Introduction
According to Sartre, existential ethics provides humans with a newfound sense of optimism and joy. He connects joy and freedom with being free and thus having to choose a purpose in life. I agree with his existentialism and freedom of man philosophy since I know that as human beings, we have free will, and thus, we can make our choices, and when we realize this, we are more optimistic and happier in life.
Theory of Existentialism
The main thesis of the theory of existentialism is that existence precedes essence and that one has to start from subjectivity. For Sartre, men exist before his essence is known, which means that the human being is determined, constructed, and invented while acting in the world. Sartre’s existentialism differs from Christian existentialism, which has to carry de as its main exponent. Sartre argues that our choices build innocence, there are no predetermined values, and there is no idea of human nature; in this, he does not differ so much from Christian existentialism (Kruks 72). However, the big difference is that, for Sartre, there is nothing that conditions or justifies the necessity of our existence, just as our existence does not serve a single purpose.
Man is a project in eternal construction, says Sartre; thus, man is nothing more than what he makes of himself; this is the first principle of existentialism. This is a concept that I agree with because I think that every time we choose to act in a certain way, our own identity is built, determining the very notion of humanity. In this sense, no one is doomed to be bad or good, unsuccessful or successful, just as we have no one to blame for the consequences of our actions and the direction our lives take. Furthermore, each of our actions becomes possible action for all other human beings and contributes to forming the general idea of what humanity is.
Sartre motivation for his Philosophical Apparatuses
Jean-Paul Sartre created, from all these philosophical apparatuses and the influences of the German Martin Heidegger. This profoundly existentialist philosophy prioritized material and concrete existence over any possible essence. This means that the human being does not have an essence that defines him immediately, but he is defined according to how he lives. The human being is built individually daily and will never be ready and defined because that construction process only ceases with death (Kruks 68). Therefore, everyone is responsible for their lives, and they choose how to live, thus making them paradoxically condemned to freedom.
To explain the existentialist theory, Sartre resorted to psychophysical dualism as the composition of the human being. He argues that we are composed of a body (matter) and an immaterial consciousness. It is not possible to have a conscience without a body, Sartre is a materialist philosopher, just as a body without a conscience is not a human being. The philosopher then makes use of two central concepts. The first concept is ‘being-in-itself,’ which is the one that has a defined identity; that is, they are objects and things. It is also part of the human being because it is his body. The second concept is ‘being for itself,’ which means it is aware of itself and lives for itself but does not have a defined identity. It is the consciousness that composes us as human beings.
These two concepts lead the human being to a situation of anguish because, while “being-in-itself,” he wants to be identical to himself. However, he cannot because consciousness does not have a ready and defined identity. There is also no way to be just consciousness, pure consciousness, because all consciousness, in order to exist, needs a body. As a result, there is no human nature, and since there is no nature, there is also no human essence. There is only the state of humanity. The presence of humans will always require construction. He will always be in the situation of something; he is not something. He will, therefore, always be conditioned to anything that temporarily qualifies him as a being that exists for that.
Existence Precedes Essence
The main question we must understand in relation to Sartre’s philosophy is what it means that existence precedes essence or essence. Sartre himself uses an example to illustrate his point. Imagine a craftsman making a letter opener. He has a clear picture of what this letter opener should look like and its use. With that in mind, he goes to work, using existing processes of manufacture to ensure that the letter opener will serve his preordained purpose (Elbe and Blumenfeld 52). It is clear from this example that in objects of this kind, essence precedes existence. First is the idea, the totality of all properties and manufacturing processes that define the term letter opener and stands as a pure idea in space. The craftsman only reaches for his tools and brings the object into existence. The essence of the letter opener now receives its material body, its object-ness.
I agree with Sartre’s philosophy of existentialism which argues that existential ethics plays a crucial role in giving human beings a sense of joy and optimism. I believe that if we do not know why we exist or if we do not have a purpose as human beings, then life will be boring, and we will be unhappy. For example, since I was a kid, I have wanted to be successful, and thus in my life, I have been trying to attain these goals through my career and education. This is what I call my purpose or essence; through this essence, I get the willpower to live and continue working towards realizing my goals. Therefore, Sartre’s argument about existential ethics makes sense because I would be unhappy, and life would be tasteless if I were just in an absurd existence without a purpose.
Freedom and Consciousness
The subjective level we have entered is particularly evident in Sartre’s comparison between freedom and consciousness. Freedom is a personal experience, not an event that happens to us from the outside, but a daily, inner experience. In my consciousness, I experience only myself. I cannot connect anyone to it and can never intrude into someone else’s. I recognize myself in the other person and conclude that he is also conscious; however, when given the task of describing consciousness, I can only fall back on my own. The same applies to the freedom that underlies my consciousness.
Conclusion
People often believe that humanity is lost, and for Sartre, the fault lies entirely with society. Therefore, the responsibility of the people is much greater than one can suppose, as it engages the whole of humanity. It is noticeable that the notion of freedom is the central element of Sartre’s thought, but freedom does not mean being free to commit any action. On the contrary, this freedom is practically a burden from which man does not. All actions are fruits of choice and everything that happens results from a set of choices. Freedom is total, but it generates consequences that will have to be dealt with, that is, it imposes total responsibility. Therefore, he does not need previously determined universal values to act ethically. Our choices invent all criteria; some become universal because several individuals choose them.
Works Cited
Elbe, Ingo, and Jacob Blumenfeld. “The Anguish of Freedom: Is Sartre’s Existentialism an Appropriate Foundation for a Theory of Antisemitism?” Antisemitism Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 2020, p. 48. Web.
Kruks, Sonia. “Existentialism and Phenomenology.” A Companion to Feminist Philosophy, 2017, pp. 66–74. Web.