00:00:01
What do a fork and a train have in common?
Although they are two entirely different things,
00:00:08
they were created with a specific purpose. A
fork, for instance, was designed for eating food,
00:00:14
so it shares its purpose with other cutleries,
like a spoon and chopsticks. A train was created
00:00:21
as a means of transport, not just for humans
but also for animals and goods. The fork and
00:00:26
the train both have an inherent purpose:
they have been brought into existence for
00:00:32
something. They have one or more specific
functions. If a fork, for some reason, fails
00:00:39
to provide its inherent function, we could say
it’s a ‘bad’ fork. The same is true for trains,
00:00:45
meaning that, as a resident of the Netherlands,
I could state that we have many ‘bad’ trains.
00:00:51
But how about human beings?
Do we also have a built-in,
00:00:55
preassigned function—an ‘essence’—or is there
something fundamentally different about us?
00:01:01
The French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre believed that, aside from our biological
00:01:06
features, humans come into existence without
a predefined essence. Unlike forks and trains,
00:01:13
we are fundamentally free to create our own
identity and define our own purpose. This idea
00:01:19
lies at the core of Sartre’s existentialism.
So, as you’re free anyway, you’re also entirely
00:01:25
free to support this channel! Define yourself
as a Patreon supporter, which grants access
00:01:31
to ad-free videos, voting for topics, and
free merchandise. You can also follow me on
00:01:36
social media for updates, quotes, and more.
Thank you. And I hope you’ll enjoy this video.
00:01:51
When naval officer Jean-Baptiste Sartre died, his
son Jean-Paul was just one year old. This loss
00:01:59
brought Jean-Paul closer to his mother, Anne-Marie
Schweitzer, as they lived under the care of his
00:02:04
devout Protestant grandfather, Charles Schweitzer.
While Sartre admired Charles’s intellect,
00:02:10
he rejected his religious and traditional values.
Sartre’s relationship with his mother changed
00:02:17
significantly when she remarried, and he
wasn’t the focal point of her life anymore.
00:02:22
Sartre didn’t like his stepfather. He was a man of
authority who embodied typical bourgeois values,
00:02:28
which Sartre would oppose throughout his life.
Sartre’s intellectual journey was deeply
00:02:34
intertwined with Simone de Beauvoir, whose
philosophy I recently explored in another
00:02:40
video. The two met while studying in Paris and
became lifelong partners. Their open relationship
00:02:46
challenged traditional norms and values, as did
their philosophical ideas. Both, in their unique
00:02:53
ways, became key figures in existentialism.
Sartre became one of the most influential thinkers
00:03:00
in French intellectual history. Unlike the father
of existentialism, Søren Kierkegaard, Sartre was
00:03:08
an atheist, and his version of existentialism
was built on the absence of God. His main works
00:03:14
are Being and Nothingness, Existentialism
Is a Humanism, and his novel Nausea.
00:03:20
Before we dive into Sartre’s views, let’s
briefly explore the roots of his philosophy.
00:03:28
Sartre’s philosophy is based on understanding
consciousness, which is how we experience and
00:03:34
interact with the world. According to Sartre,
consciousness doesn’t exist on its own—it
00:03:40
always focuses on “something,” whether it’s an
object, a person, or even something imagined.
00:03:46
In other words, consciousness depends
on the world around it to exist.
00:03:51
Sartre observed that when we’re conscious,
we’re also aware of our own consciousness:
00:03:56
we know that we exist. This idea relates
to René Descartes, who inspired Sartre and
00:04:02
famously argued that there’s only one thing we
can be absolutely sure of: our own consciousness.
00:04:09
“Cogito ergo sum,” he famously proclaimed.
Sartre builds his view on consciousness on
00:04:15
the Cartesian view. He agrees with Descartes that
one can be sure of one’s consciousness. However,
00:04:22
Descartes also assumed a separation between
the self and the body, which is mind-body
00:04:27
dualism. Sartre didn’t buy that; he experienced
consciousness as more fluid and elusive.
00:04:34
Sartre developed his view of consciousness
through Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology,
00:04:39
which holds that consciousness is always
directed toward something—a concept called
00:04:45
“intentionality.” While Sartre agreed with
this idea, he rejected Husserl’s notion of a
00:04:51
transcendental ego—an inner, stable self akin
to a rock in the surf of our experiences.
00:04:58
Sartre believed that consciousness is
“nothingness,” meaning that consciousness
00:05:03
has no fixed content. It molds and forms by
directing itself toward the outside world.
00:05:10
This “nothingness” or emptiness of consciousness
is fundamental to Sartre’s existentialist ideas,
00:05:16
which we’ll find out shortly.
There’s much more to Sartre’s theory of
00:05:21
consciousness, but for the sake of brevity, let’s
stop here and expand upon it when necessary.
00:05:27
Let’s move on to what Sartre said about why
we are here and how we’re supposed to live,
00:05:33
which, I suspect, is why most
people are watching this video.
00:05:39
If Sartre could explain his philosophy
in three words, it would be as follows:
00:05:44
“Existence precedes essence.” This core
existential belief is that we are not designed
00:05:51
for a specific purpose. Unlike a fork or a train,
our existence does not have a fixed essence.
00:05:59
We exist first; essence comes afterward. Sartre
argued that we are “thrown” into this world,
00:06:06
and no God or other higher entity tells us why
or what we should do. Life doesn’t come with
00:06:12
an instruction manual or an explanation of why
we’re alive in the first place. We are just here,
00:06:18
facing a giant void, a question
mark, a mystery never solved.
00:06:23
Asking the question, “Why are we here?” is
pointless, as the seemingly indifferent universe
00:06:29
remains silent. As Sartre stated:
Man simply is. Not that he is simply what
00:06:35
he conceives himself to be, but he is what
he wills, and as he conceives himself after
00:06:41
already existing – as he wills to be after
that leap towards existence. Man is nothing
00:06:47
else but that which he makes of himself. That
is the first principle of existentialism.
00:06:53
End quote
So, what we’re left with is
00:06:57
an inherently undetermined existence. Life, thus,
is like an empty canvas. There are no fixed rules
00:07:04
to this game. There are no definite goals. There’s
no overarching purpose. Morals and ethics are all
00:07:11
manmade; none are final or absolute. Any claim
of a universally right path, a presupposed way
00:07:18
of living, is false. The only truth is the empty
canvas and our conscious ability to fill it in.
00:07:26
The connection between Sartre’s view on
consciousness and his existentialist ideas
00:07:30
is probably becoming apparent, but
let’s delve a bit deeper into it.
00:07:35
It’s the “nothingness” of our consciousness,
the absence of fixed content, that allows us
00:07:41
to create our essence, to paint our canvasses
however we like: a trait that is typically
00:07:47
human. It sets us apart from other existing
objects and beings. To explain this further,
00:07:54
Sartre distinguished two modes of existence:
being-in-itself and being-for-itself.
00:08:02
Being-in-itself refers to the mode of existence of
things (or objects) that simply exist as they are.
00:08:10
They are without awareness or consciousness. Their
essence is fixed. They can’t change themselves,
00:08:16
nor can they reflect on their existence or
have a desire to change themselves. A fork
00:08:22
and a train are ‘beings-in-themselves.’ They
are what they are. A fork doesn’t question
00:08:28
why it’s a fork or wonder what else it could
be. A train can’t reflect on the purpose of
00:08:34
its existence; it’s bound by its essence.
Being-for-itself is quite different. Contrary
00:08:41
to being-in-itself, being-for-itself
is not fixed. It’s constantly in flux,
00:08:46
always in the process of becoming (which may
remind you of Nietzsche). It defines itself
00:08:52
through its actions. It has no predetermined
existence. Being-for-itself can reflect on itself
00:08:59
and its place in the world as it’s conscious
and aware of its surroundings. The mode of
00:09:04
being-for-itself is unique to human beings.
Sure, a part of our ‘humanness’ is inherent—what
00:09:11
Sartre and Beauvoir called “facticity.” Facticity
includes your biology, skin color, your country
00:09:18
of birth, or whether your parents are wealthy.
In short, it’s the circumstances or facts about
00:09:25
your life that you can’t control. But facticity
doesn’t define who you are. It’s your actions
00:09:31
that define you. Whatever you do, you become.
00:09:39
Our existence without a predefined essence allows
00:09:42
us tremendous freedom. Infinite possibilities
allow us to walk on infinite roads. From the
00:09:48
smallest choices, such as what we’ll have
for dinner, to more significant life choices,
00:09:53
such as which career path to take,
we are free to grasp any of them.
00:09:58
This is all great, but as we’re free to do
what we please anyway, and our lives have
00:10:03
no fixed essence, morals, or ethics, can’t we
just do a bunch of bad stuff and get away with
00:10:08
it? Take breakfast, for example. Instead of
eating the bowl of cornflakes in front of us,
00:10:14
can’t we just take that bowl, walk through the
front door, and smash it into someone’s head?
00:10:19
Well, according to Sartre, that’s not
how to do existentialism. Au contraire,
00:10:25
mon ami. Existentialism comes with great
freedom but also with great responsibility.
00:10:30
Why freedom comes with responsibility is actually
quite simple to explain. Consider the atheistic
00:10:36
existentialist viewpoint and suppose there’s no
God or similar divine authority to guide you.
00:10:43
Sure, there’s Jordan Peterson and his twelve rules
for life, but that aside, you are in charge.
00:10:50
If you don’t have God as guidance or authority,
you also don’t have God as an accountability
00:10:56
partner. In other words, if you (in the absence
of God) are entirely free to live your life,
00:11:02
you must also be entirely responsible for your
choices. If there’s no one you’re accountable to,
00:11:09
you’re the one accountable.
As you’ve probably witnessed,
00:11:13
choices have consequences. For example, you’re
free to smash a bowl of cornflakes into someone’s
00:11:18
head, but such an action most likely leads
to the police knocking on your door.
00:11:24
According to Sartre, we are not just
responsible for our deliberate choices. We are
00:11:29
responsible for the totality of our
lives, including our facticity.
00:11:34
This doesn’t mean that, for example, a war
breaking out is our fault; it means we’re
00:11:40
responsible for any action or inaction we take in
such circumstances. Even inaction is a choice.
00:11:47
Inaction in the face of human suffering was
a big issue for Sartre. Unlike Descartes, who
00:11:53
focused on the certainty of one’s consciousness,
Sartre emphasized the existence of other people’s
00:11:58
consciousness through lived experience,
using Husserl’s phenomenological method.
00:12:04
Long story short, part of our responsibility
is recognizing that others suffer as we do.
00:12:10
“Don’t do unto others what you don’t want done
unto you,” but not because it’s written in the
00:12:16
Bible or Confucius said it a couple of millennia
ago, but because we’re all interconnected.
00:12:22
Our choices affect others, and their choices
affect us. We even experience their presence
00:12:29
shaping us, which Sartre described through the
concept of “the Look” or “the Gaze.” He famously
00:12:35
said, “Hell is other people,” not because others
are inherently bad but because we can’t escape
00:12:41
the influence of their judgments and expectations;
others makes us view ourselves from the outside.
00:12:48
Moreover, Sartre argued that our choices concern
mankind as a whole. We’re not just affecting
00:12:55
others; we’re also setting an example. Through
our choices, we represent what we stand for,
00:13:01
our morals and principles, and whether or
not we’re cowards. Whatever we become echoes
00:13:07
across the whole of humanity. And so, our choices
shape not just ourselves but our entire species.
00:13:14
Unfortunately, as observed by
Sartre, many people deny their
00:13:18
freedom and, with it, this responsibility.
00:13:25
We often consider freedom desirable. Who wouldn’t
00:13:29
want to be free? Who doesn’t want to define
their own lives? But Sartre observed that freedom
00:13:35
terrifies people. Hence, many try to escape it.
Sartre admitted that the freedom he lay bare can
00:13:41
be terrifying. What should we do when there’s
no external guidance or predetermined meaning
00:13:47
to rely on? If Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for
Life are not objectively and universally valid,
00:13:55
how should we live? Which choices should I make,
as there seem to be infinite? And what’s the
00:14:00
point of living anyway if there’s no heaven
or some divine purpose we can work toward?
00:14:06
What’s even more terrifying is the responsibility
that comes with this freedom: imagine no God,
00:14:12
boss, political party, parent, or whatever
authority is accountable for your actions but
00:14:19
you. Who can you blame if the consequences
of your choices aren’t pretty to look at?
00:14:25
To escape the existentialist freedom,
humans do what they’re generally
00:14:29
masters at: they deceive themselves. Instead of
embracing their freedom, including the weight of
00:14:35
their responsibility as free, self-creating,
and self-defining beings-for-themselves,
00:14:41
they deny it by engaging in what Sartre
called “bad faith.” Now, what’s bad faith?
00:14:49
Bad faith is a way of denying your freedom
by deceiving yourself. Even though you know
00:14:54
you’re free, you convince yourself you aren’t.
For example, you’re working a job you hate but
00:15:00
have convinced yourself that you have no other
choice: you need the money to pay the bills,
00:15:06
so you must keep slaving away in that cubicle.
Without denying your financial pressure,
00:15:11
Sartre would say you’re acting in bad faith.
You’ve convinced yourself you have no choice,
00:15:17
while in reality, you have. You have infinite
choice. Let’s face it. You could quit at this very
00:15:24
moment. You can simply not go to work tomorrow
morning and have a bagel somewhere. You could
00:15:30
run around naked on the street. You could step
on a plane and fly to another continent. If you
00:15:36
have the money, you could buy a sailing boat and
sail across the Atlantic. You could even smash
00:15:41
a bowl of cornflakes into someone’s ear.
Do you see the abundance of choices? That’s
00:15:47
freedom. Regardless of the consequences, you’re
still entirely free to do any of these things.
00:15:55
Bad faith means pretending
this freedom isn’t there.
00:15:59
You’re just doing whatever you’re supposed to do,
which also implies a lack of responsibility.
00:16:05
A soldier who murdered many but defends his
actions by saying he was just following orders;
00:16:11
guess what? He’s also acting in bad faith. Having
a superior telling you what to do is no excuse,
00:16:18
to Sartre. You had the freedom to choose,
and you chose to kill. The same goes for
00:16:24
people claiming to act in God’s name. “But
Jesus made me do it!” How convenient to hold
00:16:30
God accountable for your actions!
All in all, living in bad faith is
00:16:35
inauthentic. It prevents you from fully
realizing your potential. Why? Because it
00:16:40
denies the core traits of being human: freedom
and the ability to create meaning through our
00:16:46
choices. It denies you as a being-for-itself.
The beauty of “existence precedes essence”
00:16:53
is that the ‘essence’ part of your life is up
to you. As Sartre wrote: “Man is nothing else
00:16:59
but what he makes of himself.” Your life is
yours to create. Don’t let others do it.
00:17:06
Now that we’ve explored two heavyweights of
existentialism, it’s perhaps a good idea to
00:17:12
further examine how exactly one becomes an
existentialist. If you want me to cover this,
00:17:18
please let me know.
00:17:23
Thank you for watching.
