There are 3 choices, 3 votes for Ivory Pyre's debate

Sartre's Existentialism

Ok. In Sartre's 'Existentialism and Humanism' Sartre explains how we are are 'totally free' and indeed we are 'condemned to be free,' at least within the 'human condition' and limits imposed by facticity, eg. death, illness and disability. I'm interested in knowing your feelings and thoughts on this.

• Yes... to an extent.

  I believe Sartre does have a point in expressing our freedom. He was an atheist and categorically denies the existence of God, I am also an atheist and therefore believe we are free to make our own choices

  However, I do not believe we are 'totally free' as Sartre states. He denies limits on our freedom such as 'crimes of passion' and makes no attempt to explain how human emotions impose limits on our emotions. Any further suggestions?

  Voted for by Ivory Pyre.

  View 7 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • ExistentialTheist
    July 18, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I think, in reference to this particular essay by Sartre, he might say that crimes of passion fall under what is allegedly included in what some call "human nature". I think he would categorize any denial that we are able to overcome crimes of passion as "bad faith" (as he defines the concept in Being and Nothingness). I think Sartre believes, since indeed he is an atheist, that there are fixed inclincations in any human being. As he defines every human being as a being for-itself, however, he thinks that we are capable of transcending even the seemingly most fixed acts or behaviors, and that any other interpretation is a denial of this extreme freedom, the fact that we are the only being that "is what it is not and is not what it is". I think Beauvoir, his lover in life, provides a very nice complement to this idea in Ethics of Ambiguity. If you would like to discuss her compliment let me know. I am agnostic but leaning heavily towards Christianity and always have (regardless I believe beyond a doubt in Christian ethics at least), and thus dont agree with them entirely. I think the existence of God is a prerequisite of total freedom. Where I would initially caution Beauvoir and Sartre both is that they err on the side of making us into functions, project-making machines.
  • Chessmaster
    August 10, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Ivory Pyre: Why can't crimes of passion be an expression of freedom, just like any other choice? We do, after all, choose to indulge ourselves, and by doing so sculpt our subjective image of man all the same. I simply don't see the distinction between the expression of emotions and any other human action. ExistentialTheist: Sartre would deny any concept of human nature in the first place, because existence precedes ALL essence, not just certain parts of it. But I agree that he probably would categorize the subconscious idea that we cannot overcome our emotions as bad faith. However, then the question arises over whether we actually must overcome them. But of course, Aestheticism and related philosophies comprise a different debate. And where do you get the idea that Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre are determinists? Surely nothing could be more contradicted by their sentiments.
  • ExistentialTheist
    September 4, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Did not mean to contend that they were determinists.... I agree that they are the polar opposite (or at least they purport to be, but i think this is inherently self-defeating at points in their philosophies). I agree that Sartre denied human nature to a degree but as he was compelled to concede, there is ONE characteristic that necessarily exists as human freedom: radically free choice.
  • Chessmaster
    September 11, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Well, free choice _is_ human freedom more than it is a manifestation of it.
  • ExistentialTheist
    September 13, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    well then human freedom it is....nonetheless Sartre must still at the end of the day admit that there is something necessarily existent in every human being. I do, however, think of radical choice as a human faculty, whereas I think human freedom must be viewed as a condition.
  • Chessmaster
    October 4, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    That is quite reasonable. It would probably have been more accurate to say that free choice is inextricably entwined with freedom, which probably leans more towards the manifestational aspect than anything else. Is freedom a part of a human? I think that he would not deny the "thrownness" of any humans, to use the Heideggerian term, but to classify this as part of a human seems.....not wrong, but a little off, if you know what I mean. I wouldn't call it "existent in every human being" so much as a "defining aspect of every human being." This sounds like splitting hairs, but take the example of the mind. In the philosophical sense the mind isn't "existent" in a human--it is the human. This is similar. It isn't "existent" in the human, but rather defining. Still, the point is similar for most intents and purposes.
  • ExistentialTheist
    October 8, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Understood and I agree in part... but I really still cannot get past a "defining aspect" as being at least somewhat in line with "defining nature". Any thoughts on how this might not be the case?

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: