Existentialism and Human Emotions Essay Example for Free

Existentialism and Hu opus Emotions Es asseverateI SHOULD LIKE on this occasion to defend existentialism against some charges which pee-pee been brought against it. First, it has been charged with inviting hatful to remain in a kind of desperate quietism because, since no solutions be possible, we should have to con placer perform in this world as quite a impracticable. We should then end up in a philosophy of contemplation and since contemplation is a luxury, we come in the end to a bourgeois philosophy. The communists in particular have do these charges. On the other hand, we have been charged with dwelling on hu hu service objet darthood beings degradation, with pointing up everywhere the sordid, shady, and slimy, and neglecting the gracious and beautiful, the bright side of human nature for example, according to Mlle.Mercier, a Catholic critic, with forgetting the smile of the child. Both sides charge us with having ignored human solidarity, with considering man as an isolated being. The communists say that the main reason for this is that we take pure subjectivity, the Cartesian I think, as our starting point in other words, the moment in which man becomes to the full aware of what it means to him to be an isolated being as a result, we are unable to return to a state of solidarity with the men who are non ourselves, a state which we evict never reach in the cogito.From the Christian standpoint, we are charged with denying the reality and seriousness of human undertakings, since, if we reject idols commandments and the eternal verities, at that place no longer remains anything except pure caprice, with everyone permitted to do as he pleases and incapable, from his own point of view, of condemning the points of view and acts of others.I shall today smack to answer these different charges. Many race are going to be surprised at what is said here ab step forward humanism. We shall try to see in what sense it is to be understood. In any case, what can be said from the very beginning is that by existentialism we mean a doctrine which makes human life possible and, in addition, declares that every truth and every action implies a human setting and a human subjectivity.As is generally known, the basal charge against us is that we put the emphasis on the dark side of human life. Someone recently told me of a lady who, when she let slip a vulgar word in a moment of irritation, excused herself by truism, I guess Im becoming an existentialist. Consequently, existentialism is regarded as something ugly that is why we are said to be naturalists and if we are, it is or else surprising that in this day and age we cause so much much alarm and scandal than does naturalism, properly so called. The kind of person who can take in his stride such a novel as Zolas The Earth is disgusted as soon as he starts reading an existentialist novel the kind of person who is resigned to the wisdom of the ages-which is pretty sad-finds us e ven sadder. Yet, what can be more disillusioning than saying true charity begins at home or a scoundrel will eternally return evil for ripe?We know the commonplace remarks made when this subject comes up, remarks which always add up to the same thing we shouldnt struggle against the powers that-be we shouldnt resist authority we shouldnt try to rise above our station any action which doesnt conform to authority is romantic any effort non based on past experience is doomed to failure experience shows that mans bent is always toward trouble, that there must be a strong hand to hold him in check, if not, there will be anarchy.There are still people who go on mumbling these melancholy old saws, the people who say, Its only human whenever a more or less repugnant act is pointed out to them, the people who glut themselves on chansons realistes these are the people who accuse existentialism of being too gloomy, and to such an extent that I wonder whether they are kvetch about it, not f or its pessimism, entirely much rather its optimism. Can it be that what really scares them in the doctrine I shall try to present here is that it leaves to man a possibility of choice? To answer this question, we must re-examine it on a strictly philosophical plane. What is meant by the term existentialism?Most people who use the word would be rather embarrassed if they had to explain it, since, now that the word is all the rage, even the work of a musician or lynx is being called existentialist. A gossip columnist in Clartes signs himself The Existentialist, so that by this time the word has been so stretched and has taken on so broad a meaning, that it no longer means anything at all. It seems that for want of an advanced-guard doctrine ,analogous to surrealism, the kind of people who are eager for scandal and flurry turn to this philosophy which in other respects does not at all serve their purposes in this sphere. Actually, it is the least scandalous, the most austere of doct rines. It is intended strictly for specialists and philosophers. Yet it can be defined easily. What complicates matters is that there are two kinds of existentialists first, those who are Christian. among whom I would include Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, both Catholic and on the other hand the atheistic existentialists among whom I carve up Heidegger, and then the French existentialists and myself.What they have in common is that they think that existence precedes essence, or, if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the starting point. Just what does that mean? Let us consider some object that is manufactured, for example, a book or a papercutter here is an object which has been made by an artisan whose inspiration came from a concept. He referred to the concept of what a paper-cutter is and likewise to a known method of production, which is part of the concept, something which is, by and large, a routine.Thus, the paper-cutter is at once an object produced in a definite way and, on the other hand, one leaving a specific use and one can not postulate a man who produces a paper-cutter but does not know what it is used for. Therefore, let us say that, for the paper-cutter, essence-that is, the ensemble of both the production routines and the properties which enable it to be both produced and defined-precedes existence. Thus, the presence of the paper-cutter or book in front of me is determined. Therefore, we have here a technical view of the world whereby it can be said that production precedes existence.When we conceive God as the Creator, He is generally thought of as a superior sort of artisan. Whatever doctrine we whitethorn be considering, whether one like that of Descartes or that of Leibniz, we always grant that will more or less follows understanding or, at the very least, accompanies it, and that when God creates He knows exactly what he is creating. Thus, the concept of man in the mind of God is comparable to the concept of a paper-cutter in the mind of the manufacturer, and, future(a) certain techniques and a conception, God produces man, just as the artisan, following a definition and a technique, makes a paper-cutter. Thus, the individual man is the realization of a certain concept in the divine intelligence.In the eighteenth century, the godlessness of the philosophers discarded the idea of God, but not so much for the notion that essence precedes existence. To a certain extent, this idea is found everywhere we find it in Diderot, in Voltaire, and even in Kant. Man has a human nature this human nature, which is the concept of the human, is found in all men, which means that each man is a particular example of a universal concept, man. In Kant, the result of this universality is that the wild-man, the natural man, as well as the bourgeois, are circumscribed by the same definition and have the same basic qualities.Thus, here too the essence of man precedes the historical existence that we find in nature. Atheistic existenti alism, which I represent, is more coherent. It states that if God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and that this being is man, or, as Heidegger says, human reality. What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is zippo. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is too only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence.Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism. It is also what is called subjectivity, the name we are labeled with w hen charges are brought against us. But what do we mean by this, if not that man has a greater dignity than a stone or table? For we mean that man first exists, that is, that man first of all is the being who hurls himself toward a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future.Man is at the start a plan which is aware of itself, rather than a patch of moss, a piece of garbage, or a cauliflower nothing exists prior to this plan there is nothing in heaven man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what he will want to be. Because by the word will we generally mean a conscious decision, which is subsequent to what we have already made of ourselves. I may want to belong to a political party, write a book, get married but all that is only a manifestation of an earlier, more ad-lib choice that is called will. But if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, existentialisms first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest onhim. And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not only mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. The word subjectivism has two meanings, and our opponents play on the two. Subjectivism means, on the one hand, that an individual chooses and makes himself and, on the other, that it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity. The second of these is the essential meaning of existentialism. When we say that man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also chooses all men. In fact, in creating the man that we want to be, there is not a single one of our acts which does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to be. To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.If, on the other hand, existence precedes essence, and if we grant that we exist and fashion our image at one and the same time, the image is legal for everybody and for our whole age. Thus, our responsibility is much greater than we might have supposed, because it involves all mankind. If I am a workingman and choose to join a Christian trade-union rather than be a communist, and if by being a member I want to show that the best thing for man is resignation, that the kingdom of man is not of this world, I am not only involving my own case-I want to be resigned for everyone. As a result, my action has involved all humanity. To take a more individual matter, if I want to marry, to have children even if this marriage depends solely on my own circumstances or passion or wish, I am involving all humanity in monogamy and not merely myself. Therefore, I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man.