INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of philosophy man is one of the concerns of thinkers. Many thinkers from different ages and epochs tried each in his own way to explain his understanding of man. Some thinkers such as Aristotle thought that man is a rational animal, an animal endowed with reason. St. Augustine stated that man is a soul using a terrestrial body. Most of Church Fathers agreed with the idea according to which man is a person created in the likeness and the image of God. During Modern Period especially with René Descartes man acquired a mechanical explanation; he was defined as a mere machine. Moreover, existentialism has contributed to that effort of understanding man. It puts much emphasis on values and ontological categories. This paper is all about the meaning of human existence according to Sartre’s existentialism. Thus, my objective in this paper is to analyse Sartre’s understanding of man in his concrete situation.

Such a subject-matter raises some questions: what is the meaning of existentialism as a philosophical system and in which sense can Sartre be considered as an existentialist? What is man according to Sartre’s existentialism and how can he be distinguished from other beings? To which extent is it possible to affirm that man is the creator of his nature, his values and culture? Is Sartre’s existentialism the last answer to the problem of man? These questions constitute the problem this paper would like to be the answer.

My approach through the course of this paper is mainly analytical. I am breaking down Sartre’s thought in order to grasp its components and then to make a kind of personal evaluation. I limit my analysis to philosophical anthropology ground. A certain amount of books have helped to reach my goal. Most of them are philosophical books referring to Sartre but the most basic resources are Sartre’s own books namely Being and Nothingness, Existentialism and Humanism, and Existentialism and Human Emotions.

In order to make myself understood I divide this essay into three main parts. The first one is an outlook on existentialism in general as a philosophical school and Sartre’s existentialism in particular. The second part enters the depth of Sartre’s existentialism explaining his ontological categories and developing the concept of Being-For-Itself. The last part is a personal assessment. Here, I will sort out Sartre’s positive and negative impacts concerning the understanding of human existence.

1. On the Concept of Existentialism

1.1 General understanding and philosophical background

Existentialism is an attitude rather than a philosophical school; it concerns human free existence. A necessary feature of human existence is that men are active and creative whereas things are not. Things are merely what they are, but men have the power to choose and become what they are not yet.

Soren Kierkegaard is thought to be the for runner of the modern existentialism. His works influenced thinkers like Edmund Husserl, Karl Jasper, Martin Heidegger and others. The following generation of thinkers brought existentialism into the mainstream of contemporary philosophy. The most famous is Jean‑Paul Sartre who sought to establish man’s absolute freedom and values; this is why, he defines existentialism as humanism. In its broad sense, existentialism is “a doctrine that renders human life possible and which affirms that every truth and every action imply both an environment and a human subjectivity.”[1] This word has been so stretched and has taken on so broad meaning that it is frameless. What complicates the question is that there are two kinds of existentialism. There are, on the one hand, the Christian existentialism represented by Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Gabriel Marcel, and others; and on the other hand, the atheistic existentialism represented by Albert Camus, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre and others. What they have in common is simply the view that “existence comes before essence”[2] or, that human subjectivity is the starting point of history and culture.

Existentialism is a form of humanism. Its fundamental meaning is that man is all the time outside himself. He is in dynamism and going beyond himself, that man makes himself; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent aims that he is able to exist. Since man is self-surpassing, and can grasp objects only in relation to his self-surpassingness, he is himself the heart and center of his transcendence. There is no other universe except the human universe, or the universe of human subjectivity. Then man is not enclosed in himself but he is always present in universe. Existentialism is humanism, because it postulates that there is no other legislator, in the universe than man himself; “man is the future of man”[3], he must decide for himself; not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim he can realize himself.

1. 2 Sartre’s existentialism

Rapport essence-existence

Essence derives from Latin word essentia and is related to the ens (being) and to esse (to be). “Essence is what is, what exists.”[4] It designates a concrete, singular reality in the act of existing. It does not modify an existing substance such as weight, color and operation but “it is that which exists in itself, that which supports itself in existence without the aid of a substratum that receives and supports it.”[5] In its root, existence stands for presence, the affirmation, the appearance of something under any category, be it in nature or idea. Hence, existence signifies the fact that something is present in nature or in mind. It asserts reality in act. Existence includes content and is thereby related to essence. “Existence is in fact the actualisation of essence, its de facto placement (existere) in reality since essence was possible before being actualized.”[6]

From existentialistic point of view, existence is the fact of being and essence is the purpose or the reason for being. This means that humans, at least, exist not because a creator had a purpose in mind for them but they simply come into existence. Unlike objects and perhaps animals, humans are self-determining and control their own purpose. They have perfect freedom. In other words, existence is the property of man. Man is the being, which exists before being anything else. “Man first of all exists himself, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. Man is the only known animal that defines itself through the act of living.”[7] Man exists first, and then spends his lifetime choosing his essence. Hence, existence precedes essence.

If we consider for example, an article of manufacture such as a book or a paper-knife, we see that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it; and he has paid attention, equally, to the conception of a paper-knife and to the pre-existing technique of production which is a part of that conception. Thus, the paper-knife is at the same time an article producible in a certain manner and one which, on the other hand, serves a precise purpose, for one cannot suppose that man would produce a paper-knife without knowing what it will be for. Let us, on the light of the precedent example say that paper-knife’s essence that is to say, the sum of the formulae and the qualities, which made its production and its definition possible, precedes its existence. The presence of such a paper-knife or book is thus determined before my eyes. We can apply the same example of paper-knife, when we think of God as the creator, we are thinking of him, most of the time, as a supernatural artisan. God makes man according to a procedure and his idea. Thus each individual man is the outcome of a certain conception, which dwells in the divine mind. “The idea that essence is prior to existence, something of that idea we still find everywhere, in Diderot, in Voltaire and even in Kant.”[8]

Moreover, when we consider the atheistic existentialism, God as creator does not exist; only man does. The precedence of existence over essence implies that man exists first of all and then comes to define his essence by giving meaning to his life. Man is nothing. He is project into the future. He will be what he decides to be. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no essence preceding existence. Man is not simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing.

Notion of human subjectivity and choice

The existentialistic common and first principle which states that “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself”[9] is the basis and starting point of human subjectivity. An object receives an action; it is defined by something else acting upon it. Things we make like the paper-cutter mentioned above are objects because someone makes them and they are defined by the intention of the maker. Humans are not objects, but subjects. A subject is a performer of an action; a subject is defined by its own actions, its own intentions. Thus, subjectivity is ability of humans to determine their own purpose, or their own essence. Man exists, turns up, appears on the stage, and only afterwards, defines himself. The result of this view is choice. This means that we are doomed to choose our own essence, even when we try not to choose we are in perpetual choice inasmuch as there is no way in which man does not choose. According to Sartre, humans constantly are trying to put their freedom on some external set of rules such as religion, science, philosophy, and the like. We search for an external law that will give us a sense of being right. Even when we convert to a new religion, take a new law, or even seek advice from a counselor, we are choosing all of this, knowing what they will urge us to act. All external validations are just illusions we accept them because they make us feel better. When Sartre says that man chooses himself, he does not mean that every one of us must choose himself; rather, in choosing for himself man chooses for all others. Whenever man exercises his own personal choice, he sets an example for others. Thus, it is impossible for someone to think that what is right for him might be wrong for someone else. “To choose to be this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil.”[10] What we choose is always the best; and nothing can be better for us unless it is so for all. Our responsibility is extended to mankind as a whole. Being responsible for myself, I am thus responsible for all men; in fashioning myself I fashion man.

Ontological Categories: Being and Nothingness

As the title suggests, the two most basic ontological categories are Being on the one hand, and Nothingness on the other. Being is the widest, most encompassing ontological category. It applies to absolutely anything and everything that is actual and exists, or that has reality of any kind whatsoever. Being is in itself and is what it is. “Being includes both Being-in-itself and Being-for-itself, but the latter is the nihilation of the former.”[11]

Nothingness is contrary to ‘Being’, it is not a kind of being but it is precisely the absence of being. It characterizes whatever is missing, absent, non-existing. Where there is nothingness, there is consciousness. However, consciousness is not a thing, not an entity, not a substance. Sartre calls it a “nonsubstantial absolute.” It is absolute because it is nonsubstantial.[12] “Nothingness is the ground of the negation because it conceals the negation within itself, because it is the negation as being.”[13] It is always right there with being and cannot be escaped.

2. On Being-For-Itself

2. 1 Ontological Subcategories

Sartre’s ontology possesses some subcategories denoting a modality of existence. Among them we can mention the most important one: Being-In-Itself and Being-For-Itself.

Being-In-Itself

It is a form of existence in which something exists in its own right; in which it is ontologically independent or self-sufficient and self-contained. Being-In-Itself is just what it is; it is simply the being of objects. Being-In-Itself is inactive, inert, and without knowledge of itself. A table, a tree, and a rhinoceros are few examples of Being-In-Itself. Because Being-In-Itself lacks self-consciousness, it necessarily lacks freedom as well. What makes this type of being be different from human being is that it cannot become. The Being-In-Itself already is what it is; it has an essence, it is massive and opaque. A table for instance is mutable for a specific purpose; it cannot serve a goal other than what has been assigned naturally as a table because human beings give it a certain meaning or significance in its relation to consciousness. But consciousness does not create the table or any other object outside of it. The object indubitably is or exists and it is what it is. However, it acquires any meaning standing out from its background as this sort of thing and not another only in relation to consciousness. Similarly,

It is for consciousness that the world appears as an intelligible system of distinct and interrelated things. If we think away all that is due to the activity of consciousness in making the world appear, we are left with being in itself (l’en-soi, the in-itself), opaque, massive, undifferentiated… This being in itself, Sartre tells us, is ultimate, simply there. It is without reason, without cause and without necessity.[14]

In this sense, Being-In-Itself is gratuitous; it is just there without any reason of its being for it “to exist is simply to be there.”[15]

Being-For-Itself

A Being-For-Itself is simply anything that exists for itself, that which is aware of itself, conscious of its own existence, or for whom its own existence can be an issue. The For-Itself is what distinguishes humans from other forms of life by the fact that it possesses a reflective consciousness. In it existence precedes essence; meaning that first man comes into the world, and then he is responsible to make his own essence. There is no pre-determined human nature but there is just consciousness, which creates human essence. The For-Itself, unlike the In-Itself, is aware of itself and the objects around it. It is defined as being in project, that is, it is not fully. It becomes what it is not. It has potentiality of becoming more than what it is. It is perpetually designing itself not to be the In-Itself. It is not its own being in terms of physical mass or shape, but it is nothingness. This nothingness is the origin of human existence and the origin of freedom expressed through choices and acts. It is this freedom and not some predetermined essence or human nature that defines the For-Itself and the person. To put it simply, the For-Itself is self-awareness, self-reflective consciousness that separates humans from animals and objects.

2. 2 Man as Being-For-Itself

Sartre’s understanding of man as being-For-Itself is that man is a Being whose existence is prior to his essence and he is consequently endowed with freedom implying responsibility, consciousness, nothingness, and project. Let us analyse separately each of these characteristics in order to understand this notion.

Man as Nothingness

This concept of nothingness is central in Sartre’s philosophy in the sense that it determines the difference between Being-For-Itself and Being-In-Itself. Sartre identifies human as Being-For-Itself for man has to achieve himself. But, he calls material objects Being-In-Itself for they are already made, they cannot become. Because man is always project, becoming, he is thus characterized by nothingness. Always he is not yet what he decides to be. His being lays in the future. Whereas Being-In-Itself, has non-becoming. He is plain. Hence “man is the being through whom nothingness comes to the world.”[16] In addition, the being by which nothingness comes into the world must be its own nothingness. “By this we must understand not only that being has a logical precedence over nothingness but also that it is from being that nothingness derives concretely its efficacity.”[17] Nothingness is only possible where there are objects, it is a structure of consciousness. And consciousness is the activity of nihilation of the thing questioned and of the questioner; “it is essential that the questioner have the permanent possibility of dissociating himself from the causal series.”[18] This ability to be outside the causal series of nature means that nothingness, as consciousness, is also freedom.

Man as consciousness

For many philosophers, consciousness is equated with the ego or the self. However, Sartre's notion of consciousness is different from that. It includes both reflection (ego) and intentionality. Consciousness is impersonal; there is no ego behind it. But consciousness posits the ego. To explain this, Sartre distinguishes two modes of consciousness. The first is called the pre-reflective consciousness. Consciousness here is always conscious of some object. Here is an illustration, “when I run after the street car, there is no I. There is consciousness of the street-car-having-to-be-caught.”[19] When the self is involved in some activity, it does not, at the same time realize that it is after the street car, but rather it is simply engaged in the activity. The second mode of consciousness is called the reflective consciousness. It is in this mode where consciousness realizes the self. This is the everyday kind of awareness I have when I notice facts concerning myself such as to feel disappointed, to hate cold soup, and so on. This kind of awareness is straightforwardly intentional involving a conscious state that has an object distinct from itself. This implies that the ego is not necessarily the base of consciousness though it can always be posited by it. It thus becomes one more object in the field of consciousness. And because it is an object posited by consciousness, it is not self-identical. Paradoxically, this posited self is and is not the self. Insofar as it is a possible for the For-Itself it is the self. But because it is an object of consciousness, it is not consciousness itself. We know the ego, then, in essentially the same way we know others. But the ego is not to be considered as base of experience. Hence, it is still left to describe the nature of that consciousness. An important characteristic of consciousness is its intentionality. Consciousness is always consciousness of something; it is nothing but an intentional activity. It is depending on objects, which present themselves to it as complete. Consciousness is nothingness. “Consciousness is that whereby negation or nihilation is introduced.”[20] Although consciousness is not inhabited by an ego, consciousness is however self-conscious. According to Cumming Sartre postulates “consciousness is consciousness of itself in so far as it is consciousness of an object.”[21] This relationship of consciousness to itself is not that of knowing but rather an immediate non-cognitive relation of the self to itself. This is an immediate mode of self-knowledge occurring in pre-reflective consciousness, which, according to Sartre is conscious of its objects as well as of itself. In other words, pre-reflective consciousness is self-consciousness. Contrary to Being-In-Itself, which is what it is, the For-Itself in the pre-reflective mode of consciousness is engaged in not being what it is and being what it is not. Consciousness then, involves indetermination and possibility due to the act of nihilation, which brings nothingness into the world.

Man as project

The notion of project according to Sartre finds its meaning in the very fundamental existentialistic principle: existence precedes essence. Indeed, man first of all exists, then defines, and creates himself by selecting his own life-goals. His nature is not predetermined, and he will be what he decides to be. This implies that the for-itself is what it is not and is not what it is but it must prescribe what it plans to be. To do this it must be free to project possibilities and by choosing some possibilities over others it places values on them. Those values are found in the world but only the For-Itself can create them because it is endowed with consciousness. In other words, this implies that it is through human consciousness that value comes into the world. Since the world provides no automatic meanings unless human being accept some of the assumed meanings from his culture, man alone is responsible for creating his own life-meaning out of nothing. Only man can assign value to life-purpose. His authentic projects are to be his own foundation. And these projects will continue as long as man affirms them. Human being becomes more authentic under the condition that he integrates all the dimensions of his life into one project. His particular projects, aiming at the realization in the world of particular ends, are united into the global project. But precisely because they are wholly choice and act, these partial projects are not determined by the global project. They must themselves be choices; and a certain margin of contingency, is allowed to each of them. Values are on the other hand, experienced in the world as a lack. So for Sartre, striving only makes sense insofar as the For-Itself sees itself as lacking something. Specifically, what the For-Itself is lacking is an essence. The For-Itself desires to be both free and have an essence. In this way, Sartre identifies man's ultimate desire as that to be God. “Sartre sees man as striving after the realization of a basic project, that of becoming l’en-soi-pour-soi, or God.”[22]

Man as freedom

Man is not already made, he is not the sum of what he is but the totality of what he is not yet, of what he might be. He makes himself in the sense that what he becomes depends on himself and on his own choice. His cause is not predetermined. Being-In-Itself is obviously not free. The For-Itself however, cannot be determined. It escapes the determination of Being-In-Itself and is essentially free. Freedom is not a mere property of human nature. It further belongs to the structure of the conscious being. “I am condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom can be found except freedom itself or, if you prefer, that we are not free to cease being free.”[23] Conscious being is free from objects. We are not free to do anything we want; however, we are only free to choose how we approach any given situation. “To be free does not mean to obtain what one has wished but rather by oneself to determine oneself to wish. In other words success is not important to freedom.”[24]

Reality such as facticity can restrict man’s freedom. Facticity is simply the situation in which the For-Itself finds itself free to choose and make man what he is. It comprehends all the facts about oneself, which cannot be modified, or cannot change one’s past, age, sex, race, etc. Facticity restricts freedom for the reason that one is not free to choose not to have been born male, female or African. However, one is free to approach these facts in any other way by choosing to become for instance a citizen of another country. The point is that freedom is restricted by the situation, but not determined by it. The choices we make depend on the way Being-For-Itself interprets and approaches situations. Being-For-Itself is radically free to act independently of determinations. He creates his own nature and value through his free choice. “In fact we are a freedom which chooses, but we do not choose to be free.”[25] Freedom is par excellence the root of human existence. Sartre seeks to represent every choice as value oriented. But because, values are chosen and not given, it is impossible to choose in accordance with them. Thus, he finds no rational argument in favor of one choice over another. Freedom implies some actions out of free choice and all human life is a choice

[…] in one sense choice is possible but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always choose, but I ought to know that if I do not choose, I am still choosing… man is in an organized situation in which he himself is involved. Through his choice, he involves all mankind, he cannot avoid making a choice.[26]

The For-Itself becomes aware of his freedom through anguish. “It is in anguish that man becomes the consciousness of his freedom.”[27] Anguish arises when the For-Itself realizes that through freedom it is solely responsible for its actions and choices. Human freedom is in other words, sine qua non condition for responsibility to take place through the actualization of choice; “the being who is said to be free is the one who can realize his projects.”[28] Man is not only responsible for himself and his own actions but he is as well responsible for every other person's actions. When a man commits himself to anything, he fully realizes that he is not only choosing what he will be, but he is at the same time a legislator deciding for the whole mankind. This implies that man cannot escape from complete and profound responsibility. This recognition of ourselves as wholly free and responsible leads us flee from anguish. But this fact is essentially impossible because we are condemned to be free. Any attempt to escape the anguish, which comes with the realization of freedom and responsibility, is, for Sartre, an instance of bad faith that he also defines as a lie to oneself.

2. 3 Being-For-Others

This concept may be illustrated by the fact that when I think for example about Bob, I am the subject and Bob is the object. I can think about him because he is a separate entity, and I can view him objectively. However, when I come to think about myself, I become both the subject and the object. Because I am both, I cannot view myself objectively. I do not have the outside view of myself. This inability to see myself objectively leads me to rely on others in order to define who I am. Sartre goes further stating that relations between people are not fundamentally cognitive. “My fundamental connection with the other is realised through knowledge.”[29] He also provides a series of vivid descriptions designed to bring forward a fundamental connection between myself and the other, “in which the Other is manifested in some way other than in the knowledge I have of him”[30], a connection which is immediate, irreducible, and ultimately emotional, rather than dispassionately cognitive.

The presence of another person can either be a source of revelation or that of alienation. The presence of the other can be source of revelation when Being-For-Itself reveals the other not as a hell to dominate or to alienate but rather as another Being-For-Itself with whom to enter relationship of mutual accomplishment through the recognition of his freedom. It can be source of alienation when it stops or limits the freedom of the Being-For-Itself. In this case the Being-For-Itself is alienated. “I mean that each of us will act as a torturer for the other two…”[31] The other is experienced as someone who confronts me, subjects me to scrutiny, and for whom I could become an object of prurient curiosity. Sartre claims a primitive, given, and inescapable bond between another and myself. This bond is not that of knowing, but it is a bond of being. “Beyond any knowledge I can have, I am this self which another knows.”[32] As this last remark suggests, Sartre provides an account on human existence, above what it is to be a human being, in which not only one’s awareness of others, but also one’s spontaneous response to their awareness are similar constitutive of one’s very identity as a conscious being. As soon as I become aware that another person is observing me, I undergo a profound change. When the gaze of another person falls onto me, I become self-conscious, and I suffer an immediate feeling of shame.

Shame is by nature recognition. “I recognize that I am as the other sees me.”[33] With shame I become aware of my body as just another object in the world made of matter; and that another person can see me in any way he wants insofar as “he has established me in a new type of being which can support new qualification.”[34] The gaze of another thus comprises a threat; it is immediately experienced as threatening in so far as it objectivizes me. If I respond to this threat by submitting to it, my response is essentially masochistic; but if I respond by returning the threat, and by attempting to objectivize the other, then my response is basically sadistic. Sartre thought that, conflict is the original meaning of Being-For-Others, and that, “Hell is other people.”[35]

2. 4 Being-For-Itself and the idea of God

Sartre's understanding of Being-For-Itself is characterized by unlimited freedom, consciousness, nothingness, precedence of existence over essence, and responsibility. He thinks that Being-For-Itself must face the fact of inexistence of a creator termed here as God. God's existence is incompatible with human existence and consequently, human freedom. Man is not free as much as God exists; for, if God exists and is thought as the Supreme Being or Creator, it implies that He fashioned man, He previously had had an idea of him before He made him. In addition, if we consider God as Creator, we will fall under the category according to which essence precedes existence. This could contradict one of the most fundamental existentialistic principles. Insofar as man is thought to be free, he does not need any idea of a creator. “God does not exist if by him we mean an infinite self-conscious Being.”[36] Either God exists or man exists. And because the experience shows that man already exists, then the conclusion proceeding from that is clear. Inasmuch as man is endowed with consciousness and freedom, he alone, can give a sense to his existence by consciously making himself to be the kind of man he freely decides to be. In other words, man's happiness and destiny are in his own hand and do not depend on God "for Sartre declares that the existence of God is impossible if it is possible for man to be free."[37] He further states that the logical conclusion must be to deny the existence of such a being for, “the concept of God is contradictory inasmuch as it tries to unite two mutually exclusive concepts, that of being in itself (l’en-soi) and that of the for-itself (le pour-soi).”[38]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

DEDICATION

EPIGRAPH