~Man is what he makes of himself~. Review on Existentialism is a Humanism - Jean Paul Sartre

What is Existentialism? Is it some “higher” obligatory word and by using it, you indefinitely get included into the league of sophisticated misfits and eccentric geniuses. Much closer still, is it a chic magnet – for existential reasoning can account for the number of chics that you have been hatching under the cozy comforts of your bed? Is it (and will be) a behemoth that actually cannot be deciphered, but the mere use of it can make you feel better about yourself, that finally, you now know a word that you couldn’t care less about, but you use it because it is “cool” without being crude, vulgar or sexually explicit?

Unfortunately, I will have to disappoint anyone who was banking on any of the above options. Funnily enough, it is associated with one of the basic level of philosophical questioning – meaning of life and existence of man! Yes, yes, I know what you’re thinking. It makes for a lot of “armchair reconnaissance” and no actual prerogative. The conclusions that one can draw only lead to never-ending bleakness and futility of existence with no real incentive. However, that is where you’d be very, very wrong.

In his essay, Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre (of the 1940s, if I may add – the youthful exuberant), very patiently dissects and defends existentialism. In doing this, he takes the reader on a journey explaining the crux of the philosophy and why it is one of the most optimistic philosophies coined.

Sartre defends against three major criticisms:

Existentialism is inviting despair. There is no solution, only contemplation. Thus it is more of an “armchair philosophy” with musings of a person, rather than any application. Existentialists fail to see the bright side of human life, always pointing out the ignominious in the human situation, neglecting beauty and charm. Existentialism proposes anarchy, rejecting that values are eternal, but voluntary instead. Since everyone can do what he/she likes, she will be no responsibility for action.

Sartre clearly defines what it means to be an Existentialist. First of all, he clearly differentiates between two streams – religious (Christian, specifically) and atheist. Sartre claims to be the latter. He goes on to explain the basis of the philosophy – “Existence precedes essence”. For eg: a paper knife is manufactured in a factory. Its purpose is simply to cut paper. Thus its essence that would define its existence would be – paper cutting. That would be its role in existence. However, considering one of them is faulty, then what? That one CANNOT fulfill its purpose, but still it exists! Man, on the other hand, is a more complex creature. Whereas, we know the origin of the existence of paper knife (factory), it’s not that simple with man. But continuing with the same preposition and applying it to man – what is man’s purpose? If it is to have a family/biologically reproduce, then there are still people who are not fulfilling their purpose and existing (and doing well too).

Thus, it becomes more plausible to assume that existence precedes essence simply because of the fact that you exist. Atheistic existentialism claims that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards. Man is not definable, because to begin with, he is nothing (the idea expanded with more fervor in Being and Nothingness). MAN IS NOTHING ELSE BUT THAT WHICH HE MAKES OF HIMSELF.Sartre clearly and forcefully gets his principle across in bold letters. Thus, man is first of all aware that he has a future to work towards, then work towards it, and then the future defines the man. My English teacher grabbed this principle and made sure I was clear on it if I was to continue with Existentialism: “The meaning of life is what you make of it”. This is the defining moment of existentialism.

Therefore, if man makes himself, then he is undoubtedly, responsible for his own actions. This is the “despair” of existentialism – every man‘s responsibility of his actions is put on his shoulders. Not only that, when a man makes a choice, he is not making an individual choice for himself, but he is making a choice on behalf of all mankind. He is envisioning the “ideal man’s” actions and in his view, this is what a man should do in a particular situation. Thus he creates the image of a man as he ought to be. For eg: marriage. If I decide to marry, then I am envisioning the ideal man as a married man. This does not mean that all men will marry, but in my mind, an “ideal man” whom I envision to be perfect, will.

Sartre goes on to explain “despair” and anguish. When a man commits to anything, deciding not only for him but for all mankind, the burden of responsibility (that whether or not he has made the right decision) overwhelms him and he tries to fight or flee it. It is similar to “cold feet” in marriage but not in the light a context. The question which arises from this anguish is: “Who, then, can prove that I am the proper person to impose, by my own choice, my conception of man upon mankind?”

It is like Big Brother/Big Boss on a global scale. At every step, man feels judged for his actions. It is more of the anguish resulting from responsibilities. Sartre uses the example of a military general who takes the responsibility of lives lost during war. No doubt, the orders maybe from above, but the general “interpreted” them as attack and he alone chose to send the men to fight. He had the choice of refusal but he didn’t, for fear of social pressure. Thus, at every step, we make choices. Not doing anything is still a choice!

CONTINUED...