Friday, December 28, 2012

John-Paul Sartre




 The existentialist thought of John-Paul Sartre was perhaps a result of the apparent failure of the enlightenment to deliver the progress so optimistically envisaged by the modernist movement. It was in the aftermath of World War II so soon after the first Great War that the mood of modern culture was becoming more sceptical, pessimistic and, conceivably, seeking answers to questions that could not be adequately answered by the empiricist, rational way of thinking that had been pervasive and still largely self-assured up until that time. Many saw these events as a consequence of rationalist ways of looking at the world. Totalitarian and absolutist explanations were regarded with the suspicion that these were merely ways a hierarchical structure exerted domination and control of the masses. It was within this ambiance that Sartre’s thoughts crystallized and was the catalyst for the popularisation of the existential movement. 

Imposing the stamp of “human nature” upon people was to deny (according to Sartre) the innate capacity for freedom and individuality of people. With Sartre’s idea of freedom from, or freedom to become, came the anguish of the thought “what shall I choose to be?” Having rejected all the prescriptive terms of naturalist determinism and traditional ethics, Sartre’s aim was to live the “authentic life” by choosing to create ones own identity and for which he must recognize his responsibility and by which he may justify his existence. Echoed in this thought is the statement of the Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard when he said, “the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die”.[1]
Sartre’s self-isolation and extreme individualism tend towards a sort of social entropy and relativism. How can there be a sense of community and order if all individuals see only their “own” reality? Freedom is idolized in Sartre and the effects of this thinking might well be epitomized in the hippie era of the sixties and seventies, which was marked, incidentally, by a slavish regard to the here and now, self-gratification and non-conformity (conformity of another kind!). He rejects absolute rationalism as the basis for philosophy and puts himself firmly in the romantic/sceptic camp.

The strength of his argument lies both in his rejection of absolute certainty (the fortress of empiricism) and his sense of individuality, freedom and responsibility by which he justifies his existence. To Sartre the “authentic” personality is the only aim in life that could, with any cohesion, dispel the angst that befalls those who live in “bad faith” In other words he might well be speaking against the self deception of hypocrisy, the conflict between the everyday needs and the deeper need to be true to your real identity. Paul Le Tournier speaks of the personage and the person. The former is the public identity we are known by, how we appear in our day-to-day life, and the latter is who we really want to be, the identity we are seeking to become; and this would correspond to Sartre’s authentic life. This corresponds closely with the Christian idea of a God-given identity or destiny/calling, the only obvious difference being that for Sartre it was something chosen by the individual himself but in the Christian, (though it remains true that it is his own personal, deep desire) he/she recognizes the giftedness of both the identity and the deep desire to reconcile the conflict between what we are now and what we wish to be. Sartre’s idea of success in the “authenticity” of our life in this light may be seen as not contradictory to the apprehension of a “heavenly calling” and the Christian idea of perfection.

By rejecting the fatalistic idea that humankind is largely like any other animal species with a pre-determined nature and instincts Sartre actually supports the idea (unintentionally) of a transcendent possibility. There is very real and widespread substantiation of humankind’s ability to transcend not only the bounds of his animality but also the narrow confines of his intellect leading to the admission of a creative, spiritual dimension to his being. It is to this freedom and choice that the philosophy of Sartre and the romantic/existentialists point.
The weakness of his thought lies in the complete absence of recognition of any knowledge outside of himself or rather, outside of his own subjectivity. Revelation, to Sartre, is a term without meaning. Like John Locke and Descartes he starts with the certainty of his own existence, but unlike them he pays no tribute to any sort of order or cohesion, the universe is entirely contingent. “Life is” Sartre might well say in the common idiom, “what you make it”, lived in a vacuum that we have the burden of filling, and, since there is no universal ethic, a completely arbitrary filling.
And it is precisely that thought that ultimately is the source of anxiety. “What shall I make it?” If the highest attainment of life can have no more value attached to it other than our own arbitrary self-chosen, self-determined ethic then why bother? It is only in the value system universally accepted and outside of ourselves that we find our deepest fulfilment, perhaps because we know deep down it is not merely arbitrary, and because this satisfies our deep sense of being in community, the shadow of a higher existence.

In steering clear of the Fortress of Rationalism to reach Port Freedom, Sartre has foundered upon the rock of Relativism and Meaninglessness. What point is there in this exaltation of freedom when this freedom finds no joy in its choices?

To someone who has imbibed deeply the spirit of rationalism, the thoughts of Sartre, (or to be more accurate, existential thought) is perplexing, even absurd. (At least this had been my experience initially) Take for example the story told in the book “A Shattered Visage”, by Ravi Zacharias[2]: ‘All this is reminiscent of the student at New York University who intimidatingly asked the question of his professor, “Sir, how do I know that I exist?” A lingering pause preceded the professor’s answer. He lowered his glasses, peered over the rim, and riveted his eyes on the student. His simple response finally came, “ And whom shall I say is asking?”
Fortunately or otherwise, some things in life are just undeniable.’  

Or as J.K. Chesterton writes, in his book Orthodoxy[3]:
Considered as a figure, therefore, the materialist has the fantastic outline of the figure of the madman. Both take up a position at once unanswerable and intolerable.
        Of course it is not only of the materialist that all this is true. The same would apply to the other extreme of speculative logic. There is a Sceptic far more terrible than he who believes that everything began in matter. It is possible to meet the sceptic who believes that everything began in himself. He doubts not the existence of angels or devils, but the existence of men and cows. For him his own friends are a mythology made up by himself. He created his own father and mother. This horrible fancy has in it something decidedly attractive to the somewhat mystical egoism of our day.’

However, in all seriousness, the redeeming feature of Sartre’s work is the persistent reference to human freedom. In his book “The Adventure of Living”[4] Paul Le Tournier makes repeated reference to freedom and Jean Paul Sartre and others like him. He refers to Professor Arthur Jores of Hamburg with regard to human illness, the fundamental need for fulfilment in contrast to animals. “The animal, impelled by instinct, cannot fail to fulfil itself. But in the case of man, the price of his liberty is that he can spoil his life and fail to fulfil himself. The frequent result is that he falls ill, not only psychically but organically.” Seen in these words is the scary thought that there is reality in the premise that we are a result of our choices. In the chapter on “The Psychology of Failure” is a direct quote from Sartre[5]. ‘This is what Sartre maintains when he “accuses failure of being a free choice of failure”’. I.e., that our freedom is so innate that even our failures are engineered by our own choice albeit at a less conscious level. “Where” (says Tournier) “is the frontier between success and failure?……What can we take as the criterion of success?……we are condemned to choosing it ourselves, arbitrarily as Sartre maintains.”[6] This is perhaps the Achilles heel of the whole argument. The need for fulfilment and success is a part of the human condition, but if that is so then there follows a reasonable conclusion that maybe the goal is not as arbitrary as these thinkers suppose. Christ’s life was the epitome of success and fulfilment, particularly triumphant at the cross (though this remains largely unseen), and all as a result of his own choice and freedom; and yet paradoxically, his was a pre-determined life.

Listening to new Member of Parliament Paul Adams, who spoke in our town recently, reminds me of some interesting facets of Sartre’s philosophy. Paul Adams has been a successful businessman, sportsman and outspoken Christian ,and now newly elected M.P. and the success has perhaps carried down the line as he announced (if memory serves correctly)the nomination of his daughter as Miss New Zealand. What particularly caught my attention were these words that he spoke emphatically on that occasion: “We are a product of our choices” Apparently those who espouse an existential philosophy are often leaders in business etc.

There is merit in Sartre’s attack on rationalism. The world or life as he rightly alludes cannot be reduced to a merely rational system or natural law. Life is not lived by mathematical equation but in response to relationships both externally; with other persons, and internally with who we are on a day-to-day level and whom we really are on that deeper level in which lays our authenticity and with whom we must learn to cultivate a healthy respect. Speaking on a personal level this may well be the answer to the conundrum we label “mid-life crisis”, a profound sense of unrest and unfulfilled desire even in the face of an outwardly successful life.



Post-modernism rejects the notion knowledge brings truth and freedom, through sad experience. Knowledge is power. Subsequently knowledge loses its reputation for bringing reality and freedom, but the ideal of freedom remains. The agents of freedom and equality in the post-modern world now see hierarchy as the enemy of freedom, and because culture has instituted hierarchy, culture must be subverted, thus the anti-cultural movement known as post-modernity. Hierarchy and truth become the scapegoats for the unhappiness caused by absolutism and lastly culture also became guilty.

“Faith stands in need of reason in order to eliminate superstition. Reason stands in need of faith in order to achieve certainty.” - L.T. JEYACHANDRAN

KERRY CAMPBELL 26/05/2003











[1] The Midnight Hour p141, “A Kierkegaard Reader: text and narratives” Edited by Roger Poole and Henrik Strangerup. Fourth Estate Ltd. London 1989
[2] Ravi Zacharias, ‘A Shattered Visage’ (Hodder & Stoughton,1990)Climbing in the Mist, p116
[3] G K Chesterton, ‘Orthodoxy’ (House of Stratus, 2001) The Maniac p14
[4] Characteristics of Adventure, p88,“The Adventure of Living” by Paul Tournier. Highland Books 1983, translation by Edwin Hudson, 1966
[5] J.-P Sartre, L’Etre et le Ne`ant, Gallimard, Paris,1943
[6] J.-P Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism,  translated by Philip Mairet, Methuen London, 1948