Philosophical Titans: Jean-Paul Sartre

man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards

Introduction

The originator of the quote above is Jean‑Paul Sartre.

He was a 20th century philosopher, famous for developing the philosophy perspective of existentialism, and for saying that “existence precedes essence" - a small phrase that represented a transcendence in the approach to engaging with the reality of human existence.

What is Existentialism?

In short - Existentialism is a philosophical perspective on the nature of existence: what it means to be alive and in this world. The answer? That there is no meaning to life that you should follow. In other words, there is nothing pre-existing for you to bind to in order to ground your decisions. It is up to you to choose what you value, and it is your responsibility to create your own meaning and purpose.

Where did it come from?

While originating as a philosophy with Søren Kierkegaard in the 19th century, its popularity grew significantly in the 20th century. Led chiefly by Jean‑Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, existentialism grew within the cultural identity of the political left in post-war Europe. As the atrocities of WW2 continued to be discovered, the disillusionment with religion and the idea of God increased and it became very difficult to reconcile the omnibenevolence of God with the realities of the Second World War. Combine this with the almost deity-like power of modern nations, and the result is that a population of people become thoroughly unconvinced with the value of religion and the plausibility of a supernatural God. In this vacuum, Existentialism developed, and Sartre's claims were utilised as a philosophy and a perspective that promoted autonomy, self-determination, and ultimately freedom.

Sartre’s key claim

Looking more specifically at Sartre’s existentialist position - it seems that he is attempting to make a definitive statement about the nature of human existence. His answer is that there is no nature as we might naturally presume. He argues that human existence is nothing in particular. As the leading quote captures, we first exist, are brought into this world, and only then required to define our essence, and find out who we’re meant to be. And as a result - he argues that our “existence precedes essence”.

The context

This phrase in question, while catchy and intuitive, also has a very rich philosophical context, and represents a challenge to previous philosophical positions on human existence. One of these positions Sartre takes aim at is Aristotle, who - as I mentioned last week - puts forward a perspective on human existence that is the exact opposite to this. As mentioned, for Aristotle, our essence, our characteristic function, is that we are rational animals, and as a result, our meaning is constrained by this fact. It’s also worth mentioning that this position is situated within a broader philosophical tradition that was built by Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, and Plato’s teacher, Socrates. The general position is that there is a structure to human existence that exists in connection with the rest of the universe and ultimately with God. When you read Ancient Greek Philosophy, you will come across ideas that reflect this perspective - you will learn about innatism, essentialism, substances and souls - all various ways of explaining the nature of existence and the aspects that are integral to understanding it.

The counter

Sartre’s existentialist position is a rebellion against the types of categorisations of human existence that emerged from Ancient Greece, and invites the individual to dispel with any pre-conceptions concerning the right way to live. Instead, he argues that the true reality is that you are free, and you’re condemned to be free.  

Facticity

In this phrase is proof that Sartre doesn’t believe this fact is necessarily good.

Why?

Well, in part, because it asks an awful lot of individuals. If Sartre is right, then it is up to us to determine our lives for ourselves, and to take responsibility for the aspects of our lives that we’d like to change. If this is this case, then what of people that are born into very, very difficult situations? It doesn’t seem very helpful to suggest that, irrespective of their context, people have total responsibility for their lives, and the situations they might find themselves in. This reality is acknowledged by Sartre - who responds with the idea of facticity. We all possess a facticity, a set of facts associated with the context of our lives that we can’t change. Where we’re born, who our parents are, how we look, are all things that we don’t have any control of - and that our facticity takes account of. Sartre argues that the freedom we possess functions as a form of confrontation against these facts of our existence. As human beings, we have the capacity to make choices about how we understand our facticity, and what happens after.

Conclusion

So, what do you think? Do you agree with Existentialism, and Sartre claim that we are all free, and even worse, that we’re all a lot freer than we think? If you do - I’d encourage you to learn more, and if you’re interested in studying and writing on Existentialism, then you know what to do. Get in touch!

Other than that, subscribe for more articles on some of my philosophical titans, and see you next time.