Sartre Vs. Rand
On some of the fundamental differences between Objectivism and Sartre's philosophy and personal reflections regarding the malicious usage of Sartre's ideas by religious fanatics.
My high school was a unique blend of a standard high school and a modern-orthodox Yeshiva. We started every morning by studying the Talmud and then proceeded to secular topics such as English, arithmetic, biology, philosophy and art history. One significant advantage of my school was that my teachers were quite intellectual. The school principal, who was primarily a Rabbi, also had a Ph.D. in philosophy. His favourite philosophers were those of the existentialist tradition, especially the philosophy of the man who came to be known as the father of existentialism—Søren Kierkegaard. So naturally, I heard pretty often about existentialist thinkers and their ideas. Thus, Jean-Paul Sartre’s name came up quite frequently.
When I was first exposed to Ayn Rand, I saw a parallel between her and Sartre in their approach to the subjects of religion and free will. Only after listening to the legendary history of philosophy course by Dr. Leonard Peikoff did I realise how far apart these two thinkers actually stand.
In this short article, I will attempt to explain Sartre’s key metaphysical ideas in simple terms and criticise them from an Objectivist perspective.
Before we begin, a short disclaimer: This is a matter of personal interest, not of expertise. I am not an expert in either Rand’s or Sartre’s philosophy. I am presenting my understanding of these topics as of the time of writing.
I will begin with Sartre’s metaphysics, his definition of man’s nature and free will, and a bit about his approach to ethics.
Man is Nothing: Existence Precedes Essence
According to Sartre, the notion that existence precedes essence is a common denominator for all existentialist philosophers. This notion means that man is born nothing, devoid of any predetermined set of characteristics.
The notion that existence precedes essence is viewed as an antipode to the theistic philosophers of the Enlightenment, who saw God as that which determined human nature.
To put it more simply, the Enlightenment tradition viewed God as the carpenter and man as the table. That is, God had a specific idea of what man needed to be—man is defined according to God’s ideas and plans. Therefore, man’s essence precedes his existence; man has a specific, universal nature.
On the other hand, Sartre viewed man as the carpenter of himself: “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.” [1] Man is an active agent in the universe; Sartre rejects determinism. Moreover, Sartre’s theory of free will is a radical conception of free will; everything about oneself results from his own actions.
The confusing aspect of this “existence precedes essence” idea is how Sartre uses the concepts “existence” and “essence”. It seems more straightforward to say that man isn’t born with a specific set of characteristics; he is born tabula rasa, a blank slate. Yet, man does have some metaphysical human limitations, such as his physical and mental faculties.
If we are indeed born with a specific human nature and limited abilities, then we do, as a matter of fact, have an essence that affects what kind of person we will become.
So, if we understand “essence” as man’s unique character, personality, or identity, then how can “existence” precede it? They are both deeply interwoven and intertwined. Possibly, both concepts are equal. That is, Essence = Existence.
How can man exist without being a man, and how could he have an essence without existing?
The Meaning of Existence
To understand the true meaning of “existence precedes essence,” we must first establish the meanings of the concepts “existence” and “essence.”
When we say that a table exists, we mean that this set of characteristics occupies space, i.e., that it has an observable identity—it has an essence.
In other words, essence is that which makes an existent exist. Nothing can exist without being something; otherwise, we are left with nothing (which is the negation of existence, a state of non-being.)
Therefore, the statement “existence precedes essence” is meaningless. It violates the law of identity. Nothing can exist without having an identity. To say that something exists without having an identity is a contradiction in terms. On a metaphysical level, the terms “essence” and “identity” are interchangeable.
To that end, the Sartrean response would be that Sartre’s assertion that existence precedes essence is specifically about human nature. It’s meant to describe the uniquely human condition and his unique abilities to use his free will to self-reflect and philosophise about the world using his distinctively human abilities. Thus, man can create himself “from nothing.” The Saarterean will say this is primarily an anti-determinism assertion, not a wider metaphysical axiom. Sartre argues for a view of human existence where individuals are the authors of their own lives, capable of creating their essence by exercising their free will and reflective capacities.
That is a positive aspect of Sartre’s philosophy—the pro-free will aspect. If the only takeaway that one takes from Sartre is that he needs to be the author of his own life, good for him. However, as we dive deeper into understanding Sartre’s theory of free will, we start to run into serious issues.
Absolute Freedom & Anguish
Sartre was a free-will absolutist:
“For a human being, to be is to choose himself. nothing comes to him either from without or within himself that he can receive or accept. freedom is the Being of man that is to say - his nonbeing.”
"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is.” [2]
According to Sartre, without a divine creator or predetermined destiny, humans are responsible for defining their own essence through their choices and actions. With this freedom comes the weight of responsibility for those choices, as there's no higher authority (God) to dictate what is right or wrong, good or evil. Thus, every choice carries a tremendous burden of responsibility. Because you are free and because there’s no forgiving God, you are solely responsible.
Even more than that, due to the fact that every decision we make affects others, one must ask himself before making a decision: “Am I really a man who has the right to act in such a manner that humanity regulates itself by what I do?” [3]
Even in the most personal issues, our decisions affect everyone:
"I decide to marry and to have children... I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men... In fashioning myself, I fashion man." [4]
In line with Sartre’s definition of the human condition, he identifies that there’s a metaphysical emotion that necessarily exists to one extent or another in everyone and derives from the fact of our existence. That is the emotion of anguish. Anguish from the heavy burden of responsibility and the constant decision-making process we must always carry.
Ethical Implications & General Criticism
Now, after starting with existence preceding essence, Sartre continues to ascribe a certain essence inherent to all human beings: free will, and an inevitable metaphysical emotion that is deeply rooted in the very fabric of human existence: anguish. How does Sartre not break his own primary principle here?
It seems that he does indeed break his principle, and he must break it if he is to write philosophy at all. Because his basic principle posits a fundamental contradiction to the law of identity, Sartre can’t maintain logical consistency. If he is to be a philosopher, he must make certain assertions about reality.
Why does it have to be anguish? Can it not be any other emotion? If free will is absolute, cannot man choose not to be in a state of anguish? Have we no control over the way we react to things? That would seem to imply that we are not really free after all.
By saying we have total free will, Sartre doesn’t really mean that, and by saying that we are born nothing, Sartre also doesn’t really mean that. Sartre's concepts are confusing; he uses metaphysical concepts to describe things that are uniquely about human nature, yet it implies that he is talking about broader metaphysical issues.
Indeed, Sartre and other existentialists see man in a different category, where metaphysics doesn’t apply. So what’s true for animals or inanimate objects cannot be true for man. Of course, man is a more complicated being than animals, but it is still fundamentally an entity living and operating on earth, and as such, it abides by the same laws of logic as anything else.
Sartre has a moral theory, based on his theory of free will, that is essentially very similar to Kant’s categorical imperative:
"When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one that is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all." [5]
Because we are all responsible for our actions, everything we do affects mankind as a whole. Therefore, we need to act with that in mind. And place others above ourselves.
One interesting observation is that, despite Sartre coming from a different philosophical school, a strictly atheistic kind, he still ends up with the same altruism as his religious adversaries. Those whom he went to such lengths to differentiate himself against.
Both Sartre and religious thinkers make the same fundamental error, which is why they end up in the same place. They attack the law of identity. The only difference is that Sartre uses "nothing man," and religious thinkers use “God.” The rest remains pretty much the same.
There is some good in Sartre; he was a good writer, and generally, I think many of the existentialists were great writers, most notably Camus and Dosteyvsky (if we can count him as an existentialist). I think engaging with these thinkers and learning their good lessons is important. From Sartre, I would pick the importance of personal choice and its significance in one’s life.
Why Rabbis Like Existentialism
Now I understand why my Rabbis liked existentialism so much. It poses a new and sometimes secular philosophy; thus, it can gravitate towards the Yeshiva students who grapple with the question of religion and are on the way to becoming secular.
The Rabbis understood very intelligently that if they trapped their students in the existentialist box, they would end up taking the other side of the same fraudulent coin as the Rabbis.
Indeed, it is much more likely that a Yeshiva student will remain religious in the long term if he accepts existentialism. The Sarteran agrees that there are contradictions, that ‘a' can be ‘non-a’, and that one must place others above himself. So what’s the big difference? One wears a Yamaka, and the other doesn’t.
Inevitably, the more consistent form of contradiction is the mystical form. The young, rebellious Yeshiva student can survive his existentialist era and return to worship God.
That is why, when we had a “philosophy” class, we would only learn about these kinds of philosophies. The religionists understand that they cannot simply ignore philosophy, so they teach their students about the philosophy that agrees with them on all fundamental issues but takes the opposite side.
That way, they seem honest to the students. It poses as a genuine quest for the truth. But unfortunately, it’s dishonest.
If they were honest, they would teach about philosophers who didn’t accept that it’s either “atheistic” or religious contradictions. But there are other alternatives, such as Aristotle and Ayn Rand. The only way to truly become atheistic is to reject this false alternative and embrace a life of rationality and self-interest.
Under all the “mud” and superficial differences, the core issues that both Sartre and religious thinkers attack are reason and selfishness. Only Ayn Rand presents an alternative that leaps out of the “essence” vs. “existence” false dichotomy. But that is a subject for a different article.
Thank you for reading Philosophy: I Need It. If you enjoyed it and want to see more content, consider supporting me by clicking the button below. Every dollar counts.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] - Existentialism Is Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre, 1946