In this paper I want to talk more about the modern era
of existentialism to expand on the work of Sartre, his long life partner Simone
de Bouvier and Camus.
For Sartre, my reference is to
what is considered his most important works, ‘Being and Nothingness’.
Although influenced by Heidegger, Sartre was highly skeptical
of his conclusions, but retained some elements evident in Being and
Nothingness.
Being and Nothingness.
Sartre, in his final ontology sums up what there really is; on the one hand ‘before itself’, is the conscious source of our meaning whilst on the other
hand ‘what it is’ so to speak, having no characteristics and which
he calls ‘in itself”.
Therefore a world can only be meaningful as ‘before itself’ gives meaning to the ‘in itself’, similar to the Kierkegaardian idea.
But the before itself represents pure
nothingness to incorporate the Heidegger influence. The way to describe
this is just a nothingness or nullity if you will or that it has no essence. However
what Sartre also posits is the ‘before itself’ by necessity, must have some
kind of content and identity to live as in itself for itself. This
contradiction of us constantly having to cope with the dizzy idea of
nothingness, yet at the same time creating a meaning for ourselves out of this
void is what Sartre illustrates starkly in the strange and dizzy images from Nausea.
But what is meant here is made much more clear. In fact the only difference to the father of existentialism, namely Kierkegaard, is that Sartre asserts you can’t get a defining
commitment. His position is that whatever we are, is so free that we constantly
redefining whatever we are. No commitment could ever be for eternity ( with GOD) or
from that perspective it is necessary for us because of that nullity. But to reiterate Sartre realises
we must have some kind of content and identity to live as ‘in itself’ ‘for
itself’.
The way Sartre gets around this idea
of a nullity and self is in the employment of a feudal passion. So he acknowledges
the self needs to have an identity, so he proposes it is this passion that
fills the void (before itself) or nullity if you will, to engage in his so
called life projects. So, for Sartre, we are in a constant state of commitment
as per each life project, Sartre acknowledges, as does Kierkegaard, we need to
get together this sense of self as otherwise we will be in state of
despair.
So that according to Sartre there is always
a real risk of continually reverting to bad faith as we are covering up this frightening
reality of a nullity by wanting to have some form of external influencer as in
a ‘other’ to give comfort and clarity to our existence. He suggests this bad
faith arises every time we place reliance on some other convention or form of
authority. In other words to allow others to make choices for us based on how
you ought to live. He doesn’t accept there is a narrative to our life or that
to find meaning to our life we need to go back to our roots. All of that kind
of thinking for Sartre is in effect bad faith.
This is a somewhat bleak assessment
in keeping with his atheistic perspective. However I don’t think it is a very good
argument for atheism inn existentialist philosophy. One could still adopt a
theistic or agonistic perspective so long as you accepted that a cause (GOD)
did not interfere or influence our freedom or to make decisions embodied in the
concept of free will. Bearing that in mind his philosophy might be described as
the secularised version of Kierkegaard.
However, this does not mean we escape
any form or responsibility. On the contrary he posits we have that responsibility
for the whole of humanity at the same time. But the question to ask is how
would you determine this?
How can you acutely assess, how your
decisions you are free to make impact on the rest of the world, so that their
freedom is not compromised?
His solution to this ethical question
was to use imagination, so that such a freedom to make choices involved a prior
responsibility to imagine the effect on humanity that should not curtail the
freedom of that ‘other’.
Albert Camus
Albert Camus followed a similar idea to posit that not
only does our life lack meaning, but it is absurd. Hence he introduced the philosophical
question of suicide. But in answering such a question he affirmed a positive
life response. Rather than contemplating suicide, his response was that the acceptance
of the existential reality of absurdity one is then totally free to create our
own meaning, free from any preconceived notions or idol worship. In other words
to rebel passionately against that absurdity so we are free to create our own
meaning and to passionately embrace each moment of life free from any
preconceived notions.
There can be no notion of
values, only that of more quantity as may be gained from the more passionate
experiences. Camus does not present any substantive
philosophical foundation to support his position other than to point out no
firm conclusions have ever been presented on metaphysics previously.
In
his book ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ is the depiction of one condemned for all
eternity to pushing a boulder up a mountain only to have it roll continually roll
back to where it was before and so on. This was to emphasize the futility and
pointlessness of his task. But Sisyphus is willingly to continue on in eternity
happily engaged in what seems a pointless task.
One
might consider the purpose of Camus in his novel was to express the idea that
confronted with the grim reality of identifying a life without meaning, we rebel
against that, but can be happy in the continuing task of living, even though it
must end in death.
Simmone de
Beauvoir.
I will
turn now to her work to talk about existentialist ethics in the context of individual
freedoms and the tensions that involves with wider societal freedoms. This tension must inevitably lead to a responsibility,
which in turn leads to an ambiguity as one seeks to incorporate the notions of
values to freedoms within existentialist philosophy.
Pyrrhus ET Cinemas
Although a
lifelong partner to Sartre, she approached the philosophical question of
ethical responsibility long before Sartre gave it more serious consideration.
Her first work was Pyrrhus
ET Cinemas in 1944.
The story begins
between Pyrrhus, who is an ancient king of Epirus, and his trusted advisor Cinemas.
But on every occasion Pyrrhus makes known his intention to conquer many lands. Cinemas asks him what he intends to do afterwards.
Pyrrhus says that he will rest once he has achieved all of his plans. Cinemas retorts,
"Why not rest right away"?
The philosophy
was written in consultation with Sartre’s ‘Being and Nothingness’. It was in
accord with his idea of freedom in an objective world in relation to the conflict
between being-for-itself and being-in-itself. But notice in Beauvoir's analysis
we have the implied ethical consideration of other free subjects in the world.
Hence, she poses
the question the external
world can be seen as a destructive reality, so it is up to individuals to
establish an ethical link which manifests itself via ethical action. That human
bond aims to mutually express the freedom of the individual, but at the same
time to encourage the freedom of fellow human beings.
However, she also
asserts
it may not always be passive because to remain a pacifist
in every respect, regardless of the impingement on the freedom of others, is in
effect bad faith.
The Ethics of Ambiguity
The Ethics of Ambiguity
(1947) is a continuum of the theme expressed in Pyrrhus. Although Beauvoir adopts mostly Sartrean
philosophical ideas, such as there is no predetermined human essence or value,
she presents the idea our human freedom is in a parallel with the need for that
freedom of others for it to be properly actualized.
In the end she
suggests in order for us to live ethically we are to assume the ambiguity as a
given, to accept the paradox, and that it involves the proposition as ‘bad
faith’. In agonizing over different perspectives she gets around the
contradiction by concluding all we can do to live authentically at the
crossroads of freedom and facticity.
Further reading
is recommended to anyone interested in her work but I think this is enough to
get the general gist of where her work is going; that is there are no clear cut
answers and that the existentialists, like all philosophy and philosophers, has
inherent weaknesses. All we can do is to take responsibility for our decisions
in the light of information known and in exercising our freedom in parallel to
the freedom of others, which are not to be compromised.
