While at first, in an existentialist mindset, bad faith seems like a bad thing. I can, on the other hand, see how in some of Sartre’s own examples how bad faith isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Bad faith, according to Sartre, is a lie one tells to oneself by denying either their facticity or transcendence in certain situations, absolving themselves from the situation and trying to blame it either all on facticity or ignore their facticity and transcend the entire situation. Two of the examples Sartre uses, the waiter in the café, and woman on a date, aren’t necessarily bad things, even though they are in bad faith, and this bad faith possibly improves the situation.
Regarding the situation of the waiter: yes, he is technically in bad faith by playing at the role of being the stereotype of a waiter, which would be impossible for him to be. Is this a bad thing though? I think it is much better for the entire restaurant and customers there to have waiters like this than the alternative (if any of you have been to Young Avenue Deli, you know what I’m talking about). If the waiter chooses to act like the essence of a waiter, is bad faith a bad thing? It makes him do his job better, makes the customer happier, and contributes to the overall atmosphere and the restaurant and dining experience. It seems to me in this case that the waiter acting in bad faith, on the bigger level, is a good thing.
The example of the woman on the date too seems to be a better situation than the alternative as well. Even if she knows exactly what the man wants, she might not necessarily know what her decision is regarding the situation and how she is going to react to him. By acting in bad faith and delaying her decision making process and conversing with the man, she provides herself an opportunity not necessarily to not make a decision, but to get to know the man better, and this could possibly influence her decision either way rather than making an immediate, rash decision. This also seems like an example of how bad faith isn’t necessarily a bad thing in certain situations.
While bad faith, in certain situations tries to absolve oneself from responsibility, it doesn’t seem to me that bad faith is always bad, but in fact is a good thing, even in some of Sartre’s own examples. Do you think bad faith is necessarily a negative thing, or does it have some positive aspects, situationally?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI definitely don't think that bad faith is always bad. In our society today I actually think that, at times, having bad faith is the only way that people can "survive." For example, if you are in an interview you have to bring the best side of you out. You have to dress in a certain way, present yourself very positively, and be on your best behavior, and most of the times the way you act in an interview is not necessarily they way you normally act, which would mean you are acting in bad faith. However, if talking yourself up and acting more positive than normal gets you the job then that is what you have to do. Same goes for the waiter. The waiter may not always act the way he does when on the job, but in order to keep the job and "survive" sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
ReplyDeleteThis was a good post, Matt, and you posed some interesting questions.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's important to remember that the "bad" in Bad Faith is not a moral judgment. That's why the opposite of Bad Faith is NOT Good Faith. Sartre isn't necessarily positing Bad Faith as the equivalent of immorality.
So no, I don't think Bad Faith is necessarily a "bad" thing, but rather it's our inevitable fleeing from the burdens of our freedom. That's why Sartre created the idea of it in the first place, because he knew human beings could not accept responsibility and would need moments to escape (ie, creating God to give our lives purpose).