Thougts on Sartre’s “Existentialism”

I’m reading an excerpt from a translation of Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay Existentialism and thought it would be interesting to record my thought / notes on it as I read:

What is existentialism?

2 types of existentialist: Christian and atheist — Sartre chose the word Christian specifically…why?

Both believe that existence precedes essence — man’s nature follows after man’s creation / existence…man creates his own nature

Sartre is an atheistic existentialist.

He argues that if God exists, He, as the creator, would define human nature. Man would then be no more special than a “paper-cutter” (again Sartre’s choice of words). Or a different example where Sartre criticises Kant, where a “wild-man” and a bourgeois share the same basic human nature.

Sartre says that atheistic existentialism makes more sense. God does not exist and man’s essence is defined by man. It is the first principle of existentialism and is also called subjectivity. — why do philosophers always choose words that are loaded to name important concepts? I think it is so they can argue with each other forever, intentionally ignoring the different semantics.

Well, he defines “subjectivity” with regards to existentialism: it is impossible for man to transcend human subjectivity. — Thanks for the circular definition. — This is the essential meaning of existentialism.

He then make the leap to say that since every specific man is responsible for himself, every man is also responsible for all humanity.

This, he says, causes the “anguish” of decision making. Every decision we make affects all of humanity! Wow. The whole “rings or fries” dilemma is put into an entirely new perspective. O! What calamitous catastrophes will occur by the wrong choice of side dishes (let alone condiments)!

His reasoning for this is that by making a decision, I am showing a preference for the ultimate path of mankind toward Idaho and their potatoes or Vadalia and their onions. Such a the two possible fates of man.

He then goes on to talk about “forlornness”. Man is forlorn because God doesn’t exist and therefore there are no a priori standards for us to follow. Man is alone with no crutches, no excuses. — Here I think there is a fallacy of logic. He reasons that if there is no God, there can be no a priori standards. I say, if there is no God, there can be no a priori Holy standards.

Now his example of forlornness. The student story. There was this student of Sartre’s in WWII that had a choice of staying in occupied France with his (the student’s) mother or travelling to England to join the resistance. Which path should the student choose? On one hand, his mother needs him to help her carry on due to recent tragedies in her life, but on the other, he could land a desk job in England (yes, I’m being a little glib).  In Sartre’s mind, there is no way to make the decision using values.  The only thing for it is to trust instinct.  Which of course makes us forlorn.

Despair is his next topic.  He defines it as confining ourselves to only that we can change.  Do not regard things we cannot change. — Of course, since everyone’s decision affects everyone, does this mean submitting to the masses…I think he means yes.

He rants a little against “Quietism”, the idea of basically giving up in life.  One must act in order to fulfill himself (and by extension, to fulfill everyone else).

He then stumbles through ethics declaring that existentialist decisions are not arbitrary, the values of the decision are made up of the values of the decider and the action of deciding.

Ugh.  Reading this essay made my mind feel slimy.  It will take days for me to identify all the contradictions.