SARTRE PT. I

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. 

TRAGIC SENSE OF LIFE

Miguel de Unamuno's Tragic Sense of Life, is an affective, heavy piece of philosophy, and a work with an arguably misleading title. Taken at face value, the title implies that life is tragic and existence is a debacle. But this implication is untrue. One cannot take Unamuno, the title of his work, or his work as a whole at face value. The nature of Unamuno's Tragic Sense of Life requires that readers dig beneath the surface to uncover its true meaning. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the point Unamuno attempts to prove in his writing.

Rather than propose that life is in and of itself tragic as the title might imply, Unamuno posits that tragedy is an integral facet of life – a subjective condition of existence and a method by which man can arrange the details of his life. The tragedy of life does not exist in extraneous events – such as heartbreak, sickness, and death – but rather in the essence of events and the manner in which events are interpreted. Unamuno suggests that the pith of the tragic sense of life, its most tragic feature of all, is that life demands that man be rational and aspire to achieve his full rational potential, while at the same time, he must acknowledge and accept his utter irrationality. Unamuno rejects that man is rational, and argues in favor of passion and the desertion of rational aspirations. In this sense, Unamuno's ideologies are akin to Kierkegaard's “leap of faith”. And as with Kierkegaard, it is Unamuno's rejection of human rationality that I find myself at odds with.

That isn't to say that I disagree entirely with Unamuno. The bit about the “matter” of one's life – if the matter of one's life is founded on accepted but not truly believed doctrines and dogmas, then the inevitable onset of fissures and quakes in one's moral foundation will cause one's morality to give way entirely – I agree with that. Virtues and values held independent of doctrines and dogmas are the true 'matter' of life, and give life meaning. These virtues and values develop as a result personal experiences, not because of some scripture or because “the man” says it is so. These virtues are the essence of the individual, and as such, one will rationalize the circumstances of his/her life in order to preserve these virtues.

All this talk of reason and rationality, and passion and irrationality, brings me to a question posed by the first group. Are reason/rationality and faith/passion mutually exclusive? Or can they exist simultaneously, despite their glaring deviations? Reason tells me the former is more plausible. And although I'm usually one for reason, I'll take a look at the other side of the coin. 

Perhaps reason and passion exist not only simultaneously, but symbiotically. I think reason is often cast in an unfair light. That is, to be truly objective, one mustn't be influenced by emotions. The same can also be said of passion. To be passionate is to be subjective, and in order to be truly subjective, one must rely entirely on emotions and go with his/her gut or heart or any number of romanticized organs. The dichotomy between reason and passion can also be attributed to the general assumption that the physical world and the metaphysical world are separate and exist on entirely different planes. Reason is thought to exist in the physical world of cold, calculable logic. Passion is thought to exist in the metaphysical world of the mightiest intangible – emotion. But maybe there is no distinction between the physical world and the metaphysical world. Maybe each requires that the other exists. The lingering doubt left by a choice made in a fit of passion requires the rationale of reason to alleviate uncertainty, just as the cold, calculable nature of reason requires that passion light a fire in one's heart to signal that the choice one has made is in keeping with the essence of oneself. Maybe reason and passion are not unlike one another. Maybe passion is the reason.