Jean Paul Sartre

Being and Nothingness

Introduction

Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness ranks among the most important philosophical works of the twentieth century. It is also the most penetrating and thorough exposition of his existentialist philosophy. It is very difficult to summarize such a lengthy and complex work, but what follows are some of the fundamental points Sartre makes.

Nothingness

Sartre begins by discussing the concept of nothingness. If the world presents itself as being, where do we get our idea of nonbeing? According to Sartre, the concept of nonbeing comes from the apprehension that the world could be something than it already is. To borrow one of Sartre’s examples, if you are meeting a person at a restaurant, that person’s absence from the restaurant is, for you, an important aspect of your experience of the restaurant. The restaurant presents itself as a multiplicity of things, but you experience it in terms of the absence of your friend.

This brings up, for Sartre, a distinction between facticity and meaning, both of which are elements of our experience. Facticity has to do with the things in the world as we confront them, whereas meaning has to do with the attitudes and expectations that we have regarding those facts. In the sense that we choose meaning, we choose the world, or more precisely, we are responsible for the world.

In a famous example, Sartre discusses a hiker who comes across a boulder in a path. The hiker could choose to play the victim and turn back because the boulder is in the way. The hiker could choose to play the hero and find a way around the boulder. The hiker could choose to be aesthetic and view the boulder as a work of art to be admired. The hiker could also play the scientist and examine the boulder to determine its composition. In each case, what the boulder is, is a reflection of the free choice of the hiker.

Anguish

According to Sartre, our freedom is a source of anguish. He distinguishes anguish from fear. Fear is the fear of something outside of ourselves. To use Sartre’s example, if I am walking along a steep cliff, I might have fear regarding the possibility that a strong wind will blow me off balance and that I will fall. Anguish is directed toward the self. The idea that I might for one second decide to jump would cause me anguish. Anguish is thus an unease at the recognition of our own freedom.

This anguish is compounded by our relations with others. Just as we choose the meanings of objects, we also make choices about the meaning of the actions or physical presence of others. That is, we interpret peoples’ actions as a means to determine what type of people they are. Even though the actions are free, once a person has been judged to be a certain type, we interpret their actions in relation to that type.

This makes us aware of what Sartre calls “being-for-others”. We become aware that our own actions are being perceived by others in the same way, and we thus construct our actions as they relate to the interpretations of others. This leads to a condition that Sartre refers to as “bad faith”.

Bad Faith

Bad faith occurs as a disjunct between what one does and who one is. In other words, we see some of our actions as not reflective of who we are To explain this, let’s consider the film “Grease”. In that movie, Danny Zuko has some kind of fling with Sandy Olssen over the summer. Unbeknownst to him, she transfers to his high school in the fall. The first encounter each other at a pep rally. At first, there is a moment of recognition when he sees Sandy. Then, he realizes his friends (Sartre’s other) are watching. He remembers he is Danny Zuko. Danny Zuko does not lose his head over a girl, especially a cheerleader like Sandy. At that moment, he reverts to a “cool” posture. When she sees his change in demeanor, she asks, “Where is the Danny Zuko I met at the beach?” “I do not know,” he responds and then suggests she take out an ad to find him! So he’s Danny Zuko, but not Danny Zuko--- bad faith.

Later, he “accidentally” encounters Sandy at the juke box—more bad faith. At that moment, in explaining his actions, he says, “It wasn’t me.. it was me, but it wasn’t me.” He is both correct and incorrect in this statement, according to Sartre. He is a free being, and so he doesn’t have to be the Danny Zuko that everyone expects him to be. That expectation is his being-for-others (how he presents himself) and not his being-in-itself, which is completely free to determine his actions. On the other hand, those actions were his actions, so it was him.

Alienation and Authenticity

Thus, for Sartre, the human condition is characterized by alienation, a state in which we are all strangers to each other because we condition our actions to respond to the context in which the observer places them. We are also strangers to ourselves because we adopt certain roles in order to lessen our anguish regarding the consequences of our total freedom. The goal is to reach a state of authenticity, in which our actions are truly our own, and not dictated by some contrived construct of who we are. Until we can present ourselves honestly to ourselves, we cannot present ourselves honestly to each other. This for Sartre is the challenge of modernity.

Romanticism

Romanticism is in many ways a reaction to neo-Classcism and the Enlightenment. While Enlightenment thinkers stressed the importance of reason, the Romantics were concerned with passion. With that passion comes an unfettered poetic style, a concern with nature, and a sentimentality that is lacking in the previous era.

Romantic poets, painters, and composers had in common a sense that art is a form of expression and that the expression takes precedence over following a given form. Emotions were more important to these artists than reason. Rather than following a rational form, we find Romantics more concerned with expressing an emotive attistude toward the subject they are portraying.

With that attitude, we also find a differing concern with nature. Whereas earlier artists had been concerned with nature as a reflection of a divine order, the Romantics viewed nature as mbeing more expressive and mystical. Rather than providing a backdrop to a picture, nature was portrayed as having its own integrity and aesthetic value. In the essays of Emerson and Thoreau, we find similar concerns. Certainly, in Colorado, we can see the scenery of the type that inspired many of these artists.

We also find more sentimentality toward the past. While the Enlightenment thinkers looked to the classical past because of the concerns of the Greeks and Romans toward reason, Romantics tended to look at the emotional experience brought forth by relics from the past, be they the Grecian urn that Keats considers or the ruins of Tintern Abbey as portrayed by Wordsworth and Turner. As we will see later, this concern leads to an appreciation for Gothic architectural styles that had been previously denigrated.

This sentimentality also extends to traditional culture, particularly that of the Native Americans. In Native American culture, the Romantics found a simplicity and connection with nature that had been lost on much of Europena culture.

The influence of Asian culture is evident during this period. Chines and Japanese artists had for centuries been portraying nature as an important force. The idea of nature being infused with divinity and mysticism an important part of Daoism and Hinduism. We can see the effects of Hindiusm and Buddhism in the writings of Emerson ("Brahma" for example) and the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer.

In future chapters, we will see how Romanticism is reflected in politics and artistic expression. In the meantime, if you have a chance, find a copy of music by Wagner or Berlioz and note the contrast with Mozart or Haydn.

Unit 1

Neo-classicism and the Enlightenment

The reason we start with this period is to understand the background against which the changes we will be examining occur. I would like to start by discussing the roots of these movements, then describe the movements themselves, and finish with a discussion of ideas that paved the way for the changes we will introduce in the next section.

There are basically three movements that led to neo-classicist and the Enlightenment. The Classical Humanists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries brought ideas from ancient Greece and Rome into currency. The scientific revolution brought forth the idea that we could understand the workings of the world without reference to theological explanations. Finally, social contract theorists looked at ways that human rationality could create a better society.

During the medieval period, the Church was the predominant political and social power. The Church hierarchy also determined what ideas were legitimate and what weren't. Truth, both moral and scientific, was determined by the writings of the Church fathers, and by those of Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher whose ideas enjoyed favor among theologians. In the thirteenth century, scholars began to re-examine some of the previously lost works of classical Greek and Roman writers, particularly the Greek philosopher Plato. In addition, artists and sculptors began to imitate the classical style- based on order, proportion, and harmony- in their works. Architecture, too, began to resemble the crumbling Roman buildings that marked the Italian landscape. While classical (Greek and Roman) culture had been influential in the development of religion, the classical humanists looked to more secular concerns.

The scientific revolution provided the notion that human beings could figure out the universe without reference to divine explanations. The application of human reason and experience could yield important truths about the make-up of the universe. Copernicus used mathematical modeling to argue that the Sun is the center of the universe, while Galileo's observations of Saturn's moons confirmed Copernicus' conclusions. Philosophers like Rene Descartes and John Locke started to investigate the foundations of knowledge as a way to support the scientific method. Descartes, a rationalist, argued that knowledge is based on reason; whereas Locke, an empiricist, argued that knowledge is based on experience. Although they disagreed on the foundations of knowledge, both Locke and Descartes believed that continued scientific investigation could increase the body of human knowledge.

Finally, social contract theorists argued that human reason could determine the principles of justice and the proper role of government. Social contract theory begins with an account of life before government, known as a state of nature. The next step is to analyze the state of nature in order to determine what would cause humans to want to leave it. Finally, these observations lead to the social contract, a list of terms and conditions for leaving the state of nature and setting up government. Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature was violent and unruly, necessitating that people give up all of their rights in order to receive security. John Locke, on the other hand, believed that the state of nature just needs an impartial judge to solve conflicts, and argued that government exists to protect rights. Elsewhere in this course, we see a connection between the thought of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.

The Enlightenment grew out of these movements. Enlightenment thinkers basically held that humans were capable of attaining knowledge through reason and experience, and that human history was progressing as knowledge increased. There was a faith that the development of technology would make for better and happier societies. In short, the Enlightenment thinkers believed in inevitable human progress through science and reason.

The neo-Classicists applied the aesthetic ideals of ancient Greece and Rome to art and music. Sometimes, they did so directly, as one can see by looking at the University of Virginia Rotunda as designed by Jefferson, and comparing it to the Pantheon of Rome. Others were more indirect in that they applied the Greek aesthetic ideals of order, proportion, and harmony in their composition. We can see this, for example, in David's The Death of Socrates, which has as its narrative an event from Greek history, but does not copy as directly from Greek or Roman works. In your readings, you will read about classical music. Although little is know of ancient Greek music, Greek ideals of harmony were used in the composition of classical works.

The ideas of reason and harmony in art, in philosophy, and in social organization held sway during the eighteenth century, but a number of thinkers were also questioning these values. Voltaire, an important Enlightenment thinker, wrote a wonderful satire, entitled Candide, which questions the Enlightenment assumption that everything happens for a reason. Jean Jacques Rousseau questioned whether the decision to join a society was a rational, rather than an emotional one. In addition, Rousseau argued that society made humans weaker and less compassionate. In art, we start to see artists veer away from the principles of neo-classicism and make their works more emotive. This is perhaps most striking in some of David's later works, which we will see in future chapters. This change will be paralleled in Beethoven's development as a composer.

Welcome

This will be the area to find my lectures for Humanities 123. I hope you find these useful.