Existentialism As Humanism

Existentialism as a Humanism

“There is no universe other than a human universe, tthe universe of human subjectivity. This connection between transcendency, as a constituent element of man--- not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of passing beyond--- and subjectivity, in the sense that man is not closed in on himself but is always present in a human universe, is what we call existentialism humanism. Humanism, because we remind man that there is no lawmaker other than himself, and that in his forlornness he will decide by himself; because we point out that man will fulfill himself as a man, not in turning toward himself, but in seeking outside himself a goal which is just this liberation, just this particular fulfillment.” (Sartre p. 50-51)

Perhaps Jean Paul Sartre would most enjoy his existential philosophy summed up in the often repeated quote by pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things; of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, they are not.” Existentialism, ultimately, holds man responsible for his condition in the world, and thus places the weight of the world on the shoulders of man. The philosophy (if it may be so called) of humanism similarly declares that the value of man, and, subsequently, the value of life, is a committed search for moral values and truth by virtue of man for the virtue of man. Yet at times throughout Existentialism and Human Emotions, Sartre denies the assertion that existentialism is a form of humanism in the commonly perceived sense of the word, while continuing to push his assertion that deep in the roots of existentialist philosophy lies a true form of humanism that in fact holds man to be the measure of all things. But what exactly are the links between existentialism and humanism, and furthermore, the differences between the two? Are these two schools of thought fundamentally different, as some perceive them to be, or could it perhaps be suggested that at their foundation existentialism and humanism are essentially one and the same?

The basic tenet of existentialism, as Sartre explains, is the assertion that existence precedes essence. That is to say, man’s essence is defined if and only if he exists. As Sartre puts it,

“First of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be.” (p. 15)

Thus, Sartre claims, man cannot claim his motivations or actions on an a priori human nature; man defines himself by choice. The Sartrean concept of choice holds that choice is inescapable; life is nothing more than a series of choices, so much so that to not make a choice is in fact making a choice. As such, we are “condemned to be free”--- because we have the ability for free choice, we are subsequently responsible for this free choice. Man is thus in a perpetual state of freedom and responsibility; and he has no God to appeal to, as the atheistic Sartre would claim.

The fact that there is no God, as Sartre explains, is very distressing to the existentialist, because the possibility of and values and ethics, “is lost along with him” (p.22). This leads to forlornness and anguish on the part of the existentialist, as it takes away anything for man to cling to—“ We are alone, with no excuses” (p. 23) At the same time, however, the fact that there is no God opens up infinite possibilities, which Sartre explains is the starting point of existentialism. Sartre gives us an anecdote of the young man who is torn between caring for his mother and going to fight for his country, who comes seeking advice. What is he to do? In the most simplistic sense, Sartre tells him that the choice rests on him and him alone. There is no code of ethics for which the young man can consult; because of the non-existence of God, there can be no a priori ethics. The existential condition of man holds that man is constantly creating himself- values and ethics included. Thus, there is no “right” choice for the young man to make. This young man can only confirm his values through action; in a sense, the right choice for him is the action he decides to take. However, as Sartre notes, man seems to be in a vicious cycle—he can only confirm his values through action, but he needs these same values to justify this action. He is in a quandary much like Abraham, who could not be understood by anyone but himself and God. However, because there is no God in the Sartrean philosophy, the young man is by himself, condemned to be responsible for the path he chooses to take.

What link does Sartre’s existentialism have, if any, to the philosophy of humanism? The aforementioned quote by Protagoras is often ascribed to humanism. What is the difference between the two? Sartre writes,

“I’ve been reproached for asking whether existentialism is humanistic. It’s been said, ‘But you said in Nausea that the humanists were all wrong. You made fun of a certain kind of humanist. Why come back to it now?’ Actually, the word humanism has two very different meanings…” (p. 49)

The first definition of humanism that Sartre describes is the theory, “which takes man as an end and as a higher value.” (p. 49) This is the kind of humanism, for example, that itself was a cultural movement in Renaissance Europe, where humanist philosophers and artists such as Francois Rabelais and Leonardo Da Vinci thrived. This cultural movement sought to replicate the ancient Greek and Roman ideal, focusing on the achievements of man in the search for truth and moral values through the widespread practice of the liberal arts.

One may ask, “Well, how is this humanism any different from existentialism?” Implicit in the attitudes of philosophers such as the Renaissance humanists, Sartre argues, is the notion that we as mankind determine our intrinsic value and worth based on the accomplishments and deeds of only the best men. That is not to say that not everybody is capable of these deeds; however, each individual man only is only worth so much as to what he himself does. Each individual is responsible for the free choice attributed to his existence—he only goes so far as his actions dictate. Rather than placing responsibility on only the most talented of men, Sartrean responsibility is intrinsic in each and every man. As he writes, “I never encounter anything but my responsibility.” (p. 58) In this way, man is not an end because he is perpetually in the process of making himself--- and this process starts anew with each existence.

Then to what degree, then, is existentialism a form of humanism? For Sartre, there is a more fundamental definition of humanism which more accurately describes the fundamental nature of existentialism. He writes,

“Fundamentally it is this: man is constantly outside of himself; in projecting himself, in losing himself outside of himself, he makes for man’s existing; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent goals that he is able to exist; man, being this state of passing-beyond, and seizing upon things only as they bear upon this passing-beyond, is at the heart, at the center of this passing beyond.” (p. 50)

The intersection between humanism and existentialism is the principle that at the center of every pursuit, at every definition, at every value, is man himself. For Sartre, defining one’s essence is a matter of projecting the self out onto the world--- a world where man is able to define himself by choice, a world where man encounters nothing but his own responsibility. It may perhaps be suggested that for Sartre, man is a God within his own individuality; that is to say, in a world where man is thrust into existence with nothing to hold on to, the only thing he can look to for comfort is himself. Despite this initial position of despair, existentialism at its roots is an optimistic philosophy, a philosophy of action, which, despite the objections raised against it, provide hope for man.

Thus we are drawn back to the Sartre’s initial passage championing human subjectivity, and the power to define one’s own existence. To be subjective is not necessarily to be a relativist or an anarchist; to be subjective is to be a malleable entity, in a never ending process of change and development. Indeed Sartre might agree that man is the measure of all things. However, this is a rather broad and ambiguous statement. It is not certain what exactly Protagoras meant when he uttered those words, but perhaps Sartre would like to narrow the quote down to read like this: “Man is the measure of

himself.” That is to say, mankind, as such, cannot be measured as a unity--- the only measurements that can be made are those of the individual and his choices, because, as Sartre explains, to choose oneself is to choose mankind.