Scan barcode
loving's review against another edition
3.75
“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 (…) for existentialists there is no love other than the deeds of love; no potential for love other than that which is manifested in loving. There is no genius other than that which is expressed”
I’ll reread this in the future. I enjoyed the lecture itself (responsibility, choice, essence and the human condition); but the discussion on Marxism between Sartre and the audience members was lost on me, I assume because of my lack of political and historical knowledge.
I’ll reread this in the future. I enjoyed the lecture itself (responsibility, choice, essence and the human condition); but the discussion on Marxism between Sartre and the audience members was lost on me, I assume because of my lack of political and historical knowledge.
mintomillk's review against another edition
4.0
4 stars. in the context of Sartre's larger body of work, Existentialism is a Humanism is a great introduction to his idea of existentialism in political exercise, which was quite important to the french existentialists at time. this is a great little book and one of the first i read when i was first getting into Sartre, as an introduction to his way of argument and thinking. One star off as the concepts themselves are perhaps simplified and re-organised in a way to prepare the reader (or the original listener) for Sartre's larger claim of protecting existentialism against outsider claims of non-ethicality and dangerous neutrality.
spenkevich's review against another edition
4.0
‘There is no reality except in action’
Speaking of action, I’ve got some happening book action for you. Check this: taken from his lecture at Club Maintenant in Paris, in 1945, Existentialism is a Humanism is Jean-Paul Sartre’s rather succinct expressions of existentialism through a rebuttal of criticisms and an effort to examine key notions of his work such as ‘existence precedes essence.’ Sounds great, right? To tell the truth, I can’t help but imagine Sartre’s lectures as how he was satirically portrayed in Mood Indigo (Michel Gondry’s film adaptation of [a:Boris Vian|15959|Boris Vian|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1503336562p2/15959.jpg]’s [b:Froth on the Daydream|1528480|Froth on the Daydream|Boris Vian|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1346176406l/1528480._SY75_.jpg|136792]):
Jean-Sol Partre, as he is named in the film, delivers his lecture above adoring fans standing in a smoker’s pipe that moves about the room, everyone hollering like are attending a rock concert as another character scrambles to take notes yelling that the lecture is difficult but worthwhile. I regret to inform you this book is not quite that level of uproarious excitement, but it is still a fascinating and highly intelligent analysis of a rather freeing and optimistic philosophy. ‘[N]o doctrine is more optimistic, since it declares that man’s destiny lies within himself.’ See? If you are looking for great introductory texts to French Existentialism, put this in your pipe and smoke it because it is an apt selection ([a:Simone de Beauvoir|5548|Simone de Beauvoir|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1555042345p2/5548.jpg]’s What is Existentialism? as well). And get your pens ready to underline because I left nary a page unmarked as Sartre has such noteworthy, snappy phrasing (though neurobiologist Steven Rose would argue that Sartre’s writing was ‘more an exercise in political sloganeering than a sustainable philosophical position,’ in his book [b:Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism|749444|Lifelines Biology, Freedom, Determinism|Steven Rose|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1178007785l/749444._SX50_.jpg|735583]) and the book is delivered in a rather welcoming and accessible approach (other than when he’s kind of a pompous ass, but in a cool way?). Unpopular book aesthetic opinion but, yes, I underline books and I write in the margins. I also dog ear them. I can hear some of you shrieking but, personally, I like the practice for when I need some quotes to write (like now) and I think it makes books look all edgy and kind of punk. It’s like you are getting your books tattooed. They’re taking a deep drag off a cigarette and saying in a throaty voice “yea I look rough but it’s because I’ve been loved--love hurts but it makes it all worthwhile.” and you are like woah reign it in a little bit, my friend, but I follow ya I think. Sartre would say you’re actions towards love are what you want to see in all humans and the meaning you have ascribed to life, so already we’ve learned a lesson from this book. Good work us, lets see what other treasure troves of knowledge we can discover! [insert bass-heavy show theme and a cartoon dog saying “Brought to you by PBS!”]
‘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.’
You didn’t just scroll by that quote did you? Go back, read it again like it’s the first time. Pretty great stuff, and according to Sartre ‘that is the first principle of existentialism.’ We are learning up a storm in here. So what Sartre really wants to impress upon us is that people define meaning for themselves through their actions, which they are fully responsible for, and that through our action we also define the world. This is the idea that ‘existence precedes essence,’ which means that ‘man first exists’ by coming into the world, encountering themself and then thusly defining themself. To help illustrate, Sartre proposes we imagine a paper knife. Cool man, not a dated reference at all (think “letter opener” if you are struggling). He says that when it is built, it is made around with preconceived ideas of how it will be used, or that ‘production precedes essence.’ Humans, he argues, are the opposite. We ‘exist first,’ that we start fresh and blank and define ourselves through actions. Existentialists reject the idea of people being like a paper knife with god as ‘the artisan’, and following [a:Friedrich Nietzsche|1938|Friedrich Nietzsche|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1651474065p2/1938.jpg] stating that ‘god is dead,’ we have to consider the idea of an absence of god. Sartre splits existentialists up between two group, Christian existentialists (he cites Karl Jaspers and [a:Gabriel Marcel|89090|Gabriel Marcel|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1376905474p2/89090.jpg]) and atheist existentialsts, which he says includes Martin Heidegger and himself.
We need to pause a moment because it’s important to note that Heidegger was not into Sartre writing this and did not want to be labeled an existentialist under Sartre’s definition of one. You may have heard about Camus refusing the categorization for his own varied reasons, but Heidegger often not being considered was actually news to me. He didn’t mind Sartre referring to him as an atheist, but rejected the label of existentialist under Sartre’s depiction of it. While both philosophers addressed the concept of Being, a very basic difference is how Heidegger questioned the meaning of Being, whereas Sartre examined different ways of Being in the world. There are many other differences, such as Heidegger argued life exists in a wholeness because of death, which allows for meaning, while Sartre thought this put too much emphasis on death and saw it instead as the endpoint to our ability to give meaning into our lives. About this book, Heidegger said he thinks Sartre ‘stays with metaphysics in oblivion of the truth of Being’ Anyways, where were we? Oh yes, atheist existentialists:
Sartre discusses how existentialism removes any universal code that applies a definite meaning and in its place ‘Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.’ We exist ‘only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life.’ We are what we do, what we become, and there is no external force or invisible eternal being dictating this in Sartre’s eyes. But this isn’t strictly a dismissal of the possibility of god but merely that ‘if God were to exist, it would make no difference,’ and belief in a god or not is irrelevant when the issue is that people must discover themselves and nobody can save them but themselves. So where Jean-Paul would tell us that we are defined by actions, Jean-Luc would tell us to “make it so.”
‘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.”’
Sartre dispels the common criticisms levied at existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, arguing that it is the critics who are the true pessimists. He argues that claims existentialism discourages people from actions and only focuses on the darker parts of life is intentionally misunderstanding that ‘only hope resides’ in the actions of an existentialist as it is action creating all meaning. He also refutes that the philosophy rejects responsibility for humanity, saying existentialism is a commitment that each person is ‘responsible for myself and for everyone else,’ that in ‘choosing myself, I choose man’ because when we choose our actions we choose what believe good and believe that reflects what is good for humanity. I see what he’s getting at here, and it’s not my favorite of his points. This will later be important in his discussion on choosing actions that support freedom and freedom for everyone, which I believe Beauvoir does a much better and more detailed discourse on in The Ethics of Ambiguity. More on this in a bit.
‘We seek to base our doctrine on truth, not on comforting theories full of hope but without any real foundation.’
Still with me? Still learning? Because now we get some key terms! Sartre launches into a discussion on three terms and his definitions for them: anguish, abandonment, and despair. I know, I told you this was an optimistic philosophy but hold on, let’s see what he means by them.
Here is his definition for anguish:
We were basically just talking about this, but now with the emphasis on responsibility that what we choose as our actions should be what we believe would be what everyone should also be choosing. He briefly discusses the issue of actions such as Abraham in the Bible via [a:Søren Kierkegaard|6172|Søren Kierkegaard|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1651453632p2/6172.jpg]’s [b:Fear and Trembling|24965|Fear and Trembling|Søren Kierkegaard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1309286516l/24965._SY75_.jpg|813445] and that just because Abraham heard a voice, it was his responsibility because he chose to listen when that voice could have also been a demon or hallucination. We have to own up to our actions, basically, and all actions are our interpretations of symbols and events, but ultimately our choice.
Next is abandonment which Sartre explains ‘we merely mean to say that God does not exist, and that we must bear the full consequences of that assertion,’ and that it is ‘we, ourselves, who decide who we are to be.’ Basically everything we’ve been discussing. He cites [a:Fyodor Dostoevsky|3137322|Fyodor Dostoevsky|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1629693671p2/3137322.jpg]’s famous line from the [b:The Brothers Karamazov|4934|The Brothers Karamazov|Fyodor Dostoevsky|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1427728126l/4934._SX50_.jpg|3393910] ‘if God is dead, everything is permitted,’ and calls it a starting point of philosophy, though personally I much prefer Beauvoir’s arguments against this asserting life is not a nihilistic free-for-all and existentialism can, in fact, provide an ethic for positive and productive living.
Finally we reach despair. Don’t get too excited. Despair means we have to reckon with only what depends on our will. ‘When Descartes said ‘Conquer yourself rather than the world’, what he meant was, at bottom, the same – that we should act without hope.’ Which sounds bleak but basically he’s saying we cant rely on anything outside our control but that this shouldn’t cause us to abandon action because there is no reality except in action.
‘Life is nothing until it is lived.’
One of my favorite discussions in this book, however, is his metaphor of a person like a painting, or ‘that moral choice is like constructing a work of art.’ We can’t judge a painting before it has begun or even before it is finished, we don’t know what it is yet to be, and the act of painting is like our actions that define us. ‘We are in the same creative situation.’ he says. ‘What are and morality have in common is creation and invention’ I also enjoy his assertions on how we are ‘obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as I will my own. I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal.’ Those who do not will the freedom of others are acting in bad faith (this comes up a lot, and he argues we can judge people who act in bad faith). Though, as I said earlier, this is better addressed in The Ethics of Ambiguity and I would encourage any of you to read that.
But finally we reach why he believes existentialism is a humanism, a ‘existential humanism.’ Here’s what he means by that:
He argues this is different than a definition that all humankind is inherently valuable, and that this is cultish and that because ‘man is constantly in the making,’ there is no defined ‘humankind.’ His definition is that people act towards goals and values outside themselves in order to make something meaningful out of their existence in relation to the world. He calls this humanism because ‘the only universe that exists is…the universe of human subjectivity.’
This is an interesting book and a really nice primer for both Sartre’s philosophies and existentialism itself, though I would encourage anyone to also read more than just this as each philosopher had different opinions and often disagreed with each other (there is a great Q&A session in this book that offers some discussions and Sartre getting flustered). I like a lot of what he says, I wish he didn’t gender everything as man, but it was the times and translator, thats what it is. I also quite enjoyed his essay on [a:Albert Camus|957894|Albert Camus|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1686463588p2/957894.jpg]’ [b:The Stranger|49552|The Stranger|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1590930002l/49552._SY75_.jpg|3324344], which he says is a great representation of the absurd and is a comical book, as well as compares the writing style to [a:Ernest Hemingway|1455|Ernest Hemingway|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1654446435p2/1455.jpg]. This is a nice volume with a lot of big ideas to grapple with, though it is a rather accessible introductory book and will make for a nice cozy evening of existentialism. Because it’s about to be Hot Existentialist Summer, you’ve been warned.
⅘
‘This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does.’
Speaking of action, I’ve got some happening book action for you. Check this: taken from his lecture at Club Maintenant in Paris, in 1945, Existentialism is a Humanism is Jean-Paul Sartre’s rather succinct expressions of existentialism through a rebuttal of criticisms and an effort to examine key notions of his work such as ‘existence precedes essence.’ Sounds great, right? To tell the truth, I can’t help but imagine Sartre’s lectures as how he was satirically portrayed in Mood Indigo (Michel Gondry’s film adaptation of [a:Boris Vian|15959|Boris Vian|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1503336562p2/15959.jpg]’s [b:Froth on the Daydream|1528480|Froth on the Daydream|Boris Vian|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1346176406l/1528480._SY75_.jpg|136792]):
Jean-Sol Partre, as he is named in the film, delivers his lecture above adoring fans standing in a smoker’s pipe that moves about the room, everyone hollering like are attending a rock concert as another character scrambles to take notes yelling that the lecture is difficult but worthwhile. I regret to inform you this book is not quite that level of uproarious excitement, but it is still a fascinating and highly intelligent analysis of a rather freeing and optimistic philosophy. ‘[N]o doctrine is more optimistic, since it declares that man’s destiny lies within himself.’ See? If you are looking for great introductory texts to French Existentialism, put this in your pipe and smoke it because it is an apt selection ([a:Simone de Beauvoir|5548|Simone de Beauvoir|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1555042345p2/5548.jpg]’s What is Existentialism? as well). And get your pens ready to underline because I left nary a page unmarked as Sartre has such noteworthy, snappy phrasing (though neurobiologist Steven Rose would argue that Sartre’s writing was ‘more an exercise in political sloganeering than a sustainable philosophical position,’ in his book [b:Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism|749444|Lifelines Biology, Freedom, Determinism|Steven Rose|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1178007785l/749444._SX50_.jpg|735583]) and the book is delivered in a rather welcoming and accessible approach (other than when he’s kind of a pompous ass, but in a cool way?). Unpopular book aesthetic opinion but, yes, I underline books and I write in the margins. I also dog ear them. I can hear some of you shrieking but, personally, I like the practice for when I need some quotes to write (like now) and I think it makes books look all edgy and kind of punk. It’s like you are getting your books tattooed. They’re taking a deep drag off a cigarette and saying in a throaty voice “yea I look rough but it’s because I’ve been loved--love hurts but it makes it all worthwhile.” and you are like woah reign it in a little bit, my friend, but I follow ya I think. Sartre would say you’re actions towards love are what you want to see in all humans and the meaning you have ascribed to life, so already we’ve learned a lesson from this book. Good work us, lets see what other treasure troves of knowledge we can discover! [insert bass-heavy show theme and a cartoon dog saying “Brought to you by PBS!”]
‘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.’
You didn’t just scroll by that quote did you? Go back, read it again like it’s the first time. Pretty great stuff, and according to Sartre ‘that is the first principle of existentialism.’ We are learning up a storm in here. So what Sartre really wants to impress upon us is that people define meaning for themselves through their actions, which they are fully responsible for, and that through our action we also define the world. This is the idea that ‘existence precedes essence,’ which means that ‘man first exists’ by coming into the world, encountering themself and then thusly defining themself. To help illustrate, Sartre proposes we imagine a paper knife. Cool man, not a dated reference at all (think “letter opener” if you are struggling). He says that when it is built, it is made around with preconceived ideas of how it will be used, or that ‘production precedes essence.’ Humans, he argues, are the opposite. We ‘exist first,’ that we start fresh and blank and define ourselves through actions. Existentialists reject the idea of people being like a paper knife with god as ‘the artisan’, and following [a:Friedrich Nietzsche|1938|Friedrich Nietzsche|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1651474065p2/1938.jpg] stating that ‘god is dead,’ we have to consider the idea of an absence of god. Sartre splits existentialists up between two group, Christian existentialists (he cites Karl Jaspers and [a:Gabriel Marcel|89090|Gabriel Marcel|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1376905474p2/89090.jpg]) and atheist existentialsts, which he says includes Martin Heidegger and himself.
We need to pause a moment because it’s important to note that Heidegger was not into Sartre writing this and did not want to be labeled an existentialist under Sartre’s definition of one. You may have heard about Camus refusing the categorization for his own varied reasons, but Heidegger often not being considered was actually news to me. He didn’t mind Sartre referring to him as an atheist, but rejected the label of existentialist under Sartre’s depiction of it. While both philosophers addressed the concept of Being, a very basic difference is how Heidegger questioned the meaning of Being, whereas Sartre examined different ways of Being in the world. There are many other differences, such as Heidegger argued life exists in a wholeness because of death, which allows for meaning, while Sartre thought this put too much emphasis on death and saw it instead as the endpoint to our ability to give meaning into our lives. About this book, Heidegger said he thinks Sartre ‘stays with metaphysics in oblivion of the truth of Being’ Anyways, where were we? Oh yes, atheist existentialists:
‘Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. .... He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself…If God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior.’
Sartre discusses how existentialism removes any universal code that applies a definite meaning and in its place ‘Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.’ We exist ‘only to the extent that he realizes himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life.’ We are what we do, what we become, and there is no external force or invisible eternal being dictating this in Sartre’s eyes. But this isn’t strictly a dismissal of the possibility of god but merely that ‘if God were to exist, it would make no difference,’ and belief in a god or not is irrelevant when the issue is that people must discover themselves and nobody can save them but themselves. So where Jean-Paul would tell us that we are defined by actions, Jean-Luc would tell us to “make it so.”
‘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.”’
Sartre dispels the common criticisms levied at existentialism as a pessimistic philosophy, arguing that it is the critics who are the true pessimists. He argues that claims existentialism discourages people from actions and only focuses on the darker parts of life is intentionally misunderstanding that ‘only hope resides’ in the actions of an existentialist as it is action creating all meaning. He also refutes that the philosophy rejects responsibility for humanity, saying existentialism is a commitment that each person is ‘responsible for myself and for everyone else,’ that in ‘choosing myself, I choose man’ because when we choose our actions we choose what believe good and believe that reflects what is good for humanity. I see what he’s getting at here, and it’s not my favorite of his points. This will later be important in his discussion on choosing actions that support freedom and freedom for everyone, which I believe Beauvoir does a much better and more detailed discourse on in The Ethics of Ambiguity. More on this in a bit.
‘We seek to base our doctrine on truth, not on comforting theories full of hope but without any real foundation.’
Still with me? Still learning? Because now we get some key terms! Sartre launches into a discussion on three terms and his definitions for them: anguish, abandonment, and despair. I know, I told you this was an optimistic philosophy but hold on, let’s see what he means by them.
Here is his definition for anguish:
‘a man who commits himself, and who realizes that he is not only the individual that he chooses to be, but also a legislator choosing at the same time what humanity as a whole should be, cannot help but be aware of his own full and profound responsibility’
We were basically just talking about this, but now with the emphasis on responsibility that what we choose as our actions should be what we believe would be what everyone should also be choosing. He briefly discusses the issue of actions such as Abraham in the Bible via [a:Søren Kierkegaard|6172|Søren Kierkegaard|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1651453632p2/6172.jpg]’s [b:Fear and Trembling|24965|Fear and Trembling|Søren Kierkegaard|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1309286516l/24965._SY75_.jpg|813445] and that just because Abraham heard a voice, it was his responsibility because he chose to listen when that voice could have also been a demon or hallucination. We have to own up to our actions, basically, and all actions are our interpretations of symbols and events, but ultimately our choice.
Next is abandonment which Sartre explains ‘we merely mean to say that God does not exist, and that we must bear the full consequences of that assertion,’ and that it is ‘we, ourselves, who decide who we are to be.’ Basically everything we’ve been discussing. He cites [a:Fyodor Dostoevsky|3137322|Fyodor Dostoevsky|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1629693671p2/3137322.jpg]’s famous line from the [b:The Brothers Karamazov|4934|The Brothers Karamazov|Fyodor Dostoevsky|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1427728126l/4934._SX50_.jpg|3393910] ‘if God is dead, everything is permitted,’ and calls it a starting point of philosophy, though personally I much prefer Beauvoir’s arguments against this asserting life is not a nihilistic free-for-all and existentialism can, in fact, provide an ethic for positive and productive living.
Finally we reach despair. Don’t get too excited. Despair means we have to reckon with only what depends on our will. ‘When Descartes said ‘Conquer yourself rather than the world’, what he meant was, at bottom, the same – that we should act without hope.’ Which sounds bleak but basically he’s saying we cant rely on anything outside our control but that this shouldn’t cause us to abandon action because there is no reality except in action.
‘Life is nothing until it is lived.’
One of my favorite discussions in this book, however, is his metaphor of a person like a painting, or ‘that moral choice is like constructing a work of art.’ We can’t judge a painting before it has begun or even before it is finished, we don’t know what it is yet to be, and the act of painting is like our actions that define us. ‘We are in the same creative situation.’ he says. ‘What are and morality have in common is creation and invention’ I also enjoy his assertions on how we are ‘obliged to will the freedom of others at the same time as I will my own. I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal.’ Those who do not will the freedom of others are acting in bad faith (this comes up a lot, and he argues we can judge people who act in bad faith). Though, as I said earlier, this is better addressed in The Ethics of Ambiguity and I would encourage any of you to read that.
But finally we reach why he believes existentialism is a humanism, a ‘existential humanism.’ Here’s what he means by that:
‘This is humanism because we remind man that there is no legislator other than himself and that he must, in his abandoned state, make his own choices, and also because we show that it is not by turning inward, but by constantly seeking a goal outside of himself in the form of liberation, or of some special achievement, that man will realize himself as truly human.
He argues this is different than a definition that all humankind is inherently valuable, and that this is cultish and that because ‘man is constantly in the making,’ there is no defined ‘humankind.’ His definition is that people act towards goals and values outside themselves in order to make something meaningful out of their existence in relation to the world. He calls this humanism because ‘the only universe that exists is…the universe of human subjectivity.’
This is an interesting book and a really nice primer for both Sartre’s philosophies and existentialism itself, though I would encourage anyone to also read more than just this as each philosopher had different opinions and often disagreed with each other (there is a great Q&A session in this book that offers some discussions and Sartre getting flustered). I like a lot of what he says, I wish he didn’t gender everything as man, but it was the times and translator, thats what it is. I also quite enjoyed his essay on [a:Albert Camus|957894|Albert Camus|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1686463588p2/957894.jpg]’ [b:The Stranger|49552|The Stranger|Albert Camus|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1590930002l/49552._SY75_.jpg|3324344], which he says is a great representation of the absurd and is a comical book, as well as compares the writing style to [a:Ernest Hemingway|1455|Ernest Hemingway|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1654446435p2/1455.jpg]. This is a nice volume with a lot of big ideas to grapple with, though it is a rather accessible introductory book and will make for a nice cozy evening of existentialism. Because it’s about to be Hot Existentialist Summer, you’ve been warned.
⅘
‘This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything that he does.’
swagmoneyjoe's review against another edition
4.0
If everything means nothing and nothing is everything then we are free to look at the good in everything but looking at the good is neglecting the bad. Whatever im going back to reading comic books idc anymore.
forgottensecret's review against another edition
5.0
'Man is nothing other than his own project. He exists only to the extent that he realises himself, therefore he is nothing more than the sum of his actions.'
'Existentialism is a Humanism' was written in 1946 and based on a lecture Jean-Paul Sartre gave of the same name at Club Maintenant in Paris, 1945. This was published three years after 'Being and Nothingness', Sarte's magnum opus, and often referred to as the 'Bible of existentialism'.
.
Existentialism can sometimes be misinterpreted, but to Sartre it manifested as a strain of 'optimism' and a 'doctrine of action.' Seneca wrote to Lucilius in his fifth letter, referring to Stoicism, that 'Our motto, as everyone knows, is to live in conformity with nature.' In a similar way, the motto of Sartre's existentialism is 'existence precedes essence.' What does this maxim mean? Firstly, we must define essentialism. In philosophy, if something has an essence it contains something that is unalterable, it is inherent in the form - Plato is probably the most famous proponent. Sartre, and existentialism, reverses this order. By way of analogy, suppose a person goes to the Louvre and sees a fully painted Vermeer or da Vinci. The paintings have well-defined characteristics, and are plainly something. They, in a sense, possess a materialised essence. Continuing the analogy, an essentialist might say that being born into the world, we are already painted. But Sartre with his reversal, stresses that man comes into the world and only after does he come to define himself. He is not already a painting, he is the pot and the 30 colours, and it he who must play the role of artist. Sartre explains:
'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.'
One can definitely note from this first principle, that this philosophy is fundamentally optimistic and should compel one to action. A corresponding tenet of existentialism is its opposition to quietism. The disposition that quietism leads to is letting others do what one cannot do. This debilitating attitude is ripped up by Sartre's existentialism, who defines his doctrine as being its complete opposite. He makes the perceptive analysis that 'reality exists only in action', and consequently implies that cowering in the private enclosure of the mind, contributing nothing, not partnering with the broadness of reality is to reject existence. For Sartre:
'Man is nothing other than his own projects. 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.'
This should be shouted from the rooftops! In acceptance of the above logic, this hinders a person from reiterating their carousel of excuses, which one plucks from as reasons for why they are frozen in place, unable to progress in their ability or an area of their life. These reasons, verbalisations of the mind which we feel to be true, strike reality as irrelevant. How many times have we eventually become unstuck, and saw by reflection that those prior thoughts were comfortable falsehoods? Sartre explains beautifully the importance of actions:
'In reality, however, for existentialists there is no love other than the deeds of love; no potential for love other than that which is manifested in loving. There is no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art; the genius of Proust resides in the totality of his works; the genius of Racine is found in the series of his tragedies, outside of which there is nothing. Why should we attribute to Racine the ability to write yet another tragedy when that is precisely what he did not do? In life, a man commits himself and draws his own portrait, outside of which there is nothing.'
He anticipates dismay at the above:
'No doubt this thought may seem harsh to someone who has not made a success of his life. But on the other hand, it helps people to understand that reality alone counts, and that dreams, expectations, and hopes only serve to define a man as a broken dream, aborted hopes, and futile expectations; in other words, they define him negatively, not positively.'
From the above, we can see why Sartre is synonymous with taking responsibility for our lives. I can only imagine a drunkard stumbling into the Club Maintenant in 1945, and hearing Sartre exhort the audience with a similar analysis, and the man leaving irrevocably changed.
This is the perfect introduction to existentialism. It probably only explores a fraction of Sartre's thought, but it stimulates one to go read his lengthier works. As can be gleaned from above, existentialism, like Stoicism, is a very practical philosophy. The ancient promise of philosophy was 'eudaimonia', a sort of self-actualisation, and Sartre's work aids that.
'Existentialism is a Humanism' was written in 1946 and based on a lecture Jean-Paul Sartre gave of the same name at Club Maintenant in Paris, 1945. This was published three years after 'Being and Nothingness', Sarte's magnum opus, and often referred to as the 'Bible of existentialism'.
.
Existentialism can sometimes be misinterpreted, but to Sartre it manifested as a strain of 'optimism' and a 'doctrine of action.' Seneca wrote to Lucilius in his fifth letter, referring to Stoicism, that 'Our motto, as everyone knows, is to live in conformity with nature.' In a similar way, the motto of Sartre's existentialism is 'existence precedes essence.' What does this maxim mean? Firstly, we must define essentialism. In philosophy, if something has an essence it contains something that is unalterable, it is inherent in the form - Plato is probably the most famous proponent. Sartre, and existentialism, reverses this order. By way of analogy, suppose a person goes to the Louvre and sees a fully painted Vermeer or da Vinci. The paintings have well-defined characteristics, and are plainly something. They, in a sense, possess a materialised essence. Continuing the analogy, an essentialist might say that being born into the world, we are already painted. But Sartre with his reversal, stresses that man comes into the world and only after does he come to define himself. He is not already a painting, he is the pot and the 30 colours, and it he who must play the role of artist. Sartre explains:
'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.'
One can definitely note from this first principle, that this philosophy is fundamentally optimistic and should compel one to action. A corresponding tenet of existentialism is its opposition to quietism. The disposition that quietism leads to is letting others do what one cannot do. This debilitating attitude is ripped up by Sartre's existentialism, who defines his doctrine as being its complete opposite. He makes the perceptive analysis that 'reality exists only in action', and consequently implies that cowering in the private enclosure of the mind, contributing nothing, not partnering with the broadness of reality is to reject existence. For Sartre:
'Man is nothing other than his own projects. 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.'
This should be shouted from the rooftops! In acceptance of the above logic, this hinders a person from reiterating their carousel of excuses, which one plucks from as reasons for why they are frozen in place, unable to progress in their ability or an area of their life. These reasons, verbalisations of the mind which we feel to be true, strike reality as irrelevant. How many times have we eventually become unstuck, and saw by reflection that those prior thoughts were comfortable falsehoods? Sartre explains beautifully the importance of actions:
'In reality, however, for existentialists there is no love other than the deeds of love; no potential for love other than that which is manifested in loving. There is no genius other than that which is expressed in works of art; the genius of Proust resides in the totality of his works; the genius of Racine is found in the series of his tragedies, outside of which there is nothing. Why should we attribute to Racine the ability to write yet another tragedy when that is precisely what he did not do? In life, a man commits himself and draws his own portrait, outside of which there is nothing.'
He anticipates dismay at the above:
'No doubt this thought may seem harsh to someone who has not made a success of his life. But on the other hand, it helps people to understand that reality alone counts, and that dreams, expectations, and hopes only serve to define a man as a broken dream, aborted hopes, and futile expectations; in other words, they define him negatively, not positively.'
From the above, we can see why Sartre is synonymous with taking responsibility for our lives. I can only imagine a drunkard stumbling into the Club Maintenant in 1945, and hearing Sartre exhort the audience with a similar analysis, and the man leaving irrevocably changed.
This is the perfect introduction to existentialism. It probably only explores a fraction of Sartre's thought, but it stimulates one to go read his lengthier works. As can be gleaned from above, existentialism, like Stoicism, is a very practical philosophy. The ancient promise of philosophy was 'eudaimonia', a sort of self-actualisation, and Sartre's work aids that.