Existentialism From SartreIn our text, Sartre, in effect, provi.docx

Existentialism: From Sartre
In our text, Sartre, in effect, provides three ways to understand
Existentialism:
“Existentialism is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the
consequences of a coherent atheistic position.”
· Atheism is Sartre’s starting point.
“There is no human nature. . . . Man is nothing else but what he
makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.”
Again, Sartre says about this claim, that it is a “given that . . .
there is no human nature for me to depend on.”
· Atheism generates the claims that no human nature exists.
“Existential philosophy is above all a philosophy that asserts
that existence precedes essence.”
· This third claims is probably the most well-known, and the
most fundamental to Existentialism. Thus, let’s add a few
points:
For Sartre, both “essence” and “existence” mean what they have
always meant in philosophy: by essence, Sartre refers to the
qualities that enable one to “define” a given X: “the ensemble
of . . . the properties which enable it [the given X] to be
defined.” By “existence” Sartre means that which is actually
present in the world: existence is “presence . . . in front of me.”
So, what is so unique about Sartre’s formula: the uniqueness
derives from Sartre’s way of relating these two traditional
concepts: traditionally the formula was: “Essence precedes
existence.” Hence, this formula radically converts the
traditional formula, the result of which, transforms the
traditional, philosophic view of the world.
To explicate his claim, Sartre introduces the manufacturing of a
paper cutter: the maker of the tool knows in advance what he or
she plans to make; he or she is aware of “what” a paper cutter
is; he or she knows the “essence” of a paper cutter, thus, the
“essence” of the paper cutter precedes its “existence.” Hence,
the one who designs the object is the one who knows best the

essence or nature of the thing being made.
Now, let’s relate this to the first two formulas above: the
traditional religious view of the world posits God as the
designer of the human being and, because there is a designer,
the thing being designed must possess an “essence,” one that
precedes its “existence.” Thus, note the following three points:
· “What is meant here by saying that existence precedes
essence? It means that, first, man exists and only afterwards,
defines himself.”
· “Man . . . is indefinable.” Thus, the definition of the person
“remains forever open.”
· “There is no human nature.” Hence, the claim that no human
nature exists follows from the rejection of God’s existence:
“There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive
it.”
So, let’s now ask: What, then, is the human being? Sartre: “At
first, he is nothing.” And, later? Later, the person is “nothing
else but what he makes himself.” Hence, human beings invent
themselves without the benefit of any pre-given design. And,
here, we encounter a key notion in Sartre: freedom. Yet, this
freedom is not the sort associated with liberal politics, but is,
instead, a freedom “from” any sort of pre-determined essence,
hence, Sartre’s freedom opens an abyss of nothingness out of
which emerge the experiences of:
· Forlornness: “We are alone, with no excuses.” And
“forlornness implies that we ourselves choose our being.”
· Anguish: “Forlornness and anguish go together.”
· Despair: “The term has a very simple meaning. It means that
we shall confine ourselves to reckoning only with what depends
on our will.” And, “to say that we invent values means nothing
else but this: life has no meaning a priori.”
Now, with all of this in place, let’s step back and note a few
additional points:
· The rejection of God is akin to a rejection of any sort of
philosophical system. Why? Because philosophical systems are

abstract, while existence is concrete. The horse I ride is the
only real, existing horse, not the abstract, universal horse.
· Abstraction does not, as a rule, correspond to reality –
abstraction “resides” in the other world. Yet, only in the
abstract do concepts exist and philosophical systems are
constituted by concepts which leads to the claim that
Existentialism is tragic; it can’t make arguments; it must both
be abstract and concrete. We reason with concepts, but concepts
do not exist in reality.
· Philosophical systems, as a rule, generate truth in advance of
the system. Hence, the choice of concepts utilized by a given
system are not generated from an argument; they are chosen in
advance: reasoning, then, serves only to justify a previous
choice.
Three Fundamental Characteristics
· Self-Consciousness
· Self-Interpretation
· World-Interpretation
Chapter 1: Value Orientation
What is a value?
A value might also be called an “ideal.” An ideal or value is
that which gives one’s life its model of success. It, therefore,
provides the activities of a life with purpose, unity, truth, and
hence meaning.
PUT in Triad
· As noted by our author, Aristotle long ago declared that the
ordinary person considered the good life to consist of physical
pleasure, wealth, or honor.
· Later, Spinoza reaffirmed Aristotle’s claim except he used the
word “fame” in place of honor.
Many philosophers endorse this description of the ordinary
person’s values. Yet, many have denounced these values and
have sought to substitute for them a mode of life that overcomes
the frustrations that tend to accompany the pursuit of such
values.
· The Existentialists, generally, endorse the above. Yet, they

tend to focus their attention upon certain values that both the
ordinary person and the traditional philosophers overlook.
Traditional Philosophy
Within the framework of traditional, Western philosophy, the
pursuit of the values of the ordinary person have been
condemned in three ways:
· First is the claim that the values pursued: wealth, honor, fame
depend too much on external circumstances beyond the reach of
the individual’s will. These external circumstances might
interfere at any moment with the individual’s pursuit of his or
her ideals.
· Second is the claim that even if the individual does obtain
these ideals, he or she can’t be secure that these values will
remain.
· Third is the claim that even if the individual did obtain these
values he or she would soon be dissatisfied and would then
revert to a life of painful striving. The values of the ordinary
person are values that bring brief satisfaction.
Within the framework of traditional, Western philosophy, the
means to free oneself from the ordinary person’s values consists
of the Stoics, the Enlightenment, the Eternal.
The Stoics
· The Stoics advocated, somewhat like Buddhists, a renunciation
of the desires that move the ordinary person to pursue the
values of wealth, honor, and fame.
Epictetus: “Seek not that the things which happen should
happen as you wish; but wish the things which happen to be as
they are, and you will have a tranquil flow of life” (p. 4).
· The Stoics were pessimistic about what a person could achieve
in the world, but they were optimistic about what a person could
achieve within himself or herself. Their aim was a radical mode
of independence through the self-discipline of the will.
The Enlightenment
· The Enlightenment thinkers may have agreed with the Stoics
that the individual can’t achieve and secure the ideals of wealth,

honor, and fame. They, however, disagreed that the solution was
then to renounce those desires.
· The Enlightenment thinkers, instead, advocated for a rational
and concerted effort to reshape the very world that prohibits the
ordinary person from fulfilling his or her desires. Hence, the
aim should be to act to modify the world instead of acting to
modify human desires. Read second paragraph on p. 6.
The Eternal
Many philosophers have taken this path: Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Thomas, Spinoza, and Hegel.
· If, as noted above, the values pursued by the ordinary person
are fleeting, then why not pursue a value that is not fleeting,
that is, in fact eternal?
· Let’s abridge a great deal from this category: most of the
philosophers in this category, following Plato, divided the
“world” or “reality” into two categories: Being and becoming.
In the realm of becoming things come and go; in the realm of
Being belong those things that are immutable, self-sufficient,
and eternal.
· Hence, for Plato the Ideas were the objects of greatest value;
for Thomas it is God; for Spinoza it is “nature;” for Hegel it is
“Absolute Spirit.”
Now, it is precisely the presumed failure of these “highest
values” of the philosophers that led Nietzsche to announce the
“death of god.” And it out of the “death of god” that the
Existentialists generate their unique form of philosophy.
Existentialist Values
Now that we know the ordinary person’s values, the critique of
those values, and the means to overcome those values, we can
shift our attention to the values on which the Existentialists’
focus.
· The Existentialists consider life to be tragic. The ordinary
person can’t refrain from pursuing the world’s values and can
neither achieve the detachment advocated by the Stoics.

“Frustration, insecurity, and painful striving are the inescapable
lot of humankind, and the only life worth living is one in which
this fact is squarely faced” (p. 14).
· Now, if this is true, then this claim itself is one that generates
its own values and hence these values are values that one might
actualize.
Read second paragraph: p. 14
· The Existentialists’ critique of both the ordinary person and
the traditional Philosopher is grounded in the Existentialists’
claim that both groups misunderstand the fundamental nature of
reality: both groups desire some state of happiness or well-
being that the world itself can’t deliver; if it could, it would
reduce human beings to unconscious brutes.
· It is important to add: for the Existentialists, generally, it is
not political circumstances, technology, nor lack of wisdom that
prevents humankind from achieving its highest good: it is
simply the human condition and the reality in which it is found
that prevents the human being from achieving the happiness it
seeks.
The happiness against which the Existentialists argue is the sort
that the ordinary person pursues. This sort of happiness is the
sort that recommends a state of being desirable for humankind.
This sort of happiness emphasizes a sort of harmony, a sort of
contentment.
Thus, the Existentialists embrace both anguish and suffering;
and along with this an emphasis is placed on personal love,
creative activity, freedom of choice, and individual dignity.
These values lead the Existentialists to assert three claims:
· An acceptance of anguish and suffering is the condition within
which the above values are experienced.
· For the ordinary person and the traditional Philosopher who
reject or fail to take up the inevitability of anguish and
suffering, this very anguish will still manifest itself in apathy,
fear, and boredom.
· Existentialists, thus, value “intense consciousness,” aroused
passions, and actions that will stimulate and engage a person’s

total energy.
Hence, as noted on p. 18: The Existentialists value a common
source: the inherent tragedy inherent in the human condition; a
common function: the liberation of the tedium, fears and
frustrations of daily life; and a common characteristic:
intensity.
Defense of Existentialist Values
Note: Recommend the reading of the first paragraph p. 19.
Now that we know the values of the Existentialists, we need to
consider the justification for these values. The justifications
take two distinct forms:
· The argument that claims that both the values of the ordinary
person and the traditional philosophers are impossible to
realize.
· The argument that claims that even if the values of the
ordinary person and the traditional philosophers were
achievable, their realization would be at the expense of superior
values.
Our author claims that the second argument is the more
important because the Existentialists spend more time on it, and
because if it is sound, it basically negates the first.
· The inability to achieve happiness is the key to the
Existentialists’ tragic view of life and is the key reason for the
claim that the supreme value in life is “intensity” without the
promise of happiness.
· It is the Existentialists’ emphasis on this tragic condition that
generates their elevation of individual freedom to its lofty
status. Moreover, it is precisely this notion of freedom that
reinforces their objection to the Enlightenment hope of
remaking the world: read Dostoevsky quote on p. 21.
The Dostoevsky quote states well one of the key tenets of
Existentialism: that if human beings are free, then their free
choices will thwart the Reformers plans, and if freedom of
choice is one of the highest human values, then its sacrifice
would be unjustified, even if its sacrifice would lead to
universal well-being.

1. What you are trying to accomplish: The virtues of a
philosophy paper
A philosophy paper consists of a critical analysis of a thesis and
in a reasoned defense of some claims. If you advance a claim,
your claim should be supported by argument. If you attribute a
view to someone, you should support your attribution with
reference to the original text and interpretative remarks. When
you make claims about a philosopher you have read, make sure
that you support your interpretation with references to specific
passages. When you take a specific formulation of a point from
a text, use quotations.
The virtues of a philosophy paper are:
· clarity: say what you have to say simply and straightforwardly
· depth of analysis and critical questioning: offer a critical
analysis of a philosophical issue; present and question different
approaches to the same issue, and compare them.
· consideration of arguments: the reader is not interested in your
own opinion, but in the way you reason about a particular issue,
how you argue about it, how you defend your claims. You must
exhibit reasons for what you hold, not just voice your concern
about a particular matter. Make your reasons explicit.
· logical organization: everything that you write must be
justified: there should be a reason why you wrote what you
wrote the way you did. Use only the sentences that you need to
express your claims. In order to construct an argument, each
step of your reasoning should be clear and in the right order.
Each paragraph should follow the previous one logically, that
is, your paper should exhibit logical organization. The paper

should contain a precise structure: remind the reader of where
you are in your argument, where you are going, what she or he
should expect. That is, make the structure of your argument
clear and the progression of your paragraphs explicit.
2. How to start
· Usually, the most difficult step in writing is to start. The
opening section should be devoted to explaining to the reader
what you are up to. When you start writing, the first step is to
focus on the topic and try to understand what you are required
to do. The first paragraph should be written after everything
else is in place: when you have a claim, an argument, and a
conclusion.
· In our case, you are asked to address a philosophical problem,
e.g. euthanasia, by reference to another person’s essay. Thus,
you should first try to define clearly the issue. What is
euthanasia? How has the person defined it? What are the
reasons for it?What are the reasons against it? What are the tacit
assumptions on which these arguments rest? Give the most
charitable reconstruction of each argument for and against it.
Offer examples that concur with the thesis you are elucidating
or proposing.
3. How to go on?
General remarks:
· Do not try to do much 'background setting': get to the point!
· Make clear your claims.
· Support your claims with reasoning and argument.
· Make clear the structure of the argument.
· Make sure you are fair in the attribution of a claim.
· Be concise, but explain yourself fully.
· Use simple prose.
· Be careful when using words with precise philosophical
meanings.
· Use examples to illustrate a thesis or to argue that there is a
counter-example to a thesis.

The Structure:
· Make sure that the structure of the paper is obvious to the
reader.
· Give a brief introductory paragraph that says what the paper
will do and how it will do it.
· Remind the reader where you are in your argument. Make your
structure explicit.
· State the thesis clearly, directly and straightforwardly.
· Why is it important?
· What examples might explain the thesis?
· What objection can you offer?
· What is the upshot of the critical discussion?
4. Make an outline
· A philosophy paper should have a clear structure and its
arguments should be well organized. In order to develop a
logical organization you should make an outline of your
argument before starting to write. The outline should be very
detailed: state precisely your aims and claims, how you want to
support them, what arguments you adopt, describe each step of
the argument, and say how the conclusion follows.
· Do not be afraid of editing.
· Try your argument with your roommate, or with somebody
who is not doing philosophy.
6. Quotations and Footnotes
When you quote from the source, the quotation must be marked
by quotes and set off from the rest of the text and footnoted. If
you quote an idea without quoting it directly from the source,
you should acknowledge it in a footnote. Footnotes must contain
the relevant information to allow the reader to find the passage
to which you are referring (author, title, publisher, date, page/
line).

Recommendation
Consider obtaining and reading/consulting Joel Feinberg’s brief
book: Doing Philosophy: A Guide to the Writing of Philosophy
Papers. It is short and inexpensive.
Consider consulting the book by Joseph Williams: Style
Consider consulting the book: Elements of Style by Strunk and
White
Essay: Analysis of a Scholarly Article
The following guideline is one you must follow precisely. It
serves both as your guide to writing your analysis and as my
guide to grading your analysis.
You will analyze one of the assigned essays.
The first thing you must do is read the article, ideally two to
three distinct times. In each reading, you should use a different
color pen to mark important aspects of the essay.
Because this is a philosophical analysis of a philosophic essay
you should avoid the following:
· Personal attacks on the author; do not question the author’s
motives
· Complaining about the author’s writing style or choice of
words
· Suggesting that the author is confused or unclear
Moreover, you should avoid any lengthy, direct quotations. I do
want you to quote the essay three distinct times, but these
quotes should never be longer than two sentences. Be sure you

cite the quote in the precise way I show you in class.
Format
Your analysis must contain the following four sections:
· Introduction
· Summary
· Critique
· Conclusion
· Format
You must provide a heading at the beginning of each section.
That is, write, underline and make bold the heading:
Introduction, for example.
The formatting criteria are listed on a separate page. Thus, your
essay will be worth up to 50 points, 10 points per section.
Introduction
Your Introduction should consist of 2 to 3 paragraphs:
1. In the first and second paragraphs identify the article and
describe the problem or topic the essay addresses.
2. In the third paragraph articulate what your own analysis will
address and what it is you intend to accomplish. This replaces
the standard thesis statement: you will inform your reader of
what you intend to do and provide a map of your analysis.
Summary
This is the main body of your essay. It must do the following:
1. You should begin by summarizing those aspects of the article

that are relevant to your own critique. You should not attempt
to summarize the entirety of the article; you are not simply
writing a general review of the essay.
2. Your summary must represent the author’s views in the best
possible way. You do not want to misrepresent the author’s
views, or to represent them in such a way that you can then
easily destroy them. Avoid the “straw man” fallacy. If you don’t
know this fallacy look it up.
3. The summary of the author’s article must not include any
critical comments.
4. The summary should not simply elaborate on the sequence of
the author’s ideas. That is, you should not write a summary that
simply does this: “The author begins by discussing . . . . Then
she goes on to discuss . . . .” Your challenge is to present your
summary in a way that draws the relevant parts of the author’s
essay together in a way that prepares for your critical discussion
of it. That is, your summary must be related to your thesis, or
what I called your “map.”
Critique
1. Your critique should be organized according to your
summary. This means that your critique, like your summary,
will reflect those parts of the article that you have selected,
parts that develop and illuminate your thesis, or “map.”
2. Your critique might focus on ideas you embrace, ideas you
reject, and/or ideas about which you are unsure. Remember:
critique does not mean being negative. You might actually find
that you agree with an author, and if that is the case, you want
to reflect that in your critique.
3. One of your greatest challenges is to tease out the

philosophic aspects of the article. This requires you to draw
from your other readings: keep in mind the work of the
philosophers you have studied. Note Well: this part of your
“Critique” is the most important part of your “Critique.” You
must “step back” and “tease out” the philosophic principles “in
play” in the essay.
Conclusion
In your conclusion, restate – although not verbatim – your
thesis. Bring together the main themes of your essay and point
to a broader application or assessment. The conclusion should
be two to three paragraphs.
You should work carefully through the following check-list
prior to submitting your essay:
· My essay is double spaced.
· My margins are set at 1 inch all the way around
· My essay is written in Times New Roman font
· My essay is written in 12 point font
· My essay has page numbers on each page
· My essay contains my name on the right hand corner of the
first page
· My essay has no cover page or folder
· My essay’s pages are stapled together
· My essay does not use the words “feel” or “believe”
· My essay contains pronoun agreement throughout

· My essay does not contain any direct quotations from class
lectures
· My essay contains at least 3 direct citations from the original
article
· My essay cites the 3 direct citations exactly as instructed in
class
· My essay’s introduction contains my thesis/map
· My essay’s introduction follows the above guidelines
precisely
· My essay’s summary follows the above guidelines precisely
· My essay’s critique follows the above guidelines precisely
· My essay’s conclusion follows the above guidelines precisely
· My essay’s format follows the above points precisely
Writing Assignment #1
· Be sure to follow the format provided with the course
syllabus. When you complete your essay work through each
bullet point of the format to be sure you have fulfilled each of
the criteria.
· Your essay must be submitted electronically through Bright
Space.
· The “turnitin” software will give your essay a few numerical
scores which I will discuss in class. These scores will be an
important part of your essay’s final grade.
· Be sure to follow the “scholarly essay” format I have uploaded
to Bright Space. This handout will show you how to structure
your essay.
· Your final grade on your essay will be based on the following

criteria: “Turnitin” criteria; the degree to which you fulfill the
format points of the syllabus; the degree to which your essay
corresponds to the “scholarly essay” format; and the degree to
which you fulfill the required content of the prompt.
· The length of your essay should not exceed 6 pages. As a
rough guideline an “A” paper will reach the 5 page limit; a “B”
paper is usually around 4pages; a “C” paper will be a “short 4
and down to 3 pages; a “D” paper will be a “2 to 3 page” essay.
Prompt
Write an essay that explains the “Defense of Existentialist
Values.” You might consider some of the following items:
· A defense against what/whom?
· On what are the Existentialist values grounded?
· Is it necessary to integrate the Existentialists’ views of the
“world” and the human beings’ place in that world?
Now, these points are meant to generate some thoughts. For the
sake of your grade, please avoid simply providing a “laundry
list” of key points. Your challenge is to select the points you
consider essential and to weave them into a narrative worth
reading.
Another piece of advice: when you introduce a key concept you
must explain the concept. You should not assume that your
reader knows the meaning of your key concepts. A great part of
your challenge is to demonstrate a basic grasp of the key
concepts you are using to make your points.
Your essay is due: by midnight: April 6.. Please note: a late
submission, no matter the reason, will be result in a reduction
of a full grade, maybe, more.
I . V a l u e O r i e n t a t i o n
T h e O r d i n a r y M a n ’ s v a l u e s

In the fourth century before Christ, Aristotle declared that the
ordinary man regarded the good life as a life of physical
pleasure, wealth, or honor. In the seventeenth century Spinoza
reaffirmed the validity of the Aristotelian formula for his own
time, substituting only the word “fame” for the word “honor.”
Nor is there any dearth of contemporary philosophers who
would be willing to accept Spinoza’s generalization as valid
for the twentieth century, provided only that a term such as
“social approval” be substituted for the word “fame.”
Although the adequacy of such classifications of the ordinary
man’s goals might be debated, there can be no question that
philosophers who have seen fit to express themselves on this
issue have almost unanimously endorsed such classifications.
At the same time they have almost unanimously denounced
the ordinary man’s pursuits in favor of some mode of life by
which the frustrations and disillusionment which they believe
inevitably to accompany these pursuits may be mitigated or
overcome.
The existentialists are no exception to the general rule. In this
respect they fall into a tradition almost as old as philosophy
itself, and it is as the chief modern-day heirs of this tradition
that they may be best understood. Their originality consists
primarily in their sensitivity to certain human values which
18Olson, Robert G.. An Introduction to Existentialism, Dover
Publications, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/lmu/detail.action?docID=1
889281.
Created from lmu on 2020-01-16 11:31:14.
C
op

yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv

ed
.
not only the ordinary man but also the classical philosophical
and religious tradition tended to overlook.
The reader who has dipped only casually into existentialist
literature or who knows the existentialists only at second hand
may be surprised to hear the existentialists represented as
advocates of a class of human values. Are they not rather
nihilists? He may also be surprised to hear that the
existentialists are seeking to mitigate or overcome frustration
and disillusionment. Is it not rather their belief that frustration
and disillusionment are integral features of the human
condition?
The subtlety of the existentialist position makes it difficult to
cope adequately with these questions at this point. It should,
however, be borne in mind that mankind has clung so long
and so tenaciously to the ordinary man’s values that the
negative side of any doctrine which denounces these values in
favor of others will almost inevitably strike the uninitiated
more forcefully than its positive side. Christ, for instance, was
no nihilist; but the publican urged to abandon the flesh, the
rich man asked to renounce his wealth, and the ostentatiously
pious man enjoined to pray in privacy no doubt tended to
think he was.
Moreover, from the fact that one denounces the ordinary
ambitions of mankind as vain and preaches another way of
life it does not necessarily follow that one will regard the
abandonment of ordinary ambitions as a matter of little
moment. Kierkegaard refused a parsonage which would have

brought him a steady income, abandoned his fiancée together
with the hope of a comfortable family life, and deliberately
used his talent to bring ridicule upon himself—all in the
conviction that comfort, money, and public approval are
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at

io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
inferior values. Nowhere, however, did he suggest that such
sacrifices come easily. On the contrary, he would certainly
agree with Spinoza, who said: “If salvation lay ready to hand
and could be discovered without great labor, how is it
possible that it should be neglected by almost everybody? All
noble things are as difficult as they are rare.”
The point here is that salvation, however dearly purchased, is
still salvation. The tragic sense of life which gives impetus to
movements of salvation is far from being nihilistic. If the
existentialists’ pronouncements on the bitterness of the
human condition are to be regarded as evidence of nihilism,
then logic requires that the same charge be leveled at
Aeschylus and Shakespeare. Like the great tragic authors of
the Western world, the existentialists have mastered the
technique of reaffirming the value of life while boldly

depicting its horrors. Two of the most popular pieces of
existentialist literature are The Philosophy of Tragedy by
Léon Shestov and The Tragic Sense of Life by Unamuno; but
there are few works by existentialist authors which could not
appropriately have borne these titles.
There is still a third consideration which may profitably be
urged at this point to help dispel the popular prejudice
according to which existentialism is a nihilistic philosophy of
despair. The focal aims of the ordinary man of today may be
the same as those of the ordinary man in Aristotle’s day—but
they are not his only aims. Though inconsistently and
imperfectly, the ordinary man of today has imbibed the values
of the Western philosophical and religious tradition. These
values figure less prominently in the actual conduct of his life
than wealth, pleasure, and prestige; but he clings to them
hardly less tenaciously. When, therefore, the existentialist
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00

3.
D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
proclaims that the messages of salvation and consolation
sanctioned by tradition are no less vain than the hope of
fulfillment through wordly pursuits, the ordinary man is

doubly offended. Not only his first, but his second, line of
defense has been breached. He is in despair. With a logic
which is wholly indefensible, though understandable enough,
he cries: I am in despair, you have reduced me to despair,
therefore you are in despair. But no! the existentialist
answers. You were in despair in the first place. It is for that
reason you have heard and understood me when I stripped
you of your illusions. All that I have done is to make you
fully conscious of your despair, and now if you will listen
further I will help you master your despair.
If, of course, the existentialists’ uncompromising rejection of
the so-called worldly values and of traditional messages of
salvation is unwarranted or if their own message of salvation
rests upon illusions peculiar to themselves, then the
movement may properly be regarded as nihilistic in effect.
But the movement is not nihilistic in intent.
V a l u e s i n T r a d i t i o n a l P h i l o s o p h y
In view of the richness and variety of the Western heritage,
traditional philosophers’ criticisms of the ordinary man’s way
of life are remarkably uniform, and the basic strategies by
which they hoped to free themselves from the evils they
believe to characterize that way of life, surprisingly few.
A life dedicated to the pursuit of pleasure, wealth, and fame
has been condemned on three grounds. First, the attainment of
such goals depends only in small part upon the efforts of the
individual himself. External circumstances almost too
numerous to catalogue and almost wholly beyond the

889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht

s
re
se
rv
ed
.
individual’s control may thwart him at any moment. Second,
no matter how successful the individual has been, he cannot
be secure in his possessions. The caprice of a king, the
cunning of an enemy, a natural catastrophe such as flood or
earthquake may cause him to lose everything in a single day.
Third, even if the individual attained and secured the goals he
originally set for himself, the satisfaction he experienced
would be short-lived and he would soon revert to a life of
painful striving. There is no natural limit to the amount of
wealth, fame, or pleasure which a man may covet, and the
brief satisfaction he experiences upon the attainment of some
degree of these goods only whets his appetite for more. The
desire for these worldly or material goods is like an itch.
There is a momentary satisfaction when the desire is
apparently fulfilled, as there is when one scratches an itch.
But it would be better to be without the desire altogether, as it
would be better to be without the itch. A life dedicated to the
pursuit of pleasure, wealth, or fame is thus by its nature a life
of frustration, insecurity, and painful striving—illuminated
perhaps by moments of brief satisfaction but without lasting
value.
Of the various techniques philosophers have recommended to
emancipate oneself from the ordinary man’s round of desire,
the simplest and most radical is that of the Stoics. Since the

common source of frustration, insecurity, and painful striving
is desire, one need only root it out. Suppress one’s desires and
accept willingly whatever the external circumstances of one’s
life may be. “Seek not,” says the Stoic slave philosopher
Epictetus, “that the things which happen should happen as
you wish; but wish the things which happen to be as they are,
and you will have a tranquil flow of life.” We cannot
command goods such as wealth, pleasure, or fame; these
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P
ub

lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
depend upon accident or good fortune rather than voluntary
individual efforts. But we can command our hopes and fears,
our desires and aversions, since these have their source within
us.
The signs of resignation and world-weariness in the Stoic
counsel are evident, and the great popularity of Stoicism
during the Hellenistic period must be attributed in large part
to the political disorders and economic uncertainties of that
era in ancient history. It would be a mistake, however, to
dismiss Stoicism as nothing more than a philosophy of
resignation. There was nothing flabby or self-indulgent in the

Stoics’ renunciation of worldly ambitions, as the common
phrase “stoic heroism” rightly indicates. If the Stoics were
pessimistic in their estimate of what man could achieve in the
world, they were by no means pessimistic about what man
could achieve within himself. Their goal was not merely
quiescence or absence of desire, but also a sense of individual
dignity to be achieved by rigorous self-discipline.
Indifference or apathy with respect to the natural and social
environment is only one side of their doctrine. The other side
is the energetic pursuit of independence through a proud
exercise of the human will; and it is this latter half of the
doctrine which sets Stoicism apart from the more radical
philosophies of resignation which until recent times prevailed
in the Orient.
The second basic type of philosophy by which men have
hoped to overcome the ills of ordinary life is in one sense
directly opposed to that of the Stoics. For want of a more
generic title, it will be referred to as the philosophy of the
Enlightenment. This philosophy, like that of the Stoics,
reflects the social conditions of the era in which it thrived and
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht

©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.

is utterly unthinkable in a society unacquainted with a
well-advanced technology. Let it be granted, say thinkers of
this school, that the individual cannot by his own efforts hope
to attain and enjoy in security the goods of this world. It does
not necessarily follow that the individual must adjust to this
fact as an ultimate necessity. To be sure, an unfavorable
physical environment may impede the achievement of the
human desire for worldly goods, but by a concerted and
rational effort men may and should reshape their physical
environment so as to promote rather than impede the
achievement of these desires. To be sure, political, economic,
and social institutions may stand as obstacles in the way of
individual fulfillment, but again concerted and rational efforts
may and should be undertaken to devise institutions which
will promote individual fulfillment. The part of wisdom is to
act upon and to modify the world rather than to act upon and
modify original human desires.
The Enlightenment outlook may seem very close to that of the
ordinary man. In fact, however, the two outlooks are poles
apart. More often than not the ordinary man’s political
sentiments are avowedly conservative. And even in those
cases where he formally favors political or social reform, his
primary concern is happiness for himself during his lifetime
and his field of action a narrow one. He takes his physical and
social environment more or less for granted as a stable
framework within which he seeks personal well-being. The
Enlightenment philosophers, on the contrary, took it more or
less for granted that individual well-being within the existing
physical and social environment is impossible; and even the
most optimistic of them were aware that the creation of a
favorable environment would require the co-operative
endeavors of many men over many generations.

rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Although, therefore, Enlightenment philosophers sanction the
goal of worldly happiness and to this extent belong in the
camp of the ordinary man, they are in reality much closer to
the Stoics. For them it is mankind, not the existing individual,
who can achieve worldly happiness. The existing individual
lives in a world which must inevitably thwart his primary
desires, and he must adjust to this fact, as did the Stoics, by a
change of mind and heart. That change of mind and heart will
produce a zeal for social reform and lead him to act upon the
world, but it will not lead to the fulfillment of his personal
desire for worldly goods. The happiness available to the
existing individual is that of the generous idealist who can
identify in imagination with the whole of mankind, thus
vicariously enjoying the happiness of future generations. As
these implications of the Enlightenment attitude became more
evident, especially with the failure of the French Revolution,
the movement itself was gradually transformed into a
humanism, of which Auguste Comte’s religious cult of
humanity in the nineteenth century was an extreme
expression.
The third basic method by which philosophers have hoped to

escape the frustration, insecurity, and painful striving which
they believe to be part and parcel of the ordinary man’s life is
by far the most common. The values of the ordinary man, it
will be recalled, were rejected on the grounds that they are
ephemeral and impossible of achievement without external
aid. Why not, then, seek out an object of allegiance which is
not ephemeral and to which man may relate with a minimum
of outside help? In this case it is not a question, as with the
Stoics, of suppressing all desire, nor, as with the philosophers
of the Enlightenment, of creating an environment which
permits the realization of worldly desires. The aim is rather to
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er

P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
redirect desire toward some eternal object, it alone being
considered worthy of deep human concern.
The first of the great philosophers to take this path were
Socrates and Plato, but their fellow travelers include almost
all the major figures in philosophy up to and including Hegel.
They are, in fact, so numerous and their quarrels among
themselves occupy so important a place in the history of
philosophy that it is only from the vantage point of the

present day that the essential similarity begins to come into
view, and even from the vantage point of the present day their
differences remain as important as their points in common.
In the Symposium, one of Plato’s most remarkable dialogues,
a group of Athenians have gathered together in order to
celebrate a dramatic success of the host. At a certain point in
the celebration the entertainers are sent away, and it is
proposed that each of the guests, Socrates among them, make
a speech in praise of love. The last of the speeches is by the
wealthy, pleasure-loving, and popular Alcibiades. Unwilling
to compete with Socrates on the theme of love, he decides
instead to deliver a eulogy of Socrates. Ironically, he praises
Socrates for his total indifference to pleasure, wealth, and
honor, illustrating his theme with numerous examples from
the life of the subject. The chief interest of the dialogue,
however, is the speech of Socrates, in which indifference to
the ordinary man’s values is explained and justified.
Socrates begins his speech by remarking that those who spoke
before him were too extravagant in their praise of love. Love,
he says, is a symbol of want or need, not of completion or
fulfillment. To love is to desire, and to desire is to seek; but
nobody seeks that which he already possesses. We seek only
that which we lack. The lover may, of course, enter into
889281.
C
op

ed
.
possession of the body of the beloved, but even then he is
inflamed by the desire to perpetuate his good fortune and
continues to seek a future happiness, which as future is
beyond his grasp. Moreover, so long as the object of the lover
is the beauty of another’s body, the lover is doomed to
disappointment; for the beauty of the body soon fades. Even
if the object of the lover is the beauty of another’s soul, he
still faces inevitable disappointment. A beautiful soul may
survive the decay of the body; but it, too, in its own way is a
fragile and finite object. The lover can be secure only if the
object of his search is the pure, simple, and eternal Idea of
beauty itself—a transcendent object of which finite things are
but perishable and imperfect copies.
A fuller understanding of these remarks on love is possible
only within the framework of Platonic metaphysics. For Plato
all things may be placed within one of two categories. On the
one hand, there are things such as the Idea of beauty itself
which are immutable, self-sufficient, and eternal. On the other
hand, there are things such as the human body which exist in
time and which are not sufficient unto themselves. The former
alone belong to the realm of Being in the true sense of the
word “Being.” The latter belong to the domain of Becoming.
They come into existence and pass out of existence; and so
long as they are in existence, they are subject to change
through the impact of other objects. Although for Plato the
principal items in the realm of Being are Ideas, the gods also
people this realm. For this reason Socrates in his speech on
love chastises the other speakers for referring to love as a god.
It is ridiculous, says Socrates, that the gods should love; for to
love is to lack, and a god lacks nothing.

ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
Generalizations about Christian philosophy are always
precarious, since Christianity has come to mean many
different things to different people. It would none the less be
substantially correct to regard Christian philosophy as a form
of Platonism. Although the dualism of creator and creature
replaces the dualism of Being and Becoming, the creator
retains all the properties of Platonic Ideas (immutability,
self-sufficiency, and eternity), while his creatures are invested
with all the properties of objects in Plato’s world of
Becoming (mutability, dependency, and finitude). And, as in
Plato, salvation from the ills to which all flesh is heir can
come only through a relationship to a reality which transcends
the world.
It is true that in the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, which
has become the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic
Church, the dualism is less stark than in Plato and the
legitimacy of worldly interests partially restored. Similar
remarks apply to Aristotle, Plato’s greatest disciple and St.
Thomas’s principal source of philosophic inspiration. But for

both St. Thomas and Aristotle wealth, honor, and pleasure are
relatively insignificant values, and both of them regarded
self-sufficiency, immutability, and eternity as the marks by
which an object most genuinely worthy of human concern
must be identified.
Aristotle insistently and expressly declared that the best of all
possible types of life is the contemplative life, and for
precisely the same reasons as Plato. The man who finds his
happiness in contemplation is of all men the least dependent
upon external circumstances, and he alone has access to the
eternal. The fact that the proper objects of contemplation for
Plato are transcendent Ideas of which individual things are
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D

ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io
ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
but imperfect copies whereas for Aristotle the objects of
contemplation are essences whose proper locus is in the world
must not be allowed to obscure the like-mindedness of the
two philosophers with regard to the proper conduct of life. In
locating Plato’s Ideas in the world and rebaptizing them
“essences,” Aristotle took every precaution to preserve their
eternity and immutability. Individual things as individuals are

hopelessly implicated in the flux of the world or the domain
of Becoming, and consequently cannot be known. But the
essences of individuals, i.e., the properties which they share
with other members of their species, are immutable and
eternal, and they alone are intelligible objects of
contemplation. The individual dies, but the species is fixed
and lives on forever.
For St. Thomas the chief human good is rest in God. God
alone is self-sufficient. He alone is the cause of himself: in
scholastic terminology, God is the ens causa sui. Man, as a
dependent creature who owes his very existence to God, can
find fulfillment only by relating himself to the source of his
being. Pleasure, wealth, and honor may come to us in the
course of our lives as by-products of a life devoted to the
worship of God, and if so, we may be grateful to God for the
satisfaction they bring. But these satisfactions rank low in the
hierarchy of human values, and they ought in no case to be
the object of voluntary search. If taken as objects of deliberate
pursuit, they distract us from our true vocation.
For the student of existentialism the most significant forms
this third basic method for overcoming the evils of the
ordinary man’s life have taken are those of Spinoza and
Hegel, since it is most often with respect to these later
thinkers that the existentialists define their own position.
889281.
C
op

ed
.
Having convinced himself that all the evils which accompany
the life of the man who lives for pleasure, wealth, and fame
derive from the fact that the objects of his pursuits are finite,
Spinoza tells us that he sought for a remedy like “a sick man
struggling with a deadly disease, when he sees that death will
surely be upon him unless a remedy be found.” Since,
however, Spinoza believed neither in God as the Jews and
Christians conceived him nor in Platonic Ideas, the remedies
ready at hand were rejected as quackery.
One object and only one object, Spinoza declared, could be
truly immutable and eternal. One object and only one was
unquestionably the cause of itself. To that object Spinoza
gave the names “Nature” and “God,” words which remain in
his system strictly synonymous. But whichever term is used,
the object designated is perfectly clear, viz., the totality of all
that exists. Since by definition there is nothing outside the
totality of what exists, there is nothing but itself from which it
can draw its being. Inevitably it is an ens causa sui. Since
there is nothing outside the totality of what is, there is nothing
which can act upon it or induce it to change. By rigorous
logical necessity, it is immutable. Finally, there being nothing
outside the totality of what is which could be its cause, it must
either have existed eternally or not exist at all. Since,
however, it obviously does exist, it must have existed
eternally.
From the fact that God or Nature, i.e., the totality of what is,
has the characteristic of immutability, it follows that whatever
happens happens according to strict necessity. Events which

appear to be the product of accident are in fact rigidly
determined. The wise man will, therefore, accept the counsel
of the Stoics and, rather than seek that the things which
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
3.
D
ov
er
P
ub
lic
at
io

ns
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
happen should happen as he wishes, will instead wish the
things which happen to be as they are.
Fear, envy, regret, anger—all the disturbances of the
mind—have their source in the desire that things be other than
they are no less than in the finitude of their object. But once
man recognizes that things cannot be other than they are,
disturbing passions will no longer agitate him. We do not,
says Spinoza, regret that we are born as infants rather than as
adults, because we firmly believe that it could not be
otherwise. If, however, most men were born as adults and
only a few as infants, then the latter would no longer believe
in the inevitability of their fate and would regret being
subjected to the painful process of growing up. But all things
are equally inevitable. If therefore you are angry and
indignant because someone has robbed you, try to remember
that this theft is a part of the divine or natural scheme of

things and try to understand the infinite chain of causes which
has made it happen. In doing so, your anger and your
indignation will disappear. You, the theft, and the robber are
all necessary parts of God or Nature.
The secret of happiness consists in enlarging our perspective,
in viewing all things from the standpoint of God or Nature. In
the terminology of Spinoza, all things should be seen sub
specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. The mind of
man is ultimately one with God or Nature. It can therefore
rise to the level of God or Nature and intimately participate in
its eternity. By so doing it emancipates itself from attachment
to finite objects and from the passions which such attachment
entails.
Spinoza and Hegel are separated in time by almost the whole
of the eighteenth century, which was marked by the beginning
889281.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00

Existentialism From SartreIn our text, Sartre, in effect, provi.docx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Plus de nealwaters20034

Plus de nealwaters20034 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Existentialism From SartreIn our text, Sartre, in effect, provi.docx