I have a question about Sartre and the idea of abandonment and “condemned to be free”
Sartre defines abandonment as “God does not exist and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end” He later says “The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven.”
Does he mean by this that they find it embarrassing that people every believed in God and thus those values? The way it reads he seems to be saying that idea of NOT believing is embarrassing, but I know Sartre was an atheist so he must mean that the very idea of God and those values is embarrassing. Am I right in thinking that?
My second question refers to the “Condemned to be free” idea. Sartre states that everything is permitted because God does not exist. Thus man cannot find anything within or outside himself to depend upon. He is without excuse. He says that if existence precedes essence then one cannot explain ones actions by reference to a given and specific human nature. Thus there is no determinism, man is free. He states “man is freedom” He then says that if God does not exist, then there are no values or commands that could make our behavior legitimate. Thus we have no justification or excuse for our actions. That is what he says he means by man is condemned to be free. “Condemned because he did not create himself, yet nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.”
Most of that is direct quotation by the way. My question is, cant someone believe this and be Christian? I dont see how this differs from Christian doctrine. Christians feel we are free and responsible for our actions.
The reason I ask is because my friend has to write a paper for an intro to philosophy class. The question is: “What does Sartre mean by Abandonment and that humans are condemned to be free? Do you agree with this? Why or why not?”
It seems, since my friend is a Christian, that she should somehow disagree with Sartre. (Since he is an atheist) Yet I dont see any conflict? It seems hes simply stating what most Christians believe. What am I missing here? I know abandonment denies Gods existence, but how does man being condemned to be free contradict Christian ideals? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
But she isnt one. Shes doesnt believe Existence precedes essence. She believes in the soul and the prior essence that God gives us. What does this have to do with being Condemned to be free? Thats what I dont understand. What has the rejection of Existence before Essence have to do with being Condemned to be free? Thats the source of my confusion.
But she isnt one. Shes doesnt believe Existence precedes essence. She believes in the soul and the prior essence that God gives us. What does this have to do with being Condemned to be free? Thats what I dont understand. What has the rejection of Existence before Essence have to do with being Condemned to be free? Thats the source of my confusion.
What is the relationship between “existence precedes essence” and that humans are “condemned to be free”? If one rejects the former, what of the latter? I would think my friend would reject existence before essence, but still think we are condemned to be free. I see no point in any of what Sartre is saying. It is what everyone (except perhaps a few groups of people) think we are free.
It seems as if hes implying we arent free under God. As if through the idea of existence before essence we have come to the idea of condemned to be free. I dont see how the ideas rely on each other.
In accepting God and his demands arent we exercising our condemnation to be free? We may have to follow Gods commands, but it is through our free will of accepting them that we do this. Thus arent we still condemned to be free even if we dont reject God? And even if we believe essence comes before existence (essence given to us by God) we still are condemned to be free.
Im sorry, but I dont see the point at all. I dont see how this causes any conflict to a NON existentialist Christian and I dont see how this is a new idea. It just seems to restate what most people already think, christian or not. Unless apart of the group that rejects free will and accepts determinism, I dont see how this can be a point that needs to be made.
Why would her teacher even ask if they agree? Unless you are of the idea that humans have no free will (which most people dont think, especially Christians) everyone will agree with Sartre. Seems like Im missing something or the topic is borderline pointless.
Does he mean, perhaps, that if essence came before existence, then we already have our meaning set out. Our meaning or purpose in life is already set in stone. Thus we arent really free because we cannot decide our own purpose?
I mean there HAS to be a conflict here or the teacher wouldnt have had them seperate into groups in which they should go to the side they disagree with.
If you deny existence before essence, there must be a conflict in regards to condemned to be free. I just dont see it.
If we have an essence before we exist (the soul, Gods meaning, etc), how does this make us NOT condemned to be free? I dont understand. Would we not still be condemned to be free?
We still have free will (as believed by christians) and can chose to accept Gods commands or not. We have essence before existence and can chose to accept Gods commands or reject them. Are we not then still free? Whats the problem?
The only thing I can think of is the idea that if we dont make our own essence, we are somehow LESS free. I cant possibly see any other way to have a conflict of ideas.
The idea here at it’s most basic is that we are ultimately responsible, in that there is no foundational or responsible external force to refer to… but there is not necessarily a right answer - and no way to verify if we made the right or wrong one.
This is a curse - ultimate responsibility to do the right thing, and no way of knowing if we did.
OK, I just read all that Christian stuff, and I have to explain that Sartre thinks we’re condemned to be free because he thinks there’s no god to refer to. This is where our ultimate responsibility originates.
If you insist on believing in God, you need not trouble yourself with Sartre’s ideas, because they are incongruent with Christianity.
some Existentialism believe that we may never understand our essence if it does or does not exist and therefore are still abandoned by god and condemned to be free
basically both schools agree that the existence of god is irrelevant to condition
though Sartre pretentiously rationalizes his own actions
as well as the other school rationalizing a predisposed moral superiority
therefore an agnostic may be lumped into the same boat as religious people
psychologically speaking this would state that morality/ethics or freedom/thought originates to love or hate yourself
which is actually defining an essence since uniformity does not exist even in free thought, one may deduce another’s existence and therefore essence
they are both self defeating arguments and ultimately lead to an idea
of nilihism,to conclude therefore I do not exist,and since accepting that all
philosophy will lead to contradiction,which coincidently is how logic proves,