He wrote:

I'm curious to hear your criticisms of Sartre.
I think that the way Sartre describes his existentialism is extremely logical and obvious.
First and foremost, Je pense, donc je suis, cogito ergo sum. So you know you exist. Now what.
Descartes and Rousseau go on to assume the existence of God because they have a private notion of God in their heads,
But Sartre pragmatically goes for the decision-making responsibilities of those who are aware of their existence.
You realize that you exist, then you realize that you have to make decisions.
That's the basis of everything, and everything Sartre says comes from that.
It's not a pessimistic philosophy, just minimalistic, and in fact Sartre sees it as incredibly optimistic
Because you realize that you are entirely responsible for your own actions and are free to make decisions independently and deliberately.
The only suggested criterion is that one act as if one's actions are to be taken as an example of how the rest of those
Existence-minded superegos should act.

I don't think that the main point is that existence is meaningless, only that intrinsically it is meaningless,
And meaning can only be found through action.
A person is the actions and decisions made within a lifetime, and so you live your life deliberately, never wasting a moment,
Never acting in such a way that you may regret making the same decision again and again in Nietche's eternal return.

I admit that Nauseau scared the shit out of me and it took me about a week to be able to consider my mathematics worth pursuing again,
But now I look at Nauseau as disgust with people who do not live deliberately and are wasting their lives.
Roenquin realizes that being a reclusive individual and simply existing, in a state where his actions affect only a few souls, disgusts him.
He goes to cafes and watches other people that he expects live as meaningless an existence as him by going through the motions.
He realizes that he wants his life to affect other people, he wants to make decisions and give other people reason to consider his existence meaningful.

I wrote:

(The Existentialists & Freud loved to claim Nietzsche as their own, and who wouldn't? His theory of eternal return is probably my favorite snippet of philosophy ever. However, I don't think he belongs in any of our grubby paws.)

My immediate problem with Sartre is purely personal. I think of him as pretentious and gloomy and that irritates me. But my dislike of the character I assume him to have had stems from issues with his philosophy.

I. Even during Sartre's life, there was ample debate over the genetics v. environment issue. I think it was a great short coming to deny entirely that our visceral chemistry & hard-wiring could play a role of determinism. It seems as more studies are conducted, published and re-conducted in different ways, that our initial circuitry affects us tremendously. While I am the first to defend freedom, free will, and all things which argue in favor of a person's capacity to make and take responsibility for their decisions, it seems much more practical to think of those things tangibly: As in behavior or sociology.

II. Existentialists like Sartre wish to separate the human species from the rest of the animal kingdom. I find that pompous and innaccurate. I think it is highly typical of mankind's conceit to assume that we are anything special. Sartre would deny a dog free will but not a man. Perhaps I've been too romanced by Eastern philosophies and nature studies, but it seems to me that mankind is an animal like any other. My philosopher teacher last year scribbled a long, angry question on one of my essays to the end of, "If we are just like any other animal, how come we build things and learn to dominate things while the rest of the animal kingdom lies on their backs all day?" It seems pretty clear to me that, much like the peacock's ridiculously elaborate plumage, mankind has adapted a brain that is ludicrously large compared other primates - and so our attention and focus has been of a different nature from other primates.

Noam Chomsky has an interesting bit on that: "From an evolutionary point of view, higher intelligence seems to be maladaptive rather than adaptive. If higher intelligence helped adaptation you would expect it to have arisen over and over again. However, it didn't. It arose in a single, not particularly successful organism, Homo sapiens. And while the human population exploded, human societies developed in a way that has caused enormous damage to the environment. The human race could destroy itself and much organic life as a result."

III. It seems to me a great error on Sartre's & The Existentialists' parts to assume that the human psyche is so individualistic. We are not like pandas, we are primates: semi-autonomous appendages of our tribe. He starts to acknowledge some of that with the issue of The Other and Objectivication - but he really doesn't take that thought into fruition. See, (this is addressing my characteral dislike of Sartre) a person could take the idea of the look of the other & the immense role our tribes/socities/families play in shaping/contributing to our identities and do something useful with it, something positive with it, he leaves it so vapidly incomplete: "Hell is other people." How our contemporaries react to us DOES shape our identity, It would feel more like living in bad faith to behave otherwise. But the look of the other is not the miserable torture Sartre paints it to be. We, like chimps, derive existences filled with pleasure or sorrow or whatever else, in a large part from our social group. To me, that seems neither heaven nor hell, just matter of possible fact. The look of the other does veritable wonders for human kind, it dismays me to see writers come to popularity that fail to point out benefits and focus on the dramatically dark and unfortunate. (If you haven't read up on Benthal's Panopticon and other social theory studies with the look of the other as a theme, it's good late night fun, if you're a morbid little shit.)

You said:
"It's not a pessimistic philosophy, just minimalistic, and in fact Sartre sees it as incredibly optimistic because you realize that you are entirely responsible for your own actions and are free to make decisions independently and deliberately."

Perhaps we have different definitions of optimism and pessimism, as Sartre's theories seem only to border on the pessimistic. Yes, he believes one is responsible for one's actions and has freedom, but sadly, he views that freedom as a condemnation. He sees it as a freedom for, not freedom from - an existence filled with mournful longing/yearning for fulfillment in an existence which cannot be fulfilled. (a bit like Schopenhauer)

Also, that he only sees the look of the other as misery is just too bad. It is the look of the other that tells the racist at work that his jokes are not appreciated, it is that look which provides each person with the power to shape how they are treated by others. Any tool can be called a weapon, it's a shame when folks only see the destruction in an object or subject of creation.

Another criticism would be in his writing. How truly wretched that is! I think of him in a cafe, in black, with a cigar, scribbling furiously away, devoting his life to these thoughts and these writings...and this is what he comes up with?! Ouch. It makes me want to give his soul a hug. But then, he's not alone. I can't stand "Existentialist Literature" -- period. Why bother when there are so many other writers with substance and talent?

Instead of reading about the misery of others, the torture of freedom and the agony of it all, I can read things which present alternative points of view...things which enable humankind, inspire them. Not to toot Chomsky's horn too much in one response, BUT:

"If you assume that there's no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunites to change things, there is a chance you may contribute to making a better world. That's your choice."
...Is a way of saying some things Sartre only much more interesting.

Other minor bitchings:

-For someone who sees existence as nothingness, nothing significant, what a way to be a hypocrite to elevate this "nothing significant" above all other animals.
-For someone who seems in favor of humans developing as they will, supporting stalinism seems very suspicious.
-For someone who calls the pretense of being something or being like something Bad Faith, how ironic to time & time again take political stances, grand-standing to gain attention as opposed to genuinely holding those beliefs. (This, of course, I base on conjecture. Read up on his "opposition" to the Vietnam war, among other political "positions" - his stance seems most calculated, not heart-felt.

Finally, Existentialism is like Ockham's razor theorem. Basically, it states, "Don't assume anything you don't have to." As an axiom, that's a very valuable way to cut through unnecessary bullshit. However, if all you do is slice away, then you are left with nothing.

Existentialism logistically holds true as a theorem. But its axiom limits the whole thing such that to me, in any case, it is useless. It is a miniscule box that does not help me deal with the world.

Like the theorem, "Assume that there is zero." Well, that's great. All you will be left with is zero. It is only until you posit the existence of a non-zero that you give rise to an entire number system.

So, if I trash Sartre, it is because I think him narrow-minded and hypocritical.
If in my life I choose to be seduced by philosophies which ignite me and drive me to improve myself and my surroundings and to empower me,
It is because I believe that these philosophies will cause me to lead a more fulfilling life.
I do not see life as a vacant expanse of nothing.
I see it as a colorful expanse of everything.
Freedom excites me.
I am rarely bored.

Go Home

Suffering Succotash



"Hell Is Other People"