Sartrean Existentialism (Part 2 of 3)
Now that’s I’ve quickly sketched out some of the main themes in Sartre’s thought, I think it’s safe to begin a reply. I say “begin” because I don’t intend on dragging out a long interaction and rebuttal to all of the points with which I either agree or disagree. But here are some quick thoughts.
Atheism. First, Sartre never truly argues that God doesn’t exist. In fact, as I mentioned in the previous post, he said he would have preferred if God did, at least because that would mean that someone, somewhere, has imbued the universe with some cosmic significance. Yet, on the other end, Sartre taught that if God did exist, He would dehumanize us because His constant gaze would turn us into objects, again challenging the subjectivity so highly prized by Sartre. But again, just because the notion of an all-knowing, all perceiving God bothers Sartre and caused him great unrest doesn’t mean that this God doesn’t exist any more than saying that because it bothers me that when I eat chocolate I tend to gain weight means that chocolate doesn’t exist. Neither my, or Sartre’s likes or dislikes determines what exists apart from our perception. This is all to saying that Sartre never sought to argue for atheism, he simply assumed it. And that’s a huge deal, because so much of his system (though he would never have called it that) is dependant upon atheism’s truth. Take that away and, for all his positive insights into human interaction, etc, what we’re left with is floating truths here and there, not a coherent worldview.
Morality. My second critique is built off of what I began to say in the last post, namely that Sartre’s notion of authentic living, combined with his teaching that no objective moral values exist, mix to make a dangerous and deadly combination. In Sartre’s scheme, no one can say that torturing babies for fun is wrong, no one can say that Hitler’s actions against the Jews was wrong, and no one can say that the slavery of Africans was wrong either. We can say that we don’t like them. That’s a nice little bit of autobiographical information, and perhaps we should be nice and indulge person who share that sentiment. But, no one can denounce it as evil. Hitler was simply being the person he wanted to be, he was “authentic.” And, if Hitler rejected passing the buck for his actions, then he was living in good faith. Therefore, he passes both of Sartre’s golden rules and hence is a perfect Sartrean existentialist!
Authenticity. Sartre, as I mention earlier, gave pride of place to his notion of authenticity, of “good faith.” I see a major problem here. In order to “be all you can be” we need to know what we’re supposed to be. That is, the notion of authenticity, rather than existing within a framework where essence is excluded, actually presupposes the notion of human essence. If not, on what basis on Sartre say that a person is living inauthentically? I can only know if person A is not living according to the way they should if I already have an idea of how they should be living.
Rules and norms. Likewise, and this touches on Sartre’s rejection of moral norms, it is arbitrary to oppose any rules given his rejection of a Creator God and human nature. You cannot say on the one hand, “there are no rules that bind our conscience,” and then, on the other hand say, “but you must live authentically and in good faith.” Given Sartre own philosophy this reduces to a power play, a way of him imposing his own philosophic “laws” on us while ruling out the authority of any others. It’s purely arbitrary and thus without warrant.
Next I’ll develop both my critique of Sartre’s doctrine of radical responsibility and offer some thoughts based on a Christian worldview.
