Reflection for November 25 - Sartre

Under examination for this week was Jean-Paul Sartre, a notable philosopher of the twentieth century. Of the particular themes that Sartre has worked upon, the discussion here emphasizes the roles of freedom and responsibility as well as his work to understand and explain the role of emotions and how they interact with the former. To begin at a logical starting point, I want to first put forth the notion within Sartre’s work that you as an individual are ultimately responsible for the decisions that you make, regardless of extenuating circumstances. This notion feeds off of the explanation that everyone should act how they feel that society as a whole should act. In other words, Sartre wants to persuade that one should make actions in accordance to how they feel everyone should. This stems from the idea that one should question what would happen if every member of society acted in a similar fashion. Furthermore, this subsequently accentuates the idea that you do not just make decisions for yourself, but that you make decisions for all of mankind.

            From here, it would also be a logical counter for an individual to point that their actions should not be accepted or interpreted as that of a model. That is, when questioning what would happen if everyone acted in a similar fashion to you, it surely seems plausible to point to the more likely fact that not everyone does so. However, according to Sartre, “but in truth, one ought always to ask oneself what would happen if everyone did as one is doing; nor can one escape from that disturbing thought except by a kind of self-deception. The man who lies in self-excuse, by saying ‘Everyone will not do it,’ must be ill at ease in his conscience, for the act of lying implies the universal value which it denies. By its very disguise his anguish reveals itself” (Sartre in Solomon, 209). From this, Sartre is trying to emphasize that responsibility for one’s actions in this instance is attempted to be shifted away, due to a crushing realization of one’s responsibility once accepting that your actions go beyond simply yourself.

            Responsibility to Sartre is a very important thing. The notion of good faith hinges on the idea that one needs to take responsibility for their actions, and there are ultimately no excuses for not being able to claim responsibility for your actions.  To be sure, it becomes more understandable why Sartre might want to write in emphasis of responsibility when you consider the time period in which he is writing – that is, the horrible events around World War II. When referencing responsibility in this period, he writes “when, for instance, a military leader takes upon himself the responsibility for an attack and sends a number of men to their death, he chooses to do it and at bottom he alone chooses. No doubt he acts under a higher command, but its orders, which are more general, require interpretation by him and upon that interpretation depends the life of ten, fourteen or twenty men” (Sartre in Solomon, 210).

            So at the bottom of this, I feel that Sartre wants to point out that the majority of the deaths that can be accounted for during this horrible time period should not fall on the responsibility of just a few individuals at the top of the hierarchical command structure. Rather, every individual agent that decided to take action and participate within the war structure was responsible for their own actions. This is simply to say that responsibility cannot be exempted because of coercion. As much as I may want to say that I am unhappy due to the circumstances that I am placed in, which has left me no choice, I cannot. More specifically, I may want to say that I am unhappy because society has dictated that I must go to college, get an education, start a family, and work a 9-5. I may want to say that I had no choice but to comply with these societal norms. Yet, I would be wrong. Sartre shows that in this instance, my unhappiness cannot be blamed on these circumstances. To blame these circumstances is to attempt to alleviate myself of the anguish in the realization that my own sadness is my own responsibility.

            From here I want to transition to Sartre’s works concerning emotions. Even here, however, the idea of responsibility is echoed in Sartre’s writings. To illustrate how emotions are interrelated to the way in which you perceive the world, he uses a story of grapes. This story tells of an agent who reaches to pick some grapes, however after doing so, finds that they are out of reach. To cope with the responding event, the agent simply shrugs it off justifying that they were too green anyways. When writing of this Sartre shows that “at first, they presented themselves as ‘having to be picked.’ But this urgent quality very soon becomes unbearable because the potentiality cannot be realized. This unbearable tension becomes, in turn, a motive for foisting upon the grapes the new quality ‘too green,’ which will resolve the conflict and eliminate the tension… I magically confer upon the grapes the quality I desire” (Sartre in Calhoun and Solomon, 4).

            Furthermore, responsibility and obligations are important themes in instances with identifiable emotions. To show this, he writes “for example, if I have learned I am ruined, I no longer have the same means at my disposal (private auto, etc.) to carry them out. I have to substitute new media for them (to take the bus, etc.); that is precisely what I do not want. Sadness aims at eliminating the obligation to seek new ways, to transform the structure of the world by a totally undifferentiated structure” (Sartre in Calhoun and Solomon, 4). In the first instance, Sartre wants to show us that we are thoroughly convinced that the substance of the grapes has changed. However, we “magically” confer this quality upon them. In reality, nothing about the grapes has changed; our convincing ourselves of such an occurrence is simply to relieve ourselves of our obligation to pick the grapes in the circumstance of us not being able to.