take
responsibility for our choices. Or as Thad says “Own it”.
On
that note... At one point, Monday's discussion segued into a
conversation regarding the nature of our freedom to choose. Is the
freedom to choose a curse or a gift? I'm quite certain that Sartre
believed the former, despite his using the word 'condemned' to
describe the free state of man. Or maybe the meaning got lost in
translation. Either way, Sartre firmly believed that the freedom to
choose is a remarkable ability exclusive to man. After reading No
Exit and now Being and
Nothingness, I'm inclined to
agree.
I
think the freedom to choose is remarkable and totally liberating. No
presuppositions, no expectations, just absolute freedom to make
choices that greatly influence your existence. Sure, at times, it can
seem daunting and burdensome, but I'll take a little burden, a little
weight on my shoulders, in exchange for freedom if it means that I
don't have to 'live' like a Sim. Speaking of the Sims, when I was
younger, I wasted many a summer playing the Sims on a massive Gateway
computer. In my circle of friends (in hindsight, I'm like “what was
I thinking??”) it was disturbingly popular to torture your Sims. By
torture I mean, make them go for swim, click pause, remove the pool
ladder, and watch them flap around until they drown from exhaustion.
Or, just as disturbingly, put them in a room with no doors, deny them
food or water or sleep or a toilet, and watch them freak out until
they shrivel up, die, and turn into an urn.
But I didn't do a whole
lot of Sim torture. Not because I wasn't just as twisted as my
adolescent friends were (for the record, I hope I wasn't), but
because I had this overwhelming fear that my Sims were just like me.
Maybe, I was a Sim and some being greater than myself was sitting in
front of a massive Gateway computer, controlling my life to pass the
time. I was afraid that if I played the part of a twisted God, then
the great being that was potentially controlling my life would play
just as twisted. That seems completely ridiculous now – I know is
no great mouse-wielding being who controls my existence from behind a
computer screen – but in some small way, I think it played it role
in my developing an intense appreciation for the freedom to choose,
for better or for worse.
I love your Sims story and your post generally (It makes me wish I had put more time into polishing mine). It has made me wonder. Sartre said that humans are the only entities for which existence came before essence. What about the rest of the animal kingdom? what makes us different? I guess he said that there is "at least one being" so what makes man and any other beings whose essence is defined after its existence different then a "kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower"? It seems to me self evident that people choose who they are, we form our essence but what about the other things. The rocks, the moss, etc. Where or when did their essence form if not after their existence. Perhaps they don't have an essence? They simply are? I don't really know.
ReplyDeleteI feel frankly a spammer unloading on you, a complete stranger, with which I very well may only share on thing in common (this class), all these questions as I begin to grapple with something I do not yet fully understand. I do so under some degree of duress (as you know). Anyway Sartre gives out some very interesting ideas. Um, thank you for your post.
I really like how you explain the concept of “essence precedes existence”. Much better than Sartre’s explanation haha. Your first paragraph made the entire paper knife thing much more clear for me. I suppose now I can say I do agree with Sartre in how something must be an idea before being created. Even if what we see as a knife existed on earth naturally, without us finding the use for that knife it’s nothing more than a piece of metal or rock. Once we find a use for it or an idea about it and give the knife a purpose it proceeds to become a knife. So I definitely agree that essence must precede existence.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Sartre that humanity is the only thing where existence precedes essence. I can’t think of one more thing is this world that exists first and then is given a purpose. But man just is, we are just here, we did not will ourselves or think of the idea of ourselves before we were created. We get thrown into this world, so we exist, and then we must make meaning and purpose of our own lives. We are in control of every aspect of out lives, and we give it as much or as little mean as we want. Nothing thought of us, gave us a purpose, and then willed us into being. Finally I got to agree with one of the philosophers in this class. Anyway, great blog post, you bring up numerous great concepts and ideas.
Hi Abby, this was a very well written and informative post. I too found Sartre’s philosophy on free will very liberating, although he does paint it in a negative way. There is a great quote by him that says “If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear.” Condemnation and damnation are sometimes synonymous and I believe that Sartre too views free will as empowering. Though it is not explicitly stated, there is a bit of optimism in Sartre’s philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAs a french student I can attempt to assure you that “L’homme est condamné d’etre libre” is pretty straightforward, and probably not lost in translation. You’re probably right in that a lot of the context could easily be misinterpreted by english translators. It would be interesting to read what he wrote in it’s original format. I do however know that Sartre was a dramatist and perhaps this dramatic side of him affected his philosophical writings too.
So this post has sparked my interest in the word condemned and I found a synonym to is in french which is “obligé.” If we changed the phrase to “Man is obligated to be free,” I don’t think it would stray too far from Sartre’s philosophy. Anyhow I’m sorry for spending so much time on definitions but It’s interesting that you brought it up. After further investigation, it very well could be a phrase that is misunderstood or misinterpreted. Changing it to obligation would certainly end the negative tone associated with Sartre’s “free will.” But perhaps Sartre truly did intend it in a negative way. The responsibility for our terrible actions (such as torturing sims) and our inability to succeed at everything we attempt are just a few of the negative aspects of free will.
Your sims story was rather horrifying, but I could see myself torturing sims and gaining some sort of entertainment out of it. It’s a good thing that I’m not behind the wheel of this universe.
Thanks for sharing.
Ah, freedom of choice! We’ve see this in quite a few existentialists now, they really seem to like that theme. And you’re right, of course, free will is liberating and exciting and captivating. Unfortunately, it might not exist in the way we want it to. You talk about the Sims and Sim torture (this was totally a thing, don’t worry, it’s not *too* sociopathic :P) but with Sims you knew that your actions weren’t going to have real world consequences. Sure they would insofar as the time you’d invested in that particular Sim’s health would have been for naught, but as far as the Sim goes, there was no suffering and no real debt of life incurred.
ReplyDeleteI grew up in Kansas, and I’m sure this isn’t unique to the Midwest but it certainly was a popular summer pastime to fry ants under a microscope. This is the same type of control we used to exert over Sims, but instead of watching pixels change color, you’re watching life drain away right in front of you. This is your freedom of choice exerted over another living being, robbing it of its choice. This happens with all sorts of pets and we can see the parallels clearly because they’re smaller than us and exerting control is easy. But we can be controlling of people, too. Your interactions with other humans (sure, they’re autonomous, but they’re not closed systems) change their behaviors and theirs yours. It might not be as obvious as a mouse-wielding god or a vicious deity armed with a single monstrous eye and a heat ray, but you’re being controlled, your free will being undermined, and your “Simness” being accessed. We might not be puny, but we can still be crushed.