‘What is the meaning of life?’: A Jean-Paul Sartre Philosophical Book Review
What is the meaning of life? Does it mean to say that our existence precedes essence? Or could the meaning of life have no sense at all?
Man is nothing other than what he makes of himself. — Jean-Paul Sartre
One of the most asked questions is, “What is the meaning of life?” Throughout centuries, various famous philosophers like Gabriel Marcel, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the like have attempted to answer this intricate question of existential crisis in their understanding that branched out into different philosophical beliefs over time as part of their academic contribution to Philosophy. Some of these include existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism. As many of these beliefs are widely known to the world, we cannot simply claim and accept any of them validly and unitedly as one society, for there are a lot of interpretations as to how we can define life abstractly or concretely. This is because the definition of life depends on each person’s interpretations. However, one branch called Existentialism may be the widely general and accepted answer in defining the complicated concept of life.
In defining Existentialism, it is a philosophy that explores the issue of human existence, emphasizing the individual who starts in an meaningless world and seeks to create meaning in a world without inherent meaning. Jean Paul-Sartre, one of the distinguished 20th-century French Existentialist philosophers who contributed significant ideas in the field, with his book entitled ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’ (1946), introduces his belief that life is Existentialism in the Humanism sense. What does it mean to say that existence precedes essence? As Sartre believes and defines, our life or human existence is nothing more than a result of an accident, a chance encounter in the universe. Incorporated in the atheistic sense, he introduces a belief that we are condemned to exist and to freedom beyond our control.
Contrary to other philosophers, for Jean-Paul Sartre, life has no meaning, value, or purpose except what our freedom could create and the consequences that result from our responsibility, choices, and actions. We are what we make ourselves to be and the things we do to become who we are. Like in Hamlet’s Soliloquy, ‘To be or not to be”. Existing is to live or to die.
Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre
Published in 1946 by philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism (‘L’existentialisme est un humanisme’ in French) is based on a lecture by the same name he gave at Club Maintenant in Paris on 29 October 1945. This 70 page book tackles the concept about the expression of power that we humans have to produce such freely-willed choices and make an independent influence of religion or society.
One of the key figures in the existentialist philosophical movement in 20th-century sociology, Marxism, and French literary studies, Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre, was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. Along with Existentialism is a Humanism (1946), his notable books include Nausea (1938), Being and Nothingness (1943), The Words (1963), and more. He was born on June 21, 1905 in Paris, France and died of pulmonary edema in April 15, 1980 in Paris as well.
In his book, Sartre concludes that this said philosophical movement defines life from his own viewpoint through humanism as it expresses the power of human beings to make freely-willed choices and become independent of the influence of religion or society. Despite being an incomplete portrayal of Existentialism to be expected in this short 70-page book, Sartre sophisticatedly managed to describe how existentialism relates to humanism through his conclusive and metaphysical defense that ‘Existence precedes essence’. Read by many scholars, readers, and lovers of philosophy, he has given a few items of defense with viable evidence that, although brief and definite, makes the lecture understandable and plausible. In this book review, expect a summary and a background of this book and my arguments against some of the credibility of Sartre’s points.
Main Theme of Existentialism is a Humanism
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” — Jean-Paul Sartre.
Jean-Paul Sartre believed that human beings experience distress or anguish, not merely due to life’s hardships or challenges, but instead we are destined to possess freedom. With freedom, we can create meaning out of our lives but at the same time, good or bad, beautiful and ugly, moral or immoral, while having and fulfilling the responsibility over our actions. Even though the circumstances of our birth and upbringing lie beyond our control, Sartre argues that once we attain self-awareness or control over our consciousness, we must confront the necessity of making choices that fundamentally shape our very own essence, choices that shape who we are, what we are, and what we wish to become. This is where Sartre’s existentialist theory comes in: “Existence precedes essence,” implying that our lives gain significance, purpose, and meaning only through our actions and existence.
We are all different and diverse in nature; one cannot take the same actions as someone else every time. Simply put, one’s life can only make meaning from one’s choices, actions, and responsibility. Unlike the established standard that society expects you to be, Sartre maintains that there is no predetermined blueprint dictating how a human, an individual, should live his or her own life and that no divine entity provides us with a specific purpose. Consequently, the responsibility of defining ourselves by humanity rests solely on our shoulders. No one can tell you who you need to become or how to live your life. You, alone, can and have the power to make out what you want with your life, for we humans have freedom and consciousness. With this, we exist, and we can now define existentialism, as Sartre originally claimed, as inherently humanistic because it acknowledges the interconnectedness of human beings.
We can do whatever we want with freedom, without external or internal constraints. We possess it to act in ways that shape our desired identities and life paths. According to Sartre, each choice we make not only shapes who we are but also reveals our perception of what it means to be human. This tremendous weight of responsibility that accompanies human freedom condemns us, free men and women, to perpetual anguish and distress, not the hardships in life.
Atheism in Existentialism and Humanism
Surprisingly, I am also fascinated with how Sartre incorporated the theme of atheism in this book. It transformed this short book to be broader and fair and to retain bias against Christian doctrines. From this, he defended that the destiny and fate of man does not rest to God but rests to the man alone. But what if God does or does not exist? Does it make a difference? I think not. Whenever we commit ourselves to anything, realizing that we are not only choosing ourselves to be but for the whole of mankind, we come to the point where we learn that at the same time, God is not only the legislator. We, ourselves, come as a legislator deciding for the whole mankind to be. With this realization, I believe and strongly agree with Sartre that we are condemned to exist, for we did not create ourselves and are only here to exist and, hence, with our freedom, find our essence.
Arguments
- First, Sartre rationalized how we, mankind, exist, encounter ourselves, discover the world, and define ourselves afterward. Some people are not entirely conscious of themselves, other factors, and the foundation of human society. Is our unconsciousness an obstacle to existentialism? Or is it the intended ignorance? Self-deception, perhaps?
- Then, if ‘existence precedes essence’, there is no reference to human nature to explain our actions, for man is free and man is free. With this, Sartre states that we are in charge of ourselves and, therefore, in charge of making meaning within or beyond it, for we are free. We are what we conceive ourselves to be, yet, we are what we will be and conceive ourselves after already existing. However, I argue that if this is the case, how are we conceived or influenced by other people like our friends and family? Perhaps it is due to the Christian doctrines or a priori, but does a priori or maybe the doctrines in any religion matter or not in the scope of existentialism? I’m still not so sure.
- If the second argument is true, Sartre’s defenses will come to a certain point to conclude that we are entirely and 100% responsible for our actions as human beings. Which is probably what this lecture all about. Here, I agree that we are responsible for what we are. Not only for ourselves, but we are responsible for all men. In short, whatever action we take, we create a specific image as we would have ourselves and for humanity. Sartre said ‘In fashioning ourselves, we are fashion men’ and if this would be the case Sartre had proposed, I couldn’t agree more.
Existing in the 21st Century
Are you living your life or the one society wants you to live?
In the 21st century, we have this world-known stereotype of how society has created a generalized view of humanity’s necessity to live up to societal expectations or norms as part of the ‘only’ successful survival known to humanity. Once in our lives, our parents, teachers, and friends have introduced us to how we should live our lives, what we need to do, how we need to lead our lives, and who we need to become. This is the set of rules known to the world: You’re born, you study hard, ace all those SATs, graduate with a Bachelor, Master, or Doctorate, get a 9–5 job, invest and save money, buy and do what you want, marry someone, start a family, work and work until you’ve saved enough money, you retire, get your insurance, and die, burying your body six feet underground. Indeed, the majority of us have acquired this kind of mindset: To live, to be successful, and to be happy means to meet the expectations of society. ‘American Dream’ in other terms, as described by Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby. Is it right to live the lives society wants us to live? Is this what our existence is supposed to be? Most importantly, is this the meaning of life? A set of steps made by society?
Unfortunately, there are many cases in which one’s life is entirely led and controlled by society. Strict parents commanding their children to pursue a career they’ve chosen, such as being a doctor for a hefty salary that doesn’t even align with their children’s dream job, is an example. With this, children are put under pressure, unable to discover their true identity since they cannot locate their hobbies and passions. Societal expectations like this limit our capacity to embrace our existence. Say that these children do exist, yet their existence has not preceded with much essence since their existence is decided by other people on who they will become and how they should live their lives. Thus, these children’s existence is shaped by different people. They exist but do not fully exist since essence is lost.
Sartre quotes, ‘It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning you choose. The more sand that has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should see through it.’ We exist and have our own lives, so why must we let other people decide how we live our lives and who we need to become? We are condemned to freedom; man is free, so why must we conform to these societal expectations? The choices we make and the actions we take are our responsibility, not the responsibility of society. Life may have no meaning at first, but you’ll be the one to make purpose out of it, not some divine entity or society. ‘Existence precedes essence.’ You exist, and the things you do are the essence of your life: your hobbies, passions, talents, and skills. After all, the best way to live, according to Jean-Paul Sartre, is to live authentically. He further defines existentialism as accepting the total weight of your freedom in light of the absurd. To exist is to choose. You have to recognize that any meaning your life has is given to it by you, not society, not anyone, but only you.
Final Thoughts
I learned some of the principles of existentialism and how its aspects relate to humanism. Above are some of my arguments that may prove existentialism is a humanism from the vantage point of existence precedes essence.
“Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself. Such is the first principle of existentialism.” Jean-Paul Sartre
Hence, to end this great review of this tremendous philosophical book, humanity is nothing but that which we make ourselves to be. In short, Existentialism is a humanism “because we remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he must decide for himself; also because we show that it is by seeking an aim of liberation that man can realize himself as truly human.” Humans are condemned to exist and ought to create meaning in our lives through freedom. Our existence initially does not have meaning in the first place, but inherently is humanism in nature, for we create our purpose through our choices and actions that fundamentally shape who we are, what we are, and what we desire to be. Although our choices and actions may bear consequences, we are responsible for our actions as to who we are, what we became, and what we have wished for. There is no blueprint, a guide, or a set of rules on how one should exist. You live your life, make meaning out of it, and fulfill your responsibilities as always, for Sartre once claimed that existentialism is humanism.
