Existentialism Is a Humanism

(Please note that Sartre consistently speaks of "man". Ironically, Simone de Beauvoir's partner of 51 years is unable or unwilling to include women in his language at least. Nevertheless, the essence of his will includes any gender.)

»Man is nothing other than his own project. He exists only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life.”«

“Existentialism Is a Humanism” is originally a lecture by Sartre, first delivered in 1945, aimed to clarify misunderstandings about existentialism. He adeptly defends the philosophy against critiques of it promoting despair, amorality, and nihilism. The book is built on the existentialist premise that "existence show more precedes essence".

Or, in Sartre’s own words:

»We mean that man first exists: he materializes in the world, encounters himself, and only afterward defines himself. If man as existentialists conceive of him cannot be defined, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive of it. Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself. This is the first principle of existentialism.«

I’ve long wanted to read about existentialism since what little grasp of it I had (and still only have) appealed to me and interested me. (For those who are in the same position as I found myself, in a nutshell: Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasises individual freedom, choice, and existence, asserting that individuals are responsible for giving meaning to their lives through their actions and decisions. It contends that people must navigate the absurdities of life without reliance on predetermined norms, thereby creating their own values and defining their own essence. Thus: existence precedes essence)

What makes this work particularly interesting is how Sartre uncomplicates (in very non-uncomplicated words and ideas, though) the existentialist stance that individuals are entirely responsible for their own actions. This notion initially appears daunting – suggesting isolation in our freedom and decisions. Yet, as Sartre explains, it is incredibly empowering. It posits that we are the architects of our own values and the authors of our lives. His assertion that “man is condemned to be free” resonated deeply with me, underscoring the weight of personal responsibility that accompanies our freedom.

»man is free and there is no human nature in which I can place my trust.«

And, yet, that freedom is not without reason: Sartre illustrates how our personal choices ripple across humanity, arguing that in choosing for ourselves, we also choose for all mankind.

»What is more, to say that we invent values means neither more nor less than this: life has no meaning a priori. Life itself is nothing until it is lived, it is we who give it meaning, and value is nothing more than the meaning that we give it. You can see, then, that it is possible to create a human community.«

"Existentialism Is a Humanism" also delves into the subject of despair, which Sartre describes as the acknowledgment that we rely only on ourselves and our will for action. This was an eye-opener to the liberating potential within existentialism, as it encourages one to act without hope – encouraging a direct confrontation with reality.

»“No hope is necessary to undertake anything.”«

The eloquence and intellectual clarity of Sartre's prose are undeniable. I, with little understanding of existentialism, found this book taxing to read. It’s well-written, presents great ideas and dispels misunderstandings and accusations, and is thought-provoking. It does feel like a lecture, though, and it’s not something one would read for pleasure.

I think I will move on to Sartre’s “Nausea” and, sooner or later, to his “Being and Nothingness”.

I don’t feel “qualified” to star-rate this book but would recommend reading it to anyone with an open mind.

»Existentialism is not so much an atheism in the sense that it would exhaust itself attempting to demonstrate the nonexistence of God; rather, it affirms that even if God were to exist, it would make no difference—that is our point of view. It is not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the real problem is not one of his existence; what man needs is to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself, not even valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only in bad faith—in confusing their own despair with ours—that Christians are able to assert that we are “without hope.”«

Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Mastodon | Instagram | Pinterest | Medium | Matrix | Tumblr

Ceterum censeo Putin esse delendam show less

Una relectura me permite darle más pelota. Es importante volver a este libro como volver a una época filosófica que constituye un punto de inflexión para varias concepciones que se ponen en cuestión estos días. Muchas de las objeciones de Sartre aquí presentes se cumplen, y así es como nos vemos hoy día enfrentando nuevamente el advenimiento de neofascismos y la caída en la nada misma. Solo nos puede aportar un ssentido a la vida nuestros actos, solo podemos definirnos por el verbo del que somos protagonistas. Me parece importante una atenta relectura en este año, 2020.

1.2

100 SAR 2

Se trata de una conferencia que Sartre pronunció en 1946 para defender al existencialismo de las críticas que le venían desde el cristianismo y, sobre todo, desde el marxismo. Es cierto que el texto se comprende mejor conociendo el contexto del autor, en plena tensión con el partido comunista francés, pero no pierde valor como texto autónomo. Sarte hace gala de su capacidad literaria para explicar el existencialismo de forma llana y breve, pero precisamente por eso rigurosa. La base es que la existencia precede a la esencia, es decir, que "existo ergo sum" o "existo ergo cogito". Respecto al cristianismo, aclara desde el principio que su tesis parte de un ateísmo radical y absoluto; evidentemente, si hay Dios, yo existo porque show more Él lo quiere, y todo cambia de perspectiva. Pero por eso quizá es posible un entendimiento (esto aquí sólo se atisba) puesto que, aunque yo exista por voluntad de Otro, eso no significa que exista ya completo, sino que debo irme completando con los medios que Dios me ha dado (esta es la tesis de Marcel y de los existencialistas cristianos). Donde es más difícil el diálogo es con los marxistas, porque Sartre parte del individuo concreto, y sólo por asociación llega a la comunidad, pero manteniendo siempre la primacía del sujeto. Incluso se burla con suavidad de las promesas de un futuro mejor dentro de varias generaciones.

Hoy el existencialismo tiene mucho más que decir que el marxismo, aunque quizá este último, muy maltratado por los marxistas, necesite una revisión y una actualización. Pero el existencialismo que se presenta aquí no cabe duda de que resulta tremendamente sugerente.

El libro se completa con la transcripción de la "discusión" posterior a la conferencia, que en realidad consta básicamente de una aburrida arenga de uno de los críticos marxistas más famosos del momento; hoy nadie se acuerda de él, y sí de Sartre. Por algo será. show less

Compte rendu d'une conférence donnée en octobre 1945 à Paris, ce texte est absolument remarquable. Il expose avec beaucoup de pertinence et une très grande clarté les fondements de l'existentialisme, mouvement audacieux (et largement incompris à l'époque) qui rompait avec les théories philosophiques en vigueur, à une période-clé de l'histoire de l'humanité.
Il s'agit du texte majeur de l'existentialisme qu'il convient de lire pour bien comprendre la pensée de Sartre, et de préférence avant toute autre oeuvre de l'auteur.

en principe je bloque sur les essais (je préfère sentir une position philosophique dans les oeuvres, littéraires ou cinématographiques), et je n'aime pas vraiment sartre (le personnage), mais ce bref texte est vraiment facile d'accès, et m'a permis de mettre des mots sur des idées que jusque là je ressentais seulement. alors vraiment je vous le conseille, à moins que vous soyez un intellectuel et alors ça vous semblera un peu simpliste (et de toute façon les intellectuels ont du lire ce genre de livres quand ils avaient 12 ans).