资源描述
Jean-Paul Sartre(1905-1980)(1946)12/18/06(some of)Sartres WritingsNovelsNausea(1938)The Age of Reason(1945);The Reprieve(1947);Troubled Sleep(1950)(3 parts of a 4-part series)PlaysThe Flies(1943)No Exit(1944)The Respectful Prostitute(1947)The Condemned of Altona(1960)Biography&literary criticismBaudelaire(1947)Saint Genet(1952)The Idiot of the Family(on Flaubert)(1971)Autobiography:Words(1963)Philosophical worksThe Transcendence of the Ego(1937)The Psychology of the Imagination(1940)Being&Nothingness(1943)“Existentialism is a Humanism”(1946)Search for a Method(1957)The Critique of Dialectical Reason(Vol.I,1960;Vol.II,1985)which he REFUSED on the grounds that such honors could interfere with a writers responsibilities to his readers.Sartre was awardedSartre did not believe in“bourgeois marriage,”buthe had an intimate life partnership from the late 1920s until his death in 1980 with.Simone de Beauvoir(1908-1986)She,too,was an exponent of Existentialism.Among her numerous works are The Mandarins(1955),a novel;The Second Sex(194950),a profound analysis of the status of women;The Coming of Age(1970),a study of societys treatment of the aged;&two collections of memoirs,Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter(1958)&The Prime of Life(1960).“To make oneself an object,to make oneself passive,is a very different thing from being a passive object.”So,Sartre,What is Existentialism?Before we look into the details of Sartres essay in detail,lets focus a little on an issue that is central to his philosophy:the problem of freedom and determinism.FDeterminism is the claim that(1)all events are caused and that(2)whatever happens is determined by prior events.FOne way of presenting the freedom-determinism issue is via the question,Are freedom and determinism compatible?Here,there are two views:compatibilism and incompatibilism.Compatibilists(sometimes called soft determinists)argue that determinism is true but that it is also true that some human actions are free.I will come back to compatibilism in a later message.FRight now,I want to focus on two versions of incompatibilism(the view that determinism and freedom are contradictory to each other):(1)Hard Determinism(determinism is true,and freedom is an illusion);and(2)Indeterminism,which is the claim that some events are not caused and are thus not determined by prior events.There is at least one other form of incompatibilism,namely,Libertarianism(which either denies or limits determinism in certain ways).I will also come back to that in a later message.Here are a couple of arguments for(1)Hard Determinism and for(2)IndetrminismHere is an argument for Hard Determinism:1.Whatever happens is determined by prior events.2.I act freely only if I am able to act otherwise.3.If my action is determined(Premise 1),then I am not able to act otherwise.-4.I never act freely.And here is an argument based on Indeterminism,which also seems to rule out the reality of freedom:1.If determinism is true,we can never do other than we do;so we are not free.2.If indeterminism is true,then some events(and actions)are random.3.If some events or actions are random,then we are not their authors;so we are not free.4.Either determinism or indeterminism is true.-5.We never act freely.Any thoughts on these arguments?What would Sartre(a radical libertarian incompatibilist)say in response to them?Continuing on the freedom-determinism theme,here is some commentary on the perspectives of Soft Determinism(Compatibilism)and Libertarianism(one kind of Incompatibilism).(Sartre is a Libertarian on this issue.)FSoft Determinism:Determinism and freedom are compatible.All events-including human actions-are caused by prior events.However,freely chosen human actions are caused by the actors character,beliefs,and desires(events and causes internal to the actor).As long as ones chosen actions are not caused by external coercion or some kind of internal pathological compulsion,those actions are free.FLibertarianism:Determinism and freedom are incompatible.If all actors and all actions are events,and if all events are caused by prior events,then there is no freedom.However,a human actor-a self-is not an event.It is a substance,a primary reality,which is the uncaused cause of its own actions.Actions are caused,but not all actions are caused by prior events.Some actions-the ones chosen by the self-are caused by the self,which is not an event but a substance.The self is not caused(determined)to choose as it does.It chooses on the basis of its own free reasoning and deliberation(remember Aristotles discussion of this?).As some critics have pointed out,this theory does present the self as something of a minor god(since God is also often depicted as the absolutely free creator-the ultimate Uncaused Cause-of the existence of the cosmos).FSartre supports the Libertarian position.I hope everyone sees that as they read his essay on Existentialism.FThats all too brief and perhaps unclear.I hope to supplement this later(if I can find the time!).FEach of the(four)approaches to the freedom-determinism issue has its problems.Can you see what they might be?(The four approaches:Hard Determinism,Indeterminism,Soft Determinism,and Libertarianism.)See my earlier bbd message on this.See also the links under Supplementary Study Materials icon item 7.4.OK,Lets get into Sartres essay on the nature of Existentialism.“Existence”is Prior to“Essence”Text,481-2Ss“phenomenological”starting point(What is phenomenology?)An approach to reality from the standpoint of subjectivity(consciousness)If I approach reality from that point of view,what do I find?I find a differencevbetween subjects&objects,vbetween persons&things,vbetween beings that are conscious&beings that are not conscious.What is the difference?From the subjective standpoint of individual consciousness,I am not a manufactured object with a pre-conceived essence or specific use(function)(unlike,for example,a paper-cutter)(481),nor am I a creature manufactured by God in accordance with a concept(essence)in the divine mind(481),nor am I merely a particular instance of a universal human nature that precedes and determines my existence(481-2).I exist first,&then I take on an essence through my own actions,through my own manner of existing&acting.Self-Creation&Personal ResponsibilityText,482Another distinction betweensubjects(persons)&objects(things):vSubjects(persons)arefree,self-creating,&thereforepersonally responsible for what they create&do.vObjects(things)have no freedom,are not self-creating,&thushave no responsibility for what they are or for how they function.According to Sartre,what I am(my essence)is a product of my choices&actions(my manner of existing).Thus,since I freely create myself(my essence),I am responsible for my choices&actions&and what I have created.“Therefore,I am responsible for myself and for everyone else.”According to Sartre,if I recognizeFthat I am not made to be what I am but rather freely choose my own“essence,”Fthat what I am is my own responsibility because my self is my own creation,Fthat,through my choices,I become responsible not only for myself but also for all?others,&Fthat I cannot look to God for guidance in this process since God does not exist,Anguish,Forlornness,&DespairText,482-6Existential Anguisha response to the burden of responsibilityWhats wrong with the following claims?F“But everyone doesnt act that way”(in response to the question,“What if everyone acted that way?”).F“An angel of God or God Himself commanded me to do it.”F“My anguish keeps me from acting.”Existential Forlornnessa response to the non-existence of GodImplications of the nonexistence of God:FNo foundation for objective&absolute values.FAll values are human creations.FMan is“condemned to be free.”FWe are alone,with no justifications&no excuses.Dostoevsky:If God does not exist,theneverything is permitted.Looking for answersHow to resolve moral dilemmas:A students struggle with conflicting moral obligations.(484-5)How to define the meaning of ones life:A young priests interpretation of the“signs.”(485)How do these examples illustrate Sartres explanation of existential forlornness?Existential Despaira response to the unreliability of others(relying on what is subject to ones own will,not on things or persons external to ones will)Comment(and Questions)on Sartres AtheismqThere is a difference between Sartres atheism and the theism of philosophers like Anselm of Canterbury,or Thomas Aquinas,or Rene Descartes:The latter offer*philosophical arguments*in support of their belief in the reality of God.Sartre offers no arguments or reasons in support of his atheism.He has been called a postulatory atheist,which means that he simply postulates(assumes without proof)the non-existence of God and goes on from there.If God does not exist,he reasons,then we are on our own,and we must face up to the fact that a life without God,if lived honestly,is a life full of anxiety,forlornness,and despair.If we dont face up to that,then we are not taking the non-existence of God seriously enough.We are not facing up to the full and real implications of being completely on our own in a meaningless universe.If we dont face up to that,then we are in serious denial-we are,truly,kidding ourselves.qSartre never gives any reasons for thinking that God does not exist.He does not find God present in his experience(phenomenologically considered).He just*postulates*the non-existence of God.He feels no obligation to prove that God does not exist.He probably thinks that that the*burden of proof*for the*existence*of God is on the theists,and he no doubt does not find any of the theistic arguments(e.g.,of Anselm,Aquinas,Descartes,etc.)persuasive.qHowever,Sartre is an atheist with a difference.He is not happy that God does not exist.Without God,we must live in anxiety,forlornness,and despair-on our own,with no ultimate guidance,and also with no excuses for ourselves.Each one of us finds her/himself totally responsible for her/his existence.qWouldnt many theists*agree*with Sartre on the existential implications of the non-existence of God(without,of course,agreeing with him that God does not exist)?In a way,doesnt Sartre(perhaps contrary to his intentions)give aid and comfort to theism?A Philosophy of ActionText,486-7A Philosophy of ActionFActually,things will be as humanity will have decided they are to be.Does that mean that I should withdraw from life,retreat into inaction?No.First,I should engage myself;then act on the old saying,“Nothing ventured,nothing gained.”Nor does it mean that I shouldnt belong to a political party,but rather that I shall have no illusions and shall do what I can.For example,suppose I ask myself,“Will true socialism ever come about?”All I can know is that Im going to do everything in my power to bring it about.Beyond that,I cant count on anything.FThere are people who say,“Let others do what I cant do.”Existentialism says the very opposite.It declares,“There is no reality except in action.”Moreover,it goes further,since it adds,“Man is nothing but his project;he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself;he is therefore nothing but the totality of his acts,nothing but his life.”FAccording to this,we can understand why our philosophy horrifies certain people.Quite often,the only way they can bear their misery is to think,“Circumstances have been against me.What Ive been and done doesnt show my true worth.To be sure,Ive had no great love,no great friendship,but thats because I havent met a man or woman who was worthy.The books Ive written havent been very good because I havent had enough time to spend on them.I havent had children to devote myself to because I didnt find a man with whom I could have spent my life.So there remains within me,unused but quite alive,a host of tendencies,inclinations,and possibilities that one wouldnt infer from the mere series of things Ive done.”FNow,for the existentialist,there is really no love other than one that manifests itself in a persons being in love.There is no genius other than one that is expressed in works of art.The genius of Marcel Proust 1871-1922 is the sum of his works;the genius of Jean Racine 1639-1699 is his series of tragedies.Outside of that,there is nothing.Why say that Racine could have written another tragedy when he didnt write it?FA man is engaged in life,leaves his mark on it,and outside of that there is nothing.To be sure,this may seem a harsh thought to someone whose life hasnt been a success.But.it prompts people to understand that reality alone is what counts,that dreams,expectations,and hopes do no more than to define a man as a disappointed dream,as miscarried hopes,as vain expectations in other words,to define him negatively and not positively.However,when we say,“You are nothing but your life,”that does not necessarily mean that the artist will be judged solely on the basis of his works of art.A thousand other things will contribute toward defining him.What we mean is that a man is nothing but a series of undertakings,that he is the sum,the organization,the collection of the relationships that make up these undertakings.A Philosophy of ActionFIn our works of fiction,we write about people who are soft,weak,cowardly,and sometimes even downright bad.Our fiction is often called pessimistic,but not because the characters depicted are soft,weak,cowardly,or bad.If we were to say,as Emile Zola 1840-1902 did,that they are that way because of heredity,the workings of the environment,society,or because of biological or psychological determinism,our critics would be reassured and comforted.They would then say,“Well,thats what were like;no one can do anything about it.”But when an existentialist writes about a coward,he says that this coward is responsible for his cowardice.Hes not like that because he has a cowardly heart or lung or brain;hes not like that because of his physiological makeup.No,hes like that because he has made himself a coward by his own actions.Theres no such thing as a cowardly constitution.There are nervous constitutions;there is poor blood,as the common people say;and there are strong constitutions.But the man whose blood is poor is not a coward for that reason.What makes cowardice is the act of renouncing or yielding.A physiological constitution is not an act.The coward is defined on the basis of the acts he performs.People feel,in a vague sort of way,that this coward were talking about is guilty of being a coward,and the thought frightens them.What people would like is for a coward or a hero to be born that way.FThats what people really want to think.If youre born cowardly,you may set your mind perfectly at rest.Theres nothing you can do about it.Youll be cowardly all your life,whatever you may do.If youre born a hero,you may set your mind just as much at rest.Youll be a hero all your life.Youll drink like a hero and eat like a hero.FWhat the existentialist says is that the coward makes himself cowardly,that the hero makes himself heroic.Theres always a possibility for the coward not to be cowardly any more and for the hero to stop being heroic.What counts is total involvement.Some one particular action or set of circumstances is not total involvement.Existential SubjectivityText,487-8The Cartesian cogitoFMany of our critics charge us with imprisoning the human individual in his private subjectivity.The subjectivity of the individual is indeed our point of departure,and this for strictly philosophical reasons.There can be no other truth to start off from than this:I think;therefore,I exist.1 There we have the absolute truth of consciousness becoming aware of itself.Every theory that removes man from the moment in which he becomes aware of himself is,at its very beginning,a theory that hides truth,for outside the Cartesian cogito,all views are only probable,and a theory of probability that is not bound to a truth that is certain dissolves into thin air.In order to describe the probable,you must have a firm hold on the truth.Before there can be any truth whatsoever,there must be an absolute truth.And this one the cogito is simple and easily arrived at;its on everyones doorstep;its just a matter of grasping it directly.FAlso,this theory is the only one that gives the human individual dignity,the only one that does not reduce him to an object.The effect of all forms of philosophical materialism is to treat all humans,including the one who is philosophizing,as objects,that is,as a series of determined reactions in no way distinguished from the collection of qualities and phenomena that constitute a table or a chair or a stone.Existentialists definitely wish to establish the human realm as a set of values distinct from the material realm.Self and others intersubjectivityBut the subjectivity that we have thus arrived at,and which we have claimed to be.fundamentally real,is not a strictly individual or private subjectivity,for we have shown that one discovers in the cogito,not only oneself,but others as well.Through the I think,I reach my own self in the presence of others,and the others are just as real to me as my own self.So one who achieves self-awareness through the cogito also discovers all others,and he discovers them as the condition of his own existence.He realizes that he cannot be anything(in the sense that we say that someone is spiritual or nasty or jealous)unless others recognize it as such.In order to get any truth about myself,I must have contact with the other.The other is indispensable to my own existence,as well as to my knowledge about myself.This being so,in discovering my inner being,I discover the other at the same time,who appears before me as a free being that thinks and wills only for or against me.Hence,let us at once announce the discovery of a world that we shall call intersubjectivity.This is the world in which a person decides what he is and what others are.The human conditionFFurthermore,although it is impossible to find in every person some universal essence that would be human nature,yet there does exist a universal human condition.Its not by chance that todays thinkers speak more readily of the human condition than of human nature.By condition they mean,more or less definitely,the fixed limits that outline humanitys fundamental situation in the universe.Historical situations vary.A person may be born a slave in a pagan society or a feudal lord or a proletarian.What does not vary is the necessity for him(1)to exist in the world,(2)to be at work there,(3)to be there in the midst of other people,and(4)to be mortal there.FThese limits are neither subjective nor objective,or,rather,they have an objective and a subjective side.Objective because they are to be found everywhere and are recognizable everywhere that is,they are universal;subjective because they are lived and are nothing if a person does not live them,that is,if he does not freely determine his existence with reference to them.And though the ways in which people respond to the human condition may differ from time to time,place to place,person to person.,none of these responses is completely strange to me because they all appear as attempts either to pass beyond the limits of the human condition or to recede from them or to deny them or to adapt to them.Consequently,every human situation,no matter how individual it may be,has a universal value.The Unavoidability of Choice&the Call of Freedom(Text,488)The Unavoidability of Choice and the Call of Freedom FWhat is not possible is not to choose.I can always choose,and I ought to recognize that if I do not choose,I am still choosing.Man is an organized project in which he himself is involved.Through his choice,he involves all humankind,and he cannot avoid making a choice:either he will remain unmarried,or he will marry without having children,or he will marry and have children.Anyhow,whatever he may do,it is impossible for him not to take full responsibility for the way he handles his problems.Man makes himse
展开阅读全文