INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the question of the beingness of man, have prevailed, so that it becomes the interrogatives of all interrogatives. Who is man? This question as it present itself, may look like a rhetoric one, or one which is straight forward. But ontologically, one can understand that it is a philosophical question. Therefore, for one to answer the question effectively, it is pertinent that one be aware of the branch of philosophy that deals with this question; who is man, and how philosophers have dealt with it in time past, through the epochs of philosophy.
Anthropology is the discipline which deals with the study of man. In this study, anthropology, does not try to evaluate or pass judgment on the nature or activities of man. But this evaluation, as it is, is done by philosophy, so that in trying to answer the question of man, only philosophy after a critical, rigorous and analytic process can provide us, with something convincing. Hence, the branch of philosophy that deals with the issue of man, or study the human person, in order to understand the ultimate nature of human being is known as philosophical anthropology.
Just as the history of other branches of philosophy are coterminous with the history of philosophy, the history of philosophical anthropology, is also coterminous with it. This is because, in every epoch of philosophy, the issue of the nature of man has prevailed. Though in the early periods of philosophy, philosophers (pre-Socratics) termed to focus on the cosmos: the nature of the universe. Which obviously imply that the first wonder among the Greek thinkers was the world, the cosmos, the phenomena of change and not the humans themselves. But this notwithstanding, the issue of man, has been discussed in all the epochs of philosophy. In the ancient era, with philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus as the major proponent of philosophical anthropology during this era, the issue of the nature of man, was based on the idea of Body and Soul relationship, thereby, seeing man as a composite of body and soul. Also, in the medieval era, which comprises of philosophers such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Averroes, Avecina, among others, the idea of the nature of man, was one in relation to God. In the modern era, the cosmocentric attitude of the Greeks, and the theocentric attitude of the scholastics and patristic of the medieval epoch, was abandoned and they set out in the anthropocentric direction. That is, here, man constitutes the point of departure of which philosophical research move around. This period, is characterized by epistemological questions; how man knows, what does man know?
Furthermore, in the contemporary period, the question of the meaning of human existence, became central. Such that at this point, man is no longer considered in the light of a mere thinking being, subject or machine if you like, but he is an existential being. This period, gave birth to the school of thought known as existentialism. So that what a philosopher is, influences his approach to the analysis of man. For instance, the anguish man was by Soren Kierkegaard, erotic man – Sigmund Freud and man as a free being – Jean-Paul Satre.
Notwithstanding the fact that there is another epoch, which is referred to as the post modernist period, we shall concern ourselves to the epochs already given above, since basically this term paper, is with regards to a particular philosopher of the contemporary period. That is, we shall at this point, shift to the main purpose of this paper, which is Jean-Paul Satre and man. Meaning therefore, that as we have seen from the above, man as a free being, we shall explore the works of Jean-Paul Satre to see, how he arrived at the idea or notion of man as a free being. Now the question is; who is Jean-Paul Satre?
JEAN-PAUL SATRE: The existentialist
Jean-Paul Satre is a French philosopher, who is regarded as the pope of existentialism. He was born June 21, 1905 in Paris, France and died April 15, 1980, Paris. He is regarded as the pope of existentialism because, existentialism, came to its highest point in the philosophy of Satre. In it, we see existentialism in its most developed and complete form. Besides, it was Satre, who made existentialism popular and he succeeded so well in popularizing it that the term existentialism became synonymous with the philosophy of Satre. Satre saw existentialism as a humanism, hence in one of his essays, work or paper if you like, he titled it; Existentialism is a humanism.
Existentialism is a Humanism (L'existentialisme est un humanisme) is a 1946 philosophical work by Jean-Paul Sartre. It is seen by many as one of the defining texts in the Existentialist movement.
In his text, Sartre says that the key defining point of Existentialism is that the existence of a person comes before his or her essence. In simple terms, this means that, although that person exists, there is nothing to dictate that person's character, goals in life, and so on. Only the person himself can define his essence: Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards.
Thus, Sartre rejects what he calls "deterministic excuses" and claims that all people must take responsibility for their behaviour. Sartre defines angst and despair as the emotions people feel once they come to realize that they are responsible for all of their actions. He also describes forlornness as loneliness atheists feel when they realize that they are all alone, that there is no God to watch over them. This is associated with despair and angst.
The essay has been criticized by some for giving only a superficial overview of the themes of existentialism. The essay also asserts that if a man seeks freedom for himself from false, external authorities, he at the same time must invariably will this freedom unto others (hence, existentialism offers a kind of humanism).
From this above, we can observe, that Satre, was influenced by philosophers like Heidegger, Husserl, Hegel, Plato, Jaspers, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, among other existentialist, before him (Satre). Satre also had influence on so many philosophers, after him, De Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty, Che Guevara, Frantz Fanon, R. D. Laing, Iris Murdoch, André Gorz, Alain Badiou, Fredric Jameson, Michael Jackson, Albert Camus, Kenzaburo Oe, Doris Lessing, William Burroughs, and Roberto Mangabeira Unger.
Besides the work of Satre shown above, there are others, which we shall treat, that shed more light on the nature of the human person/human being so as to enable us grasp his position on the nature of man or of what being man is. That is, to understand how he answers the question that we have posed earlier on; who is man?
MAN: Complex of all Complex Beings
Even if it is true that philosophy cannot be a cumulative or progressive knowledge (like physics, chemistry and biology); nevertheless, philosophical anthropology, especially in its phenomenological moment (but also in the transcendental one), can profit today as far as concerns the philosophical knowledge of man from some already definitively acquired results.
A first important result regards the limit of any philosophical anthropology. It has to do with a being so fabulously rich and complex, that the result is practically indefinable: man is a being so vast, so varied, so multiform, that every definition demonstrates itself as too limited. Man aspect are too numerous.
A second result can be acquired by reflecting on the many two-word definitions of man proposed by philosophers: “a rational animal” (Aristotle), “a fallen soul” (Plato), “an image of the logos” (Philo), “a mode of the substance” (Spinoza), “will of power” (Nietzsche), “ a fallen God” (Origen), etc.
According to Battista Mondin, from the better part of these definitions it emerges that man is a kind of prodigy that combines within himself apparent antitheses: he is a fallen, or unrealizable, divinity; an unsuccessful absolute value, or empty of absolutization; an infinite or unreachable possibility. For this reason, Mondin thinks that it would not be wrong to define man as an “impossible possibility”…. It certainly cannot be said that man is a necessary possibility, this is a definition of God as proposed by Leibniz: he is simply a possible possibility inasmuch as is able to be realized in the arc of historical existence.
But as a result of the definitions referred to above, we encounter in man something specifically his – a tension towards the infinite, a tension towards transhistoric existence, because of which we have ask ourselves if this tension is a possible or impossible possibility, a pure utopia or an eschatological reality. How are we to intend this absolute value that is the human being...? Does man present himself as a grandiose, colossal project? Or do we find ourselves opposite an impossible, lacking, failed project? This is the great question (the question of questions), which we are about to attempt from the works of Jean-Paul Satre, how he sees the activities of man, and how he understand man to be. From there, we shall go by way of evaluation so as to have a stand in this problem of the possibility-man. But in the exploration of human activity, we sure encounter valid clues that man is not a “vain passion”, as Satre stated, but a possible possibility.
JEAN-PAUL SATRE AND MAN
Satre, trying to understand, and communicate this being; man to us, he followed different processes, this we shall come across as we look into his works or writ-ups. Before we proceed to the works of Satre, let us at this point, reiterate, that for satre, man is a free being, who is a possible possibility, for we this we shall come to understand, what he says in his write-up, concerning the existence, nature of man. At this point we shall go into the works of this great existentialist, to see how he answers or from what point he views man; the “complex of all complex being”, the “question of questions”.
Satre Human-Centered Ontology
Satre’s task, as evident from the subtide of his major work, is to develop a phenomenological ontology: phenomenology, as we know, is the study of the way the world is revealed through the structures of consciousness. Satre believes this will also provide us with ontology or an account of what the world must be like for experience to be the way it is. However, while ontology can describe the structure of being, it cannot answer metaphysical questions, such as why this particular world exists. Hence, Satre tries to provide descriptive answers to how? and what? questions from within the scope of human consciousness, but with Kant, he says it is meaningless to ask ‘why’ questions that refers beyond the limit of reality as we experience it. All we can say is that being is without reason, without cause, without necessity.
Satre’s philosophy owes more to Heidegger than to any other thinker. However, there were differences between the two. For Satre, the standpoint of the human subject is the beginning and end of his philosophy. There is never any hint of Heidegger’s Being that calls to us through the poet and in terms of which we can find a “saving power.” On the contrary, for Satre human consciousness confronts a totality of being that is alien and meaningless. Satre’s writings return to the emphasis on human ruling and action. Going along with this is the kind of subjectivism Heidegger tried so hard to avoid. According to Satre, we must make our way in the world by subjectively creating meaning, rather than having it flood in on us by the letting-be of what-is as Heidegger proposed.
The Contingency of Being
There is no necessity for the existence of being, says satre.
Necessity concerns the connection between ideal propositions but not that of existents. An existing phenomenon can never be derived from another existent qua existent.
All we can say about the existence of being is that it simply is. It is just there, without any reason for its being; its existence is not necessary, in fact it is superfluous. This is what we shall contingency of being. Satre goes on to identify the contingency of being with the absurdity of being and says that being is absurd, existence is absurd.
We spoke of absurdity, we might as well have said contingency. To exist, is simply to be there. The world of explanation and reason is not that of existence. I was beginning to understand that I had found the key to existence… to my life. I am superfluous…
Satre rejects the traditional explanation of the contingency of being in terms of a Necessary Being who is responsible for the existence of the contingent beings. This Necessary Being, says Satre, was invented to overcome the contingency of being and the absurdity of existence. Some people who have discovered the absurdity of existence tried to overcome it by inventing a Necessary Being. But no necessary being can explain existence. Satre rejects the idea of creation, which according to him is also invented to explain to the phenomenon of being.
A clear view of the phenomenon of being, satre says has often been obscured by a very common prejudice which we shall call ‘creationism’. Since people suppose that God had given being to the world, being always appeared tainted with a certain passivity. But a creation ex nihilo cannot explain the coming to pass of being
Satre goes on to say that being ‘assumes its being beyond creation… this is equivalent to saying that being is uncreated.’ If being exists objectively then it is independent of creator, since it exists on its own and is its own support, and ‘it does not preserve the least trace of divine creation.’ To advance the theory of perpetual creation would not help, for such a theory makes being ‘disappear in subjectivity… and the creature is no way distinguished from its creator.’ Thus, neither the theory of a necessary being nor that of creation can explain the contingency and absurdity of existence.
Conscious and Unconscious Beings
Satre distinguishes between two kinds of being, namely, conscious being (etre-pour-soi) and unconscious being (etre-en-soi). He identifies the conscious being (being for-itself) with the human being, and with consciousness itself. He also identifies consciousness of being for-itself with ‘emptiness’, ‘negativity’ and ‘nothingness’.
In contrast to being for-itself (conscious being) is being in-itself (unconscious being). Unlike conscious being, which is pure negativity, unconscious being is pure positivity. It is planitude, compact density and full of itself. It does not have nothingness or negation within its being, nor can it posit itself other than it is; it is what it is, and fully identical with itself. It has no reason for its being, it is just there. It has no ‘within’ which is opposed to a ‘without’.
The Nature of Human Freedom
Philosophers have debated for centuries about whether or not we have freedom. However, Satre has the most radical and totalistic view of human freedom. He says we do not have freedom, we are freedom; freedom – I sought it far away; it was so near that I could not touch it, that I can’t touch it – it is in fact myself. I am my freedom. Freedom is not one property among many, but is intrinsic to the sort of being we are, for at each moment of our existence we are creating ourselves anew. Most have assumed that having free will would be a welcome condition, but in one of his most striking comments, Satre says, “We are condemned to freedom” – whatever it does, freedom cannot escape its existence. Freedom is not free not to be free… it is not free not to exist. He wants to impress on us what an overwhelming burden it is that we cannot escape freedom. For as he puts it; “freedom is the freedom of choosing but not the freedom of not choosing. Not to choose is, in fact, to choose not to choose. He quotes Dostoevsky’s pronouncement “if God does not exist, everything would have been permitted.” We want some directions in making decisions. We want to fall back on some objective realm of values that will assure us we are making the right choice, however, the fact is that; we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. We are left alone, without excuse
From what we have highlighted thus far, one may conclude, that indeed Satre, is a great philosopher, to be noted. Still on what have so far treated, there are several works of his, which even if given a long essay, we still cannot exhaust. Therefore, at this juncture, one would like to give a summary of this great philosopher – Jean-Paul Satre who has brought to human consciousness the idea that we are responsible for whatever position we choose to take, since out of our freedom we choose to do what we do, whether consciously or unconsciously.
SARTRE JEAN-PAUL’S SUMMARY
1. EXISTENCE PRECEDES ESSENCE. "Freedom is existence, and in it existence precedes essence." This means that what we do, how we act in our life, determines our apparent "qualities." It is not that someone tells the truth because she is honest, but rather she defines herself as honest by telling the truth again and again.
I am a professor in a way different than the way I am six feet tall, or the way a table is a table. The table simply is; I exist by defining myself in the world at each moment.
2. SUBJECT RATHER THAN OBJECT. Humans are not objects to be used by God or a government or corporation or society. Nor we to be "adjusted" or molded into roles --to be only a waiter or a conductor or a mother or worker. We must look deeper than our roles and find ourselves.
3. FREEDOM is the central and unique potentiality which constitutes us as human. Sartre rejects determinism, saying that it is our choice how we respond to determining tendencies.
4. CHOICE. I am my choices. I cannot not choose. If I do not choose, that is still a choice. If faced with inevitable circumstances, we still choose how we are in those circumstances.
5. RESPONSIBILITY. Each of us is responsible for everything we do. If we seek advice from others, we choose our advisor and have some idea of the course he or she will recommend. "I am responsible for my very desire of fleeing responsibilities."
6. PAST DETERMINANTS SELDOM TELL US THE CRUCIAL INFORMATION. We transform past determining tendencies through our choices. Explanations in terms of family, socioeconomic status, etc., do not tell us why a person makes the crucial choices we are most interested in.
7. OUR ACTS DEFINE US. "In life, a man commits himself, draws his own portrait, and there is nothing but that portrait." Our illusions and imaginings about ourselves, about what we could have been, are nothing but self-deception.
8. WE CONTINUALLY MAKE OURSELVES AS WE ARE. A "brave" person is simply someone who usually acts bravely. Each act contributes to defining us as we are, and at any moment we can begin to act differently and draw a different portrait of ourselves. There is always a possibility to change, to start making a different kind of choice.
9. OUR POWER TO CREATE OURSELVES. We have the power of transforming ourselves indefinitely.
10. OUR REALITY AND OUR ENDS. Human reality "identifies and defines itself by the ends which it pursues", rather than by alleged "causes" in the past.
11. SUBJECTIVISM means the freedom of the individual subject, and that we cannot pass beyond subjectivity.
12. THE HUMAN CONDTION. Despite different roles and historical situations, we all have to be in the world, to labor and die there. These circumstances "are everywhere recognizable; and subjective because they are lived and are nothing if we do not live them.
13. CONDEMNED TO BE FREE. We are condemned because we did not create ourselves. We must choose and act from within whatever situation we find ourselves.
14. ABANDONMENT. "I am abandoned in the world... in the sense that I find myself suddenly alone and without help.
15. ANGUISH. "It is in anguish that we become conscious of our freedom. ...My being provokes anguish to the extent that I distrust myself and my own reactions in that situation."
1) We must make some choices knowing that the consequences will have profound effects on others (like a commander sending his troops into battle.)
2) In choosing for ourselves we choose for all humankind.
16. DESPAIR.
We limit ourselves to a reliance on that which is within our power, our capability to influence. There are other things very important to us over which we have no control.
17. BAD FAITH means to be guilty of regarding oneself not as a free person but as an object. In bad faith I am hiding the truth from myself. "I must know the truth very exactly in order to conceal it more carefully. (There seems to be some overlap in Sartre's conception of bad faith and his conception of self-deception.)
A person can live in bad faith which ...implies a constant and particular style of life.
18. "THE UNCONSCIOUS" IS NOT TRULY UNCONSCIOUS. At some level I am aware of, and I choose, what I will allow fully into my consciousness and what I will not. Thus I cannot use "the unconscious" as an excuse for my behavior. Even though I may not admit it to myself, I am aware and I am choosing.
Even in self-deception, I know I am the one deceiving myself, and Freud's so-called censor must be conscious to know what to repress.
Those who use "the unconscious" as exoneration of actions believe that our instincts, drives, and complexes make up a reality that simply is; that is neither true nor false in itself but simply real.
19. PASSION IS NO EXCUSE. "I was overwhelmed by strong feelings; I couldn't help myself" is a falsehood. Despite my feelings, I choose how to express them in action.
20. ONTOLOGY: the study of being, of what constitutes a person as a person, is the necessary basis for psychoanalysis.
CONCLUSION
From the above, we cannot but agree with Satre that man is a free being. But the question we must ask, is that, is it the case that man is entirely free? Or is it the case that at some point, man’s freedom takes hold of man? For if man is entirely free, then what have we to say, as to the idea of the laws of nature, for even though Satre tries to disagree that man is subjected to the law of nature, he himself, will also know that by nature, he is. And this will lead us to a second question, which is with regards to the creation of man; that is the coming to being of man. Satre tries to negate the fact that man is a created being. Then the question is how then did man come about? This question of course, will lead us to another problem, as to the beingness of man.
Nevertheless, Satre in his work has helped us realize, that what so ever position we take, whether to choose or not to choose, is our freedom. He has brought to our consciousness that man is not a being that has freedom, but a free being, meaning that man itself is freedom. And as such, man should not desire what he already has, therefore, Satre places everybody, whether god or man in the same pedestal. But can this be the case, of man having an absolute freedom?
References
· Dr Edema; lecture note; Philosophical Anthropology; 2009/2010 session
· Battista Mondin; philosophical Anthropology; published by Theological Publications In India, St Peter’s Pontifical Seminary, Malleswaram West, Urbaniana Univesity Press, Rome 1985.
· William F. Lawhead; Voyage of Discovery
· Jean-Paul Satre; Le suris, paris; Gallimard, 1945.
· Jean-Paul Satre; Existentialism is a Humanism; trans. Philip Mairet, in Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Satre. Ed. Walter Kaufmann; New York: Meridian books. 1956.
· Hazel Banes, trans. Being and Nothingness; New York Washington square press 1956.
· Jean-Paul Satre; La Naus; Paris: Gallimard, 1938
· Encyclopedia Britanica; Ultimate reference suit.
· www.wikipedia.com
· www.stanfordencyclopedia.com
· www.googlesearch.com
