Playing at Being an Existentialist

Our discussion of existentialism this week is an incarnation of a debate that has been recurring for decades under different names. Essence vs. Existence? Nature vs. Nurture? Are we born who we are or can we truly be whoever we want? According to Sartre, the latter is true: your actions determine who you are, not the other way around. There is no preceding idea of who we are that legitimizes the things we do. From this claim sprung the question, then, of what it is to be human: unlike animals, we are not defined solely by our facticity, the simple, objective truths of our being--we have freedom, to think and plan for ourselves, and that defines us more than our "facts." While this train of thought lead to a very interesting discussion of whether humanity as a whole has a collective "essence," what rather disturbed me about Sartre was his ideas about "playing at" being who we are--the issue of "bad faith." 

His example of the waiter particularly hit home for me as a former waitress, making me wonder if I also had been "playing at" who I was; how many times did I greet a group of patrons with a plastered-on smile, my voice pitched a bit higher, given an extra pinch of a southern lilt? How many times did I say, "we'll get that right out for ya," as I perkily pivoted away from their table in an imitation of waitresses I'd seen on T.V. or at other restaurants?  I did these things because I thought that was what good waitresses were, and good waitresses got good tips, and good tips got me gas money. In order to be successful, I had to play the part of "waitress." 

But could this metaphor extend to other parts of my life? The facts about me are these: I am 19 year old student at a small liberal arts college in the South. Do I do the things I do as an attempt to fit this mold, because I think that it is who I am? Am I denying my freedom to transcend the facts of my existence? Or couldn't it be that the "essence" of who I am is what lead me to be a liberal arts college student in the South, so it's only natural that I would behave like one? Of course, this thinking would be in defiance of existentialism, but I never claimed to be an existentialist. But if I did, wouldn't I be attempting to define myself, which is something that an existentialist must never do? Playing-at-being something rather than simply doing what you want? Does anyone else find this concept as perplexing as I do?

Humans vs. Objects

Our discussion in class on Tuesday was very interesting. We talked about how existence precedes essences in existentialism as a humanism. On page 22 of Sartre's book, the definition of this is explained.  He say that this means that. "man first exists: he materializes the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself."I think that I agree with Sartre's point of view to a degree.  As humans, we acknowledge our own presence on earth, but we do not know what our destiny or fate is.  We live through each day and make a way for ourselves. We are aware of our actions.  After we become conscious of what our own characteristics as a human being we realize what we need to do to change who we are.
As humans we can choose to acknowledge our flaws or we can run from them.  We talked about certain things in class like being a waiter and doing your job well or being a student.  We each have a role in society and we have to decide how we will fulfill that role.  We can either perform our duties well or we can choose to be passive.  We have the right to make up our minds and decide who we want to be ultimately.  I think that ultimately our choices decide our fate and consequences.
Additionally in class we talked about the difference between the essence of an object and the essence of humans.  An object is what it is.  A chair is a chair and a television is a television and a car is a car.  None of these can be otherwise.  It like the old saying that goes, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is a duck. In class we said that objects are defined by facticity.  This means that they are definite and have unique properties that define them. I think that the properties of an object are aspects that influences our perspectives and our senses as humans.  For example when we make observations about objects, we use our logic and define its qualities.  If I were to admire a piece of wooden furniture, I would look at its finish, is design, the quality of the wood, the craftsmanship. These are things that help to define the object and how I perceive it.
On the other hand, humans are built differently than objects. We have brains and we have a soul.  Thus we have the ability to do for ourselves.  This means that we have determinism.  We can choose to do what we want to occupy our time.  We can set goals for ourselves and acknowledge who we are.  I think that our freedoms are present in our everyday lives.  For example, I decide what my own sequence of actions will be and these actions have consequences.  I can go to class everyday.  I can get my homework down in a timely fashion.  I can do chores and get errands taken care.  These actions have consequences in the long run.  If I go to class, I can pursue my education and get a degree.  If I get my homework done, I can be prepared for class and make better grades. If I get chores and errands done, I can be better organized.  However, the opposite of doing these things is not doing them. In class we talked about humans fleeing from themselves.  I have the freedom to choose not to do something. This is a part of are freedom as human beings.  I can say no to anything.  I can choose not to do the actions mentioned earlier. I can choose not to take drugs and alcohol.  Ultimately, the freedom to not do things can lead to positive or negative ends.  If i choose to go to class, this action would lead to a positive end because I am getting my education and I am not being counted as absent.  I can choose to say no to drugs and alcohol.  This choice would be positive because I can prevent myself from becoming addicted and dependent upon a substance and risking my health as well as my future.  In the end our decisions define who we are and lead us down a certain path.
In conclusion,  humans and objects both exist in the natural world.  Object are definite and cannot change.  Humans ultimatelty use objects and make observations about them.  However, humans existence will always remain separate from objects because human have the ability to make choices.  Humans can set their own goals and influence their own outcomes.  In the end we are responsible for who we are. I think that later on we come to realize the reason for our existence. From our experiences we have the power to influence who we will become in the future.

Human being is a freedom

In class this week we read and discussed Sarte in his work Existentialism is a Humanism.  The title of this work means man creates his own destiny, and it is not predetermined for him by his faith or God.  Thus a man is responsible for his own actions and the consequences rather than believing the road he has taken was determined already and relying on God to lead him in the right direction.  Christians are very critical of this philosophy and thought it to be extremely pessimistic, but Christians are actually just fearful of this out look because if it were true then they would be in despair because they would not know how to act if their lives were solely based on action and not their faith.  Furthermore existentialism is viewed as pessimistic because for any action one makes people can blame that action with the typical saying that it’s only human, and Sarte many times seems almost naturalistic throughout this work and portrays humans as ugly and vulgar.  In this negative view of humans I do no think Sarte is illustrating pessimism, but rather he is actually being optimistic and hopeful that men would take hold of this philosophy of his in the cruel and vulgar human world and take responsibility for their actions.       Furthermore Sarte not only believes in existence before essence, but also believes a human being is a freedom.  What he means by this is that the essence of a human is freedom.  This makes me think about the example we discussed in class of being a vegetable and if person is indeed still a hum.  Clearly they do not have any freedom left if they are brain dead and never have the chance of waking up.  But I still struggle to say that a person in a coma is not a human.  I do believe in this notion that a human being’s essence is freedom, and therefor I believe that a vegetable has some freedom that we cannot perceive. Maybe it is the freedom of their soul or something, but I cannot bring myself to believe that this person in a coma is not free.  Ever human being will never have an instance in which they are not free, and even though I cannot tell what it is for a vegetable I believe there is some freedom deep down that still makes them a human.

Bad Faith

Sartre’s main argument in Existentialism Is a Humanism is that humans are free beings with the capability of making choices. He claims that existence precedes essence. In other words, Sartre is stating that a human exists and then creates projects for him or herself that will give them meaning. These projects that humans create for themselves are completely based on free will. An example which we discussed in class of a project that one sets for themselves is going to college for the outcome of being a different person by the end of the four years. I thought that this was interesting because it made me realize that most of the choices I make in my life define who I am.

Another point that Sartre makes that I thought was interesting was about “bad faith.” “Bad faith” is when one lies to themself about the fact that they do not have the freedom of choice. Sartre claims that even when you think you do not have a choice about something, like going school, you are lying to yourself because you make a choice to attend every day. Another example that Sartre makes of “bad faith” is the waiter example. He says that the waiter is not actually a waiter, but is choosing to play the role of a waiter. I think that people choose to attend school, or play the role of a waiter, not because they are lying to themselves about not having the ability to choose what they want to do, but because it is comforting knowing that you have duties and a role in society. 

Everyone Needs a Little Pessimism

Life is not all flowers and sunshine (unless you live in Hawaii and even they have tsunamis).  Existentialism receives a bad rap for statements like Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Existentialism is not despair. It declares rather that even if God did exist, it

would make no difference,” from “Existentialism is a Humanism.”  To those who live only for the sake of their faith, this sounds a lot like despair.  If God need not exist, if there is no quantifiable end goal, then what and why for what?

My argument is that the exercise of freedom is our objective.  Sartre rationalized that as free rational beings, we make decisions, and those decisions are projects.  We are free to participate in our projects, and yet we are restricted by them and choose to do so.  Even choosing not to act on a project is the creation of another project.  In class there was a wonderful example:  a pair on a date, say Jack and Jill.  Jack tries to hold Jill’s hand, and Jill decides not to decide whether or not to reciprocate. Thus, rather than create the project where she holds Jack’s hand and he is on to the next objective, or likewise create the situation where she and Jack are awkwardly walking along with an imaginary wall between them, she causes Jack the frustration of deciding continuing to try to hold her hand.  There was no case where Jill could not have exercised her freedom and likewise where she would not have caused further sexual tension with Jack.  Sartre explains this as “being what one is in the mode of not being it.”  Freedom is behind all of our actions by this distinction, and thus it is the case that we must freely choose not to be free.  If God existed, then it sounds like we are working to achieve freedom in actuality in God.  In other words, we want to exercise our freedom and receive freedom in return as opposed to the case of Jack and Jill awkwardly holding hands in the park.

Without God, and as beings of freedom that freely choose not to be free, we must still be working towards ultimate freedom.  This resonates with Aristotle’s argument that we are working towards eudaimonia, which is the highest happiness, and declared by Aristotle as unachievable.  The goal is to come as close to the top as possible.  If there is a God and some paradise that is to be earned at the end of life, then there is a goal to be worked for.  For those pessimistic existentialists, if there is no God, but there is a conceptualization of freedom that can never be reached, sounds like a challenge.  As humans, do we not live for good competition?

            Of the pessimists who realize that this is too much work and give up, just as the runner who can see the finish but no longer has the will to fight, what can be said then? What do they do with their lives, and how is this just as much of a project as moving forward?

Sartre and Responsibility

      In "Existentialism is a Humanism", Sartre argues that existence precedes essence. Sartre wants to disprove the idea that people are predestined to be a certain way or have predetermined projects. I personally agree with this idea that the individual is in control of their own lives and are able to determine their own works. Sartre also talks about the effect that predestination, especially by the hand of God can have on a person and society. When a person believes that they are predestined to do something especially by their God, they lose a sense of responsibility in the matter, because they can attribute their actions to something else. This has the tendency to have very negative repercussions in society and I think that this idea was linked to Sartre's own experiences with people not taking responsibility for their actions.
      Sartre wrote this work in 1946, one year after the end of World War II and the fall of Nazi Germany. Sartre himself was in the French military during the beginning of WWII and later the underground French Resistance. Sartre would have witness first hand one of the greatest atrocities in history, the Holocaust. Being in the French Resistance he would have worked to secretly evacuate Jewish families into either Spain or across the channel to England. After WWII was over he would have been able to see the photographs and news reals of the death camps and the extent that the Nazis when to exterminate Jews. Sartre must have looked at this and wondered how people would be capable of doing these things to other humans. I think this is an instance where responsibility was absent due to a couple reasons. The first reason was that Hitler had tied promotion of the Arian race and extermination of the Jewish faith to Gods will and that it was their duty. Secondly during the war crimes tribunals when asked why they committed these horrific acts many answered that they where simply following orders. This is a prime example of what can happen when responsibility is taken away and individuals can defer their accountability to a higher rank, wether that be a general or God. I think that Sartre believed that a lot that is wrong with society is that there is not enough accountability and sometimes this can manifest itself in extremely destructive ways.  

Must existence precede essence?

Jean Paul Sartre, French existentialist philosopher and writer, was arguably the most influential existentialist figures in the 20^th century. In Sartre’s 1946 writing, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” he sets out to clear the air about what exactly existentialism is. Acknowledging the generally pessimistic view of existentialism by the population, he gives his reasons for being a proponent of the philosophy.

            One of the points he makes pertains to the age-old dilemma of essence and existence. Essence is defined by Dictionary.com as "the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc." In other words, they are the defining internal characteristics of a substance, that, if they were to be changed, the object or substance would no longer be the same. Sartre believes that this essence is not inborn in humanity, but rather, is achieved after it is defined in one's existence. Contrary to many philosophies which suggest that essence is the underlying theme (or themes) that defines our actions, and therefore, existence, existentialism asserts that one's actions determine their essence. His reasoning behind this is because there is no Creator, therefore, we were not created for any specific purpose or with a specific essence. 

            However, what reasoning does this leave for our own existence. Had we not been created, thus, by a Creator, for some purpose, why do we exist? Granted, this is a complex question; there are biological theories for why humans exist, but there must be some sort of underlying reason for life. Using Sartre's "existence precedes essence" definition, we exist merely by chance. Therefore, from Sartre's point of view, we are not born with a reason for living. In addition, although we never achieve a purpose for life, we ascertain an essence, which is likely the most similar idea. 

            On the contrary, I believe that there is a Creator, and that he has willed us to discover our essence during our lifetime. I believe that Sartre never considered the idea that we were born with an essence, but we do not become conscious of it until we reach proper maturation through both actions and probability. This theory as it pertains to essence is not overly contrastive to Sartre's existentialist point of view, and yet, the mere addition of a God makes a great distinction. As does Sartre, I believe that we have an essence, and that it is expressed by our existence; however, I believe that this essence is present and determined prior to birth, and is unveiled over the course of our existence.