Customer Reviews

Existentialism Is a Humanism

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Although this is not exactly an introduction to the theory of Existentialism, it is certainly a much more accessible account of it than Sartre's "Being and Nothingness." Sartre addresses the numerous detractors of Existentialism who posit that the theory is essentially pessimistic and anti-humanistic, that it suggests a cynical and amoral view of the world. Sartre argues that man wills what he is (a variant of Heidegger's Being-Becoming), and thus the theory provides for radical freedom. He writes, "when operating on the level of complete authenticity, I have acknowledged that existence precedes essence, and that man is a free being who, under any circumstances, can only ever will his freedom, I have at the same time acknowledged that I must will the freedom of others" (49). Sartre brilliantly links up this conception of radical freedom with the willing of the freedom of others such as communist are Marxist political action. This lecture is a lucid and rich work of philosophy, and it instigated a number of debates around the notion of Humanism, famously refuted by Heidegger.

This collection also includes a Q+A between Sartre and a review of Camus' "The Stranger," which he remarkably compares to Hemingway in terms of prose style. For Sartre, "The Stranger" is the great modern work exploring the fact of absurdity; he indicates that its primary strength is the co-existence of clarity and ambiguity.

Is Existentialism a Humanism?

"Is Existentialism a Humanism?" was the title of Sartre's famous lecture in October 1945 given to an overflow crowd and rapidly to become the talk of the left-bank cafes, then all of Paris and Europe. The talk started by proclaiming "existence precedes essence" which meant, he explained, that individuals create their own values because there is no moral order in the universe. This freedom is the ultimate value. The talk went on by echoing his book "Being and Nothingness". He gave the lecture to answer his critics among the communists and catholics. He needed to present a viable and relevant social philosophy in order to stand comparison with these two groups. He based his appeal on Kant's ethic of universal principles. He continued by arguing that we need a sense of responsibility for other people and society as a whole (which was different from his previous contentions). In asserting that Existentialism is a Humanism Sartre means that it places the human being at the center of its attention and at the apex of its value hierarchy. Our ultimate goal should be to foster the freedom of the individual. To read more about Existentialism see Thomas R. Flynn(2006) "Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction", Oxford University Press.

With both a preface and an introduction, the text gives fair warning that it is not intended as a comprehensive overview of Sartre's thought (of which I am no judge either). Rather, to quote the preface, it is "a clear but simplistic discourse that reflects the contradictions that Sartre was struggling with in 1945," specifically his attempt to reconcile existentialism with communism. While this main text makes for an enjoyable (albeit brief) evening's read, the real treat here Sartre's commentary on THE STRANGER. After reading the terse Q&A session--the criticisms are, to quote the preface once again, "muddled and hostile"--it is extremely refreshing to find theory put into practice. Here Sartre writes lovingly about Camus's novel as he interprets it via close reading and in light of Camus's THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS. On a whole, the text may be somewhat of a hodgepodge, but it is nevertheless a pleasant one; you may find yourself returning to this text not for reference so much as for inspriation.

This short but extremely clear volume was one of the first opportunities after the war for Sartre to explain to a lay audience his version of Existentialism. It took place on October 29, 1945 when the then already very famous French philosopher was invited to the "Club Maintenant" to "promote literary and intellectual discussion." Sartre used this lecture as an opportunity to settle scores and to set the record straight by answering all his critics at once. They had, among many other charges, leveled the uncomfortable charge that Existentialism showed only the negative and pessimistic side of human nature, and therefore as a philosophy (concerned mostly with abandonment, anguish and anxiety), was thus itself very much devoid of humanity. Sartre took these charges rather personally and to better make his points, pitched the lecture to the least sophisticated of the audience. What results is a beautifully articulated and clearly translated formulation of Sartre's basic philosophy. He answers his critics with a biting flourish, in what is not only a clear exposition, but also a penetratingly coherent piece.

To wit: Existence precedes essence, and in any case is arbitrary. In this world, man is defined by the choices he makes and by his commitments to those choices. He does not define himself prior to his existence and exists only in the present, well beyond any concept of natural determinism. In Sartre's view, there is no human nature superior to that described here.

In short, there is no God; we have been abandoned to our fate. That point however should not be misconstrued as that Existentialism is only about Atheism. It simply affirms that even if a God existed, it would make no difference to our humanity. Human nature is not a self-congratulatory condition, but rather a fearful, uncertain, anguished and forlorn condition. Thus the real problem with our humanity is not with God's existence, but with man's own existence. Existentialism argues that man does not need a God so much as he needs to rediscover himself and to comprehend that nothing can save him from himself -- not even proof of the existence of a god. In Sartre's view, this understanding alone makes Existentialism, not only profoundly human, but also optimistic about human nature and the human condition.

But more to the point, according to this formulation, anyone who believes otherwise is actually acting in "bad faith." From the Existentialist's point of view, once man is abandoned to his own fate he can have only one true goal: freedom for its own sake. That is to say, he is abandoned to his own fate with freedom (and his commitment to it) as his only universal project. At the bottom of this project, choice becomes the root node of the human condition, and the very basis of his primary reality. And because there is no god, there can be no pre-determined good. Good, like meaning, morality, judgment and values, all must be constructed from scratch as an existential project. That is to say, these all emerge directly from having made the choice and commitment to be free. Thus man has another important choice to make: to proceed through his world in either "good, " or "bad" faith.

If he proceeds in "good faith, he will discover that life has no a priori meaning. In our quest for freedom we must make committed choices that result in the invention of meaning and values as we go. Life itself is nothing until (and unless) it is lived. It is we (and not our gods or our dreams and wishes) that gives life it's meaning. And values are nothing more than the meaning we ascribe to them through our actions. Thus proceeding in "good faith" means that things must be accepted as they are; one must learn to live an authentic life of action, taking responsibility for his own existence -- without the need for either crutches or excuses.

Proceeding in "bad faith," on the other hand, means living an inauthentic life, one based on fantasy, excuses, wishes, promises and mythology. According to this formulation, God is seen as the "grand executor" and "creator" of all meaning. And as a result, man's only responsibility (both to himself and to his god) is obeying God's will and edicts. From the Existentialist point of view this approach is a barren and a coward's way out, because it forces man to shrink from being responsible for his own existence. He chooses instead a kind of self-congratulatory fetishsized life of fantasized meanings.

The last chapter of the book also has a critique of Camus' "The Stranger," but I will leave that aspect for my own review of that book. Five Stars

In this short and powerful lecture Sartre seeks to defend Existentialism against charges levied against it by Communists, who accuse it of being a contemplative, bourgeois philosophy, and Catholics, who accuse it of being a pessimistic philosophy. In response to the Communist charge, Sartre says that Existentialism is a philosophy based on human action. Everything that man is is a result of his actions, not his dreams and expectations. "... he (Man) is nothing more than the sum of his actions, nothing more than his life." Against the charge put forth by the Catholics, Sartre says that Existentialism is overtly optimistic because it stresses man's ability to make himself as he wishes. What I have just spelled out is a superficial overview of Sartre's defense. There are other interesting concepts explored in this book such as morality, anguish, abandonment, despair, and intersubjectivity. Although I do disagree with some of Sartre's implications put forth, especially concerning morality, I still think it is a rather strong defense of Existentialism. If you are looking for a systematic treatise in defense of Sartrean Existentialism, turn to Being and Nothingness. If you are looking for a short defense and description of Existentialism, I suggest picking up this book.

Short and sweet, this lecture given by Sartre will give you a nice introduction of existentialism if your a novice, and an easy reminder of the core of the ideas if you've read many different existentialist texts. Check this one out!

This lecture gave me a better overview compared to other books I've read on the philosophy. It's worth buying, although it is a little short.

This book is less than 100 pages, and each page is pretty short so it's a very quick and easy read. The main part of the book is a transcript of a lecture that Sartre gave in 1945 clarifying some common misconceptions on his atheistic existentialism. There is also the transcript of the "Q & A" (quotes explained later) from after the talk. There is an introduction to the book and because the book is so short, the intro is a good chunk of the book so I'll discuss that briefly below. Finally, there is a short review by Sartre of Camus' book "The Stranger." So there are several things going on in this short book.

The intro was very good. I didn't know much about the history of what was going on at the time and why Sartre delivered this lecture, but Cohen-Solal gives a nice introduction and sets the stage in its historical and political setting which was quite helpful. Sartre's talk was easy to follow. It contains many of the same clarifying ideas and examples that are in his book Existentialism and Human Emotion.

The "Q & A", however, is what caused me to give the book 4 stars rather than 5. Unfortunately as is typical with any "Q & A" after a philosophy talk, the "questioners" aren't so much interested in asking questions but in making their own arguments and sharing their own ideas, attempting to put the spotlight on themselves and take away from the speaker. One of the "questioners" was someone famous (can't remember who, but he is named in the book) and he goes on and on and on for nearly 10 pages with his "question" which is more like a critique of Sartre's talk. Real classy. While I do like reading critiques of anything, knowing that this was done in the setting of a public lecture was a big turn-off for me. I'm big on mutual respect during a public lecture by both the speaker and the audience and I did not see it from this man. Rant over.

The final section of the book is Sartre reviewing his existentialist friend's book The Stranger. I did have some trouble following this because I am still fairly new to the ideas of existentialism, but from what I did understand, the review seemed solid. Sartre discusses how Camus interprets The Stranger in Camus' nest book The Myth of Sisyphus. I think Sartre's review provides a quick understandable overview of the meaning of the Stranger based on Camus' other book.

Over the past 30 years before his death, Jean Paul Sartre had probably been most influencial in the West than those of any other thinker and literary figures. In his theoretical writings, Sartre had laid the foundations for an original doctrine of Existentialism. Sartre's concern, howeverr, had been to relate his theory to human response and the practical demands of living. To this end , he had carried his philosophical concepts into his novels and plays, and there subjected them to the test of imagined experience. His uniqueness lies in the success with which he demonstrated the utility of Existentialism doctrine whilst creating . at the same time, works of the highest literary merit. Thus, Sartre has become the popularizer of his own philosophical thought.

I'll give this to you--the cover of this book is designed very well: hip lower case type, mysterious empty chair, and all those pebbles make for an alluring product. But the content didn't stand up to the cover. At one point perhaps this was an important, necessary work--but now this is Sartre defending his philosophy against claims no one is making to people who are soaked in existentialism from a young age. This is not Sartre giving a great introduction to his philosophy--that was not his goal: he sought to defend existentialism from its detractors, not to explain the niceties of the theory to them. If you want a primer on Sartre's philosophy and existentialism as a whole you would be better looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online (Sartre: [...]; existentialism: [...]).

What you're paying for here is a well-designed cover.