Before I get into this let me just say that I believe that Jean-Paul Sartre makes a lot of clear points in his philosophy and that I actually agree with a lot of what he says. But, for this blog I am going to discuss the many controversial topics that I find throughout Sartre’s philosophy.
The three main places that I can see a lot of debate and controversy occurring include the discussion of responsibility and freedom, politics, and God.
Sartre says that a person can act like they don’t have the freedom to make choices, but by doing so they are actually making a choice. They are choosing to pretend that they do not have the freedom to make choices. He also says that the choices one makes today is the reason for their situation tomorrow. This all makes sense but what happens if a person is born into poverty? They clearly did not have any say in what situation they were born into, so is it fair to say that if this person ends up in at a job where they are treated an object rather than a subject, that it is their responsibility, in that it is their fault? Because he also says that people must take responsibility for all of his or her own actions.
I appreciate that Sartre has a genuine concern for humanity, but once again where his philosophy becomes touchy is that his concern is mainly for the “working class.” The reason this becomes controversial is that it brings in politics. Do you agree?
The final way in which I see major debate is in the topic of God. I would think that people who believe in God would have to question his statement: existence precedes essence. Sartre claims that humans are defined by existence, in that one’s essence cannot be determined until they are born. However, those who believe in God I think would argue that He is the human creator; He knows the essence of every human being before creating him or her, therefore they would disagree and say that essence precedes existence.
I understand that with every philosopher’s theory comes debates and arguments, but I am seeing a great deal of controversy in Sartre’s philosophy. Perhaps this is because he is a 20th century philosopher dealing with issues we have nowadays, or perhaps I am over analyzing. What do you think?
I can see where you can get confused about Sartre and the pre-existing circumstances placed upon an individual, which is called their facticity. This is how Sartre differentiates humans from other animals and objects, is that the other objects, also called the en-soi, exist entirely in a state of facticity, or what their physical traits and characteristics are. Humans, or the pour-soi, on the other hand, exist in a state of facticity and transcendence, which is to say we have an ability to transcend certain aspects of our facticity. This is how a person born into poverty can affect their situation tomorrow with their decisions today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, bad faith, which you alluded to, is one person lies to themselves about either aspect of their being, facticity or transcendence, in an attempt to ignore an obvious truth.
The point you brought up about God is interesting, but I'd like to respond to it. Sartre says that the idea that God does not exist is troubling to us, because it means that we must be responsible for our own actions. Rather, he claims that the weight of being free individuals is so burdensome that we try to flee from it and absolve ourselves of the responsibility of our actions by creating God, which is an expression of Bad Faith. Your objection about God knowing "the essence of every human being before creating him or her" is the exact reason why humans have created God. They created a being that instilled a sense of essence within them, completely predetermined and out of their hands. It frees them from the freedom they fear, which Sartre argues is our essence (if we actually have one).
ReplyDeleteAllycia,
ReplyDeleteI think you are right to bring up these controversial topics and I don't think that you're "confused." Matt is correct in his characterization of the en-soi and the pour-soi, but like you I find that most situations are not clear-cut. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that this poor worker's transcendence comes not in his ignoring his poverty (which would be to act like the example Sartre uses of the woman on a date), but in recognizing that he is NOT merely a facticity, regardless of what others may tell him or perceive him to be.
Allycia,
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up some great points. I think I am still confused about the first situation that you mentioned regarding poverty. I guess that you are referring to Sartre's bad faith when you say ,"They are choosing to pretend that they do not have the freedom to make choices." In that case, as you said, birth would eliminate any sort of choice or freedom. In terms of choosing to pretend about poverty, Sartre would say that if some person who is born into poverty pretends to be rich or does not own up to his state of poverty then he is choosing to be in the state of not being it. Your point about God is a very good one by the way. I think it is a very huge point of controversy especially as it is presented by Sartre's idea of existence and essence relating to each other.
Allyscia,
ReplyDeleteYou pose two excellent questions in your post: “Is it fair to say that if this person (born into poverty) ends up in at a job where they are treated as an object rather than as a subject, it is their responsibility, in that it is their fault?” Matt’s explanation for the en-soi and the pour-soi is a good one. Dr. J said in class that the existence of an in individual is giving in a situation, because human beings have freedom (transcendence) in addition to facticity, unlike objects which have only facticity. This implies that human are able to transcend a vast majority of the facts of their situation. In the case of the individual born into poverty, it is true that it’s not their fault that they ended up at such a workplace, however, as Matthew said, transcendence enables them to “affect their situation tomorrow with their decisions today.”
I think you've raised some interesting questions.
ReplyDeleteAs to your second point, though, i'd say that Sarte's philosophy is not primarily about politics. Political ramifications may follow from his claims, but it is not inherently political. It doesn't necessarily, in itself, espouse one political theory or exploit a particular economic class. The interpretation of his philosophy or the implementation of policies (based on his philosophy) may have that effect, but we can hardly blame Sartre for that.
As to your third point: sure. I think there is conflict with existentialism and the belief in God, namely the Judeo-Christian God. That may make his essays hard to swallow for the pious, but it isn't defeatist to Sarte's argument
Unless you can prove the existence of God, that is...