In search of self and freedom

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.