Jean Paul Sartre: Human, all too Human

So to start, Sartre never believed that existentialism is gloomy as to those who accuse it was, rather, he put it in such a perspective where it scares them since it leaves man to a possibility of choice. Where existence precedes essence: subjectivity is the initial point, thus man is nothing else but what he chooses and makes of himself – the underlying principle of absolute freedom for Sartre. But why absolute freedom?

Man is freedom, indeed; is responsible for whatever he does because he had only himself to blame for the interpretations he made. Then, I come to perceive, is man’s destiny then within himself only? Thus, if reality alone is what counts, it is not outside of me but really within me through the possibility of choices. Hence, through this choice, since I am responsible for myself, and in choosing man, I choose humanity; therefore, I am responsible for everyone else, how is absolute freedom manifested in such?

In one sense, choice is possible, yet Sartre also connoted, but what is not possible is not to choose. Why? Because we can always choose, yet we ought to know that if we do not choose, we are still choosing. A realization I sensed, one can never abstain oneself from choosing one choice, undeniably. One always has a choice, no matter how small and Sartre was firmly convinced of that.

After discerning the life Sartre had, where he doesn’t claim family, friends, had been into prison, especially war and politics, discarded fame, owned nothing, witnessed the liberation of the press, rejected his Nobel prize for literature, wrote acts, published books and some publications including novels, etc, I was truly amazed how he assured himself to be free. I remembered the line relating the involvement of man in the film, “You are already involved even if you don’t think you are. You have a role to play in society, so the point is to be aware of the significance of your situation.” And such was mentioned in his book also because action is what enables man to live. More than that, I distinguished the importance of action and where our freedom fits in line to what we experience in our society.

So, freedom is not limited then? Why do we want freedom? In wanting freedom, Sartre says, we discover that it depends entirely on the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends on ours. In this fashion, I can seize freedom as my goal only if I grasp that of others as a goal as well. That man being in whom existence precedes essence, that he is a free being who can want only his freedom is at the same time can want the freedom of others also – the implication of man being responsible for others.

So, how can our absolute freedom then fit in with our existence? I grasped that we were thrown in this world, says Sartre, which life has no meaning yet, but it is we who shall give it meaning. The fact that life is meaningless, gives us the opportunity to give it meaning because it doesn’t have meaning in advance. Thus, we are vindicated to give it meaning and to exercise our free will. It’s our own self-project, and it is on engagement which we are that they appear. For this reason, whatever happens to me is the image of my free choice and everything which assails me is mine, for I have chosen it and that in the sagacity of it, it characterizes me and epitomizes who I am.

Sartre’s emphasis on absolute freedom, the for-itself, being congested that he is the one by whom happens to be in this world, indeed, represent human destiny. In simplest terms, I am responsible for everything, and I am the foundation of my being. In a way I understood it, it’s like in everything we do, we must never forsake the idea of freedom nor repudiate it. Thus, is freedom then the basis of all values, as I reckon it according to the film? Yes, and I presume Sartre was rigid on that.