Existentialism is Humanism

[Morty]

Jean-Paul Sartre's famous lecture on the existentialist philosophy, Existentialism is Humanism, was given in 1946 and has been published as a book. In this famous work, Sartre defends existentialism.

I agree very much with what Sartre writes- especially concerning his claim that existence comes prior to essence. He writes that God "makes man according to a procedure and a conception", ergo the essence, which then comes prior to existence. However, being a representative of atheist existentialism, there is no God or creator of mankind. Existence then, comes prior to the essence. "Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself".

If you haven't read it, I suggest you do; it's remarkable!

[Sisyphis]

I'm just about to read "Being and Nothingness", but I believe you. Imagine the restrictions that are eliminated by such a philosophy - to such an extent that we have to seriously reconsider the extent to which things that appear to be impossible for the human psyche are, in fact, not explicitly impossible. Self creation is not only possible, it is essential. This has broad and important implications.

[Morty]

I'm just about to read "Being and Nothingness", but I believe you. Imagine the restrictions that are eliminated by such a philosophy - to such an extent that we have to seriously reconsider the extent to which things that appear to be impossible for the human psyche are, in fact, not explicitly impossible. Self creation is not only possible, it is essential. This has broad and important implications.
I agree very much. Especially when one considers the role of religion and religious ethics in our history. Please let me know what you think of Being and Nothingness when you've read it! Sartre really fascinates me, I read No Exit the other day and it was incredible.

[blp]

Can you tell me more about what you liked about No Exit? I was a little disappointed by it. I've talked to a lot of people about it and we all expected the same thing - that the characters would initially not know why they were stuck in a room together and would only realise later that they were in hell.

How does it relate to your conversation elsewhere in these threads about how Christianity relates to Existentialism? Do you think Sartre was using the idea of damnation to state an Existentialist moral position or to comment on a Christian one?

This idea of existence and essence - any ideas on how this relates to Freud's idea of 'His majesty the child'? I think they could be the same thing - the idealisation of children as pure and natural being a sort of trick that stops us recognising the need to 'create' ourselves and get over, among other things perhaps, the delusion of omnipotence.

[Unregistered]

It turns out that Sartre renounced his positions in Existentialism is Humanism, in his later works, calling them untenable, and regretted that it was ever published. The probelm, of course, is that Existentialism can never be a Moral Philosophy.

[duetsolo]

I agreed with him and I respect him too.Anyway I think the existentialism between kiekergaard and Sartre is different.The existentialism is somehow developed into another.kiekergaard focous on defends for the inner world while Sartre focous on the fights for the inner world.Anyway existentialism is great and so do the two phylosiphers.
That book you talked about is the book I always want to read but I find no chance to read it.
I must read it someday.

[Maduro_Scotty]

The probelm, of course, is that Existentialism can never be a Moral Philosophy.

Oh I quite disagree. The person who is an existentialist knows that they exist, it's their obligation to find and search for their essence. The person who chooses to be an existentialist is not one who is in a comfort zone. You don't go through some simple ceremony or conduct rites and then everything is fine and dandy. Nor do you you just shrug off life's difficulties and believe that life is difficult and that is how things have always been, and then proceed to go about your day. It can be very rewarding, but the step to begin this journey is one akin to crossing the Snake river with Evil Knievel. There is no guarantee for success as apathy, angst, depression, and personal failure await to pull your rocket-bike back down.

[Nerd]

I wish I could get my hand on the original source. arr.

Anyway, I believe existentialism to be defined as a philosophy that suggests that there is no inherent good -- or inherent anything -- in life itself. We impose meaning, and it is our duty as human beings to impose meaning. You have to put something into life to get something out of it.

I was talking to a group of friends about it, and when one asked exactly what it was, another quickly replied, "Existentialism is toast." What I think he meant is that existentialism is what you make of it, which isn't exactly true. Life is what you make of it. So, life is toast. Existentialism isn't toast; no, no, that's life. (c'est la vie)

[hansjoakim]

speaking from a personal point of view: there are no inherent meaning to life. there are no objective truths, everything is relative (paradoxically, we live in a scientific paradigm that predicts that the speed of light is not relative; however, from my nihilistic perspective, such "truths" have no value), and no moral can ever demand to be taken as absolute. there are no good or evil actions; what's defined as "good" or "evil" is based upon what benefits the social machinery. who is "good" and who is "evil" is dictated by the triumphant ones (is it bush or is it bin-laden that is evil?). i'm struggling with the obvious paradox, however: as a nihilist, i believe we will never be able to achieve absolute truth (regardless of whether there exists such a thing or not). that implies that this statement is not objectively true either. in a sense it feels impossible to prove that nihilism is right, since we're never able to achieve such insight.

[Anti-Prefix]

Thank you for the recommendation. I planned to start with Sorgen or Nietzsche but I may start with Existentialism Is Humanism.

[eirefaerie]

Has anyone ever read 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern' by Tom Stoppard or seen the movie of the same title? It deals with existentialialism. The movie follows the book VERY well. It shows the essential ideas of existentialism: the idea that names are absurd and that life is meaningless. Wonderful!....

[Bandini]

I read the play years ago. I didn't know there was a film. I'll have to seek it out.

[ellis]

I just read this book last night.

It completely turned me off of Existentialism. I could not believe that Sartre would say that unsuccessful people chose to be unsuccessful (or something right along those lines.) While I agree that we are all condemned to be free and that our lives are like a blank canvas, I think that circumstance and chance play a huge role in whether people gain material success or not.

I don't know, maybe someone can defend that, but it sounded like Ayn Rand to me. I was just turned off when he said that the unsuccessful chose to be unsuccessful.



Although this book turned me off from Existentialism, it didn't turn me off from Camus. Camus was more of a thinker/moralist than he was a philosopher. I still don't see any evidence that Camus thinks that circumstance or chance don't play a role in our lives. In fact, I would argue that he does think that they play a role in our lives because all of the characters in the story or thrown around by society and other people, which I file under circumstance; being stuck with the surroundings that are around you.


While this book turned me off from Existentialism, I still like a lot of its points and thoughts. I just think that I side more with pessimism or absurdism that I do with existentialism.

[padmar]

How can an existentialist be a marxist the french are so flighty.

[katel2]

I've always thought that existence before essence meant that we are born and then we define what our nature is through our relationship with society, ourselves and the world. This means that we have to accept full responsibility for our actions because our actions originate in us and not through divine plan or because of human nature.
Of course there is all of that messy biology……..

the basic tenets of exstistentialism:

As a kind of philosophizing that emphasizes the uniqueness and freedom of the individual person against the herd, the crowd, or the mass society.
Emphasizes individual responsibility, individual personality, individual existence, and individual freedom and choice.
Existentialists hold the belief that life’s most important questions are not accessible to reason or science.
The only certainty for existentialists is death.
In the existentialist world, each person is born, lives, chooses his or her course, and creates the meaning of his or her own existence.
The basic thrust of the existentialist philosophizing is to portray the human struggle to achieve self-definition through choice.
All people are fully responsible for the meaning of their own existence and creating their own essence of self-definition.
Existentialist involvement calls for individual philosophizing about the persistent human consensus of life, love, death, and meaning.
Knowledge of existentialist originates in and is composed of what exists in an individual’s consciousness and feelings as a result of one’s experiences; the validity of knowledge is determined

I find it all fascinating... although I love the scientific method the most

[Moon Shadow]

I'm not an expert on Existentialism. All that I know about it comes from reading Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. They have opposing views which can be confusing when trying to understand Existentialism. There doesn't seem to be dogma concerning this philosophy.

[grotto]

I do like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche also. I have recently purchased Existentialism is a Humanism; I haven’t read it yet though. I have read some Sartre previously, but I have to say, I’m not a fan of his. I ended up throwing “Nausea” across the room because I felt like he droned on to no end. Yes, I got annoyed with it! Oh well, I might try again, some day.

[Taubademell]

Hi, just came accross this forum, I studied English at GCSE over here in the UK and just started A levels. My class is studying this book which I am really enjoying and I just wanted to share an opinion and more importantly here other peoples opinions.

I am no expert on Fowles by any means, nor Existentialism or the study of English literature for that matter but my views differ from many of those in my class so I thought why not post up here

Most people who I have spoken to say that Clegg is representing someone who cannot and will not find personal understanding, yet Miranda is an example of someone who through much deep thinking does find personal understanding. However, another opinion can be offered in regards to Miranda reaching personal understanding. I would personally disagree that Miranda ever actually reaches personal understanding. Miranda is a very pitiful character; however I do not think that she is an easily likeable character. She is very pretentious and manipulative person who despite the circumstances, still appears to have a rather self righteous and cold persona. Clegg uses various guises to hide his own inhibitions, although he does not realise it. For example when Miranda is on the brink of death, he decides to go make a cup of tea so that he can think things over and make himself feel better. Miranda is supposedly the deep thinking and caring person who wants to campaign against the ‘H-bomb’ and help gain donations to help fight for a cause. However this is simply what Miranda says. We very quickly decided that we could not trust Clegg as a narrator due to his sick ideas and peculiar actions. Yet we seem to conclude that Miranda is a reliable narrator and that we can trust what she says. What basis do we have to believe that she is honest and truthful?
I feel that just as Clegg will go and do some cleaning, or make a cup of tea when a situation becomes too great for him to handle, Miranda has a similar reaction towards various situations. Miranda only talks about things that she should be doing, and blames Clegg for her not being able to take part in such things, as he has her locked up. I disagree with what she says; I think this is simply a tool for herself to make her feel better, as a person. She is thinking of all the contributions that she could be making to society and this is a way of making her feel more comfortable with her lack of contribution as the blame can be pinned upon someone else, Clegg. She is saying that her imprisonment is stopping her from doing good, when she is actually uninterested in such campaigns. In this sense I do not think that she reaches what Camus and Sartre would refer to as personal understanding, as she does not accept or understand these faults in her persona.

[G L Wilson]

If Sartre had had a sense of humour, he would have been a cabbage.

[cafolini]

Made sour.

[G L Wilson]

Existentialism and Humanism is the greatest self-help book ever conceived.

[Winifred]

Existentialism and Humanism is the greatest self-help book ever conceived.

Available here, in English: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

why do you like it so much, GL (may I call you GL?)?

[G L Wilson]

Available here, in English: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

why do you like it so much, GL (may I call you GL?)?

You know where Sartre is coming from with this book.

Winifred, of course, you can call me GL.

[cafolini]

For ex-ist to precede being (esse) it would have to be written ist-ex. Sartre was a very poor philologist. Ex-ist cannot make sense in his context. I don't know how many would grasp this but it doesn't matter. What matters is the birth of ex-istence in classical latin.

[G L Wilson]

Existence precedes essence. How much can we know ourselves? Are we responsible for our actions only as an afterthought? Is man not innocent, then found guilty? Is man not a rogue animal who roams the world doing damage only to regret the damage afterwards? Is not man always in damage control? "Man simply is," but man is not God.

[cafolini]

Existence precedes essence. How much can we know ourselves? Are we responsible for our actions only as an afterthought? Is man not innocent, then found guilty? Is man not a rogue animal who roams the world doing damage only to regret the damage afterwards? Is not man always in damage control? "Man simply is," but man is not God.

If god didn't exist, we would have to invent it. ~ Voltaire

[cafolini]

speaking from a personal point of view: there are no inherent meaning to life. there are no objective truths, everything is relative (paradoxically, we live in a scientific paradigm that predicts that the speed of light is not relative; however, from my nihilistic perspective, such "truths" have no value), and no moral can ever demand to be taken as absolute. there are no good or evil actions; what's defined as "good" or "evil" is based upon what benefits the social machinery. who is "good" and who is "evil" is dictated by the triumphant ones (is it bush or is it bin-laden that is evil?). i'm struggling with the obvious paradox, however: as a nihilist, i believe we will never be able to achieve absolute truth (regardless of whether there exists such a thing or not). that implies that this statement is not objectively true either. in a sense it feels impossible to prove that nihilism is right, since we're never able to achieve such insight.

There are objective truths, although most, unfortunately, come out as muzzle velocity.

[G L Wilson]

If god didn't exist, we would have to invent it. ~ Voltaire

Sartre teaches that we need not invent gods for us to be moral or just.