Eddie's Bookclub Thoughts

I am always looking for an excuse to turn work I did into work I won't have to do, like coming up with an article for the printhouse. A more altruistic reason for this article, and the ones that will follow on this blog, is that people who couldn't make it to one Bookclub session will have the opportunity to read about my contribution to it. For the first Bookclub I took part in, I read one of the more accessible books in french contemporary philosophy: L'existentialisme est un humanisme – Existentialism is humanistic. This is the transcription of a presentation that the author, Sartre, gave on his previous work, L'Être et le Néant – The Being and Nothingness, in which he explains his own doctrine, existentialism in great, great detail. The book we will look at today is only the broad strokes of his doctrine, and is aimed at replying to the critiques that were made against it.

What is Sartrian existentialism?

His doctrine can be summarised by the following sentence: Existence precedes essence. He says that this holds true for the human and is the reason why we are cursed with absolute freedom. To explain it, he explains the antithesis – Essence precedes existence – that he says holds true for the rest of things. He gives the example of a letter opener: before creating it the artisan already knows what a letter opener is: its function, form, qualities; in other words its essence. Therefore for the letter opener, and other objects in general, essence precedes their existence. Not for the human; for Sartre, there is no preconceived notion of the human being before it is born, its function and qualities are not predetermined. So we have absolute freedom; we are free to construct our own individual essence.

Critique of existentialism: On freedom

One critique of Sartrian existentialism is that there are many factors that limit our freedom; Sartre calls this bad faith. By freedom, Sartre means the ability to act. Therefore, by absolute freedom, Sartre means that ultimately the human is free to choose his own actions and has total responsibility for them. He rebukes a couple of “bad faith” arguments. “Passions contrive our behaviour”; for Sartre that is untrue, we are still the master of our passions, they do not absolve us of responsibility or freedom towards our actions. He goes a bit further and says it is the same for feelings, as feelings are built upon action, felt feeling and manufactured feelings are the same. He gives the example of a young man during the war who has the choice between going to England to be part of the Forces Françaises Libres (French Liberation Army) or staying with his mother and caring for her. He loves his mother and stays to care for her, or, he doesn't love her but still stays to care for her which is an act of love; for Sartre this is the same. Therefore that young man is still absolutely free, his feelings do not dictate his conduct.

“Character traits also influence our behaviour, also restricting our freedom of action.” A simple rebuke for Sartre; character traits are a result of our actions and not the other way around — a coward is a coward because they act cowardly.

On a different angle, Sartre says that “signs” and advice given to us also do not do anything to impede our freedom. You are free to see any sign in anything and to derive any meaning from any sign you encounter. As for advice, not only are you free to follow them or not, but you also choose who you are going for advice; you most likely already know what you will be getting.

“Our past experiences dictate our actions.” Here, Sartre says that we are free to derive any meaning we want from our past experiences — if we are to consider it at all before doing actions in the present. We can draw what we want from our life and background and we are responsible for what we draw from it.

“Human nature constrains our freedom.” Sartre argues that there is no such thing as human nature; there is no predefined essence for the human as existence precedes essence. But he concedes that there is such a thing as a human condition, which is defined by all the limitations imposed on the human, whether physical, technological, historical... However, they don't take any freedom away from the human, those limitations do not define us and our actions, but we can choose to define ourselves and our actions with regard to them.

Critique of existentialism: On Quietism, Absurdism and Individualism

One critique of this doctrine is that it is ultimately one of inaction – what Sartre calls quietism. Absolute freedom, which comes with absolute responsibility for our actions would lead us to choice paralysis/inaction. This is wrong for Sartre, as not choosing is a choice in itself which we are also responsible for. Another angle is that since the human is nothing more than their actions — hopes, dreams and potential are not to be considered — the human has to act to define himself, otherwise we are nothing.

Some of his critiques touch on the subject of absurdism, since there is no human essence, there are also no human values (Sartre's doctrine is purely atheistic); the only thing that matters is our actions. Therefore we are free to act however we please as there is no predefined meaning to our existence or morals guiding our actions. Here Sartre responds that we humans create our own morals and he also simply reminds us that we still have total responsibility for our actions.

Another critique brought forward is that this is a very individualistic doctrine; since we have absolute freedom we are free to do as we please, with complete disregard for the others. This is reinforced by the fact that we create our own moral. Sartre has a bit more trouble replying to that but says that we have to choose others' liberty on top of our own. But also that we have to act as if everyone else was going to act like us.

Humanism

The most simplistic definition of the term humanism is: a system of thought placing the human at the center of everything. Sartre claims that existentialism is inherently a humanistic doctrine since it rests on human subjectivity. For him, every truth and action implies human subjectivity and environment. “The human is its own legislator” is a direct quote from Sartre when linking existentialism and humanism, we decide for ourselves what we are to become. In this sense, it is an optimistic doctrine based on actions and at its centre lies the human — and therefore it is humanistic.

My critique: On individualism, human definition and “human condition”

I believe that Sartre's rebuke of the individualistic nature of his doctrine is very weak and inconsistent with the rest of his argument. If we are to choose our own moral as an individual, and are to have absolute freedom, then there is nothing stopping us from disregarding others' freedom and well-being. If, like Sartre says, we have to choose other's freedom — and limit our actions to what we think would be ok for everyone to do — then we do not have our own absolute freedom, and do not get to define our own morals. That would mean that there is a predetermined moral conduct that all humans must adhere to, before being born and making their own, which completely contradicts the foundation of L'existentialisme est un humanisme. Staying consistent with the rest of his doctrine, and ignoring this poor rebuke, existentialism becomes an extremely individualistic doctrine; not only are we alone to choose our actions with no regard for anyone, but we also cannot be judged; there are no universal morals to be judged on since we construct our own. This is not very humanistic, as we are putting the individual, and not the human (in the broader sense of the term) at the focus of our doctrine.

His definition of the human is also deeply inhumanistic in my eyes: humans are more than just the sum of their actions. Actions, without words, are just what others can see of us and define us on. We are more than what others perceive of us; our reality is more than the reality of the others of us. We are to define ourselves with more than our actions; our hopes, dreams, feelings, needs, wants... They are all very real and contribute to our being.

I also find his views on the human condition very naive; for him, the only limiting factors are physical, physiological, historical (going hand in hand with technological and geographical). And apart from that we are free to act and define ourselves as we please. No. The limiting factors in his definition of human condition are only the ones we could define as universal; the ones that completely hinder one's freedoms during their whole life are of a socio-economical nature. It is easy to see that even at the youngest age, the kids of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat will both evolve in very different worlds and have very different freedoms. This is not by free conscientious choice of the individual, in this case the kid. Saying that this ultimately doesn't matter and that those different individuals both have absolute freedom (remember Sartre's definition of freedom is the freedom of action) is extremely naïve. More on this in another book analysis.

Budding reflection on absurdism

I am not convinced by Sartre's response to calling his doctrine absurdist. He says that since we create our own morals and also since we still bear responsibility for our actions, then his doctrine is far from absurdist. Since we define our own moral, as an individual, then they can arbitrarily take whatever form they want; since we have absolute freedom it doesn't matter. In this sense that part of the rebuke is ineffective. The second part says that we are responsible for our actions, so we can't do whatever we want. There cannot be responsibility without morals; since there is no universal moral for Sartre, then we must be responsible with respect to our own moral, which we established above as being potentially arbitrary and meaningless. Therefore this argument against the absurdist nature of his doctrine doesn't stand. Does the fact that we are free to act in as irrational and meaningless manners as we want to make existentialism and absurdist doctrine? To be honest I do not know enough about absurdism (yet) to deliver a final opinion. I believe that since in Sartre's doctrine we are to create our own meaning, as existence precedes essence – and meaning would be in our essence – at the very least it can be an absurdist doctrine. More on this in (yet) another book analysis.

Closing remarks

It would be more appropriate to judge Sartre's doctrine in the book presenting it, L'Être et le Néant but I cannot be bothered to read 700+ pages on Sartrian existentialism. This is why my own critique of the absurdist nature of existentialism is not a definite judgement. I can only judge on what is in this book; the response to other's criticism and the claim that existentialism is humanistic. As I have shown, his rebuke of other's criticism is quite weak and his argument for existentialism to be inherently humanistic is even weaker. However, this is not the only work of his defending existentialism; Critique de la raison dialectique is an 800+ pages book trying to conciliate existentialism and Marxism and in broader strokes solidify existentialism. I am also not reading that. Right now, I am more interested in getting a solid basis on many different concepts, rather than dedicating 8 months to just studying one thing in extreme depth. That will come later.

I have much to learn to be able to make more insightful commentary on what I read. This is in the works; I am stocking up on more or less obscure philosophical works (for the anglo world) while in France; I will become an academic weapon.