Existentialism and Humanism

Existentialism and Humanism is a work of the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, published in 1946. In this work he puts his philosophical position, namely existentialism, explain and defend it against various accusations.

Contents

 * 1 Context
 * 2 Contents
 * 3 Put in the work of Sartre
 * 4 Comments
 * 5 External links
 * 6 Footnotes

Context
On October 29, 1945, Sartre spoke evening at the Club Maintenant in Paris; here and there were the posters made in Paris by a lot of publicity because the organizers were expecting little audience. The title of this speech, Existentialism is a Humanism, was deliberately chosen; existentialism had no reputation to be humanistic, and in La NauséeSartre had his protagonist a long tirade given against all forms of humanism in the mouth. But what happened that night stunned everyone: the flood was so extremely high that no more tickets could be sold, the makeshift desk was overturned; it took fifteen minutes before Sartre himself could reach the entrance of the packed, broiling hot room. In the heat and the crowds of people were faint. After Sartre had finished, it was no longer possible, as planned, to answer questions from the audience. From the next day called Sartre was impossible to imagine from the newspapers, everyone was talking about this event, and Sartre was famous. In his L'Ecume des jours (1947) has Boris Viandescribed this event parodying.

Four days earlier had Sartre same lecture held in Brussels; the published text (February 1946) [1] mentions a third time Sartre spoke in a calmer environment where opponents have had the opportunity to ask questions. Originally published this text are not intended [2] .

[Contents edit ]
In the form of a defense of existentialism against certain recurring blame [3] gives Existentialism and Humanism a concise and clear summary of Sartre's atheistic existentialism. He begins with the thesis became famous: the existence precedes essence (L'existence Precede l'essence). Where traditionally from a human nature was thought, whether by God created, Sartre says that such a view only applies to objects, not people. Only in his act defines a human being, there is not a prior model or definition of what is human. Only afterwards can conclude what has become a man.

The man is completely free to make these choices. It carries with it the responsibility that every man for his choices (and acts). But not only that: the man is also responsible for all mankind. This is because we always create an image of man in our choices as we think he should be. Our choice is always implicitly a positive value judgment (we can only choose what we feel good). A man should always ask his choices: What would happen if everyone did this? It is this responsibility that results in anxiety.

An existentialist regrets the non-existence of God because without God man is abandoned (délaissement), nothing is a priori "good," the man has nothing to hold onto. And secondly, there are no excuses available;we act in complete freedom; Man is condemned to be free (sentenced, after all, we did not create ourselves).

When it comes to making concrete choices, it is not sufficient any morals. They are all too general to be directly applied in everyday life. There is no guiding principle; only after the act one can observe chosen. And here Sartre makes a comparison with a work of art: like beforehand can not say what is going to be a work of art, as well as our actions. Only in retrospect can be seen in the artwork which aesthetic values ​​in it; but can never be pre-defined values, which must sit in an artwork. Similarly with the act of the human being.

Existentialism is therefore a philosophy of action. Existentialism sharpens man in that only action counts (and not all kinds of dream or failed plans). It is therefore inappropriate to blame existentialism pessimism. This is done by people who objected to characters in Sartre's novels. But these people, says Sartre, have no problem with the books of Emile Zola, in which all kinds of 'bad guys' performance. Why is that? Since Zola so suggests that his characters victim of hereditary components that "explain" their behavior. That's reassuring, there is an excuse. In Sartre's novels is a coward simply guilty of cowardice. So Existentialism is confronting, but also optimistic man has his own destiny completely in your hands.

Existentialism is based on the Cartesian cogito . The man reached into his own consciousness, which is the first "truth." But according to Sartre, man discovers in the cogito also direct the others. The others are the prerequisite for our existence as "something" (they are qualified): only in the judgment of the others we are something definite. Reproaches of solipsism are therefore refuted. And because everyone is free to choose, one can (for example) to join a party or community, and as "solidarity."

Existentialism can express value judgments, namely whether or not there mauvaise foi (bad faith, self-deception) is in play. This is not a moral value judgment, but a value judgment. Mauvaise foi means that someone wrongly hiding behind an excuse, and denies his full freedom.

In fact, Sartre concludes, atheistic existentialism does nothing but draw the consequences of a coherent atheistic worldview.

[Insert in the work of Sartre edit ]
In 1945, Sartre had his philosophical main work Being and Nothingness published, and Existentialism and Humanism is not a text in which Sartre pioneered. It is rather a large audience in a targeted summary of his views as an atheistic existentialist. Sartre was in this period not busy Marxism integrating with his existentialist views.

The wide distribution of this text (who knew 18 languages) certainly contributed to the popularization of the concept of existentialism. Sartre here was not entirely happy about it afterwards [4] . According to his publisher Louis Nagel publication of this text Sartre extracted from the small circle of vakfilosofen and made ​​him the public figure Sartre [5] .

[Comments edit ]
An important work in response to this book by Sartre can be considered is the Letter über den Humanismus (1949) by Martin Heidegger . [6] Sartre was himself in his work greatly influenced by texts by Heidegger asBeing and Time (1927) and Was ist Metaphysik? (1929). In these works put Heidegger analysis of man (insofar as he understands his) or the Dasein apart. These analyzes seem at first sight very similar to Sartres descriptions of the human being. Sartre puts Heidegger also effective in existentialism, and more concretely in the atheistic variant.

Heidegger, however, dissociates himself from the works of Sartre and the existentialist label. It is Heidegger not an anthropology to do. It runs for Heidegger to his and not being . Sartre used for themselves or contact the term existentialism, but removes itself from the position taken in Being and Time. [7]

Specifically, Heidegger also criticizes Sartre's formulation l'existence Precede l'essence. Sartre Heidegger the traditional relationship of essence and existence be reversed, but it remains stuck within the traditional framework of metaphysics, which Heidegger just wants to rise. [8] The humanism of Sartre represents Heidegger even in a tradition that is inherently metaphysical. Within humanism man still gets assigned a essence, that of "rational animal". That is also true in Sartre, Heidegger says: this is apparent from Sartre strongly Descartes 'inspired descriptions of the man as a (pure) consciousness or pure subjectivity.