Question about Sartre and Existentialism?

Question

There seems to be a direct correlation between the idea of "Existence precedes essence" and humans are "Condemned to be free"

However, I am failing to recognize what that connection is. My friend has to write a paper on whether or not she agrees with the idea of humans being condemned to be free. However, she rejects the idea of existence preceding essence. Neither of us can see a problem though. How are these two concepts related? What effect does the rejection of existence before essence produce in relation to being condemned to be free?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Im quite confused.

I understand what he means by condemned to be free and existence precedes essence. Thats not the problem.

The problem is, there seems to be a correlation between the ideas that Im missing. If one rejects "existence precedes essence" it doesnt seem to change the fact that we are still condemned to be free. However, it seems like Sartre thinks it does.

If I say instead that ESSENCE precedes existence... What does that mean in terms of being free. Are will still not condemned to be free?

I dont see why the idea of essence first causes any conflict with being condemned to be free.

Answer 1

Sartre came up with extentialism which is philosophy, that does not treat the individual as a concept, and values individual subjectivity over objectivity. As a result, questions regarding existence and subjective experience are seen as being of paramount importance, above all other scientific and philosophical pursuits. Sartre believes we are condemned to be free because we have no choice to be free. Satre takes God and people who govern us out of the equation, he instead leave us alone in a cold hostile world. Sartre leaves us to take responsibility for ourselves. He basically says we are condemned to be free which in itself shows us the burden of our freedom; it removes God as people’s crutch and therefore leaves us in complete loneliness and anguish. Sartre does not see anguish as a human emotion but rather as a beginning to embrace freedom. Sartre discusses if you do not embrace freedom its bad faith therefore you never know the full responsibility of living your life and taking your life into your own hands. His philosophy is teaching people that they can’t blame others for there situation but only themselves For Sartre there are 'no excuses' for evading one's freedom. To act in bad faith is to try to behave like an 'object' or 'thing'. In doing this a person pretends they have a fixed or determined nature and in so doing avoid acting responsibly and "authentically"

Answer 2

About the only thing i care to add is that Sartre was NOT the first existentialist. In fact so far as philosophy goes, he was the last. Its beginnings go back Nietzche when he said "God is Dead." and they we had to fend for ourselves---that is we are totally free of interference from outside agents (God).

It should be remember that several weeks before his death, Sartre renounced the idea of existence preceding essence and confirmed that a Higher Force (maybe a God) had a big effect on what we do and what we are. For this he was dragged thru the gutters by the French press and disavowed by his Mistress and all of his collegues.

The idea of from Nietzsche has been taken and even expanded on (instead of god being dead, that he never existed) and in many circles accepted today.

Answer 3

If "essence precedes existence" then it is already determined what you are before existing - therefore you are not free to become someone in relation to this preconceived essence.

The existential dilemma as stated is that "existence precedes essence". The idea is a human being is "thrown into the world" and must define who he or she is, toward developing your essence. You are totally free to develop this essence based upon the supposition that all you have at the foundation of being is "existence". After that, it is all up to you how to posit reality and the limitations are mostly your own, since you are not predetermined to be something, you are "condemned to be free" by virtue of having choices as to how you proceed from the facticity of existence. Beyond the facticity of your existence, you determine how you relate to the external world and "create" the essence of who you are. This is something unique to you that no one else can ever claim to know - they cannot have the essence of who you are since it is always becoming - being created by you unto death.

Hope that helps!

Answer 4

"condemned to be free" does not in any way follow from "existence precedes essence", The latter says that what we are only happens after we are born. But the obvious shaper of us after birth is society. Existentialism has never satisfactorily accounted for the role of societies.

One idea behind "condemned to be free" BTW, is the idea that people do not want to be free, that we employ lots of tricks of "Bad faith" to desperately avoid "freedom". But we are condemned anyway, tho we don't like ir.

Answer 5

Since existence precedes essence we chose our essence and are responsible for that choice, therefore condemned to be free.

"We cannot say that we picked one course of action over another because it is what God wanted, because it was in
our nature to do so, and so forth. No, we can only say that it is because of what we wanted. Whether for better or for worse, the responsibility is ours and ours alone."Austin Cline

http://atheism.about.com/od/existentialistthemes/a/abandonment.htm

If essence precedes existence then we are not responsible for who we are. God made us that way. We are not free to choose our essence.

Answer 6

Think about it this way: if you create meaning in your life, as suggested by "existence precedes essence", then you can't blame others for your actions. You made all the choices, and you decided what you wanted to do. Therefore, we are "condemned to be free" because we must live with the actions we made of our own volition. We give our own lives meaning, so we can't blame anyone but ourselves for this meaning, hence we are condemned to own up to these choices.

Answer 7

Sartre said that we sometimes are in error. He said that sometimes we feign determinism even when knowing better.

Answer 8

he's french