What's My Name?

The article « Existentialism Is a Humanism » by Jean-Paul Sartre 1946 is an article that has as a purpose to offer a defense of existentialism against several reproaches that have been laid against it. Jean-Paul Sartre first lists the reproaches that are made against existentialism in his time, which appear to bother him. He states them:

      Existentialism has been reproached as an invitation to people to dwell in quietism of despair.

      It has been reproached for having underlined all that is ignominious in the human situation, for depicting what is mean, sordid or base to the neglect of certain things that possess charm and beauty and belong to the brighter side of human nature.

      Existentialists are reproached as people who deny the reality and seriousness of human affairs.

He presents his convincing point of view of the meaning of existentialism, as followed:

Existentialism is a doctrine that does render human life possible; a doctrine which affirms that every truth and every action imply both an environment and a human subjectivity. Sartre explains that there are two kinds of existentialism: The Christians and the existential atheists. He himself places himself under the category of the existential atheists. These two types of existentialism have in common that they both believe that existence comes before essence, that we must begin from the subjective. He describes an incredible theory that he underlines with the example of a paper-knife.   Its essence precedes his existence. The presence of the paper-knife is determined before our eyes.

This concept of understanding existence and essence is complicated to my eyes and I’m not sure whether I understand it properly.

A thesis that I do understand and would agree with, is that a man Is what he makes of himself. You can’t say that God decides who you’re going to be, or that destiny already decided what to do with you from the moment you’re born. I believe that we’re able to make our own choices that define our destiny. Whether there is such thing as God or destiny, I’m not questioning because I also believe that I’m no one to decide whether they exist or not. All I know is that I’ve made choices in my life that I regret, choices that shaped my life, choices that I’m proud of, choices that changed my life for the better or for the worse. Now there is a quote that a friend of mine often uses that says: it all begins… with a choice! We’ve talked about this in class, the fact that everything we do and everything we don’t do is a choice in itself. I would completely agree with this. A man is responsible for what he is. Now Sartre says that not only we’re responsible for ourselves, but we’re responsible for all men. I’m not sure what he actually means with this statement, even though he tries to explain it over and over again throughout the text. He also says that nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. Does he mean that we wouldn’t consider it to be better if everyone else wouldn’t do the same? I do think that not everyone has the same beliefs and that some people have other ideas of what is ‘better’.

Jean-Paul Sartre also writes that nothing will be changed if God does not exist. What about the widows of the men that died in the war? What about the sister of a girl that has an incurable cancer?  A little hope is all they need, and there are many people in this world that claim that God has given them hope, that God helps them deal with their pain, their wishes, their hopes and dreams. If they didn’t believe that God exists, what helps them get back on their feet? I must say that considering the fact that Sartre clearly states that God does not exist, he talks an awful lot about Him.

To finish I’d like to post a quote from the text: I only know that whatever may be in my power to make it so, I shall do.