Jean-Paul Sartre

Delivered as a lecture in Paris in 1945, this work provides a seminal defence of the author's doctrine of existentialism and a plan for its practical application to everyday human life. It explores one of the central tenets of the author's philosophical thought, offering an introduction to his work. It is suitable for students of philosophy.

Existentialism and Humanism

This book presents a new English translation of two seminal works by Jean-Paul Sartre, the most dominant European intellectual of the post-World War II decades. The volume includes Sartre's 1945 lecture “Existentialism Is a Humanism” and his analysis of Camus's The Stranger, along with a discussion of these works by acclaimed Sartre biographer Annie Cohen-Solal. This edition is a translation of the 1996 French edition, which includes Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre's introduction and a Q&A with Sartre about his lecture. In her foreword, intended for an American audience, acclaimed Sartre biographer Annie Cohen-Solal offers an assessment of both works. It was to correct common misconceptions about his thought that Sartre accepted an invitation to speak on October 29, 1945, at the Club Maintenant in Paris. The unstated objective of his lecture (“Existentialism Is a Humanism”) was to expound his philosophy as a form of “existentialism,” a term much bandied about at the time. Sartre asserted that existentialism was essentially a doctrine for philosophers, though, ironically, he was about to make it accessible to a general audience. The published text of his lecture quickly became one of the bibles of existentialism and made Sartre an international celebrity. The idea of freedom occupies the center of Sartre's doctrine. Man, born into an empty, godless universe, is nothing to begin with. He creates his essence—his self, his being—through the choices he freely makes (“existence precedes essence”). Were it not for the contingency of his death, he would never end. Choosing to be this or that is to affirm the value of what we choose. In choosing, therefore, we commit not only ourselves but all of mankind.

Existentialism is a Humanism

Aksara

... the coward makes himself cowardly and the hero makes himself heroic; there is always the possiblity that one day the coward may no longer be cowardly and the hero may cease to be a hero. What matters is the total commitment, but there is no one particular situation or action that fully commits you, one way or the other.

... there is no love other than the deeds of loves; no potential for love other than that which is manifested in loving. There is no genius other than that which is experessed in works of art.

Thus, the first effect of existentialism is to make every man conscious of what he is, and to make him solely responsible for his own existence. And when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.

Man is not only that which he conceives himself to be, but that which he wills himself to be, and since he conceives of himself only after he exists, just as he wills himself to be after being thrown into existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself.

maia

And at the point of departure there cannot be any other truth than this, I think, therefore I am.

Dostoevsky once wrote: "If God did not exist, everything would be permitted"; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point“

When Descartes said, "Conquer yourself rather than the world," what he meant was, at bottom, the same - that we should act without hope.

Hard to explain how much this book made me stare at the wall and rethink my whole life, not in a total anguish way yet, but it was definitely challenging. Less dense than his other works, but still gave me goosebumps. I appreciate how he clarifies many misconception of Existentialism by certain groups that I won't get into here. Paperknife analogy led us to reflect on something people often debate, are we born with a specific purpose or we create that purpose?

Man is indeed what he makes of himself, I agreed, regardless the external morals or religious believe. Sartre acknowledges facticity (unchangeable facts of our lives like birth, body and past), but he argues that these factors only have meaning based on how we respons to them. To use one's circumstances as an excuse is what Sartre calls Bad Faith or mauvaise foi, e.g. someone who justify to be thief because he was born poor. We're always more than our circumstances because we possess transcendence, the ability to project ourselves toward a future goal. While we can't always change the situation, we're always free to choose our attitude toward it and the meaning we give it. But in doing so, choosing something for us it means choosing for all humanity. Sartre argues that an act is never purely private, we're affirming that our choice is valuable for all human beings. "In fashioning myself I fashion man" by our choice, we create a model of what human should be that's why he said we carry the weight of the world on our shoulder.

Existentialism is all about taking responsibility, we should reflect of our own action, "Man is nothing but what he makes of himself." It gives us a sense of optimism and drive, but at the same time, it brings on a lot of anguish and anxiety, why? because the moment we know Existentialism, we realize there's no pre-designed "human nature" or divine blueprint. The anguish is there because we have no excuses or anyone to blame except ourselves for our choices. Think of it like standing on a cliff edge, where the scary part isn't just falling but the realization that you have the power to throw yourself off. We're the sole authors of our lives and the total weight creates a profound sense of unease for us.

For the post-lecture discussion, I'm a bit siding with Naville over Sartre, my doubts about the "slavery concept" align with his points. He argues that the freedom isn't just an internal choice, it's a victory won through political struggle and material world, something Sartre seemingly overlooked. It's telling that Sartre actually took these critiques hard (his later works). Sartre admitted that freedom exist within a situation, but the problem of systemic slavery remains and his answer doesn't satisfy me enough. He said an individual is free only to the extent that they can revolt, but shouldn't we focused on changing the situation so freedom become lived reality not just a mental state?

Sartre's commentary on Camus' The Stranger also spot on. He explains how the "absurd" isn't just an idea, but a human condition for a gap between our desire for order and the messy world we live in. In the commentary, he separated The Myth of Sisyphus from The Stranger. In this era, Camus often compared to Kafka, and Sartre argues that they're actually different, I agreed with this opinion, unlike Kafka whose his narratives full of cryptic signs, Camus finds a tragedy in the lack of transcendence, in his work meaning isn't hidden, just doesn't exist.

Hard to explain how much this book made me stare at the wall and rethink my whole life, not in a total anguish way yet, but it was definitely challenging. Less dense than his other works, but still gave me goosebumps. I appreciate how he clarifies many misconception of Existentialism by certain groups that I won't get into here. Paperknife analogy led us to reflect on something people often debate, are we born with a specific purpose or we create that purpose?

Man is indeed what he makes of himself, I agreed, regardless the external morals or religious believe. Sartre acknowledges facticity (unchangeable facts of our lives like birth, body and past), but he argues that these factors only have meaning based on how we respons to them. To use one's circumstances as an excuse is what Sartre calls Bad Faith or mauvaise foi, e.g. someone who justify to be thief because he was born poor. We're always more than our circumstances because we possess transcendence, the ability to project ourselves toward a future goal. While we can't always change the situation, we're always free to choose our attitude toward it and the meaning we give it. But in doing so, choosing something for us it means choosing for all humanity. Sartre argues that an act is never purely private, we're affirming that our choice is valuable for all human beings. "In fashioning myself I fashion man" by our choice, we create a model of what human should be that's why he said we carry the weight of the world on our shoulder.

Existentialism is all about taking responsibility, we should reflect of our own action, "Man is nothing but what he makes of himself." It gives us a sense of optimism and drive, but at the same time, it brings on a lot of anguish and anxiety, why? because the moment we know Existentialism, we realize there's no pre-designed "human nature" or divine blueprint. The anguish is there because we have no excuses or anyone to blame except ourselves for our choices. Think of it like standing on a cliff edge, where the scary part isn't just falling but the realization that you have the power to throw yourself off. We're the sole authors of our lives and the total weight creates a profound sense of unease for us.

For the post-lecture discussion, I'm a bit siding with Naville over Sartre, my doubts about the "slavery concept" align with his points. He argues that the freedom isn't just an internal choice, it's a victory won through political struggle and material world, something Sartre seemingly overlooked. It's telling that Sartre actually took these critiques hard (his later works). Sartre admitted that freedom exist within a situation, but the problem of systemic slavery remains and his answer doesn't satisfy me enough. He said an individual is free only to the extent that they can revolt, but shouldn't we focused on changing the situation so freedom become lived reality not just a mental state?

Sartre's commentary on Camus' The Stranger also spot on. He explains how the "absurd" isn't just an idea, but a human condition for a gap between our desire for order and the messy world we live in. In the commentary, he separated The Myth of Sisyphus from The Stranger. In this era, Camus often compared to Kafka, and Sartre argues that they're actually different, I agreed with this opinion, unlike Kafka whose his narratives full of cryptic signs, Camus finds a tragedy in the lack of transcendence, in his work meaning isn't hidden, just doesn't exist.

good essay to ease into reading satre! looking forward to longer books

mimi nguyen

armoni mayes

I honestly feel like I cannot even rate this essay…it was really interesting…but also made me go into a deep depression

jess

This book covers the exposure and deep dive into existentialism and how it bounds with humanism. it provides depth and detailed explanations about misconceptions to existentialism linked with religion, purpose of life, and marxism itself. it is a somewhat interesting primer and the important thing to acknowledge is not so much this particular philosophy, but the importance of philosophy in general. This book also explores the commentary of The Stranger by Sartre, further describing the tension between Sartre and Camus, both literary giants at that time.

It was enlightening to consider different viewpoints (both the absurd, and existentialism itself) when trying to perceive the world and this book contributes to that search and is therefore important and worth reading, not to mention it can be read in a single afternoon.

Big fan of existentialism and Sartre's explanation of it. Really cool presentation as it's a lecture that was recorded by a stenographer and reviewed by Sartre. It has been interesting to read this while reflecting on poststructuralism and phenomenology. You have to be somewhat privileged to believe every choice is only yours and the consequences are your responsibility, and that's one of many obvious reasons why I am not a hardcore Sartre fanboy. But nevertheless there are important tenets of existentialism that emphasize the humanist nature of ethics under atheism. 

Thomas Steur 

Wilde

An excellent introduction into Sartre's philosophy. Considering this is essentially a lecture, it's very accessible and as a former philosophy student I can appreciate the straight talking tone. Makes a nice change!

i’m interested in existentialism. this isn’t exactly what i thought it’d be, but definitely thought-provoking. i am not an existentialist

the_basis_

incredibly informative i found myself agreeing to a lot of what he said because every single value/statement had a lot of logic backing it up.

excited to read reviews which challenge his work so that i can understand this book further.

Gabriela Roxana 

This was my first real foray into Sartre's philosophy. I had a cursory knowledge of existentialism, but only of the kind that's pretty inevitable if you spend enough time on Twitter or Tumblr. 

That said, I gather that this isn't an entirely accurate portrait of existentialism, even if it was given by the man himself. It's actually a speech Sartre gave in response to his critics, so he necessarily rounded off some corners and sanded some edges to fit the narrative. 

Even so, it's fascinating to delve into, and Sartre relays his ideas in an approachable way without dumbing anything down. The first third of the book was spent nodding along vigorously, everything basically boiling down to the famous line that "existence precedes essence," that man creates himself. 

Sartre then runs into a stumbling block: his complete and utter denial of what we now know to be pretty basic truths of human nature and psychology. Had he known what we know now, I think he would've adjusted his views accordingly, but as it stands, I think much of Satre's philosophy hinges on a faulty premise. 

Still, it's a fascinating read, and it's hard not to feel inspired when you finally turn the last page.

Existentialism and Humanism

Reviews

Highlights