Sartrean Existentialism

Sartrean Existentialism, also known as Jean-Paul Sartre Thought is a philosophy based on Jean-Paul Sartre. Every human tool is made with given essential. Chair for example, is made with essential, to make people sit on it. Human, however is not made with given essential, thus existence precedes essence. Human who has no essential must choose and act according to his own preference, which would later make his own new identity. Sartre originally did not appreciate the term 'existentialism', but he accepted the term not long after.

Sartre was an atheist and an anarchist, and claimed to be marxist, even though there's no evidence that he actually read Marx.

Radical Freedom
The basis for Sartre's philosophy is radical freedom. Freedom in the sense of Sartre is not to be without shackles, in fact, he sees shackles everywhere, but rather, the ultimate existence of choice within our subjective experience. Now Sartre is not one that simply ignores deterministic arguments and makes the dominant proposition that the individual is free, but rather cites his basis for freedom in lived subjectivity. Groups such as the post-structuralists critique the entire notion of subjectivity, and Sartre agrees with some of their critiques, but says it would be dogmatic to ignore the lived subjectivity we are feeling right now. Sartre says that for subjectivity to exist it must be differentiated from the flow of life, there must be a separation. This is where Sartre deviates from Heidegger in his theory of the subject and of freedom, as Heidegger asserts that the feeling of subjectivity can only come with that being being united with that outside of it, i.e. being in the world, dasien. Thus to Sartre, no matter what external forces one is subjected to, one is always free to choose. If one is in prison, one can attempt escape. Sartre is not saying that that would be a logical choice, but it is a choice, hence freedom in the Sartrian sense.

Bad Faith And Responsibility
From this freedom, from this complete control of all of our actions, one is faced with complete responsibility for everything in one's life. Sartre, being a Marxist, says that the proletariat are subjected by the bourgeoisie, yet he still says the Proletariat is responsible for where they ended up, not for being subjected, yet they still are responsible for the choices that led them to the present moment. It is similar to Kierkegaard's conception of either or, one has choice and will be responsible and thus regret no matter what one does. This view has led many Marxists to critique Sartre, citing material conditions as a driving force rather than human subjectivity. Sartre in his later years would become less radical in this position, becoming more Marxist, yet still holds the view that the individual has radical responsibility. Now the individual, faced with this radical freedom, may choose to deny their freedom, to simply accept that this is the way that things are. Sartre calls this phenomenon bad faith. Now Sartre completely understands why one would do this, saying that man is condemned to be free, yet says that one must face this freedom and responsibility in order to fully realize themselves authentically. An example of bad faith is the waiter, discontent with their current job. The waiter accepts that this is simply how it is and that they are condemned to a life of monotony. Instead of taking steps to lift themself out of their situation, they deny their freedom and accept their place in life. Sartre calls this a pinnacle example of bad faith. This is one of the reasons Sartre is so critical of religion, as it denies ones freedom and instead makes everything in god. This is the same reason he is critical of determinism. Camus holds a similar view, that of philosophical suicide, that many have cited to be one of their simularities.

Phenomenology And The Subject
Sartre, especially in his early years, was a phenomenologist, a discipline established by Husserl and further popularized by Heidegger. Despite being heavily influenced by these two, his phenomenology differed heavily. Husserl said that to be conscious, one must be conscious of one's consciousness. Sartre agrees with this, yet not in the way that Husserl formatted it. Instead, Sartre says that even if one is conscious in the usual sense, unless one is aware of themselves they are not truly conscious. Now this when first heard can seem ridiculous, obviously I am always conscious of myself, one refers to oneself all the time. When one talks, one almost always says I or me, etc. Yet Sartre would ask that objector if one ever is aware of what I even means, what it implies. When someone says I, one is always never thinking of I's content, it is an empty signifier. Instead of being conscious, one is enthralled in the other, oneself is another. Only when one realizes that I am me and that I am here does one become conscious. Now Sartre's phenomenology really emphasizes this enthrallment, what Heiddegger calls fallingness. Nothing is this more present than in the look. The look is when one is abruptly pulled out of this enthrallment, when one suddenly sees oneself as an object. Sartre says that this is caused by the presence of another individual, that when they gaze at oneself one suddenly sees oneself from their gaze.

Existence Precedes Essence
When one thinks of Sartre, one usually thinks of this. This is because this is the fundamental belief of Existentialism, to which Sartre is a major figurehead. The traditional view of essence, held by thinkers such as Plato, is that one is born with an inherent purpose and essence. Sartre calls this view essentialism. Instead of this, Sartre proposes that one is born and only after does one formulate a purpose and a view of oneself. One creates oneself through their actions, with every action contributing to a view of oneself. Along with this, Sartre says that in this rather meaningless world one can create their own meaning, their own essence. This is in line with Sartre's view of radical freedom and responsibility.

Friends

 * [[File:ExistFem.png]] - While the proletarian cause is far more important then that of women, we both stand for individual liberation. You're basically me besides that ambiguity and moral crap.
 * [[File:Phenomenology.png]] Phenomenology - I am a student of phenomenology, though I differed quite heavily from Husserl.
 * [[File:Heidegger.png]] Heideggerianism - You are my biggest influence! But I was less radical then your critique of ontological structures and subject object dichotemy.
 * [[File:Neomarx.png]] - I am a Marxist!
 * [[File:Nietzsche.png]] Nietzscheanism - The creation of new values is needed to overcome nihilism. I don't like your anti-humanism though.
 * [[File:Humanism.png]] - Existentialism is a humanism!
 * [[File:Indiv.png]] Individualism - My theory has always been about the individual. But individualists deserved to be purged in Soviet Union.

Frenemies

 * [[File:Absurdism.png]] Absurdism - Camus! You bourgeois, moralist, nihilistic, imbecile! That being said, I did like your earlier work before you attacked me in The Rebel.
 * [[File:Poststruct.png]] Post-Structuralism - We share a dislike for essentialism, but why do you ignore lived subjectivity in your critique of the subject?
 * [[File:Meta-Anarchism.png]] Deleuzoguattarianism - Same with you, though Guattari seemed to like me.
 * [[File:Nihil.png]] Nihilism - Correctly realizes that we are born without meaning, yet you deny yourself the possibility of meaning creation.

Enemies

 * [[File:Descartes icon.png]] Cartesianism - You assume the cogito is the base for ontology, but this is simply not the case. Lived subjectivity is experienced first.