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
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
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
“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
[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
[6] J.-P Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, translated by Philip Mairet, Methuen London,
1948
No comments:
Post a Comment