Get Your Smart On
Part One of our treatment of Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism Is A Humanism
In this old thinkPhilosophy podcast from 2018, I explore Jean-Paul Sartre's essay “Existentialism is a Humanism,” a key introduction to existentialist philosophy. Sartre argues that existentialism’s central tenet—existence precedes essence—rejects preordained purpose, emphasizing human freedom and responsibility to create meaning through actions. This freedom leads to existential moods like anguish, abandonment, and despair, but also enables authentic action. The podcast session was an hour long, so I am breaking down into two parts for greater digestibility. Enjoy!
TRANSCRIPT
“I have lately been told of a lady who, whenever she lets slip a vulgar expression, in a moment of nervousness, excuses herself by exclaiming, ‘I believe I'm becoming an existentialist.’”
Hello, Truth Seekers, and welcome to this thinkPhilosophy podcast. In today's podcast, I'm excited to bring you Sartre's little gem of an essay, “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Not only because I love this piece, but because it is a great intro to the basic tenets of existentialism.
If you've been working to establish a philosophy reading practice, I'd suggest that this is a great essay to add to your queue of things to read, especially after today, because you'll have a overall sense of the piece and you'll be able to approach it with this background.
I also want to mention that if you take a good essay like this one and you take the title and turn it into a question, the rest of the essay should be an answer to the question. So in this case, it would be “Existentialism is a humanism?” In today's podcast, we're going to take a look at Sartre's answer to this very question.
We're going to begin by taking a look at the three major parts of this essay, and then we're going to delve deeper into the essay by looking at a couple of quotes of what Sartre says about two different themes. The first is the intersubjectivity, which is a pretty big theme in Continental Philosophy. And the second one is his redefinition in the end of atheistic Existentialism as humanistic existentialism.
I'd like to get started by reading the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Sartre. This is my favorite online encyclopedia resource, and I think it is the best, especially where it comes to Continental Philosophy. Here is how they're on a entry on Sartre begins:
“Sartre, born in 1905, died in 1980, is arguably the best known philosopher of the 20th century. His tireless pursuit of philosophical reflection, literary creativity, and in the second half of his life, active political commitment, gained him worldwide renown, if not admiration. He's commonly considered the father of existentialist philosophy, whose writing set the tone for intellectual life in the decade immediately following the Second World War. And indeed this breaking from the entry here, this essay was delivered in 1945, which is just on the heels of the end of Second World War.”
I think it is pretty hard to overestimate the impact that existentialism was having in French culture at this time. There were existentialist writers, existentialist poets, existentialist painters, and indeed the word existentialism had entered into the vernacular of everyday life. So I want to read here a little quote from the introduction or the first paragraph of Sartre's essay where he exclaims: “I have lately been told of a lady who, whenever she lets slip a vulgar expression, in a moment of nervousness excuses herself by exclaiming, I believe I'm becoming an existentialist.”
This gives you some sense of how the word existentialism was being used at that time by the general public. Okay, returning now to the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy and their entry on Sartre, they write:
“Among the many ironies that permeates his life, not the least is the immense popularity of his scandalous public lecture, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” delivered to an enthusiastic Parisian crowd on October 28th, 1945, though taken as a quasi-manifesto for the existentialist movement, the transcript of this lecture was the only publication that Sartre openly regretted seeing in print. And yet, it continues to be the major introduction to his philosophy for the general public.”
Sartre wrote a very hefty book called Being and Nothingness. Not only is it hefty, but it's pretty dense and hard to read. And he also wrote a number of existentialist novels where he took up philosophical themes in a narrative form, which were also pretty popular. But in the end, it's this essay that people read first, and that people really gravitate to. And I can imagine that this might be why Sartre was a little miffed that this is what his legacy has become, especially outside of the immediate kind of philosophical circles that he was running in.
Although I do also have to note that in the last few years, people are returning to being in nothingness and trying to unravel and unpack and develop his thinking there. So there, there is a bit of a resurgence in interest in his philosophical work and in deepening that scholarship. So I would look out for some new books on Sartre coming out in the near future.
Okay, we're ready to jump into the text. So let's take an overview of the three major parts of this essay. In the first part, which is the introduction, Sartre is going to address himself to three charges that are brought against existentialism, three major critiques of existentialism that come from two different groups, generally.
On the one hand, he had his comrades in the Communist Party on the political left of the French political landscape. And on the other hand, he had a Catholic majority, and France is a overwhelmingly Catholic country, who also had their sets of concerns about existentialism. So we're going to review those three charges.
In the second part, Sartre is going to present us with the most basic tenet of existentialism, and that is that existence precedes essence. I'm going to repeat that: Existence precedes essence. And you'll probably get sick of me saying that because it is the motto of existentialism and the starting point for understanding in this essay.
In the third part of this essay, Sartre takes us through how really understanding the basic tenet of existentialism leads to angst, anguish, existential angst, a sense of abandonment, and despair. And these are the three moods that characterize being in the world as man. And then finally, in the end, we're going to delve deeper into the text by taking a look at specifically what Sartre says about two different themes.
The first theme is that of intersubjectivity, which is a very major key concept in continental philosophy. And then the second theme is his comments on self-surpassing, which are where he redefines atheistic existentialism, of which he is a part, as existentialist humanism. So this is where he finally answers concretely, plainly the question that his essay sets out. And that is how is existentialism considered or how could it be considered a humanism?
In the first few paragraphs of Sartre's essay, he addresses himself to his critics and to the three reproaches, as he calls them, against existentialism. The first is a charge of quietism, that existentialism is politically ineffective. And as you might imagine, this is a charge that comes from his comrades on the left. The second reproach against existentialism is that it is too gloomy and pessimistic. And the third charge, which is the most serious charge, is that existentialism considers man only in isolation. That is that it is a subjectivism.
Before answering these charges, Sartre wants to make a distinction and say that part of the confusion over existentialism is that there are really two kinds of existentialists. There are theist existentialists, and about that group he doesn't say very much, except to name a couple names that would have been recognizable as also existentialists, but as theist existentialists.
The second group of existentialists are the atheist existentialists, of which group Sartre sees himself as a representative. And in this group, he also includes Heidegger and the French school, the French reading of Heidegger. And that includes the cohort of philosophers and other intellectuals of which Sartre was a part.
But what both types of existentialists agree upon. is the basic tenet of existentialism. Remember what that is?
Now what does that mean, right? It's not exactly self apparent. So Sartre now has to explain what this means. And he does that by offering a counter example. The counter example is, and bear with me because it's kind of a long winded example, But it is of an artisanal object, the production of an artisanal object.
Here's examples of a paper knife, but I think that's kind of an esoteric object. Take an everyday common object like a chair. How does a chair come into the world? Well, you have an artisan. who makes the chair according to a conception or an idea that they have of the chair that they want to make. They make that chair using materials of the world.
So say the chair is made out of wood and they make that chair for some end or purpose. Most chairs are made in order for us to sit without falling over. So a virtuous chair would fulfill that end or goal. And those of you, those of you who know your Aristotle, recognize those as the four causes, right?
You have the formal cause, which is the idea in the head of the maker. You have the efficient cause, who is the maker himself or herself. You have the material cause, which is the wood out of which the chair is made. And then finally you have the final cause, which is that purpose for which that object is made. Now this is a technological perspective of the world in terms of production.
And Heidegger's most basic critique of Aristotle's metaphysics is that this type of being, becomes the model for understanding being in general. That is, the being of objects becomes the model for understanding being. But the problem is that human beings are radically different from objects in the world.
Now, since Aristotle's metaphysics comes to predominate and to influence Christian, particularly Christian theology, the model that we have in our heads is that God is that kind of artisan who makes man according to his own image. And this is what Sartre says about that. I have a quote for you here. He writes, “God makes man according to a procedure and a conception, exactly as the artisan manufactures a paper knife, following a definition and a formula. Thus, each individual man is the realization of a certain conception, which dwells in the divine understanding.”
For the atheist existentialist though, there is no God. There is no a priori idea or conception or end to man that is given as essential in the way that we know what the essence of a chair is, which is its end to allow us to sit down without falling over. There is nothing like that for man because man is the being whose existence precedes his essence.
That means that there's no pre-given purpose or meaning for a human's life, but that that meaning is produced or, or created through that man's existence. And we're going to take a look at what that means a little bit more.
Now, there's another interesting point that Sartre makes here, and that is that there are some atheists that are trying to invent a secular humanism. And their argument is that, hey, if God doesn't exist, if we agree to that premise. Then nothing has changed because there are still an underlying human kind of agreement about what is valuable, what is in our best interest collectively, and things like we shouldn't murder. Maybe based on the golden rule, which is, you know, “do unto others as you wish be done unto you.”
And actually, that's not the golden rule. That's like Kant's version of the golden rule, which in Eastern philosophy is actually negative. That is, do not do unto others what you do not wish be done unto you. There is a difference there, but I won't get into that now. The point is that for the secular, humanists, who are also atheists, the non-existence of God in the world doesn't have a real moral impact.
That is, there are still things that we value and that we uphold as humans, independent of our belief in God. Sartre is going to say that for atheist existentialists that actually the opposite is true. And that is that the non-existence of God means that everything has changed. That is understanding what that really truly means for man.
Understanding that existence precedes essence means that there is no pre-given script. Here's how Sartre puts it: “Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God, to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he simply is what he conceives himself to be.” Right? So this is not some form of idealism, and that was a little aside. Returning to the text. “But he is what he wills. And as he conceives himself, After already existing, as he wills to be after that leap towards existence, man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism.”
If there is no God to help us make good moral choices and to help us to justify our life choices, this leads to anguish, to a sense of abandonment, and to despair, according to Sartre. And these three moods he's going to cover in more detail in the next section or the next main part of this essay.
Let's start with anguish. You will have heard probably of existential angst. This is the primary mood and mood is a technical term that comes from Heidegger just FYI. But this is the primary mode or condition for human existence according to existentialism.
I want to read you a little quote from that section of the essay that will help us to set our foot into this section. “The existentialist frankly states that man is in anguish. His meaning is as follows. When a man commits himself to anything, fully realizing that he is not only choosing what he will be, but is thereby, at the same time, a legislator deciding for the whole of mankind. In such a movement, a man cannot escape from the sense of complete and profound responsibility.”
As Sartre explains, the choices that we make, in life. Our choices that we make on the basis of us believing or thinking that they are the right choices, good choices. He doesn't believe that we can choose against our best interest or our sense of what is good. So the assumption is that our choices are an affirmation that this is the right thing to do because they have been chosen by us.
But they're not just a choice for us. In affirming that path or that option. We are also making a judgment and saying that this is the correct choice in this situation, not just for us, but for all of humanity. That is, through our actions, we vote for what is good and right. And this is a huge responsibility that is laid upon us by the condition of our existence.
That is, by the non-existence of God, and by the fact that there's no pre written script for human life, and for the meaning of human life, for its essence, and that it is through existence that we create the world. meaning for not only our particular lives, but the collectivity of what it means to be human.
So we contribute to the evolving and ever changing quote unquote essence. And I'm putting it in quotes cause it's not really an essence, but it is the creation of human nature in in history, through time, in and through the choices that individuals have made. That responsibility is the source of the weight, the unbearable weight of being, the being condemned to be free, as Sartre puts it.
And I have also just referenced Milan Kundera's excellent fictional work that is also very philosophical, called The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Also a most excellent movie. In any case, I digress. Let's get back to anguish, existential angst. The example that he gives us in this text of how anguish shows up is that of a military man who is in charge of a group and who orders the group into battle, knowing that this will result or may possibly result in the death of any number of men, and yet has to choose and affirm that choice because it is the best thing to do.
Now, also choosing for the rest of humanity, this as the best course of action in this situation. Taking this action is this person's responsibility. And yet there is an anguish that comes along with having to make a choice because of the choosing of one is the affirmation of that one choice, but it is also the exclusion and the negation of all of the other possibilities that are available to us in any given moment.
So, choosing is also the foreclosure of a number of possibilities. And the weight of that responsibility bears heavily on those who take their being seriously and who understand the existential maxim that existence precedes essence.
There is another place that Sartre talks about existential angst in very vivid terms. And it is a novel called Nausea. The very first part of that novel is an awesome kind of rendition, narrative of the experience of existential angst. It is like a phenomenology of existential angst. So I encourage you, if you're interested in delving deeper into this mood and how it shows up for us, that you explore that novel as well.
One more point about anguish, and that is that Sartre wants to say that rather than leading to quietism, This anguish is a precondition for authentic action itself. That is, we're going to act in the face of our responsibility and in spite of the anguish that we feel over the responsibilities that we bear in making those decisions. And so anyone who acts in the world should feel that anguish at some level, and those who most authentically are engaged in action in the world will also feel that anguish most acutely.
Let me read you just one more quote from that section of the essay. Sartre writes, that:
“All leaders know that anguish. It does not prevent their acting. On the contrary, it is the very condition of their action. For the action presupposes that there is a plurality of possibilities, and in choosing one of these, they realize that it has value only because it is chosen. Now it is anguish of that kind which existentialism describes. And moreover, as we shall see, makes explicit through direct responsibility towards other men who are concerned. Far from being a screen, which could separate us from action, it is a condition of action itself. Existential angst is produced by our sense of abandonment in the world. And as I have already said, the secular humanist says that God's nonexistence doesn't change anything for man and for man in the world.”
But the existentialist knows that the acceptance of God's nonexistence changes everything. If there is no God, then we're left to be free. We are doomed to be free. We are cursed with our freedom, because we have no guarantee that our actions could be, or are good, or right.
And we have no guarantee in the right here and now, and we have no guarantee in the future either. And yet, we must act, because the only choice that is forbidden is not choosing. That is, we are compelled to choose. Deciding not to do anything itself is a choice. And that is the conundrum of being in the world with no pre given script, no a priori conception of human nature.
Having to act. Having to bear responsibility for those actions in the ways that we've already talked about. Sartre quotes Dostoevsky, who wrote that, “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.” Sartre goes on to write that for existentialism, that is the starting point,
“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is indeed forlorn. For he cannot find anything to depend upon, either within or outside of himself. He discovers, forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one's actions by reference to a given and specific human nature. In other words, there is no determinism. Man is free. Man is freedom. Nor on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior. Thus, we have neither behind us nor before us, in any luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse, we are left alone without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free.”
Abandonment shows up for us in a sense of hopelessness in that any choice that we make, neither is guaranteed to be right or moral or true. And in fact, we cannot guarantee that the choices that we make today based on the best of our knowledge and, and our best. judgment today will turn out to have been the best choice because we cannot predict the future.
And this brings us to the third mood that is caused by the non-existence of God, and that is despair. And despair has to do with having to act Without hope, that is having to act without a guarantee and without a hope that our actions will lead to what we need and desire. That often actually our desires and our needs are frustrated, not just by the world, but through the very choices that we are making. So that There emerges a sense of despair.
The example that Sartre gives us has to do with his experience with the communist party. His communist colleagues are saying that He can depend on them to, and the future of communism, to pick up the battle and the movement wherever it leaves off after Sartre passes.
And what Sartre says is that, look, I am one of those who I know as communists today, I am with them politically, we do things, and it's a very important movement to me, but I can't depend on the future because I don't know what the future is going to bring. I don't know future communists. I don't know what the future of politics will bring.
And so I have to act today on the basis of what I know now and who I know, and make the best decisions possible and take responsibility for those decisions. But I have to do so without being naive and in the full realization of both the responsibility and the hopelessness that accompanies any decision of weight.
Sartre doesn't believe that progress, political or otherwise, is guaranteed. There isn't an underlying sense that progress is inevitable for humankind. Here's what he writes, and I, I love this quote actually, it really resonates for me. He writes:
“Tomorrow, after my death, some men may decide to establish fascism, and the others may be so cowardly and so slack as to let them do so. If so, fascism will then be the truth of man. And so much the worse for us. In reality, things will be such as men have decided they shall be. Does that mean that I should abandon myself to quietism? No. First, I ought to commit myself and then act my commitment according to the time honored formula that, ‘one need not hope in order to undertake one's work.’ ”
To Be Continued...
FOLLOW TO PART TWO HERE:
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Translated by Carol Macomber, Yale University Press, 2007.
You can read Existentialism Is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre for free on the Marxists Internet Archive: Marxists Internet Archive.
.