Is Sartre’s existentialism pessimistic?
Is Sartre’s existentialism pessimistic?
Sartre defends his view of existentialism as not being pessimistic. He views the freedom to choose one individual’s own accord as liberating, and in that, he finds optimism. Existentialism starts from two assertions. First, existence precedes essence; second, we must begin from subjectivity. In this essay, I will take the “there is no God” view axiomatic for argument simplicity. As Sartre indicates in existentialism is a Humanism, his argument is not hell-bent on God’s lack of existence and is relatively uninterested and mentions that God’s existence or lack thereof should not and is not essential to the existentialist argument. However, given if we assume there is no God, the discussion around pessimism/optimism is simplified, I will resort to accept the assumption and move forward from here.
If there is no God, a being necessarily needs to exist such that its existence precedes its essence. And if there is no God to give man its meaning, value, and reason for existence, man necessarily needs to be such a being. It further means that man must find his or her meaning, and the way he does that, according to Sartre, is by his choices and actions.
Man, then, is free to choose whatever he wants and is responsible for that choice and not just for himself but all humanity. Then no doctrine will be to save him from this curse. He (or she) must choose and make of himself what he wills.
Of course, on the face of it, all of this seems gloomy. It seems that humanity is doomed to make choices and suffer the consequences of their choices, and they are. How can this be possibly anything but pessimistic?
When looking at it further, we notice something that saves us from this apparent pessimism. For that, we need another dose of pessimism; namely, nothing else has a more optimistic tone under
it. If there are a particular set of recipes by which we have got to make our choices, how can we give value to our choices, for there is no sense of responsibility or agency in them? How can one be proud of their choice because they have saved lives if, in essence, they just followed a rulebook? The only mere accomplishment would be how good one can follow a rulebook. With the rise of artificial intelligence, one of the main talking points trying to elevate human status ahead of machines, no matter what machines become, is that they cannot have agency in a real sense since they are merely following a set of programmed rules at the deepest level. Well, in that, humans and machines would be synonyms. They would be different in the material sense — carbon-based humans versus silicon-based machines.
Further, how can we improve our rulebooks? If we look back in history clearly, they did need improvement and were improved, but they wouldn’t have if someone would not step out and make the active choice of not following it/them. If the rules come from some source of great wisdom, even if that source is another human, it is but one human. Sure, that wise man can claim agency and greatness, but why should those who follow his wisdom to the letter? And who can improve the rulebook when it is out of date when all you must do is follow the rulebook’s guidance. In this manner, we will never escape the circular nature of this trap. Gradually it becomes clear that we only have the illusion that there is anything but the freedom to make our choices.
As Sartre describes, his framework is “precisely the opposite of quietism.” He goes on further to say, “it [the existentialist doctrine] says there is no reality except in action; it also goes further, since it adds that man is nothing but his project. He exists only insofar as he is realized, so there is nothing more than all of his actions, nothing more than his life.”
In that, existentialism takes responsibility, owns one’s mistakes, and is incentivized to fight and correct them. Improve upon them. “The existentialist, when he describes a coward, says the coward is responsible for his cowardice.” Says Sartre in his essay but does not stop there; he goes further to give the coward a chance not to be a coward; “but there is always a possibility for the coward not to be a coward…”. And warns that a hero is not bound to remain a hero; “…and for the hero to stop being a hero”. They must actively make choices to realize their existence; “What matters is the total commitment.” In that, Sartre’s existentialism has a strange optimism. If I may use the slogan of GameStop, “power to the players.”
Existentialism provides a framework in which an individual is liberated. She does not worry that she is doomed to be someone or something by happenstance or circumstance but rather an alive organism actively sculpting her reality for the better or worse. She might make mistakes and make a mess of things at times, but she always has the chance to carve something better and need not be worried that she is a victim of her circumstance. She can realize her value on her terms and not wait for some doctrine or rulebook to come out and define her; for what can be more liberating.
I must say, I do not intend to tell you that Sartre’s existentialism is optimistic, nor do I want to say that it’s pessimistic. I do not even want to say it’s neither. And that is the whole point. You are the only one to make that realization. You can choose how to look at this question, and you are responsible for what comes out of that choice. In that, you are free and liberated. I am merely here to provide my perspective.
A final word of caution, this essay is in no means in defense of existentialism but to argue how one can see optimism within the framework, should one choose to realize it for its beauty.
References:
Jean Paul Sartre. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Translated by Adam Norman and Google Translate. Internet Archive, http://archive.org/details/ExistentialismIsAHumanism. Accessed 7 Apr. 2021.