JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing JeanPaul_Sartre_JeanPaul_Sartre_Basic_Writing

13.07.2015 Views

Existentialism45that humanity is something to which we could set up a cult, after the manner ofAuguste Comte. The cult of humanity ends in Comtian humanism, shut-in upon itself,and—this must be said—in Fascism. We do not want a humanism like that.But there is another sense of the word, of which the fundamental meaning is this:Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyondhimself that he makes man to exist: and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendentaims that he himself is able to exist. Since man is thus self-surpassing, and can graspobjects only in relation to his self-surpassing, he is himself the heart and centre of histranscendence. There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe ofhuman subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of man (not in thesense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of self-surpassing) with subjectivity(in such a sense that man is not shut up in himself but forever present in a humanuniverse)—it is this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because weremind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned,must decide for himself; also because we show that it is not by turning back uponhimself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim which is one of liberation or ofsome particular realisation, that man can realise himself as truly human.You can see from these few reflections that nothing could be more unjust than theobjections people raise against us. Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt todraw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not inthe least that of plunging men into despair. And if by despair one means—as theChristians do—any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the existentialists is somethingdifferent. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself indemonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if Godexisted that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe Goddoes exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what manneeds is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him fromhimself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism isoptimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confusingtheir own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.DiscussionQuestionerI do not know whether this attempt to make yourself understood will make you betterunderstood, or less so; but I think that the explanation in Action will only make people

46Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writingsmisunderstand you more. The words “despair” and “abandonment” have a muchwider resonance in an existential context. And it seems to me that despair or anguishmeans, to you, something more fundamental than the responsibility of the man whofeels he is alone and has to make decisions. It is a state of consciousness of the humanpredicament which does not arise all the time. That one is choosing whom one is to be,is admitted, but anguish and despair do not appear concurrently.M. SartreObviously I do not mean that whenever I choose between a millefeuille and a chocolateéclair, I choose in anguish. Anguish is constant in this sense—that my original choiceis something constant. Indeed, this anguish is, in my view, the complete absence ofjustification at the same time as one is responsible in regard to everyone.QuestionerI was alluding to the point of view of the explanation published in Action, in which itseemed to me that your own point of view was somewhat weakened.M. SartreFrankly it is possible that my themes have been rather weakened in Action. It oftenhappens that people who come and put questions to me are not qualified to do so. I amthen presented with two alternatives, that of refusing to answer or that of acceptingdiscussion upon the level of popularisation. I have chosen the latter because, after all,when one expounds theories in a class of philosophy one consents to some weakeningof an idea in order to make it understood, and it is not such a bad thing to do. If one hasa theory of commitment one must commit oneself to see it through. If in truth existentialphilosophy is above all a philosophy which says that existence precedes essence, itmust be lived to be really sincere; and to live as an existentialist is to consent to pay forthis teaching, not to put it into books. If you want this philosophy to he indeed acommitment, you have to render some account of it to people who discuss it upon thepolitical or the moral plane.You reproach me for using the word “humanism.” I do so because that is how theproblem presents itself. One must either keep the doctrine strictly to the philosophicplane and rely upon chance for any action upon it, or else, seeing that people demand

Existentialism45that humanity is something to which we could set up a cult, after the manner ofAuguste Comte. The cult of humanity ends in Comtian humanism, shut-in upon itself,and—this must be said—in Fascism. We do not want a humanism like that.But there is another sense of the word, of which the fundamental meaning is this:Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyondhimself that he makes man to exist: and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendentaims that he himself is able to exist. Since man is thus self-surpassing, and can graspobjects only in relation to his self-surpassing, he is himself the heart and centre of histranscendence. There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe ofhuman subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of man (not in thesense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of self-surpassing) with subjectivity(in such a sense that man is not shut up in himself but forever present in a humanuniverse)—it is this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because weremind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned,must decide for himself; also because we show that it is not by turning back uponhimself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim which is one of liberation or ofsome particular realisation, that man can realise himself as truly human.You can see from these few reflections that nothing could be more unjust than theobjections people raise against us. Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt todraw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Its intention is not inthe least that of plunging men into despair. And if by despair one means—as theChristians do—any attitude of unbelief, the despair of the existentialists is somethingdifferent. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself indemonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if Godexisted that would make no difference from its point of view. Not that we believe Goddoes exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what manneeds is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him fromhimself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism isoptimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it is only by self-deception, by confusingtheir own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without hope.DiscussionQuestionerI do not know whether this attempt to make yourself understood will make you betterunderstood, or less so; but I think that the explanation in Action will only make people

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!