Ok Sartre.. but action to what end?

October 7, 2006 7:47 PM

Sartre's brand of atheistic existentialism places a high premium on the value of action as the only means of self-definition. Why in Sartre's life did that action fall along lefty radical activism? Was that his personal ideology creeping in, or does his brand of existentialism demand action of one kind over another?

For a few years now I have been very very interested in Sartre's essay, "Existentialism is a humanism". It seems to clearly define a world outlook that i've had but had not been able to articulate. I tend to be sympathetic to Sartre because my political beliefs are similar to the ones he expressed. After reading this particular essay for the bazillionth time, I am always still left wondering if there is some critical piece I am missing...

He argues the importance of action to self-definition, but does not seem to lay out a framework in which to steer that action in one direction or the other. Is there something inherent in Sartre's brand of existentialism which mandated that his "action" take a quasi-marxist, leftist course? Or to ask another way, what would prevent the same world outlook from leading to "action" in an altogether different path, say fascism? Or was it a his own personal ideology, separate from his definition of existentialism which steered his politics?

posted by jlowen to Religion & Philosophy (9 answers total)

what would prevent the same world outlook from leading to "action" in an altogether different path, say fascism?

I am not an existentialism expert by any means, but my understanding is: nothing would prevent it, and this is one of the real difficulties that Sartre tried, more or less unsuccessfully, to overcome philosophically as time went on. The best answer to your question, as far as I can tell, would be: nothing about the world suggests what kind of action you should take; but you must be willing to take total responsibility for your actions and for the life they create for you whatever you choose to do.

It might be helpful to think about the wider historical context out of which existentialism grew up: that is, the context of surrender, collaboration, and resistence. To some degree you have to be thinking in the dire terms of that historical moment for the idea that action is a positive good unto itself to make any sense at all. Deciding between 'lefty' and 'righty' action seems to me an activity high above the water mark set for thought and decision by existentialism.

All that said, I am no expert, and I look forward to being enlightened in this thread too.
posted by josh at 8:05 PM on October 7, 2006

I know very little about Sartre. But one could think that (A) all people have a moral imperative to fully "own" their own decisions, made in a state of radical freedom at each moment, so that even the prisoner is free... but at the same time think that (B) there are morally better and worse decisions. That is, specifically, that there is a separate moral imperative to struggle for liberation from oppressive political forces that keep innocent people in prisons (to put it very simply).

(I don't know if Sartre thought (B); I don't know if he thought that was a moral imperative for all people, or if he just responded individually to the circumstances before him without intending any universal political theory.)
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:42 PM on October 7, 2006

I would think that if you looked at philosophers through the ages, you'd probably find a preponderance on the liberal/progressive side. Is that really that surprising?
posted by Mr. Gunn at 10:33 PM on October 7, 2006

I am not a philosopher. But in my opinion, neither was Sartre. He became too easily emeshed in the old philosophical problems he tried to avoid, and he didn't manage his time or commitments all that well. As a result, his effects on both politics and philosophy were diluted, and his efforts in either area didn't much inform his work in the other.

His interests were broad, and his political leanings were probably leftist, because of his wartime experience in the French Resistance, and his time as a German prisoner. After that, he returned to teaching in an intellectual world where success was heavily dependent on participating in a kind of fashionable re-invention of the French academy, as a kind of better, wiser, more forward looking movement, than anything the Germans, who nearly exterminated them, could have produced. Sartre spread himself in teaching, in writing fiction, in political activities and public appearances. He loved attention too much to be as original as he wanted to be given credit for being. He was one of the first true 20th century media whores.

But it's not like I don't like the guy. I learned a lot, reading his stuff. Being and Nothingness is the most obtuse thing I ever read, and I spent 4 months plowing through Joyce's Ulysses, so I know obtuse.

The "essay" upon which your question seems focused, was actually, I believe, delivered first as a lecture in 1946. It's comparatively early work from a man returning to academia from a very rough time in the war. There is a certian passion to it, but nothing like a careful foundation, or any real attempt to extend prior philosopher's work to form new synthesis, or serve as a fallacy which existentialism can uniquely correct. Much of it is just assertion and assumption about the nature of existence, without much formal structure within which the propositions put forth can be formally tested.

"Who, then, can prove that I am the proper person to impose, by my own choice, my conception of man upon mankind? I shall never find any proof whatever; there will be no sign to convince me of it. If a voice speaks to me, it is still I myself who must decide whether the voice is or is not that of an angel. If I regard a certain course of action as good, it is only I who choose to say that it is good and not bad."

If you take that as example, you see the problem. Taken at face value, Sartre leaves himself indistinguishable from a madman.

And, he's happy about it. Passionate even. Some would say, and have, raving.
posted by paulsc at 11:30 PM on October 7, 2006

Response by poster: I really appreciate the answers thusfar - I was able to read the first couple before I went to bed last night, then spent an hour laying there thinking about it. In that time I came to a better understanding, not necessarily about what Sartre thought, but a greater clarification on what I think. so..

I think that atheistic existentialism does mandate lefty political action for this reason. When your world outlook places the highest priority on action as a means of self definition, it would then follow that it is better for man to live under a political system which affords him the greatest possible range of actions. The more "free" you are to make your own choices, a more self-actualized (to steal from Maslow) and truly self-determined existence could develop.

Now for some, of course, this state of higher freedom would take a libertarian twist. I however take a more positive view of liberty in which maximum freedom does not require the absence of something (i.e. less government) but instead requires the presence of greater social cooperation - (universal health care, quality educational systems, etc etc.

Or to put it another way, independence breeds freedom of action but it is interdependence that breeds freedom of choice. When you are worried about what your next meal is, or how you can afford medical care for your child, then you aren't in the position, or really the luxury to achieve higher states of self-definition.

If you place ultimate premium on the power of choice, then it follows to me that one would struggle for the political systems in which man HAS more choice.

I think thats what i think. What are the holes in this logic?
posted by jlowen at 7:28 AM on October 8, 2006

No time to give a good answer now, but another place you might get a better answer is askphilosophers.org. You can ask your question directly of a panel of philosophy professors; one of them is bound to be a Sartre expert.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:33 AM on October 8, 2006

"... What are the holes in this logic?"
posted by jlowen at 10:28 AM EST on October 8

One problem with "greater social cooperation" is, that is never truly voluntary. It always comes with higher taxes, since people are not "good" enough to be counted on to contribute the cost of operating such a society, if they are not made to do so. Examples abound in history, and in the present. Compare Swedish tax rates to Chilean tax rates, and you might see that in many respects, poor Chileans enjoy far greater "freedom of action" than their well-off Swedish counterparts.

Socialism also tends to externalize certian costs expected of most societies, such as security costs. France has one aircraft carrier, but it never leaves port. Sweden has no aircraft carriers. Both countries are happy to be members of NATO, so somebody else can provide substantial resources in the event of situations like Bosnia, happening on their back stoops.

But please, don't let me tell you what to think.
posted by paulsc at 11:09 AM on October 8, 2006

I don't remember where I read this, but somewhere Sartre says that an existentialist would pursue a politics of freedom--which he evidently considered Marxism to be.

Have you heard that he said that we ought not to talk about the GULAGs and Soviet war crimes because that would hurt the worldwide image of Marxism? It looks like his politics took precedence over his existentialist morality ("bad faith").
posted by nasreddin at 2:50 PM on October 8, 2006

paulsc: Of course, some ethicists hold that any decision made where alternatives are unlivable (e.g., be forcibly conscripted into the army, or be executed?) cannot be properly considered a valid and binding decision. Systems without social safety nets tend to require members to make existential decisions more than systems with safety nets (e.g., work in the factory or starve to death?); therefore one could say decisions made in a "socialist" system are more valid than those made otherwise. It's not something I necessarily believe, but it's an alternative viewpoint.

Regarding security as an externality of socialism, I think your argument falls apart when you begin to consider non-European states. Did Russia or China outsource their security apparatuses? Does North Korea rely on neighboring states for defense? The demilitarization of Europe, post-World War II is a much more complex phenomenon than just "socialists don't spend money on aircraft carriers," and is intimately tied with the emergence of American military hegemony.

(Not that this answers the question any.)
posted by Coda at 7:37 PM on October 8, 2006