Jean-Paul Sartre

Albert Camus was agnostic, maintaining that he did not know whether or not there is a God. Jean-Paul Sartre was atheistic. Man,
Sartre said, is abandoned, by which “we mean that God does not exist.” And according to Sartre, the abandonment of man — that
is, the nonexistence of God — has drastic philosophical implications. Basically, there are four (and after you read about them you
might read the box “Is Sartre Only for Atheists?”). First, because there is no God, there is no maker of man and no such thing as a
divine conception of man in accordance with which man was created. This means, Sartre thought, that there is no such thing as a
human nature that is common to all humans; no such thing as a specific essence that defines what it is to be human. Past
philosophers had maintained that each thing in existence has a definite, specific essence; Aristotle, for example, believed that the
essence of being human is being rational. But for Sartre, the person must produce her or his own essence, because no God created
human beings in accordance with a divine concept. Thus, in the case of human beings, Sartre wrote, “existence precedes
essence,” by which he meant very simply that you are what you make of yourself. You are what you make of yourself. The
second implication of the nonexistence of God is this. Because there is no God, there is no ultimate reason why anything has
happened or why things are the way they are and not some other way. This means that the individual in effect has been thrown
into existence without any real reason for being. But this does not mean that the individual is like a rock or a flea, which also
(because there is no God) have no ultimate reason or explanation. Rocks and fleas, Sartre would say, only have what he calls
“being-in-itself” (in French, être-en-soi), or mere existence. But a human being, according to Sartre, not only exists, that is, has
being-in-itself, but also has “being-for-itself” (être-pour-soi), which means that a human being, unlike an inanimate object or a
vegetable, is a self-aware or conscious subject that creates its own future. We will return to this point momentarily. Third, because
there is no God and hence no divine plan that determines what must happen, “there is no determinism.” Thus, “man is free,”
Sartre wrote, “man is freedom”; in fact, he is condemned to be free. Nothing forces us to do what we do. Thus, he said, “we are
alone, without excuses,” by which he meant simply that we cannot excuse our actions by saying that we were forced by
circumstances or moved by passion or otherwise determined to do what we did. Fourth, because there is no God, there is no
objective standard of values: “It is very troubling that God does not exist,” Sartre wrote, “for with him disappears every
possibility of finding values . . . there can no longer be any good a priori.” Consequently, because a Godless world has no
objective values, we must establish or invent our own values. Consider briefly what these various consequences of our
abandonment entail. That we find ourselves in this world without a God-given “human nature” or “essence”; that we are active,
conscious, and self-aware subjects; that we are totally free and unconstrained (and unexcused) by any form of determinism; and
that we must create our own values — these facts mean that each individual has an awesome responsibility. According to Sartre,
first of all, we are responsible for what we are. “Abandonment implies that we ourselves choose our being.” Second, we must
invent our own values. And third and finally, because “nothing can be good for us without [also] being [good] for all,” in
inventing our own values we also function as universal legislators of right and wrong, good and evil. In choosing for ourselves,
we choose for all. “Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we had supposed it, for it involves all mankind.” This
responsibility for oneself and thus for all humankind, Sartre thought, we experience as anguish, and it is clear why he maintained
that this is so: our responsibility is total and profound and absolutely inescapable. You might perhaps object that many people,
perhaps even most, certainly do not seem to be particularly anxious, let alone anguished. It is true, Sartre admitted, that many
people are not consciously or visibly anxious. But this merely is because they are hiding or fleeing from their responsibility: they
act and live in self-deception or inauthenticity, what Sartre called “bad faith.” Further, he said, they are ill at ease with their
conscience, for “even when it conceals itself, anguish appears.” It is not difficult to understand why one might seek to avoid
shouldering one’s responsibility to oneself and thus to others, for as Sartre depicted it, this responsibility is overwhelming. But in
Sartre’s view something else also contributes to the difficulty of this task: one does not know what to choose because the world is
experienced as absurd. It is experienced as absurd, Sartre maintains, because, since God does not exist, it lacks necessity — it
lacks an ultimate rhyme or reason for being this way and not that way. The world, therefore, is experienced as fundamentally
senseless, unreasonable, illogical, and, therefore, “nauseating.” It calls forth both revulsion and boredom. It is “perfectly
gratuitous” and often just simply too much (de trop). Nevertheless, according to Sartre, it is only through acceptance of our
responsibility that we may live in authenticity. To be responsible, to live authentically, means intentionally to make choices about
one’s life and one’s future. These choices are made most efficaciously, Sartre maintained, by becoming “engaged” in the world
and by selecting a fundamental project, a project that can mobilize and direct all of one’s life energies and permit one to make
spontaneous choices. Through this project, in short, the individual creates a world that does not yet exist and thus gives meaning
to his or her life. So Sartre’s metaphysics (or antimetaphysics), which stood opposed to the belief in God, determinism, necessity,
and the objectivity of values, in effect leaves the human individual in what may plausibly be called an absurd situation. There is
nothing that one must do; there is nothing that must be done. To find meaning in life, the individual must create his or her world
and its values by making authentic choices. These choices first take the form of intentions directed toward future events. Then
they become actions of an engaged being in a world of people, a political (and politically troubled) world. The choices that we
make are made for all humankind and are, therefore, in this limited sense “absolute” ethical principles. Although we initially find
ourselves in an absurd world not of our choosing, we can remake that world through our choices and actions, and we must do so,
as difficult as that may be.