I Am, Therefore I Think

I Am, Therefore I Think

Over time two extreme sides have formed over the argument of whether or not there is ‘free will’. On one side there are the determinists, and certain psychologists, such as Freud, who argue that either through our past, the physical world, or through the power of a greater being, our actions are determined for us. On the other side there is the libertarians and existentialists, notably the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who argue that it is we alone who are responsible for our actions. Both sides manage to give their answers somewhat grim undertones. If determinism is correct, than we are not responsible for any of our actions, and in fact, have no control over them. If libertarianism, and Sartre’s existentialism in particular, are correct, than we are entirely responsible for how our lives turn out. No matter what background precedes our actions, it is we who must take responsibility for these actions, an idea some may detest. Although his ideas are somewhat extreme in nature and undermine the influence the environment can have on us, the ideas of Jean-Paul’s philosophy do have merit to them all the same. They manage to reassure us that it is in the end we who have control over our lives, and help show what this freedom of ours truly means.

A central concept to Sartre’s philosophy, and existentialism as a whole, is the idea that “existence precedes essence.”[1] By essence he means the overall nature of something, what it does. An example of “essence precedes existence” would be if someone was intending to create a robot.[2] Now, when designing this robot, they would have an idea of its appearance and its overall function, or its program. This is the case for most things. All objects made by man, nature, and even, says Sartre, all animals, have an essential nature to them that defines them and determines how they act.[3] A pencil’s purpose is to write, for it is a ‘being-in-itself’, an object with its own contained essence.[4] Sartre believes however that human consciousness, a ‘being-for-itself’, is ‘empty’.[5] We are brought into the world without an essence that essentially defines us. This is what sets us as humans apart from everything else.

A religious man would believe that there is a design to humanity that ultimately determines the way we should act. This design comes from a higher being, ‘God’. Sartre, however, says there is no God, and as such there is no design for us to follow.[6] This is an essential idea to his existentialism. He says there is no such thing as human nature. We, unlike other animals, are not driven in our acts by instincts. Although we may have drives, such as to have sex, or to eat, we can choose not to do them.[7] Due to the fact we don’t have any true ‘essence’ to follow, Sartre believes it is up to us to develop our own essence and so to create ourselves.

Now, there are elements to our lives that we can not control.[8] We can not control our birthplace, our race, and our parents. We can not even control certain biological characteristics that may affect us, such as being born physically disabled. However, we can decide how to react to these elements. While one person born blind may take that as a sign that they will never be able to read, another may simply take it as a challenge to overcome, and would learn to read Braille. There is no true transcending meaning to the elements of our lives; it is we alone who must decide their meanings and choose what to do with them.

From this, Sartre says it can be seen that every human has a huge responsibility. He believes we alone must choose how to react to every situation. This idea that we are responsible for every decision we make creates ‘anguish’[9] within us, an anguish that we attempt to escape through ‘bad faith’.[10] By acting in bad faith, Sartre believes we attempt to deny our very own freedom. We try to act like we are a ‘being-in-itself’, an object incapable of making its own decisions. We do this mainly by role-playing, by enforcing a role on ourselves that limits our choices and objectifies us. For instance, an example would be a police officer who finds out that a family member of his committed a crime. He, unsure how to react to this situation, arrests his family member, claiming that it is his job as an officer to uphold the law. He acts like that is his only decision, when there are in fact alternatives to choose. He can choose to help his family member, or even turn a blind eye. Instead, he denies his own freedom to choose, he simply uses his role to create a choice for him.

The only fault to be found Sartre’s ideas is he does not truly know where to draw the line on the power of our free will. Traumatic events definitely shape us. Although our reactions to these events will depend on the individual who experiences them, it is wrong to assume that the experience itself does not shape us. As well, if Sartre’s claims of complete free will are to be taken as true that would mean that the society we grow up in should not impact us. When growing up under a certain culture with common beliefs, it is nearly impossible to not be effected and grow accustomed to them. If someone grows up in a town where the majority is religious, it is likely they too will become religious. To claim that individuals who do fall for this are simply in ‘bad faith’ is ignoring the effects the environment can have on a developing mind. Again, that is not to say there is no merit to Sartre’s ideas, he just does not know where to draw the line.

Now, at a glance the philosophy of Sartre may cause despair in some. His ideas of a Godless world, one where the universe is absurd and without meaning may even sound nihilistic. However, Sartre is not saying that we should simply give up on our lives. Sartre says that it is up to us to create our own meaning in our lives, and to think for ourselves as opposed to using fake ‘roles’ to think for us. His only fault in his ideas is when he denies the influence our environment can have on us. Despite the extremity to his ideas, the basics of his philosophy are ones that everyone should follow.

[1] Donald Palmer, Sartre For Beginners (Danbury: Writers and Readers, 1995), 21
[2] Palmer 22
[3] Palmer 21-25
[4] Jeremy Stangroom, James Garvey, The Great Philosophers, (London: Arcturus Publishing Limited, 2005), 145
[5] Stangroom + Garvey 145
[6] Palmer 25
[7] Palmer 26
[8] Palmer 61-63
[9] http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm “… First, what do we mean  by anguish?…”
[10] Palmer 78-86