The Concept Of Existentialism The Humanism of Existentialism By Sartre

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s piece “The Humanism of Existentialism”, Sartre makes an argument for an atheistic view of existentialism. Sartre goes on to claim that this form of existentialism is “more coherent” than other forms of theistic variety. However, does it follow that all of Sartre’s central ideas about existentialism depend on an acceptance of atheism? An acceptance of atheism is absolutely necessary in the adherence to Sartre’s mode of existentialism. Though some of Sartre’s ideas such as human beings being “condemned to be free” can be coexist with other theological beliefs, others including Sartre’s main concept of “existence proceeding essence absolutely depend on atheism in their acceptance.

In order to examine whether a commitment to atheism is necessary to accepting the existentialist point of view, we must first make clear some basic tenets of existentialism according to Sartre.

The one aspect of Sartre’s existentialism that many would cite as being compatible with many non-atheistic beliefs is the idea of man being “condemned to freedom”.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: Humanism

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In saying this, Sartre argues that human beings are in some sense “stuck” with determining their own destiny; that they are in some sense alone in making their decisions without any guidance. Though initially this may seem incompatible with most non-atheistic viewpoints, in actuality it is quite possible that these two ideals could exist parallel to each other. For example, one argument for the possibility of coexistence between Sartre’s argument and Christianity could go as such. For one to believe that God exists as well as that human beings are “condemned to freedom”, then one must accept that God is either not omnipotent or is unconcerned with the welfare of mankind.

Though Sartre states that these two options are not agreeable with Christianity, there are many sects within Christianity which would accept these possibilities.

In order to prevent bias in this piece, it is important to show that Christianity is not the only theological view which would be agreeable to said idea of mankind being “condemned to freedom”. Perhaps a more easily understandable example of how this relationship would work appears in the mythology of ancient Greece. For example, the head deity Zeus is considered to be the most powerful being in existence. However, he does not concern himself with the affairs of mankind (mankind as a whole not the few cases of direct interaction) therefore allowing them to practice their own freewill. Though this is undoubtedly an outdated reference as very few if any people still adhere to the ancient Greek theology, this analogy undoubtedly shows that atheism is assuredly not needed for belief in this critical aspect of Sartre defined existentialism. In other words, one could easily adhere to another non-atheistic theology, such as Christianity or ancient Greek mythology, and still conform to Sartre’s argument regarding humankind being “condemned to freedom”.

Though the idea of human beings being “condemned to freedom” is coherent within non-atheistic views, many other important features of Sartre’s existentialism are not. One such tenet of Sartre’s existentialism is the idea of existence preceding essence. In essence, this philosophical idea puts for the concept of humans being created with no prior definition, plan, meaning, or instructions. That is to say, man by definition has no presupposed function or purpose. There is no true concept of “what man is” or “what man should do”. Rather, one who follows Sartre’s form of existentialism would argue that human beings are a function of what he/she does. By this Sartre means that human beings are defined by their own actions rather than a predetermined blueprint or rule to which all of us must oblige. Instead, Sartre argues that all of mankind begins life with a blank slate of sorts, which they begin to author themselves throughout their own actions.

This idea about “existence proceeding essence” is the main argument Sartre makes in “The Humanism of Existentialism” and is easily the main issue regarding the need for atheism in existentialism. The reason for this is that this main concept of Sartre’s piece absolutely requires an atheistic viewpoint in order to face acceptance. Unlike many of Sartre’s other arguments in this piece, this concept could in no way coexist with other theological viewpoints, most notably that of Christianity. The conflict in these two ideals arises in that one of the very basic tenets of Christianity is that human beings were created in gods own image. This therefore raises two very important issues in the possible collaboration of these ideas. Firstly, the basic concept of mankind being created in gods’ image completely abolishes the possibility for existence proceeding essence. That is to say, since god chose to create mankind in his own image, then he had at least some basic blueprint in his mind when creating man. In itself, this fact completely contradicts the total concept of existence proceeding essence.

However, perhaps even more concerning to the proposed duality of these two ideals is the idea within Christianity that human beings should aspire to follow or mimic the actions of Jesus Christ. Being the son of God, this is once again a very critical aspect of Christian theological views and once again directly confronts the existentialist view of existence preceding essence. This confliction occurs in that, should one follow the Christian belief that one should aspire to live their life according to the actions of Jesus Christ, than therefore their undoubtedly appears to be a preexisting role of being human. Once again, this fundamental feature of Christianity insistently makes impossible the idea of a dual belief in both Christianity and Sartre defined existentialism.

In order to examine Sartre’s viewpoint in regards to atheistic existentialism, it is important to comprehend the comments he makes towards the end of his piece where he makes the claim that even if God did exists, it would not alter his argument. He does this by making the claim that existentialism does not seek to “wear itself out” proving that god doesn’t exist, but rather it merely seeks to discuss the consequences of an atheistic view. By this, he means to say that the main purpose of existentialism itself, it to explain the essence of man in a (somewhat hypothetical) world in which the Christian doctrine carries no weight. This statement obviously carries with it a large amount of significance as it would show how Sartre does not believe an atheistic view is necessary for an adherence to existentialist viewpoints. Rather, Sartre believes that existentialism should be viewed as more of an abstract notion on the basis of “if god does not exist, this is how the essence of man would be defined”. In other words, Sartre makes the claim that he and other existentialist do not concern themselves with deciding whether or not God exists, rather, they base their reasoning on the essence of main on the basis of atheistic beliefs that God does not exist. This is in many ways a strategy which allows Sartre to argue for his tenets of existentialism without isolating those who adhere to the Christian faith.

An acceptance of atheism is undoubtedly necessary for Sartre’s version of existentialism. Though certain aspects of Sartre’s argument such as the idea of human beings being “condemned to freedom” could coexist with other theological perceptions, the most important aspect of Sartre’s argument that of “existing preceding essence” cannot. For this reason, coexistence cannot exist between Sartre’s version of existentialism and any version of non-atheistic viewpoints. For if the main focus of Sartre’s argument (that of existence proceeding essence) cannot exists parallel to non-atheistic claims, than the argument as a whole is subject to similar disruption. In addition, by Sartre’s reasoning regarding Gods existence not altering the perception of existentialism, it is apparent that Sartre does not believe an atheistic view is in any way necessary to belonging to an existentialist viewpoint.