Introduction
It is important to note that humans construct their self-conceptions to establish a form of philosophy and organize their existence. Existentialists and humanists provided an atheistic perspective on human essence as a product of human existence and not the reverse. The analysis will focus on Jean-Paul Sartre’s piece, ‘ Existentialism and Humanism.’ Sartre raises valid points when describing the relevance of the existence of God, but he makes inconsistent non-humanist arguments against the collective of human beings.
Summary
Firstly, to comprehensively discuss the subject and the contents of Sartre’s writing, providing a detailed summary of the piece is helpful. In the text, Sartre addresses criticisms aimed at existentialism coming from Communists and Christians in order to showcase that their arguments are invalid (198). Sartre starts by defining existentialism, where he declares that existence precedes essence since a person must exist before conceptualizing himself or herself (199). He states that “man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterward” (Sartre 200).
The key point is against the anguish, despair, and anarchy arguments proposed by theists, specifically Christians. The central message is that atheistic existentialism does not seek to prove God’s non-existence but rather highlight its irrelevance since it is only up to a human being to exercise his or her will. Ultimately, the argument is made towards viewing the given perspective as person-centered or humanistic, devoid of self-deception or overreliance on the collective.
Critique
Secondly, I agree with Sartre’s approach toward the existence of God. He states, “What man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God” (Sartre 216). The author makes an outstanding point about how God’s existence does not negate or eliminate human will and action. Even under the religious framework, human intent and authority determine his path toward the Creator, which means he conceptualizes himself. For example, if I am convincingly informed that God indeed exists, it will still be my will and self-determination that will dictate how I will act to attain heaven. In other words, the direction of my actions might change, but not my authorship of my actions.
However, I disagree with Sartre’s response to Communists regarding non-reliance on others. He states, “I cannot count upon men whom I do not know; I cannot base my confidence upon human goodness or man’s interest in the good of society” (Sartre 208). This goes against humanist values of seeing humans as being generally good, which is why it is worthwhile to be human-centered rather than nihilistic. In a sense, the author contradicts himself by dismissing the importance of collective human goodness because he cannot will. A person’s will and authorship contribute to collective goals by becoming part of a group.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Sartre presents contradictory non-humanist arguments against the collective nature of humanity, yet he effectively highlights key points regarding the significance of God’s existence. In analyzing Sartre’s work, it is crucial to acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments in order to gain a more nuanced understanding of his philosophy. By engaging with these ideas, one can better assess the implications of existentialism and humanism on our own lives and self-conceptions.
Work Cited
Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism Is a Humanism.” Marxists.org, 1946. Web.