SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:1

JeanPaulSarte1946

ExistentialismisaHumanism

Written:Lecturegivenin1946 Source:ExistentialismfromDostoyevskytoSartre,ed.WalterKaufman,MeridianPublishingCompany, 1989; FirstPublished:WorldPublishingCompanyin1956; Translator:PhilipMairet;

Mypurposehereistoofferadefenceofexistentialismagainstseveralreproachesthathavebeenlaid againstit. First,ithasbeenreproachedasaninvitationtopeopletodwellinquietismofdespair.Forifeverywayto asolutionisbarred,onewouldhavetoregardanyactioninthisworldasentirelyineffective,andone wouldarrivefinallyatacontemplativephilosophy.Moreover,sincecontemplationisaluxury,thiswould beonlyanotherbourgeoisphilosophy.Thisis,especially,thereproachmadebytheCommunists. Fromanotherquarterwearereproachedforhavingunderlinedallthatisignominiousinthehuman situation,fordepictingwhatismean,sordidorbasetotheneglectofcertainthingsthatpossesscharmand beautyandbelongtothebrightersideofhumannature:forexample,accordingtotheCatholiccritic,Mlle. Mercier,weforgethowaninfantsmiles.Bothfromthissideandfromtheotherwearealsoreproachedfor leavingoutofaccountthesolidarityofmankindandconsideringmaninisolation.Andthis,saythe Communists,isbecausewebaseourdoctrineuponpuresubjectivity upontheCartesianI think?:whichisthemomentinwhichsolitarymanattainstohimself;apositionfromwhichitis impossibletoregainsolidaritywithothermenwhoexistoutsideoftheself.Theegocannotreachthem throughthecogito. FromtheChristianside,wearereproachedaspeoplewhodenytherealityandseriousnessofhuman affairs.ForsinceweignorethecommandmentsofGodandallvaluesprescribedaseternal,nothing remainsbutwhatisstrictlyvoluntary.Everyonecandowhathelikes,andwillbeincapable,fromsucha pointofview,ofcondemningeitherthepointofviewortheactionofanyoneelse. ItistothesevariousreproachesthatIshallendeavourtoreplytoday;thatiswhyIhaveentitledthisbrief expositionE xistentialismisaHumanism.?Manymaybesurprisedatthementionofhumanismin thisconnection,butweshalltrytoseeinwhatsenseweunderstandit.Inanycase,wecanbeginbysaying thatexistentialism,inoursenseoftheword,isadoctrinethatdoesrenderhumanlifepossible;adoctrine, also,whichaffirmsthateverytruthandeveryactionimplybothanenvironmentandahumansubjectivity. Theessentialchargelaidagainstusis,ofcourse,thatofoveremphasisupontheevilsideofhumanlife.I havelatelybeentoldofaladywho,wheneversheletsslipavulgarexpressioninamomentof nervousness,excusesherselfbyexclaiming,IbelieveIambecominganexistentialist. Soitappearsthat

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:2

uglinessisbeingidentifiedwithexistentialism.Thatiswhysomepeoplesaywearen aturalistic, andif weare,itisstrangetoseehowmuchwescandaliseandhorrifythem,fornooneseemstobemuch frightenedorhumiliatednowadaysbywhatisproperlycallednaturalism.Thosewhocanquitewellkeep downanovelbyZolasuchasLaTerrearesickenedassoonastheyreadanexistentialistnovel.Those whoappealtothewisdomofthepeople whichisasadwisdom findourssadderstill.Andyet, whatcouldbemoredisillusionedthansuchsayingsasCha ritybeginsathome?or Promotea rogueandhellsueyoufordamage,knockhimdownandhelldoyouhomage??Weallknow howmanycommonsayingscanbequotedtothiseffect,andtheyallmeanmuchthesame thatyou mustnotopposethepowersthat be;thatyoumustnotfightagainstsuperiorforce;mustnotmeddlein mattersthatareaboveyourstation.Orthatanyactionnotinaccordancewithsometraditionismere romanticism;orthatanyundertakingwhichhasnotthesupportofprovenexperienceisforedoomedto frustration;andthatsinceexperiencehasshownmentobeinvariablyinclinedtoevil,theremustbefirm rulestorestrainthem,otherwiseweshallhaveanarchy.Itis,however,thepeoplewhoareforever mouthingthesedismalproverbsand,whenevertheyaretoldofsomemoreorlessrepulsiveaction,say Howlikehumannature!? itistheseverypeople,alwaysharpinguponrealism,whocomplain thatexistentialismistoogloomyaviewofthings.Indeedtheirexcessiveprotestsmakemesuspectthat whatisannoyingthemisnotsomuchourpessimism,but,muchmorelikely,ouroptimism.Foratbottom, whatisalarminginthedoctrinethatIamabouttotrytoexplaintoyouis isitnot? thatitconfronts manwithapossibilityofchoice.Toverify this,letusreviewthewholequestionuponthestrictly philosophiclevel.What,then,isthisthatwecallexistentialism? Mostofthosewhoaremakinguseofthiswordwouldbehighlyconfusedifrequiredtoexplainits meaning.Forsinceithasbecomefashionable,peoplecheerfullydeclarethatthismusicianorthatpainter isexi stentialist. AcolumnistinClartessignshimselfThe Existentialist, and,indeed,thewordisnow solooselyappliedtosomanythingsthatitnolongermeansanythingatall.Itwouldappearthat,forthe lackofanynoveldoctrinesuchasthatofsurrealism,allthosewhoareeagertojoininthelatestscandalor movementnowseizeuponthisphilosophyinwhich,however,theycanfindnothingtotheirpurpose.For intruththisisofallteachingstheleastscandalousandthemostaustere:itisintendedstrictlyfor techniciansandphilosophers.Allthesame,itcaneasilybedefined. Thequestionisonlycomplicatedbecausetherearetwokindsofexistentialists.Thereare,ontheonehand, theChristians,amongstwhomIshallnameJaspersandGabrielMarcel,bothprofessedCatholics;andon theothertheexistentialatheists,amongstwhomwemustplaceHeideggeraswellastheFrench existentialistsandmyself.Whattheyhaveincommonissimplythefactthattheybelievethatexistence comesbeforeessence or,ifyouwill,thatwemustbeginfromthesubjective.Whatexactlydowemean bythat? Ifoneconsidersanarticleofmanufactureas,forexample,abookorapaperknife oneseesthatithas beenmadebyanartisanwhohadaconceptionofit;andhehaspaidattention,equally,totheconception ofapaperknifeandtothepreexistenttechniqueofproductionwhichisapartofthatconceptionandis,at bottom,aformula.Thusthepaperknifeisatthesametimeanarticleproducibleinacertainmannerand onewhich,ontheotherhand,serveadefinitepurpose,foronecannotsupposethatamanwouldproducea paperknifewithoutknowingwhatitwasfor.Letussay,then,ofthepaperknifethatitsessencethatisto saythesumoftheformulaeandthequalitieswhichmadeitsproductionanditsdefinitionpossible precedesitsexistence.Thepresenceofsuch and suchapaperknifeorbookisthusdetermined

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:3

beforemyeyes.Here,then,weareviewingtheworldfromatechnicalstandpoint,andwecansaythat productionprecedesexistence. WhenwethinkofGodasthecreator,wearethinkingofhim,mostofthetime,asasupernalartisan. Whateverdoctrinewemaybeconsidering,whetheritbeadoctrinelikethatofDescartes,orofLeibnitz himself,wealwaysimplythatthewillfollows,moreorless,fromtheunderstandingoratleast accompaniesit,sothatwhenGodcreatesheknowspreciselywhatheiscreating.Thus,theconceptionof maninthemindofGodiscomparabletothatofthepaperknifeinthemindoftheartisan:Godmakes manaccordingtoaprocedureandaconception,exactlyastheartisanmanufacturesapaperknife, followingadefinitionandaformula.Thuseachindividualmanistherealisationofacertainconception whichdwellsinthedivineunderstanding.Inthephilosophicatheismoftheeighteenthcentury,thenotion ofGodissuppressed,butnot,forallthat,theideathatessenceispriortoexistence;somethingofthatidea westillfindeverywhere,inDiderot,inVoltaireandeveninKant.Manpossessesahumannature;that h umannature, whichistheconceptionofhumanbeing,isfoundineveryman;whichmeansthateach manisaparticularexampleofauniversalconception,theconceptionofMan.InKant,thisuniversality goessofarthatthewildmanofthewoods,maninthestateofnatureandthebourgeoisareallcontainedin thesamedefinitionandhavethesamefundamentalqualities.Hereagain,theessenceofmanprecedesthat historicexistencewhichweconfrontinexperience. Atheisticexistentialism,ofwhichIamarepresentative,declareswithgreaterconsistencythatifGoddoes notexistthereisatleastonebeingwhoseexistencecomesbeforeitsessence,abeingwhichexistsbefore itcanbedefinedbyanyconceptionofit.Thatbeingismanor,asHeideggerhasit,thehumanreality. Whatdowemeanbysayingthatexistenceprecedesessence?Wemeanthatmanfirstofallexists, encountershimself,surgesupintheworld anddefineshimselfafterwards.Ifmanastheexistentialist seeshimisnotdefinable,itisbecausetobeginwithheisnothing.Hewillnotbeanythinguntillater,and thenhewillbewhathemakesofhimself.Thus,thereisnohumannature,becausethereisnoGodtohave aconceptionofit.Mansimplyis.Notthatheissimplywhatheconceiveshimselftobe,butheiswhathe wills,andasheconceiveshimselfafteralreadyexisting ashewillstobeafterthatleaptowards existence.Manisnothingelsebutthatwhichhemakesofhimself.Thatisthefirstprincipleof existentialism.Andthisiswhatpeoplecallitss ubjectivity, usingthewordasareproachagainstus.But whatdowemeantosaybythis,butthatmanisofagreaterdignitythanastoneoratable?Forwemeanto saythatmanprimarilyexists thatmanis,beforeallelse,somethingwhichpropelsitselftowardsba futureandisawarethatitisdoingso.Manis,indeed,aprojectwhichpossessesasubjectivelife,instead ofbeingakindofmoss,orafungusoracauliflower.Beforethatprojectionoftheselfnothingexists;not evenintheheavenofintelligence:manwillonlyattainexistencewhenheiswhathepurposestobe.Not, however,whathemaywishtobe.Forwhatweusuallyunderstandbywishingorwillingisaconscious decisiontaken muchmoreoftenthannot afterwehavemadeourselveswhatweare.Imaywishto joinaparty,towriteabookortomarry butinsuchacasewhatisusuallycalledmywillisprobablya manifestationofapriorandmorespontaneousdecision.If,however,itistruethatexistenceispriorto essence,manisresponsibleforwhatheis.Thus,thefirsteffectofexistentialismisthatitputseveryman inpossessionofhimselfasheis,andplacestheentireresponsibilityforhisexistencesquarelyuponhis ownshoulders.And,whenwesaythatmanisresponsibleforhimself,wedonotmeanthatheis responsibleonlyforhisownindividuality,butthatheisresponsibleforallmen.Theword subjectivism istobeunderstoodintwosenses,andouradversariesplayupononlyoneofthem.Subjectivismmeans.on theonehand,thefreedomoftheindividualsubjectand,ontheother,thatmancannotpassbeyondhuman

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:4

subjectivity.Itisthelatterwhichisthedeepermeaningofexistentialism.Whenwesaythatmanchooses himself,wedomeanthateveryoneofusmustchoosehimself;butbythatwealsomeanthatinchoosing forhimselfhechoosesforallmen.Forineffect,ofalltheactionsamanmaytakeinordertocreate himselfashewillstobe,thereisnotonewhichisnotcreative,atthesametime,ofanimageofmansuch ashebelievesheoughttobe.Tochoosebetweenthisorthatisatthesametimetoaffirmthevalueofthat whichischosen;forweareunableevertochoosetheworse.Whatwechooseisalwaysthebetter;and nothingcanbebetterforusunlessitisbetterforall.If,moreover,existenceprecedesessenceandwewill toexistatthesametimeaswefashionourimage,thatimageisvalidforallandfortheentireepochin whichwefindourselves.Ourresponsibilityisthusmuchgreaterthanwehadsupposed,foritconcerns mankindasawhole.IfIanaworker,forinstance,ImaychoosetojoinaChristianratherthana Communisttradeunion.Andif,bythatmembership,Ichoosetosignifythatresignationis,afterall,the attitudethatbestbecomesaman,thatman skingdomisnotuponthisearth,Idonotcommitmyselfalone tothatview.Resignationismywillforeveryone,andmyactionis,inconsequence,acommitmenton behalfofallmankind.Orif,totakeamorepersonalcase,Idecidetomarryandtohavechildren,even thoughthisdecisionproceedssimplyfrommysituation,frommypassionormydesire,Iamthereby committingnotonlymyself,buthumanityasawhole,tothepracticeofmonogamy.Iamthusresponsible formyselfandforallmen,andIamcreatingacertainimageofmanasIwouldhavehimtobe.In fashioningmyselfIfashionman. Thismayenableustounderstandwhatismeantbysuchterms perhapsalittlegrandiloquent as anguish,abandonmentanddespair.Asyouwillsoonsee,itisverysimple.First,whatdowemeanby anguish? Theexistentialistfranklystatesthatmanisinanguish.HismeaningisasfollowsWhenaman commitshimselftoanything,fullyrealisingthatheisnotonlychoosingwhathewillbe,butistherebyat thesametimealegislatordecidingforthewholeofmankind insuchamomentamancannotescape fromthesenseofcompleteandprofoundresponsibility.Therearemany,indeed,whoshownosuch anxiety.Butweaffirmthattheyaremerelydisguisingtheiranguishorareinflightfromit.Certainly, manypeoplethinkthatinwhattheyaredoingtheycommitnoonebutthemselvestoanything:andifyou askthem,Wh atwouldhappenifeveryonedidso? theyshrugtheirshouldersandreply, Everyonedoes notdoso. Butintruth,oneoughtalwaystoaskoneselfwhatwouldhappenifeveryonedidasoneis doing;norcanoneescapefromthatdisturbingthoughtexceptbyakindofselfdeception.Themanwho liesinselfexcuse,bysayingEveryonewillnotdoit mustbeillateaseinhisconscience,fortheactof lyingimpliestheuniversalvaluewhichitdeniesByitsverydisguisehisanguishrevealsitself.Thisisthe anguishthatKierkegaardcalled theanguishofAbraham. Youknowthestory:Anangelcommanded Abrahamtosacrificehisson:andobediencewasobligatory,ifitreallywasanangelwhohadappeared andsaid,Thou,Abraham,shaltsacrificethyson. Butanyoneinsuchacasewouldwonder,first,whether itwasindeedanangelandsecondly,whetherIamreallyAbraham.Wherearetheproofs?Acertainmad womanwhosufferedfromhallucinationssaidthatpeopleweretelephoningtoher,andgivingherorders. Thedoctorasked,But whoisitthatspeakstoyou? Shereplied:H esaysitisGod. Andwhat,indeed, couldprovetoherthatitwasGod?Ifanangelappearstome,whatistheproofthatitisanangel;or,ifI hearvoices,whocanprovethattheyproceedfromheavenandnotfromhell,orfrommyown subconsciousnessorsomepathologicalcondition?Whocanprovethattheyarereallyaddressedtome? Who,then,canprovethatIamtheproperpersontoimpose,bymyownchoice,myconceptionofman uponmankind?Ishallneverfindanyproofwhatever;therewillbenosigntoconvincemeofit.Ifavoice speakstome,itisstillImyselfwhomustdecidewhetherthevoiceisorisnotthatofanangel.IfIregard

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:5

acertaincourseofactionasgood,itisonlyIwhochoosetosaythatitisgoodandnotbad.Thereis nothingtoshowthatIamAbraham:neverthelessIalsoamobligedateveryinstanttoperformactions whichareexamples.Everythinghappenstoeverymanasthoughthewholehumanracehaditseyesfixed uponwhatheisdoingandregulateditsconductaccordingly.Soeverymanoughttosay,A mIreallya manwhohastherighttoactinsuchamannerthathumanityregulatesitselfbywhatIdo. Ifamandoes notsaythat,heisdissemblinghisanguish.Clearly,theanguishwithwhichweareconcernedhereisnot onethatcouldleadtoquietismorinaction.Itisanguishpureandsimple,ofthekindwellknowntoall thosewhohaveborneresponsibilities.When,forinstance,amilitaryleadertakesuponhimselfthe responsibilityfortattackandsendsanumberofmentotheirdeath,hechoosestodoitandatbottomhe alonechooses.Nodoubtunderahighercommand,butitsorders,whicharemoregeneral,require interpretationbyhimanduponthatinterpretationdependsthelifeoften,fourteenortwentymen.In makingthedecision,hecannotbutfeelacertainanguish.Allleadersknowthatanguish.Itdoesnot preventtheiracting,onthecontraryitistheveryconditionoftheiraction,fortheactionpresupposesthat thereisapluralityfpossibilities,andinchoosingoneofthese,theyrealizethatithasvalueonlybecauseit ischosen.Nowitisanguishofthatkindwhichexistentialismdescribes,andmoreover,asweshallsee, makesexplicitthroughdirectresponsibilitywardsothermenwhoareconcerned.Farfrombeingascreen whichcouldseparateusfromaction,itisaconditionofactionitself. Andwhenwespeakofab andonment afavoritewordofHeidegger weonlymeantosaythatGod doesnotexist,andthatitisnecessarytodrawtheconsequencesofhisabsencerighttotheend.The existentialistisstronglyopposedtoacertaintypeofsecularmoralismwhichseekstosuppressGodatthe leastpossibleexpense.Towards1880,whentheFrenchprofessorsendeavouredtoformulateasecular morality,theysaidsomethinglikethis:Godisauselessandcostlyhypothesis,sowewilldowithoutit. However,ifwearetohavemorality,asocietyandalawabidingworld,itisessentialthatcertainvalues shouldbetakenseriously;theymusthaveanaprioriexistenceascribedtothem.Itmustbeconsidered obligatoryaprioritobehonest,nottolie,nottobeatones wife,tobringupchildrenandsoforth;sowe aregoingtodoalittleworkonthissubject,whichwillenableustoshowthatthesevaluesexistallthe same,inscribedinanintelligibleheavenalthough,ofcourse,thereisnoGod.Inotherword andthisis, Ibelieve,thepurportofallthatweinFrancecallradicalism nothingwillbechangedifGoddoesnot exist;weshallrediscoverthesamenormsofhonesty,progressandhumanity,andweshallhavedisposed ofGodasanoutofdatehypothesiswhichwilldieawayquietlyofitself.Theexistentialist,onthe contrary,findsitextremelyembarrassingthatGoddoesnotexist,fortheredisappearswithHimall possibilityoffindingvaluesinanintelligibleheaven.Therecannolongerbeanygoodapriori,sincethere isnoinfiniteandperfectconsciousnesstothinkit.Itisnowherewrittenthatth egood exists,thatone mustbehonestormustnotlie,sincewearenowupontheplanewherethereareonlymen.Dostoevsky oncewrotedidGoddidnotexist,everythingwouldbepermitted ;andthat,forexistentialism,isthe startingpoint.EverythingisindeedpermittedifGoddoesnotexist,andmanisinconsequenceforlorn,for hecannotfindanythingtodependuponeitherwithinoroutsidehimself.Hediscoversforthwith,thatheis withoutexcuse.Forifindeedexistenceprecedesessence,onewillneverbeabletoexplainone sactionby referencetoagivenandspecifichumannature;inotherwords,thereisnodeterminism manisfree, manisfreedom.Nor,ontheotherhand,ifGoddoesnotexist,areweprovidedwithanyvaluesor commandsthatcouldlegitimiseourbehaviour.Thuswehaveneitherbehindus,norbeforeusina luminousrealmofvalues,anymeansofjustificationorexcuse. Weareleftalone,withoutexcuse.That iswhatImeanwhenIsaythatmaniscondemnedtobefree.Condemned,becausehedidnotcreate himself,yetisneverthelessatliberty,andfromthemomentthatheisthrownintothisworldheis

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:6

responsibleforeverythinghedoes.Theexistentialistdoesnotbelieveinthepowerofpassion.Hewill neverregardagrandpassionasadestructivetorrentuponwhichamanissweptintocertainactionsasby fate,andwhich,therefore,isanexcuseforthem.Hethinksthatmanisresponsibleforhispassion.Neither willanexistentialistthinkthatamancanfindhelpthroughsomesignbeingvouchsafeduponearthforhis orientation:forhethinksthatthemanhimselfinterpretsthesignashechooses.Hethinksthateveryman, withoutanysupportorhelpwhatever,iscondemnedateveryinstanttoinventman.AsPongehaswritten inaveryfinearticle, Manisthefutureofman. Thatisexactlytrue.Only,ifonetookthistomeanthat thefutureislaidupinHeaven,thatGodknowswhatitis,itwouldbefalse,forthenitwouldnolonger evenbeafuture.If,however,itmeansthat,whatevermanmaynowappeartobe,thereisafuturetobe fashioned,avirginfuturethatawaitshim thenitisatruesaying.Butinthepresentoneisforsaken. Asanexamplebywhichyoumaythebetterunderstandthisstateofabandonment,Iwillrefertothecase ofapupilofmine,whosoughtmeoutinthefollowingcircumstances.Hisfatherwasquarrellingwithhis motherandwasalsoinclinedtobea collaborator ;hiselderbrotherhadbeenkilledintheGerman offensiveof1940andthisyoungman,withasentimentsomewhatprimitivebutgenerous,burnedto avengehim.Hismotherwaslivingalonewithhim,deeplyafflictedbythesemitreasonofhisfatherand bythedeathofhereldestson,andheroneconsolationwasinthisyoungman.Buthe,atthismoment,had thechoicebetweengoingtoEnglandtojointheFreeFrenchForcesorofstayingnearhismotherand helpinghertolive.Hefullyrealisedthatthiswomanlivedonlyforhimandthathisdisappearance or perhapshisdeath wouldplungeherintodespair.Healsorealisedthat,concretelyandinfact,every actionheperformedonhismothers behalfwouldbesureofeffectinthesenseofaidinghertolive, whereasanythinghedidinordertogoandfightwouldbeanambiguousactionwhichnightvanishlike waterintosandandservenopurpose.Forinstance,tosetoutforEnglandhewouldhavetowait indefinitelyinaSpanishcamponthewaythroughSpain;or,onarrivinginEnglandorinAlgiershemight beputintoanofficetofillupforms.Consequently,hefoundhimselfconfrontedbytwoverydifferent modesofaction;theoneconcrete,immediate,butdirectedtowardsonlyoneindividual;andtheotheran actionaddressedtoanendinfinitelygreater,anationalcollectivity,butforthatveryreasonambiguous anditmightbefrustratedontheway.Atthesametime,hewashesitatingbetweentwokindsofmorality; ontheonesidethemoralityofsympathy,ofpersonaldevotionand,ontheotherside,amoralityofwider scopebutofmoredebatablevalidity.Hehadtochoosebetweenthosetwo.Whatcouldhelphimto choose?CouldtheChristiandoctrine?No.Christiandoctrinesays:Actwithcharity,loveyourneighbour, denyyourselfforothers,choosethewaywhichishardest,andsoforth.Butwhichistheharderroad?To whomdoesoneowethemorebrotherlylove,thepatriotorthemother?Whichisthemoreusefulaim,the generaloneoffightinginandforthewholecommunity,orthepreciseaimofhelpingoneparticular persontolive?Whocangiveananswertothatapriori?Noone.Norisitgiveninanyethicalscripture. TheKantianethicsays,Neverregardanotherasameans,butalwaysasanend.Verywell;ifIremainwith mymother,Ishallberegardingherastheendandnotasameans:butbythesametokenIamindangerof treatingasmeansthosewhoarefightingonmybehalf;andtheconverseisalsotrue,thatifIgototheaid ofthecombatantsIshallbetreatingthemastheendattheriskoftreatingmymotherasameans.Ifvalues areuncertain,iftheyarestilltooabstracttodeterminetheparticular,concretecaseunderconsideration, nothingremainsbuttotrustinourinstincts.Thatiswhatthisyoungmantriedtodo;andwhenIsawhim hesaid,I ntheend,itisfeelingthatcounts;thedirectioninwhichitisreallypushingmeistheoneI oughttochoose.IfIfeelthatIlovemymotherenoughtosacrificeeverythingelseforher mywilltobe avenged,allmylongingsforactionandadventurethenIstaywithher.If,onthecontrary,Ifeelthatmy loveforherisnotenough,Igo. Buthowdoesoneestimatethestrengthofafeeling?Thevalueofhis

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:7

feelingforhismotherwasdeterminedpreciselybythefactthathewasstandingbyher.ImaysaythatI loveacertainfriendenoughtosacrificesuchorsuchasumofmoneyforhim,butIcannotprovethat unlessIhavedoneit.Imaysay,I lovemymotherenoughtoremainwithher, ifactuallyIhave remainedwithher.IcanonlyestimatethestrengthofthisaffectionifIhaveperformedanactionbywhich itisdefinedandratified.ButifIthenappealtothisaffectiontojustifymyaction,Ifindmyselfdrawninto aviciouscircle. Moreover,asGidehasverywellsaid,asentimentwhichisplayactingandonewhichisvitalaretwo thingsthatarehardlydistinguishableonefromanother.TodecidethatIlovemymotherbystayingbeside her,andtoplayacomedytheupshotofwhichisthatIdoso thesearenearlythesamething.Inother words,feelingisformedbythedeedsthatonedoes;thereforeIcannotconsultitasaguidetoaction.And thatistosaythatIcanneitherseekwithinmyselfforanauthenticimpulsetoaction,norcanIexpect, fromsomeethic,formulaethatwillenablemetoact.Youmaysaythattheyouthdid,atleast,gotoa professortoaskforadvice.Butifyouseekcounsel fromapriest,forexampleyouhaveselectedthat priest;andatbottomyoualreadyknew,moreorless,whathewouldadvise.Inotherwords,tochoosean adviserisneverthelesstocommitoneselfbythatchoice.IfyouareaChristian,youwillsay,Consulta priest;buttherearecollaborationists,priestswhoareresistersandpriestswhowaitforthetidetoturn: whichwillyouchoose?Hadthisyoungmanchosenapriestoftheresistance,oroneofthecollaboration, hewouldhavedecidedbeforehandthekindofadvicehewastoreceive.Similarly,incomingtome,he knewwhatadviceIshouldgivehim,andIhadbutonereplytomake.Youarefree,thereforechoosethat istosay,invent.Noruleofgeneralmoralitycanshowyouwhatyououghttodo:nosignsarevouchsafed inthisworld.TheCatholicswillreply, Oh,buttheyare! Verywell;still,itisImyself,ineverycase, whohavetointerpretthesigns.WhileIwasimprisoned,Imadetheacquaintanceofasomewhat remarkableman,aJesuit,whohadbecomeamemberofthatorderinthefollowingmanner.Inhislifehe hadsufferedasuccessionofratherseveresetbacks.Hisfatherhaddiedwhenhewasachild,leavinghim inpoverty,andhehadbeenawardedafreescholarshipinareligiousinstitution,wherehehadbeenmade continuallytofeelthathewasacceptedforcharity ssake,and,inconsequence,hehadbeendeniedseveral ofthosedistinctionsandhonourswhichgratifychildren.Later,abouttheageofeighteen,hecametogrief inasentimentalaffair;andfinally,attwentytwo thiswasatrifleinitself,butitwasthelastdropthat overflowedhiscup hefailedinhismilitaryexamination.Thisyoungman,then,couldregardhimselfas atotalfailure:itwasasign butasignofwhat?Hemighthavetakenrefugeinbitternessordespair.But hetookit verycleverlyforhim_sasignthathewasnotintendedforsecularsuccess,andthatonlythe attainmentsofreligion,thoseofsanctityandoffaith,wereaccessibletohim.Heinterpretedhisrecordasa messagefromGod,andbecameamemberoftheOrder.Whocandoubtbutthatthisdecisionastothe meaningofthesignwashis,andhisalone?Onecouldhavedrawnquitedifferentconclusionsfromsucha seriesofreverses as,forexample,thathehadbetterbecomeacarpenterorarevolutionary.Forthe deciphermentofthesign,however,hobearstheentireresponsibility.Thatiswhata bandonment implies, thatweourselvesdecideourbeing.Andwiththisabandonmentgoesanguish. Asford espair, themeaningofthisexpressionisextremelysimple.Itmerelymeansthatwelimit ourselvestoarelianceuponthatwhichiswithinourwills,orwithinthesumoftheprobabilitieswhich renderouractionfeasible.Wheneveronewillsanything,therearealwaystheseelementsofprobability.If Iamcountinguponavisitfromafriend,whomaybecomingbytrainorbytram,Ipresupposethatthe trainwillarriveattheappointedtime,orthatthetramwillnotbederailed.Iremainintherealmof possibilities;butonedoesnotrelyuponanypossibilitiesbeyondthosethatarestrictlyconcernedinone s

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:8

action.Beyondthepointatwhichthepossibilitiesunderconsiderationceasetoaffectmyaction,Ioughtto disinterestmyself.ForthereisnoGodandnoprevenientdesign,whichcanadapttheworldandallits possibilitiestomywill.WhenDescartessaid,C onqueryourselfratherthantheworld, whathemeant was,atbottom,thesame thatweshouldactwithouthope. Marxists,towhomIhavesaidthis,haveanswered:Your actionislimited,obviously,byyourdeath;but youcanrelyuponthehelpofothers.Thatis,youcancountbothuponwhattheothersaredoingtohelp youelsewhere,ashChinaandinRussia,anduponwhattheywilldolater,afteryourdeath,totakeupyour actionandcarryitforwardtoitsfinalaccomplishmentwhichwillbetherevolution.Moreoveryoumust relyuponthis;nottodosoisimmoral. TothisIrejoin,first,thatIshallalwayscountuponmycomrades inarmsinthestruggle,insofarastheyarecommitted,asIam,toadefinite,commoncause;andinthe unityofapartyoragroupwhichIcanmoreorlesscontrol thatis,inwhichIamenrolledasamilitant andwhosemovementsateverymomentareknowntome.Inthatrespect,torelyupontheunityandthe willofthepartyisexactlylikemyreckoningthatthetrainwillruntotimeorthatthetramwillnotbe derailed.ButIcannotcountuponmenwhomIdonotknow,Icannotbasemyconfidenceuponhuman goodnessoruponman sinterestinthegoodofsociety,seeingthatmanisfreeandthatthereisnohuman naturewhichIcantakeasfoundational.IdonotknowwheretheRussianrevolutionwilllead.Ican admireitandtakeitasanexampleinsofarasitisevident,today,thattheproletariatplaysapartinRussia whichithasattainedinnoothernation.ButIcannotaffirmthatthiswillnecessarilyleadtothetriumphof theproletariat:ImustconfinemyselftowhatIcansee.NorcanIbesurethatcomradesinarmswilltake upmyworkaftermydeathandcarryittothemaximumperfection,seeingthatthosemenarefreeagents andwillfreelydecide,tomorrow,whatmanisthentobe.Tomorrow,aftermydeath,somemenmay decidetoestablishFascism,andtheothersmaybesocowardlyorsoslackastoletthemdoso.Ifso, Fascismwillthenbethetruthofman,andsomuchtheworseforus.Inreality,thingswillbesuchasmen havedecidedtheyshallbe.DoesthatmeanthatIshouldabandonmyselftoquietism?No.FirstIoughtto commitmyselfandthenactmycommitment,accordingtothetimehonouredformulathatone neednot hopeinordertoundertakeone swork. NordoesthismeanthatIshouldnotbelongtoaparty,butonly thatIshouldbewithoutillusionandthatIshoulddowhatIcan.Forinstance,ifIaskmyselfW illthe socialidealassuch,everbecomeareality? Icannottell,Ionlyknowthatwhatevermaybeinmypower tomakeitso,Ishalldo;beyondthat,Icancountuponnothing. Quietismistheattitudeofpeoplewhosay,l etothersdowhatIcannotdo. ThedoctrineIampresenting beforeyouispreciselytheoppositeofthis,sinceitdeclaresthatthereisnorealityexceptinaction.Itgoes further,indeed,andadds,M anisnothingelsebutwhathepurposes,heexistsonlyinsofarasherealises himself,heisthereforenothingelsebutthesumofhisactions,nothingelsebutwhathislifeis. Hencewe canwellunderstandwhysomepeoplearehorrifiedbyourteaching.Formanyhavebutoneresourceto sustainthemintheirmisery,andthatistothink, Circumstanceshavebeenagainstme,Iwasworthytobe somethingmuchbetterthanIhavebeen.IadmitIhaveneverhadagreatloveoragreatfriendship;but thatisbecauseInevermetamanorawomanwhowereworthyofit;ifIhavenotwrittenanyverygood books,itisbecauseIhadnottheleisuretodoso;or,ifIhavehadnochildrentowhomXcoulddevote myselfitisbecauseIdidnotfindthemanIcouldhavelivedwith.Sothereremainswithinmeawide rangeofabilities,inclinationsandpotentialities,unusedbutperfectlyviable,whichendowmewitha worthinessthatcouldneverbeinferredfromthemerehistoryofmyactions. Butinrealityandforthe existentialist,thereisnoloveapartfromthedeedsoflove;nopotentialityofloveotherthanthatwhichis manifestedinloving;thereisnogeniusotherthanthatwhichisexpressedinworksofart.Thegeniusof

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:9

ProustisthetotalityoftheworksofProust;thegeniusofRacineistheseriesofhistragedies,outsideof whichthereisnothing.WhyshouldweattributetoRacinethecapacitytowriteyetanothertragedywhen thatispreciselywhathe didnotwrite?Inlife,amancommitshimself,drawshisownportraitandthere isnothingbutthatportrait.Nodoubtthisthoughtmayseemcomfortlesstoonewhohasnotmadea successofhislife.Ontheotherhand,itputseveryoneinapositiontounderstandthatrealityaloneis reliable;thatdreams,expectationsandhopesservetodefineamanonlyasdeceptivedreamsabortive hopes,expectationsunfulfilled;thatistosay,theydefinehimnegatively,notpositively.Nevertheless, whenonesays,You arenothingelsebutwhatyoulive, itdoesnotimplythatanartististobejudged solelybyhisworksofart,forathousandotherthingscontributenolesstohisdefinitionasaman.What wemeantosayisthatamanisnootherthanaseriesofundertakings,thatheisthesum,theorganisation, thesetofrelationsthatconstitutetheseundertakings. Inthelightofallthis,whatpeoplereproachwwithisnot,afterall,ourpessimism,butthesternnessofour optimism.Ifpeoplecondemnourworksoffiction,inwhichwedescribecharactersthatarebase,weak, cowardlyandsometimesevenfranklyevil,itisnotonlybecausethosecharactersarebase,weak, cowardlyorevil.Forsupposethat,likeZola,weshowedthatthebehaviourofthesecharacterswascaused bytheirheredity,orbytheactionoftheirenvironmentuponthem,orbydeterminingfactors,psychicor organic.Peoplewouldbereassured,theywouldsay,Yousee ,thatiswhatwearelike,noonecando anythingaboutit. Buttheexistentialist,whenheportraysacoward,showshimasresponsibleforhis cowardice.Heisnotlikethatonaccountofacowardlyheartorlungsorcerebrum,hehasnotbecomelike thatthroughhisphysiologicalorganism;heislikethatbecausehehasmadehimselfintoacowardly actions.Thereisnosuchthingasacowardlytemperament.Therearenervoustemperaments;thereiswhat iscalledimpoverishedblood,andtherearealsorichtemperaments.Butthemanwhosebloodispooris notacowardforallthat,forwhatproducescowardiceistheactofgivinguporgivingway;anda temperamentisnotanaction.Acowardisdefinedbythedeedthathehasdone.Whatpeoplefeel obscurely,andwithhorror,isthatthecowardaswepresenthimisguiltyofbeingacoward.Whatpeople wouldpreferwouldbetobeborneitheracowardorahero.Oneofthechargesmostoftenlaidagainstthe CheminsdelaLiberte.issomethinglikethis But,afterall,thesepeoplebeingsobase,howcanyoumake themintoheroes? Thatobjectionisreallyrathercomic,foritimpliesthatpeoplearebornheroes:andthat is,atbottom,whatsuchpeoplewouldliketothink.Ifyouareborncowards,youcanbequitecontent.you candonothingaboutitandyouwillbecowardsallyourliveswhateveryoudo;andifyouarebornheroes youcanagainbequitecontent;youwillbeheroesallyourliveseatinganddrinkingheroically.Whereas theexistentialistsaysthatthecowardmakeshimselfcowardly,theheromakeshimselfheroic;andthat thereisalwaysapossibilityforthecowardtogiveupcowardiceandfortheherotostopbeingahero. Whatcountsisthetotalcommitment,anditisnotbyaparticularcaseorparticularactionthatyouare committedaltogether. Wehavenow,Ithink,dealtwithacertainnumberofthereproachesagainstexistentialism.Youhaveseen thatitcannotberegardedasaphilosophyofquietismsinceitdefinesmanbyhisaction;norasa pessimisticdescriptionofman,fornodoctrineismoreoptimistic,thedestinyofmanisplacedwithin himself.Norisitanattempttodiscouragemanfromactionsinceittellshimthatthereisnohopeexceptin hisaction,andthattheonethingwhichpermitshimtohavelifeisthedeed.Uponthisleveltherefore, whatweareconsideringisanethicofactionandselfcommitment.However,wearestillreproached,upon thesefewdata,forconfiningmanwithinhisindividualsubjectivity.Thereagainpeoplebadly misunderstandus.

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:10

Ourpointofdepartureis,indeed,thesubjectivityoftheindividual,andthatforstrictlyphilosophic reasons.Itisnotbecausewearebourgeois,butbecauseweseektobaseourteachinguponthetruth,and notuponacollectionoffinetheories,fullofhopebutlackingrealfoundations.Andatthepointof departuretherecannotbeanyothertruththanthis,Ithink,thereforeIam,whichistheabsolutetruthof consciousnessasitattainstoitself.Everytheorywhichbeginswithman,outsideofthismomentofself attainment,isatheorywhichtherebysuppressesthetruth,foroutsideoftheCartesiancogito,allobjects arenomorethanprobable,andanydoctrineofprobabilitieswhichisnotattachedtoatruthwillcrumble intonothing.Inordertodefinetheprobableonemustpossessthetrue.Beforetherecanbeanytruth whatever,then,theremustbeanabsolutetruth,andthereissuchatruthwhichissimple,easilyattained andwithinthereachofeverybody;itconsistsinone simmediatesenseofone sself. Inthesecondplace,thistheoryaloneiscompatiblewiththodignityofman,itistheonlyonewhichdoes notmakemanintoanobject.Allkindsofmaterialismleadonetotreateverymanincludingoneselfasan object thatis,asasetofpredeterminedreactions,innowaydifferentfromthepatternsofqualitiesand phenomenawhichconstituteatable,orachairorastone.Ouraimispreciselytoestablishthehuman kingdomasapatternofvaluesindistinctionfromthematerialworld.Butthesubjectivitywhichwethus postulateasthestandardoftruthisnonarrowlyindividualsubjectivism,foraswehavedemonstrated,itis notonlyone sownselfthatonediscoversinthecogito,butthoseofotherstoo.Contrarytothephilosophy ofDescartes,contrarytothatofKant,whenwesay Ithink weareattainingtoourselvesinthepresence oftheother,andwearejustascertainoftheotherasweareofourselves.Thusthemanwhodiscovers himselfdirectlyinthecogitoalsodiscoversalltheothers,anddiscoversthemastheconditionofhisown existence.Herecognisesthathecannotbeanything(inthesenseinwhichonesaysoneisspiritual,orthat oneiswickedorjealous)unlessothersrecognisehimassuch.Icannotobtainanytruthwhatsoeverabout myself,exceptthroughthemediationofanother.Theotherisindispensabletomyexistence,andequally sotoanyknowledgeIcanhaveofmyself.Undertheseconditions,theintimatediscoveryofmyselfisat thesametimetherevelationoftheotherasafreedomwhichconfrontsmine.andwhichcannotthinkor willwithoutdoingsoeitherfororagainstme.Thus,atonce,wefindourselvesinaworldwhichis,letus say,thatofin tersubjectivity. Itisinthisworldthatmanhastodecidewhatheisandwhatothersare. Furthermore,althoughitisimpossibletofindineachandeverymanauniversalessencethatcanbecalled humannature,thereisneverthelessahumanuniversalityofcondition.Itisnotbychancethatthethinkers oftodayaresomuchmorereadytospeakoftheconditionthanofthenatureofman.Byhisconditionthey understand,withmoreorlessclarity,allthelimitationswhichaprioridefineman sfundamentalsituation intheuniverse.Hishistoricalsituationsarevariable:manmaybebornaslaveinapagansocietyormay beafeudalbaron,oraproletarian.Butwhatnevervaryarethenecessitiesofbeingintheworld,ofhaving tolaborandtodiethere.Theselimitationsareneithersubjectivenorobjective,orratherthereisbotha subjectiveandanobjectiveaspectofthem.Objective,becausewemeetwiththemeverywhereandthey areeverywhererecognisable:andsubjectivebecausetheyarelivedandarenothingifmandoesnotlive them if,thatistosay,hedoesnotfreelydeterminehimselfandhisexistenceinrelationtothem.And, diversethoughman spurposemaybe,atleastnoneofthemiswhollyforeigntome,sinceeveryhuman purposepresentsitselfasanattempteithertosurpasstheselimitations,ortowidenthem,orelsetodenyor toaccommodateoneselftothem.Consequentlyeverypurpose,howeverindividualitmaybe,isof universalvalue.Everypurpose,eventhatofaChinese,anIndianoraNegro,canbeunderstoodbya European.Tosayitcanbeunderstood,meansthattheEuropeanof1945maybestrivingoutofacertain situationtowardsthesamelimitationsinthesameway,andthathemayreconceiveinhimselfthepurpose

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:11

oftheChinese,oftheIndianortheAfrican.Ineverypurposethereisuniversality,inthissensethatevery purposeiscomprehensibletoeveryman.Notthatthisorthatpurposedefinesmanforever,butthatitmay beentertainedagainandagain.Thereisalwayssomewayofunderstandinganidiot,achild,aprimitive manoraforeignerifonehassufficientinformation.Inthissensewemaysaythatthereisahuman universality,butitisnotsomethinggiven;itisbeingperpetuallymade.Imakethisuniversalityin choosingmyself;Ialsomakeitbyunderstandingthepurposeofanyotherman,ofwhateverepoch.This absolutenessoftheactofchoicedoesnotaltertherelativityofeachepoch. Whatisattheveryheartandcenterofexistentialism,istheabsolutecharacterofthefreecommitment,by whicheverymanrealiseshimselfinrealisingatypeofhumanity acommitmentalwaysunderstandable, tonomatterwhominnomatterwhatepoch anditsbearingupontherelativityoftheculturalpattern whichmayresultfromsuchabsolutecommitment.Onemustobserveequallytherelativityof CartesianismandtheabsolutecharacteroftheCartesiancommitment.Inthissenseyoumaysay,Uyou like,thateveryoneofwmakestheabsolutebybreathing,byeating,bysleepingorbybehavinginany fashionwhatsoever.Thereisnodifferencebetweenfreebeing beingasselfcommittal,asexistence choosingitsessence andabsolutebeingAndthereisnodifferencewhateverbetweenbeingasan absolute,temporarilylocalisedthatis,localisedinhistory anduniversallyintelligiblebeing. ThisdoesnotcompletelyrefutethechargeofsubjectivismIndeedthatobjectionappearsinseveralother forms,ofwhichthefirstisasfollows.Peoplesaytous,T henitdoesnotmatterwhatyoudo, andthey saythisinvariousways. Firsttheytaxuswithanarchy;thentheysay, Youcannotjudgeothers,torthereisnoreasonfor preferringonepurposetoanother ;finally,theymaysay,Eve rythingbeingmerelyvoluntaryinthis choiceofyours,yougiveawaywithonehandwhatyoupretendtogainwiththeother. Thesethreeare notveryseriousobjections.Astothefirst,tosaythatitdoesnotmatterwhatyouchooseisnotcorrect.In onesensechoiceispossible,butwhatisnotpossibleisnottochoose.Icanalwayschoose,butImust knowthatifIdonotchoose,thatisstillachoice.This,althoughitmayappearmerelyformal,isofgreat importanceasalimittofantasyandcaprice.For,whenIconfrontarealsituation forexample,thatIam asexualbeing,abletohaverelationswithabeingoftheothersexandabletohavechildren Iam obligedtochoosemyattitudetoit,andineveryrespectIbeartheresponsibilityofthechoicewhich,in committingmyself,alsocommitsthewholeofhumanity.Evenifmychoiceisdeterminedbynoapriori valuewhatever,itcanhavenothingtodowithcaprice:andifanyonethinksthatthisisonlyGides theory oftheactegratuitoveragain,hehasfailedtoseetheenormousdifferencebetweenthistheoryandthatof Gide.Gidedoesnotknowwhatasituationis,his act isoneofpurecaprice.Inourview,onthecontrary, manfindshimselfinanorganisedsituationinwhichheishimselfinvolved:hischoiceinvolvesmankind initsentirety,andhecannotavoidchoosing.Eitherhemustremainsingle,orhemustmarrywithout havingchildren,orhemustmarryandhavechildren.Inanycase,andwhichever hemaychoose,itis impossibleforhim,inrespectofthissituation,nottotakecompleteresponsibility.Doubtlesshechooses withoutreferencetoanypreestablishedvalue,butitisunjusttotaxhimwithcaprice.Ratherletussay thatthemoralchoiceiscomparabletotheconstructionofaworkofart. ButhereImustatoncedigresstomakeitquiteclearthatwearenotpropoundinganaestheticmorality,for ouradversariesaredisingenuousenoughtoreproachusevenwiththat.Imentiontheworkofartonlyby wayofcomparison.Thatbeingunderstood,doesanyonereproachanartist,whenhepaintsapicture,for

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:12

notfollowingrulesestablishedapriori.Doesoneeveraskwhatisthepicturethatheoughttopaint?As everyoneknows,thereisnopredefinedpictureforhimtomake;theartistapplieshimselftothe compositionofapicture,andthepicturethatoughttobemadeispreciselythatwhichhewillhavemade. Aseveryoneknows,therearenoaestheticvaluesapriori,buttherearevalueswhichwillappearindue courseinthecoherenceofthepicture,intherelationbetweenthewilltocreateandthefinishedwork.No onecantellwhatthepaintingoftomorrowwillbelike;onecannotjudgeapaintinguntilitisdone.What hasthattodowithmorality?Weareinthesamecreativesituation.Weneverspeakofaworkofartas irresponsible;whenwearediscussingacanvasbyPicasso,weunderstandverywellthatthecomposition becamewhatitisatthetimewhenhewaspaintingit,andthathisworksarepartandparcelofhisentire life. Itisthesameupontheplaneofmorality.Thereisthisincommonbetweenartandmorality,thatinboth wehavetodowithcreationandinvention.Wecannotdecideaprioriwhatitisthatshouldbedone.I thinkitwasmadesufficientlycleartoyouinthecaseofthatstudentwhocametoseeme,thattowhatever ethicalsystemhemightappeal,theKantianoranyother,hecouldfindnosortofguidancewhatever;he wasobligedtoinventthelawforhimself.Certainlywecannotsaythatthisman,inchoosingtoremain withhismother thatis,intakingsentiment,personaldevotionandconcretecharityashismoral foundations wouldbemakinganirresponsiblechoice,norcouldwedosoifhepreferredthesacrifice ofgoingawaytoEngland.Manmakeshimself;heisnotfoundreadymade;hemakeshimselfbythe choiceofhismorality,andhecannotbutchooseamorality,suchisthepressureofcircumstancesupon him.Wedefinemanonlyinrelationtohiscommitments;itisthereforeabsurdtoreproachusfor irresponsibilityinourchoice. Inthesecondplace,peoplesaytous, Youareunabletojudgeothers. Thisistrueinonesenseandfalse inanother.Itistrueinthissense,thatwheneveramanchooseshispurposeandhiscommitmentinall clearnessandinallsincerity,whateverthatpurposemaybe,itisimpossibleforhimtopreferanother.Itis trueinthesensethatwedonotbelieveillprogress.Progressimpliesamelioration;butmanisalwaysthe same,facingasituationwhichisalwayschanging.andchoiceremainsalwaysachoiceinthesituation. Themoralproblemhasnotchangedsincethetimewhenitwasachoicebetweenslaveryandantislavery fromthetimeofthewarofSecession,forexample,untilthepresentmomentwhenonechooses betweentheM.R.P.[MouvementRepublicainPoputaire]andtheCommunists. Wecanjudge,nevertheless,for,asIhavesaid,onechoosesinviewofothers,andinviewofothersone chooseshimself.Onecanjudge,first andperhapsthisisnotajudgmentofvalue,butitisalogical judgment thatincertaincaseschoiceisfoundeduponanerror,andinothersuponthetruth.Onecan judgeamanbysayingthathedeceiveshimself.Sincewehavedefinedthesituationofmanasoneoffree choice,withoutexcuseandwithouthelp,anymanwhotakesrefugebehindtheexcuseofhispassions,or byinventingsomedeterministicdoctrine,isaselfdeceiver.Onemayobject:B utwhyshouldhenot choosetodeceivehimself? Ireplythatitisnotformetojudgehimmorally,butIdefinehisself deceptionasanerror.Hereonecannotavoidpronouncingajudgmentoftruth.Theselfdeceptionis evidentlyafalsehood,becauseitisadissimulationofman scompletelibertyofcommitment.Uponthis samelevel,IsaythatitisalsoaselfdeceptionifIchoosetodeclarethatcertainvaluesareincumbent uponme;IamincontradictionwithmyselfifIwillthesevaluesandatthesametimesaythattheyimpose themselvesuponme.Ifanyonesaystome, AndwhatifIwishtodeceivemyself? Ianswer,Ther eisno reasonwhyyoushouldnot,butIdeclarethatyouaredoingso,andthattheattitudeofstrictconsistency

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:13

aloneisthatofgoodfaith. Furthermore,Icanpronounceamoraljudgment.ForIdeclarethatfreedom,in respectofconcretecircumstances,canhavenootherendandaimbutitself;andwhenonceamanhasseen thatvaluesdependuponhimself,inthatstateofforsakennesshecanwillonlyonething,andthatis freedomasthefoundationofallvalues.Thatdoesnotmeanthathewillsitintheabstract:itsimplymeans thattheactionsofmenofgoodfaithhave,astheirultimatesignificance,thequestoffreedomitselfas such.Amanwhobelongstosomecommunistorrevolutionarysocietywillscertainconcretoends,which implythewilltofreedom,butthatfreedomiswilledincommunity.Wewillfreedomforfreedom ssake, inandthroughparticularcircumstances.Andinthuswillingfreedom,wediscoverthatitdependsentirely uponthofreedomofothersandthatthefreedomofothersdependsuponourown.Obviously,freedomas thedefinitionofamandoesnotdependuponothers,butassoonasthereisacommitment,Iamobligedto willthelibertyofothersdthesametimeasmyown.IcannotmakelibertymyaimunlessImakethatof othersequallymyaim.Consequently,whenIrecognise,asentirelyauthentic,thatmanisabeingwhose existenceprecedeshisessence,andthatheisafreebeingwhocannot,inanycircumstances,butwillhis freedom,atthesametimeIrealizethatIcannotnotwillthefreedomofothers.Thus,inthenameofthat willtofreedomwhichisimpliedinfreedomitself,Icanformjudgmentsuponthosewhoseektohidefrom themselvesthewhollyvoluntarynatureoftheirexistenceanditscompletefreedom.Thosewhohidefrom thistotalfreedom,inaguiseofsolemnityorwithdeterministicexcuses,Ishallcallcowards.Others,who trytoshowthattheirexistenceisnecessary,whenitismerelyanaccidentoftheappearanceofthehuman raceonearth Ishallcallscum.Butneithercowardsnorscumcanbeidentifiedexceptupontheplaneof strictauthenticity.Thus,althoughthecontentofmoralityisvariable,acertainformofthismoralityis universal.Kantdeclaredthatfreedomisawillbothtoitselfandtothefreedomofothers.Agreed:buthe thinksthattheformalandtheuniversalsufficefortheconstitutionofamorality.Wethink,onthe contrary,thatprinciplesthataretooabstractbreakdownwhenwecometodefiningaction.Totakeonce againthecaseofthatstudent;bywhatauthority,inthenameofwhatgoldenruleofmorality,doyouthink hecouldhavedecided,inperfectpeaceofmind,eithertoabandonhismotherortoremainwithher?There arenomeansofjudging.Thecontentisalwaysconcrete,andthereforeunpredictable;ithasalwaystobe invented.Theonethingthatcounts,istoknowwhethertheinventionismadeinthenameoffreedom. Letus,forexample,examinethetwofollowingcases,andyouwillseehowfartheyaresimilarinspiteof theirdifference.LetustakeTheMillontheFloss.WefindhereJcertainyoungwoman,MaggieTulliver, whoisanincarnationofthevalueofpassionandisawareofit.Sheisinlovewithayoungman,Stephen, whoisengagedtoanother,aninsignificantyoungwoman.ThisMaggieTulliver,insteadofheedlessly seekingherownhappiness,choosesinthenameofhumansolidaritytosacrificeherselfandtogiveupthe mansheloves.Ontheotherhand,LaSanseverinainStendhals ChartreusedeParme,believingthatitis passionwhichendowsmanwithhisrealvalue,wouldhavedeclaredthata grandpassionjustifiesitssacrifices,andmustbepreferredtothebanalityofsuchconjugalloveaswould uniteStephentothelittlegoosehewasengagedtomarry.Itisthelatterthatshewouldhavechosento sacrificeinrealisingherownhappiness,and,asStendhalshows,shewouldalsosacrificeherselfuponthe planeofpassioniflifemadethatdemanduponher.Herewearefacingtwoclearlyopposedmoralities;but Iclaimthattheyareequivalent,seeingthatinbothcasestheoverrulingaimisfreedom.Youcanimagine twoattitudeexactlysimilarineffect,inthatonegirlmightprefer,inresignation,togiveupherloverwhile theotherpreferred,infulfilmentofsexualdesire,toignorethepriorengagementofthemansheloved; and,externally,thesetwocasesmightappearthesameasthetwowehavejustcited,whilebeinginfact entirelydifferent.TheattitudeofLaSanseverinaismuchnearertothatofMaggieTulliverthantooneof

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:14

carelessgreed.Thus,yousee,thesecondobjectionisatoncetrueandfalse.Onecanchooseanything,but onlyifitisupontheplaneoffreecommitment. Thethirdobjection,statedbysaying,You takewithonehandwhatyougivewiththeother, means,at bottom, yourvaluesarenotserious,sinceyouchoosethemyourselves. TothatIcanonlysaythatIam verysorrythatitshouldbeso;butifIhaveexcludedGodtheFather,theremustbesomebodytoinvent values.Wehavetotakethingsastheyare.Andmoreover,tosaythatweinventvaluesmeansneithermore norlessthanthis;thatthereisnosenseinlifeapriori.Lifeisnothinguntilitislived;butitisyoursto makesenseof,andthevalueofitisnothingelsebutthesensethatyouchoose.Therefore,youcanseethat thereisapossibilityofcreatingahumancommunity.Ihavebeenreproachedforsuggestingthat existentialismisaformofhumanism:peoplehavesaidtome,But youhavewritteninyourNausethat thehumanistsarewrong,youhaveevenridiculedacertaintypeofhumanism,whydoyounowgoback uponthat? Inreality,thewordhumanismhastwoverydifferentmeanings.Onemayunderstandby humanismatheorywhichupholdsmanastheend initselfandasthesupremevalue.Humanisminthis senseappears,forinstance,inCocteau sstoryRoundtheWorldin80Hours,inwhichoneofthe charactersdeclares,becauseheisflyingovermountainsinanairplane, Manismagnificent! This signifiesthatalthoughI,personallyhavenotbuiltaeroplanesIhavethebenefitofthoseparticular inventionsandthatIpersonally,beingaman,canconsidermyselfresponsiblefor,andhonouredby, achievementsthatarepeculiartosomemen.Itistoassumethatwecanascribevaluetomanaccordingto themostdistinguisheddeedsofcertainmen.Thatkindofhumanismisabsurd,foronlythedogorthe horsewouldbeinapositiontopronounceageneraljudgmentuponmananddeclarethatheis magnificent,whichtheyhaveneverbeensuchfoolsastodo atleast,notasfarasIknow.Butneitheris itadmissiblethatamanshouldpronouncejudgmentuponMan.Existentialismdispenseswithany judgmentofthissort:anexistentialistwillnevertakemanastheend,sincemanisstilltobedetermined. Andwehavenorighttobelievethathumanityissomethingtowhichwecouldsetupacult,afterthe mannerofAugusteComte.ThecultofhumanityendsinComtianhumanism,shut inuponitself,and thismustbesaid inFascism.Wedonotwantahumanismlikethat. Butthereisanothersenseoftheword,ofwhichthefundamentalmeaningisthis:Manisallthetime outsideofhimself:itisinprojectingandlosinghimselfbeyondhimselfthathemakesmantoexist;and, ontheotherband,itisbypursuingtranscendentaimsthathehimselfisabletoexist.Sincemanisthus selfsurpassing,andcangraspobjectsonlyinrelationtohisselfsurpassing,heishimselftheheartand centerofhistranscendence.Thereisnootheruniverseexceptthehumanuniverse,theuniverseofhuman subjectivity.Thisrelationoftranscendenceasconstitutiveofman(notinthesensethatGodis transcendent,butinthesenseofselfsurpassing)withsubjectivity(insuchasensethatmanisnotshutup inhimselfbutforeverpresentinahumanuniverse) itisthisthatwecallexistentialhumanism.Thisis humanism,becauseweremindmanthatthereisnolegislatorbuthimself;thathehimself,thusabandoned, mustdecideforhimself;alsobecauseweshowthatitisnotbyturningbackuponhimself,butalwaysby seeking,beyondhimself,anaimwhichisoneofliberationorofsomeparticularrealisation,thatmancan realizehimselfastrulyhuman. Youcanseefromthesefewreflectionsthatnothingcouldbemoreunjustthantheobjectionspeopleraise againstus.Existentialismisnothingelsebutanattempttodrawthefullconclusionsfromaconsistently atheisticposition.Itsintentionisnotintheleastthatofplungingmenintodespair.Andifbydespairone meansastheChristiansdo anyattitudeofunbelief,thedespairoftheexistentialistsissomething

SartreExistentialismisaHumanismpage:15

different.Existentialismisnotatheistinthesensethatitwouldexhaustitselfindemonstrationsofthenon existenceofGod.Itdeclares,rather,thatevenifGodexistedthatwouldmakenodifferencefromitspoint ofview.NotthatwebelieveGoddoesexist,butwethinkthattherealproblemisnotthatofHisexistence; whatmanneedsistofindhimselfagainandtounderstandthatnothingcansavehimfromhimself,not evenavalidproofoftheexistenceofGod.Inthissenseexistentialismisoptimistic.Itisadoctrineof action,anditisonlybyselfdeception,byconfiningtheirowndespairwithoursthatChristianscan describeusaswithouthope.