Note:
This is not a question per say; it is actually (in a sense) a concise
compilation of Sartre's philosophical system. Sartre is a very prolific writer
whom has ideas on so many philosophical categories. Hence, a question on Sartre
could be asked, of which, its answer could be found in this compilation. Another
thing we should know is that most of Sartre’s concepts are almost all
interconnected in themselves. Therefore, a good knowledge of all of them is an
advantage. For easy understanding, these concepts are briefly highlighted below
in the following manner;
i. The concept of freedom
ii. Freedom and responsibility
iii. Freedom and choice
iv. Freedom and consciousness
v. Bad faith (in-authenticity)
vi. Self deception (the difficulty of knowing the self)
vii. “Being-in-itself” versus “being-for-itself”
viii. Being and consciousness
I. THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM
Human beings have free will and because consciousness is in itself empty, it does not determine what we choose. Sartre argues that we definitely are not constrained by past choices and we are free to do as we wish. Sartre does not deny that there are some things we cannot change or influence (facticity), such as where we were born and who our parents are, but believes we can change our attitude towards them. Sartre totally rejects the concept that our genetics and upbringing shapes who we are today. Instead Sartre argues that humans have the responsibility to choose what we become. This view that we can choose who we become sounds appealing. However, Sartre states that this freedom and responsibility we possess is obviously too unbearable for us; hence, his phrase “condemned to be free”. We are condemned because we did not create ourselves, and we must choose and act from within whatever situation we find ourselves.
The following statements by Sartre, helps explain this notion;
§ “Man being condemned to be free, carries the weight of the whole world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as a way of being”.
§ “I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without anything or any person able to lighten it”.
II. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
Talking about Sartre's idea of freedom, firstly, there are some particularly resounding statements, such as, "man is not free not to be free”. Another direct way of saying this is “man is free to be free”. The heavy burden of this freedom perpetually haunts man." This is the first idea we want to bring out. The idea that freedom is bound to man and that freedom is inseparable from being.
The second idea would be that man's freedom binds yet another thing to him, it gives him responsibility. Another quote by Sartre says, "Absolute freedom is thus ultimately translated into unlimited responsibility”. Hence, man, as being completely free, has the complete responsibility over his freedom. Anguish refers to that feeling man feels, that man cannot escape from the sense of complete and profound responsibility, upon his realization of the almost unbearable responsibility placed on his shoulders; a responsibility not only for himself but for all.
Sartre talks about anguish here. Anguish is a heavy emotion of man, upon receiving that responsibility. Personally, we feel this very often. The weight of responsibility that lies on our shoulders, the responsibility of choosing our actions, and having our actions define us. For example; should I date him/her? I hope I’m not making a mistake? e.t.c. It is in anguish that we become conscious of our freedom.
Still on about responsibility, there is a discussion on "bad faith" demonstrated by people who lie and blame external reasons, such as "being under a religious spell" or being "insane", for their own crimes that they should take responsibility for. Thus it can be seen that freedom is part of being man, and since responsibility comes with having freedom, man has responsibility enforced upon him by "being free". This is paradoxical in nature. Yet again, the first quote particularly comes to mind; "Man is not free not to be free. The heavy burden of this freedom perpetually haunts man.
Still on responsibility, Sartre believed in the essential freedom of individuals, and he also believed that as free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions. That is; with total freedom, comes total responsibility. He believed that even those people who wish not to be responsible; who declare themselves not responsible for themselves or their actions, are still making a conscious choice and are thus responsible for anything that happens as a consequence of their inaction.
III. FREEDOM AND CHOICE
A critical claim in existentialist thought is that individuals are always free to make choices and guide their lives towards their own chosen goal or "project". The claim holds that individuals cannot escape this freedom of choice, even in overwhelming circumstances. For instance, it is said that even an empire's colonized victims possess choices; to submit to rule, to negotiate, to act in complacency, to commit suicide, to resist non-violently, or to counter-attack. Sartre puts it this way “I am my choices; I cannot not-choose. If I do not choose, that is still a choice. Therefore, if faced with inevitable circumstances, we still choose how we are in those circumstances.
Although external circumstances may limit individuals (this limitation from the outside is called “facticity”), they cannot force a person to follow one course over another. In this sense the individual still has some freedom of choice. It is for this reason, individuals choose in anguish; they know that they must make a choice, and that it will have consequences. A good example is something that happened to me personally; when I came into Unilag, I was officially admitted into the creative arts department (music). But, at the point of registration, the dean of Arts at that time said that she would not give me creative arts because I did not do music in secondary school (facticity). She then said I should go to philosophy. Honestly, I never knew anything about the course; it sounded very strange and boring to me. I then told her that I could not take it because I don’t want it. The dean said “…if you do not want philosophy, go back home and re-write JAMB”. At that point, I was boiling (anguish), but I still had a choice to go home or to get into school. However, I finally took philosophy (choice) even though I choose it in anguish. But the consequence is that (as at the time of writing this) I am presently in 300-level; probably I could have taken more time to get re-admitted again.
Sartre even uses the example of war to portray our individual choices and decisions, stating that to be involved in a war still means you had the choice to do otherwise. Meaning we have always got a choice no matter what. Sartre uses the following phrase when talking about men in war;
§ “I deserve it because I can always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Any way you look at it, it is a matter of choice”.
IV. FREEDOM AND CONSCIOUSNESS
For Sartre, the attitude of intentional consciousness is obviously self-deceiving. As conscious human beings, we are always aware that we are more and can be more than what we presently are aware of; so, we are not whatever we are presently aware of. We cannot, in this sense, be defined as “intentional” objects of consciousness, considering the fact that we have restrictions imposed upon us by facticity (our personal history, temperament, character, body structure, or objective responsibility). Thus, as Sartre often repeated, "Human reality is what it is not, and it is not what it is." An example would be, if one were now a doctor but seriously wished and started to "transcend" to become musician; one is what one is not (a musician), not who one is (a doctor). Accordingly, in Sartre’s view, individual freedom of consciousness is humanity’s gift, as well as its curse, since with it comes the responsibility to shape our own lives.
V. BAD FAITH (in-authenticity)
Bad faith is a philosophical concept used by existentialist philosophers to describe the phenomenon where a human being under pressure from societal forces adopts false values and disowns their innate freedom to act authentically. It is closely related to the concepts of self-deception and resentment. Bad faith means to be guilty of regarding oneself not as a free person but as an object. In bad faith I am hiding the truth from myself. A person living in bad faith implies a constant and particular style of life.
As human beings we are always trying to escape this freedom which is too much and unbearable for us and one coping mechanism to overcome this responsibility is something called “bad faith”. Bad faith is a particular kind of self-deception that involves denying your own freedom. Sartre's most famous example of bad faith is of a cafe waiter. Here it is explained that one solution to escape our freedom is to slip into a social role, such as a waiter and then we can just become “things” or “objects” (being-in-itself). This means that we joke at being ourselves and are not our true selves, which Sartre also describes as being “inauthentic” (Sartre feels being a waiter is a mockery of one’s true potentials).
To a certain degree elements of Sartre's argument is convincing but there are also some criticisms that could be highlighted. For example; if the role of a waiter is neglected, who then would serve that role or purpose? In summary, for Sartre, because we are free in every situation, we are also responsible for our own choices that we make. However, the weight of our freedom or responsibility, can lead to something Sartre calls bad faith.
VI. SELF DECEPTION (the difficulty of knowing the self)
According to Sartre, for any individual to claim “that’s just the way I am” would be a statement of self-deception. Likewise, whenever people take personally the objectified identity given to them by other people or by society, such as holy woman or dutiful worker, they are guilty of self-deception. Every individual person is a “being-for-itself” possessed of self-consciousness. He or she does not possess an essentially fixed nature but has only a consciousness and self-consciousness, which are continuously exchanged in place of each other (although they are never quite identical to each other). Hence, whenever people tell themselves that their nature or views are unchangeable, or that their social position entirely determines their sense of self, they are deceiving themselves.
Nevertheless, Sartre believed it is always possible to make an identity out of what one has been made into. However, this task of self-actualization involves a complex process of understanding the realities of facticity and exactly how these realities are working. It also involves as well, knowing fully that one possesses a consciousness independent of these facticity factors. For Sartre, the only truly authentic outlook recognizes one’s true state, as a being possessed of self-consciousness whose future conscious state of being is always a matter of choice, even as that conscious state will itself always be changing.
VII. “BEING-IN-ITSELF” VERSUS “BEING-FOR-ITSELF”
Sartre defines two types, or ways, of being; being-in-itself, and being-for-itself. He uses the first of these, being-in-itself, to describe those things that have a definable and complete essence yet are not conscious of themselves or their essential completeness. For example trees, rocks, stones, buildings, birds and the likes, fall into this category. Sartre uses being-for-itself to describe human beings, whom are defined by their possession of consciousness and more specifically, by their consciousness of their own existence. This state of “being-for-itself” is not just defined by self-consciousness; rather, it would not exist without that consciousness, as consciousness is the core characteristic of being-for-itself. In Sartre’s philosophical system, the interplay and difference between these two manners of being is a constant and indispensable point of discussion.
Nevertheless, according to Sartre, to claim for instance that, "I cannot risk my life, because I must support my family" is to assume the role of an object in the world; is to reduce oneself to the level of being-in-itself (a thing) and not a free agent (a human being). A human being is authentic; he makes hard choices, takes responsibility and does not layback merely at the mercy of circumstance.
VIII. BEING AND CONSCIOUSNESS
Sartre believed that as human beings, we are free to make our own decisions and choices (free will). This belief rejects the argument that states that life is pre-determined because of past events (determinism); in other words, our everyday actions are the result of other causes. Accordingly, Sartre expresses this concept of human freedom by explaining his thoughts on consciousness (phenomenology).
Firstly, Sartre described two different types of beings' in the world, which are;
i. Being-for-themselves - Sartre's term for any being capable of self-consciousness.
ii. Being-in-themselves - Sartre's term for any thing that lacks self-consciousness.
Aside self-consciousness, another characteristic of the being-for-themselves (humans) is the ability to project themselves into the future or to reassess their past. Also, being-for-themselves have the ability to recognise when something is absent. For example; if you arranged to meet a friend at a restaurant but he does not arrive then his absence is felt. Also, you could list all the people you know, whom were not in the restaurant, but it will only be your friend that you would genuinely miss. Sartre describes this absence or lack of something as nothingness. This tendency to see things which are missing is linked to Sartre's idea of freedom. This is because we can picture things which have not happened and things yet to be done, and subsequently this reveals a world full of possibilities where anything can happen (freedom).
i. The concept of freedom
ii. Freedom and responsibility
iii. Freedom and choice
iv. Freedom and consciousness
v. Bad faith (in-authenticity)
vi. Self deception (the difficulty of knowing the self)
vii. “Being-in-itself” versus “being-for-itself”
viii. Being and consciousness
I. THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM
Human beings have free will and because consciousness is in itself empty, it does not determine what we choose. Sartre argues that we definitely are not constrained by past choices and we are free to do as we wish. Sartre does not deny that there are some things we cannot change or influence (facticity), such as where we were born and who our parents are, but believes we can change our attitude towards them. Sartre totally rejects the concept that our genetics and upbringing shapes who we are today. Instead Sartre argues that humans have the responsibility to choose what we become. This view that we can choose who we become sounds appealing. However, Sartre states that this freedom and responsibility we possess is obviously too unbearable for us; hence, his phrase “condemned to be free”. We are condemned because we did not create ourselves, and we must choose and act from within whatever situation we find ourselves.
The following statements by Sartre, helps explain this notion;
§ “Man being condemned to be free, carries the weight of the whole world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as a way of being”.
§ “I carry the weight of the world by myself alone without anything or any person able to lighten it”.
II. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
Talking about Sartre's idea of freedom, firstly, there are some particularly resounding statements, such as, "man is not free not to be free”. Another direct way of saying this is “man is free to be free”. The heavy burden of this freedom perpetually haunts man." This is the first idea we want to bring out. The idea that freedom is bound to man and that freedom is inseparable from being.
The second idea would be that man's freedom binds yet another thing to him, it gives him responsibility. Another quote by Sartre says, "Absolute freedom is thus ultimately translated into unlimited responsibility”. Hence, man, as being completely free, has the complete responsibility over his freedom. Anguish refers to that feeling man feels, that man cannot escape from the sense of complete and profound responsibility, upon his realization of the almost unbearable responsibility placed on his shoulders; a responsibility not only for himself but for all.
Sartre talks about anguish here. Anguish is a heavy emotion of man, upon receiving that responsibility. Personally, we feel this very often. The weight of responsibility that lies on our shoulders, the responsibility of choosing our actions, and having our actions define us. For example; should I date him/her? I hope I’m not making a mistake? e.t.c. It is in anguish that we become conscious of our freedom.
Still on about responsibility, there is a discussion on "bad faith" demonstrated by people who lie and blame external reasons, such as "being under a religious spell" or being "insane", for their own crimes that they should take responsibility for. Thus it can be seen that freedom is part of being man, and since responsibility comes with having freedom, man has responsibility enforced upon him by "being free". This is paradoxical in nature. Yet again, the first quote particularly comes to mind; "Man is not free not to be free. The heavy burden of this freedom perpetually haunts man.
Still on responsibility, Sartre believed in the essential freedom of individuals, and he also believed that as free beings, people are responsible for all elements of themselves, their consciousness, and their actions. That is; with total freedom, comes total responsibility. He believed that even those people who wish not to be responsible; who declare themselves not responsible for themselves or their actions, are still making a conscious choice and are thus responsible for anything that happens as a consequence of their inaction.
III. FREEDOM AND CHOICE
A critical claim in existentialist thought is that individuals are always free to make choices and guide their lives towards their own chosen goal or "project". The claim holds that individuals cannot escape this freedom of choice, even in overwhelming circumstances. For instance, it is said that even an empire's colonized victims possess choices; to submit to rule, to negotiate, to act in complacency, to commit suicide, to resist non-violently, or to counter-attack. Sartre puts it this way “I am my choices; I cannot not-choose. If I do not choose, that is still a choice. Therefore, if faced with inevitable circumstances, we still choose how we are in those circumstances.
Although external circumstances may limit individuals (this limitation from the outside is called “facticity”), they cannot force a person to follow one course over another. In this sense the individual still has some freedom of choice. It is for this reason, individuals choose in anguish; they know that they must make a choice, and that it will have consequences. A good example is something that happened to me personally; when I came into Unilag, I was officially admitted into the creative arts department (music). But, at the point of registration, the dean of Arts at that time said that she would not give me creative arts because I did not do music in secondary school (facticity). She then said I should go to philosophy. Honestly, I never knew anything about the course; it sounded very strange and boring to me. I then told her that I could not take it because I don’t want it. The dean said “…if you do not want philosophy, go back home and re-write JAMB”. At that point, I was boiling (anguish), but I still had a choice to go home or to get into school. However, I finally took philosophy (choice) even though I choose it in anguish. But the consequence is that (as at the time of writing this) I am presently in 300-level; probably I could have taken more time to get re-admitted again.
Sartre even uses the example of war to portray our individual choices and decisions, stating that to be involved in a war still means you had the choice to do otherwise. Meaning we have always got a choice no matter what. Sartre uses the following phrase when talking about men in war;
§ “I deserve it because I can always get out of it by suicide or by desertion. Any way you look at it, it is a matter of choice”.
IV. FREEDOM AND CONSCIOUSNESS
For Sartre, the attitude of intentional consciousness is obviously self-deceiving. As conscious human beings, we are always aware that we are more and can be more than what we presently are aware of; so, we are not whatever we are presently aware of. We cannot, in this sense, be defined as “intentional” objects of consciousness, considering the fact that we have restrictions imposed upon us by facticity (our personal history, temperament, character, body structure, or objective responsibility). Thus, as Sartre often repeated, "Human reality is what it is not, and it is not what it is." An example would be, if one were now a doctor but seriously wished and started to "transcend" to become musician; one is what one is not (a musician), not who one is (a doctor). Accordingly, in Sartre’s view, individual freedom of consciousness is humanity’s gift, as well as its curse, since with it comes the responsibility to shape our own lives.
V. BAD FAITH (in-authenticity)
Bad faith is a philosophical concept used by existentialist philosophers to describe the phenomenon where a human being under pressure from societal forces adopts false values and disowns their innate freedom to act authentically. It is closely related to the concepts of self-deception and resentment. Bad faith means to be guilty of regarding oneself not as a free person but as an object. In bad faith I am hiding the truth from myself. A person living in bad faith implies a constant and particular style of life.
As human beings we are always trying to escape this freedom which is too much and unbearable for us and one coping mechanism to overcome this responsibility is something called “bad faith”. Bad faith is a particular kind of self-deception that involves denying your own freedom. Sartre's most famous example of bad faith is of a cafe waiter. Here it is explained that one solution to escape our freedom is to slip into a social role, such as a waiter and then we can just become “things” or “objects” (being-in-itself). This means that we joke at being ourselves and are not our true selves, which Sartre also describes as being “inauthentic” (Sartre feels being a waiter is a mockery of one’s true potentials).
To a certain degree elements of Sartre's argument is convincing but there are also some criticisms that could be highlighted. For example; if the role of a waiter is neglected, who then would serve that role or purpose? In summary, for Sartre, because we are free in every situation, we are also responsible for our own choices that we make. However, the weight of our freedom or responsibility, can lead to something Sartre calls bad faith.
VI. SELF DECEPTION (the difficulty of knowing the self)
According to Sartre, for any individual to claim “that’s just the way I am” would be a statement of self-deception. Likewise, whenever people take personally the objectified identity given to them by other people or by society, such as holy woman or dutiful worker, they are guilty of self-deception. Every individual person is a “being-for-itself” possessed of self-consciousness. He or she does not possess an essentially fixed nature but has only a consciousness and self-consciousness, which are continuously exchanged in place of each other (although they are never quite identical to each other). Hence, whenever people tell themselves that their nature or views are unchangeable, or that their social position entirely determines their sense of self, they are deceiving themselves.
Nevertheless, Sartre believed it is always possible to make an identity out of what one has been made into. However, this task of self-actualization involves a complex process of understanding the realities of facticity and exactly how these realities are working. It also involves as well, knowing fully that one possesses a consciousness independent of these facticity factors. For Sartre, the only truly authentic outlook recognizes one’s true state, as a being possessed of self-consciousness whose future conscious state of being is always a matter of choice, even as that conscious state will itself always be changing.
VII. “BEING-IN-ITSELF” VERSUS “BEING-FOR-ITSELF”
Sartre defines two types, or ways, of being; being-in-itself, and being-for-itself. He uses the first of these, being-in-itself, to describe those things that have a definable and complete essence yet are not conscious of themselves or their essential completeness. For example trees, rocks, stones, buildings, birds and the likes, fall into this category. Sartre uses being-for-itself to describe human beings, whom are defined by their possession of consciousness and more specifically, by their consciousness of their own existence. This state of “being-for-itself” is not just defined by self-consciousness; rather, it would not exist without that consciousness, as consciousness is the core characteristic of being-for-itself. In Sartre’s philosophical system, the interplay and difference between these two manners of being is a constant and indispensable point of discussion.
Nevertheless, according to Sartre, to claim for instance that, "I cannot risk my life, because I must support my family" is to assume the role of an object in the world; is to reduce oneself to the level of being-in-itself (a thing) and not a free agent (a human being). A human being is authentic; he makes hard choices, takes responsibility and does not layback merely at the mercy of circumstance.
VIII. BEING AND CONSCIOUSNESS
Sartre believed that as human beings, we are free to make our own decisions and choices (free will). This belief rejects the argument that states that life is pre-determined because of past events (determinism); in other words, our everyday actions are the result of other causes. Accordingly, Sartre expresses this concept of human freedom by explaining his thoughts on consciousness (phenomenology).
Firstly, Sartre described two different types of beings' in the world, which are;
i. Being-for-themselves - Sartre's term for any being capable of self-consciousness.
ii. Being-in-themselves - Sartre's term for any thing that lacks self-consciousness.
Aside self-consciousness, another characteristic of the being-for-themselves (humans) is the ability to project themselves into the future or to reassess their past. Also, being-for-themselves have the ability to recognise when something is absent. For example; if you arranged to meet a friend at a restaurant but he does not arrive then his absence is felt. Also, you could list all the people you know, whom were not in the restaurant, but it will only be your friend that you would genuinely miss. Sartre describes this absence or lack of something as nothingness. This tendency to see things which are missing is linked to Sartre's idea of freedom. This is because we can picture things which have not happened and things yet to be done, and subsequently this reveals a world full of possibilities where anything can happen (freedom).
