Existentialism is the first chapter in Sartre's
Existentialism and Human Emotions. This is a brief excerpt from that first chapter, where I've bolded certain statements that I believe show that May is misrepresenting the context.
...
Actually, it is the least scandalous, the most austere of doctrines. It is intended
strictly for specialists and philosophers. Yet it can be defined easily. What
complicates matters is that there are two kinds of existentialist; first, those who
are Christian, among whom I would include Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, both
Catholic; and on the other hand the atheistic existentialists, among whom I class
Heidegger, and then the French existentialists and myself. What they have in
common is that they think that existence precedes essence, or, if you prefer, that
subjectivity must be the starting point.
Just what does that mean? Let us consider some object that is manufactured, for
example, a book or a paper-cutter: here is an object which has been made by an
artisan whose inspiration came from a concept. He referred to the concept of what
a paper-cutter is and likewise to a known method of production, which is part of
the concept, something which is, by and large, a routine. Thus, the paper-cutter is
at once an object produced in a certain way and, on the other hand, one having a
specific use; and one can not postulate a man who produces a paper-cutter but
does not know what it is used for. Therefore, let us say that, for the paper-cutter,
essence--that is, the ensemble of both the production routines and the properties
which enable it to be both produced and defined--precedes existence. Thus, the
presence of the paper-cutter or book in front of me is determined. Therefore, we
have here a technical view of the world whereby it can be said that production
precedes existence.
...
If existence really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by
reference to a fixed and given human nature. In other words, there is no
determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, if God does not
exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So,
in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification
before us. We are alone, with no excuses.
...
The third objection is the following: "You take something from one pocket and
put it into the other. That is, fundamentally, values aren't serious, since you
choose them." My answer to this is that I'm quite vexed that that's the way it is;
but if I've discarded God the Father, there has to be someone to invent values.
You've got to take things as they are. Moreover, to say that we invent values
means nothing else but this: life has no meaning a priori. Before you come alive,
life is nothing; it's up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing else but the
meaning that you choose. In that way, you see, there is a possibility of creating a
human community.
In the final paragraph of that chapter, Sartre goes on to say:
Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing.
There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue.Further, with his claim:
However, for a life to be meaningful, it must also be worthwhile. Engagement in a life of tiddlywinks does not rise to the level of a meaningful life, no matter how gripped one might be by the game.
May is imposing his values on humanity. I prefer Sartre's viewpoint that the individual determines what is valuable in his life. May is free not to spend his life engaged in tiddlywinks, but on what authority does he base his decision as to whether or not it is a worthwhile life for someone else? The individual should make his life meaningful to himself. No one is under any obligation to make his life appear meaningful to May.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
