Reading Questions for Sartre, "Existentialism"

PHIL 201

Like the reading guide for Fear and Trembling, this is simply a list of questions to help with rereading. These are not exam questions.

1. Introduction and preliminary charges

· Sartre begins by saying that he wants to defend existentialism against certain charges. Sartre says that these accusers haven’t understood certain things. After reading his answers, try to explain how the charges might have made sense. (pp. 9-10)

· "…since no solutions are possible, we should have to consider action in this world as quite impossible." Explain what this charge meant. What view of action (and goals) does it imply?

· "neglecting the gracious and beautiful, the bright side of human nature." Explain how some people would have come up with this charge against existentialism.

· The communists charge that if one begins with the isolated cogito ("I think" – recall Descartes, from the lecture), one cannot live in "solidarity" with other people. Why do they say this?

· The Christians say that if there are no eternal truths or divine commandments, then it will be impossible to make judgments with any relation to other people – one’s decisions would pertain only to oneself. Explain.

· How are the last two points both examples of the "solidarity" charge?

· Sartre says (p. 10) that existentialism is "a doctrine which makes human life possible." Think about this! What does he mean? Interpret this in light of what he says later about humanism…

· Sartre wonders, "Can it be that what really scares them in the doctrine . . . is that it leaves to man a possibility of choice?" Read through this passage (p. 12) and compare it to pp. 33-35. Why is this frightening to some? Why does Sartre call it optimism?

· Why is existentialism "the most austere of doctrines"? (p. 12, bottom of page)

· On p. 13, he says that "subjectivity must be the starting point." How does this amount to starting with existence (compare to p. 15)? How does starting here lead, for Sartre, to the "forlornness" of pp. 21-22 ?

· "But if existence really does precede essence, man is responsible for what he is" (p. 16). Explain why.

· On p. 17, read the passage where he says "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." Why is this inevitable if we say of man that "at first he is nothing" (p. 15) and there is no God and no a priori meaning? Can you see why this is a harsh consequence, and would sound like a bad idea to many people? (You might think, for example, of Judah’s anguish in the movie.)

· He says again and again that every one of my actions and choices, regardless of its outcome, involves all of humanity. Why does he say this? In what sense do I involve all humanity?

2. What this all means

· Describe and explain:

· anguish

· forlornness

· despair

· Explain the point of the story about the young man who wants to go to war. Explain why Sartre says that in fact one cannot rely upon feelings (pp 26-29).

· On pp. 31-33, Sartre talks about quietism and says that man "exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself." "You are nothing else than your life." What does he mean? Why does he think that this is optimism?

· On p. 36: "… action is the only thing that enables a man to live." How does this sum up all of existentialism?

· pp. 36-42: how does he get from the cogito to involvement with others? Based on the surrounding passage (p. 37-38), explain how he says that "the man who becomes aware of himself through the cogito . . . perceives [others] as the condition of his own existence."

3. Choice, the human condition, and human meaning

· Explain (pp. 38-39):

· the universal human condition. Why is it so very important to recognize? (See especially pp. 41-42.)

· freedom

· On p. 39, what does he mean by saying that the universality of man "is not given, it is perpetually being made" ? (This is difficult.)

· Why is it that "if I do not choose, I am still choosing"? How does this, for Sartre, express what human existence is?

· On p. 44, he says "we do not believe in progress. . . . Man is always the same." Read the surrounding passage, and explain what he means by this.

· How does freedom lead to a moral judgment? (pp. 44-46) See p. 47: "The one thing that counts is knowing whether the inventing that has been done, has been done in the name of freedom."

· He concludes: "One may choose anything if it is on the grounds of free involvement" (p. 48). How is this different from arbitrary choice?

· Why does Sartre say (pp. 48-49) that "we invent values"; that "life has no meaning a priori"? (Think about what he said it means to take existence before essence.)

· What two kinds of humanism are there, and what is the difference? (pp. 49-51)

· On p. 50, what does Sartre mean by "transcendent goals"? Why are these not the same as Plato’s forms or the Christian’s relationship with God? (See this whole passage, especially this remark: "There is no universe other than a human universe…")

· Sartre insists that the existentialists think that whether or not God exists is not the issue. Why do they think that it makes no difference for man (think here "human existence") whether or not there is a God? (Relate the question to particular passages listed above.)