*** Note: The following work is solely that of Elizabeth Jordan. Any attempt to copy it without permission from the author is plagiarism and not worth it since you will be caught.***

Existentialism is a Humanism
Written for Existentialism
Freshman Year - Spring 1998

During the time when Jean-Paul Sartre did most of his writing existentialism faced many objections from contemporary men. One of the biggest objections was that it was a pessimistic philosophy that encouraged "people to dwell in quietism of despair" (345). In his essay, "Existentialism is a Humanism," Sartre attempts to prove that existentialism is probably the most optimistic doctrine available to modern man by attempting to answer other objections brought against existentialism. However, I do not believe that Sartre is completely successful at presenting his doctrine as optimistic and giving valid responses to the many objections.

Sartre builds his essay around the "essential charge laid against us [the existentialists]. . . of over-emphasis on the evil side of human life" (346). In other words, the charge that existentialism is too pessimistic. Every other answer to objections in this essay attempts to answer this main objection. Initially, Sartre answers this main objection by showing that in contrast to the modern (Christian) "wisdom of the people," existentialism is anything but pessimistic (346). Christian morality and wisdom focuses on the feeling that man should not question anything outside of himself, that he "must not oppose the powers-that-be. . . fight against a superior force" (346). Sartre claims that there is nothing more pessimistic than to be forced to except your position in life because it is out of your control. It is not optimism to believe that your entire past, present, and future are determined by a force outside of yourself; namely, God. It is this type of belief, not existentialism, that leads to inaction and despair. Sartre then turns this objection around and insists that it is not existentialism’s pessimism that upsets people but its optimism.

The most shocking aspect of existentialism and the most contradictory to Christian thought is "that it confronts man with a possibility of choice" (347). This possibility of choice is precisely what makes existentialism optimistic, according to Sartre. To understand why existentialism presents man with the possibility of choice, Sartre turns to the definition of existentialism. Sartre describes existentialism as the doctrine that believes "existence comes before essence" (348). In other words, a man is on this earth (existence) before he has a precise reason to be here (essence). Modern Christian thought holds to the idea that God, "as a supernatural artisan," creates each man with a certain purpose (348). This idea is evident in the Christian ideas of predestination and the Christian attitude to accept one’s position or lot in life because "it is God’s will."

Existentialists (especially atheist existentialists) believe on the other hand that man does not come with an essence but must form his own. Sartre and others like him claim that since God does not exist there is no being to have a pre-conceived essence of man. Therefore, for man, "existence comes before essence" (349). That is to say "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world-and defines himself afterwards" (349). Since there is no God to give man an essence, man must create his own. There is no human nature according to Sartre "because there is no God to have a conception of it" (349). So, "man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself" (349). Sartre sees this as optimistic because it allows man to rely solely on himself and not be guided by any forces outside of himself.

Not only does Sartre claim that a man is responsible for his own existence and essence but that he is responsible for that of all of humanity as well. By choosing and forming his essence a man automatically affirms his preference for that option. However, he not only wills that choice for himself but for humanity as a whole. Each man is thus responsible not only for himself but "for all men" and so by choosing he creates "a certain image of man as [he] would have him to be" (350). This overwhelming responsibility leads admittedly to feelings of "anguish, abandonment, and despair" (350). However, according to Sartre, when these feelings are understood in a truly existentialist sense, they are not pessimistic but contribute to the optimism of the doctrine.

First, Sartre deals with the feeling of anguish. This feeling comes directly from the responsibility man feels knowing that he is making decisions not only for himself but for all of mankind. Some people are able to avoid this anguish but Sartre asserts that they are "merely disguising their anguish" (351). They are deceiving themselves by refusing to accept their responsibility either by choosing not to decide or making decisions that are irresponsible and pretending that those decisions do not bother them. These people deceive themselves by not considering the question of "what would happen if everyone did as one is doing" (351). The demand that every man ask this question resembles Kant’s categorical imperative and appears to place limits on the supposed free choice that man is allowed under existentialism.

However, this anguish is not the type that could lead to "quietism or inaction" (352). In fact, this type of anguish demands action, according to Sartre. Man is forced to take responsibility for his actions and decisions and since they effect not only him but all of mankind, he cannot ignore them. He gives the example of an army officer to support this idea showing that when an officer is given choices in which the results affect not only his life but the lives of his men, he is forced to action not inaction. Therefore, according to Sartre, the free choice given man and the responsibility and anguish that go along with it is not "a screen which could separate us from action" but "a condition of action itself" (352).

Sartre then goes on to describe "abandonment" as the existentialists view it. This feeling comes primarily from the realization that God does not exist. However, this feeling of abandonment does not have to be pessimistic because as Dostoevsky said: "‘If God does not exist, everything would be permitted’" (353). All though previous philosophers had claimed that God did not exist, no one had ever tried to "draw the consequences of his absence right to the end," that end being that with God disappears the idea of "human nature" (352). The existence of God is the only thing that gives man an a priori idea of good or any other moral value. If God no longer exists then there is nothing to limit man’s moral choices or anything on which to place the blame if he is unhappy with the consequences of his decisions. Man is free to decide what he will. However, Sartre says he is "condemned to be free" because "he did not create himself. . . yet. . . he is responsible for everything he does" (353).

As for "despair" in the existentialist doctrine, Sartre says that it results from the realization that we cannot depend on others to do what we must do. Since there is no human nature we cannot depend on other men to always act in accordance to such a nature. We feel despair because we can only rely "upon that which is in our wills" (357). We cannot leave our actions or decisions to others because every man is free to choose and therefore free to change his mind. Objectors to existentialism claim that this kills the idea of hope. However, Sartre points out that if I "commit myself and then act my commitment," (358) I will have no need for hope because I will have accomplished my end. Therefore, existentialism once again calls for action. Some would call the fact that we cannot depend on others a very pessimistic view but Sartre feels that since it leads necessarily to people acting and being creative on their own behalf then it is, in fact, optimistic.

Sartre tries to explain how man can make moral choices when following the doctrine of existentialism. His basic advice is to "choose-that is to say, invent" (356). Man cannot depend on moral codes or religious teachings because they are based on the idea either of a human nature or a God, both of which do not exist. More so, however, you cannot depend on your feelings. Sartre claims that man mistakenly tries to use feelings to justify actions when the reality is that actions justify feelings. It is not enough to claim to have a strong feeling, one must act on that feeling in order to prove it. "Feeling is formed by the deeds one does; therefore I cannot consult it as a guide to action" (356). Man cannot use any of these methods in order to make a choice; he simply must choose and take full responsibility for that choice.

However, it is unclear what keeps man’s moral choices from being completely arbitrary. When Sartre attempts to answer the objection that "it does not matter what you do" (363) he appears to avoid the question altogether and instead tells his audience that "what is not possible is not to choose" (363). Sartre tries to show that because a man’s choice involves all of mankind that there is no way for caprice to figure into it. But he claims that the reason it is not caprice is because man has to choose; he cannot get away with not choosing. It seems to me that this would make the option of caprice or arbitrary choice even more apparent. If, under existentialism, a man cannot avoid choosing but is given no standards by which to choose it would seem that his decisions would necessarily have to be pure caprice.

Sartre attempts towards the end of his essay to show that existentialism is not only optimistic but a type of humanism as well. He contrasts existentialism with the type of humanism that "upholds man as the end-in-itself" (368). This type of humanism allows a man at any time to praise all of mankind; past and present. However, existentialism is a different type of humanism in that it realizes that you can "never take man as the end, since man is still to be determined" (368). The concept of "man" will never be fully defined because with our ability to freely choose, man will always be changing; so, therefore, we can never praise or criticize "man" in its entirety.

The existential type of humanism proclaims that since man is a conscious being and has the ability to choose for himself he thus "makes man to exist" (368) and understands that "there is no other universe except the human universe" (368). Existentialism is a type of humanism because it serves to "remind man that there is no legislator but himself" (369) and that he, therefore, controls his choices and actions. Existentialism celebrates the freedom of man to not be determined by things outside of himself.

Sartre attempts throughout this essay to portray an optimistic doctrine but it seems that because he is unable to truly answer the objections he fails at this project. Sartre too often avoids objections or answers different questions to prove that existentialism is optimistic. He cannot prove sufficiently that the anguish of which he speaks could never result in inaction. Although I concede that in certain cases it would definitely be a cause of action (as in the case of the army officer) I still believe that it would be possible for this anguish to lead to inaction. Just because a man feels a large amount of responsibility it does not necessarily follow that he will live up to that responsibility.

Sartre is also unable to assuage the huge fear that this doctrine will lead to arbitrary choice. He instead chooses to point out that it is not possible not to decide. Everything else in his doctrine seems to prove that arbitrary choice is the only thing with which man is left. He cannot depend on moral codes, religious teachings, or passion; he must just choose. Sartre’s one attempt to correct this fallacy comes through his introduction of a categorical imperative-like standard that one must consider what would happen if everyone chose to act in the same way as one is acting. However, this restriction of choice directly contradicts the doctrine of free choice that Sartre advocates.

If the choices in existentialism must be based on this categorical imperative-like question then existentialism can be seen as more optimistic. However, since this restriction on choice seems to contradict existentialism, arbitrary choice is all man is left with and that thought is definitely pessimistic. Although Sartre is able to prove that existentialism demands action and demands that man be responsible for his own decisions and for forming his own essence, he is unable to prove that this is, in fact, an optimistic view.

Works Cited

Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Existentialism is a Humanism." Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. Translated by: Walter Kauffmann.          Meridian Books: New York, 1989.