"In the past, philosophers were attacked only by other philosophers. ... These days, philosophy is shot down in the public square." Jean-Paul Sartre.
With this post, I present a book by Sartre. This book, Existentialism is a Humanism, consists of two works: "Existentialism is a Humanism", which is a lecture; and "A Commentary on The Stranger", which consists of Sartre's thoughts on Albert Camus' novel The Stranger.
The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), known for his existentialist philosophy, delivered this lecture on October 29, 1945, with the aim of clarifying and defending his philosophy. Both French Communists and Catholics had accused him of presenting postwar France and the greater Europe with a pessimistic, individualistic, and narcissistic theory. This theory, now better known as existentialism, was seen by many at that time (and, sadly, at this time too) as being nothing but bleak, hopeless, and uncaring. This charge can partially be explained as a result of none-too-careful readings of his weighty tome Being and Nothingness and his then published novels. (You know you're going to raise eyebrows when you write lines such as "hell is other people.") Considering the immediate postwar year in which these charges were thrown at Sartre, it certainly was not the time to be seen as some sort of indifferent intellectual, presenting a dark theoretical opiate to the 'ruined' masses. So, Sartre's task with this lecture was to dissolve some of the misunderstandings about his philosophy.
However, what Sartre didn't anticipate when he delivered the lecture was how influential it would become. In its now printed form, it came to be seen as some sort of existentialist manifesto, presenting the basic ideas of Sartre's philosophy. It was anguished freedom for the masses! Yet, its publishing was also something to be later regretted by Sartre himself, for he came to see some of the inconsistencies in his thought during that lecture. On that October day, even the moral philosophy of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) made its way into Sartre's thoughts--ideas which were not explicitly present in his previous work Being and Nothingness. Admittedly, reference to Kant's moral philosophy itself isn't a bad thing, considering Sartre was appealing to notions of social responsibility: "I cannot set my own freedom as a goal without also setting the freedom of others as a goal." Nevertheless, Sartre disliked the inconsistencies which crept into his lecture, which was intended to clarify his thoughts, not to add new elements to them.
Despite that, this lecture is interesting if one wants to study the growth and maturation of his thoughts. We see Sartre basically thinking out loud, as it were. And who hasn't done that when trying to figure exactly where your ideas lead to? When we consider the early postwar era in which this lecture was delivered, Sartre may be excused for realizing that he needed a clear social theory which would entail responsibility to and for one another. And responsibility was something of great importance to Sartre, even if it meant reconfiguring his elaborate philosophy right in front of a crowded room.
The second half of the book is "A Commentary on The Stranger". The Stranger had been written by Sartre's contemporary Albert Camus and had sparked considerable interest in Camus as a philosopher, writer, and human. It was one of the books that, I should say, helped shape the 'world view' of many of France's citizens, alongside Sartre's works. Sartre, being a novelist himself, appreciated this "absurd" novel by Camus. In fact, he was so impressed with its philosophical insights that he chose to write a commentary on it.
In Sartre's commentary, we find him approaching Camus' work carefully, like he's figuring out the proper perspective to view it from. Sartre has an idea of how he understands it, and he decides to use the various intellectual tools at hand to give a proper analysis of Camus' novel. He uses various suitable and ingenious methods to unfold and explain what's going on in Camus' story, to see what it all might mean. We witness Sartre's analysis spanning from a grammatical analysis ("The transitive nature of the verb has vanished and the sentence has frozen: its reality is now the noun."); a philosophical resorting ("His very method...brings to mind the old "passionate geometries" of Pascal and Rousseau and relate him...far more to Charles Maurras...than to a German phenomenologist or a Danish existentialist"); to an identification with other novelists of a like mind ("What is this new technique? I have been told: "It's Kafka written by Hemingway." I confess that I have found no trace of Kafka in it. ... The comparison with Hemingway seems more fruitful."). At the end of his imaginative analysis, Sartre is then able to see Camus' work aright, in its proper literary, philosophical and humanistic context.
What's often noticed by readers after they've finished reading both pieces is how unpolished and raw the lecture is and how sleek and elegant the commentary is. This should be expected, considering the lecture printed here is derived from a stenographer's transcript. Moreover, Sartre delivered the lecture with no notes at hand. Brave, indeed! On the other hand, the commentary--as is clearly seen upon reading it--is crafted with great care and technique. We notice immediately Sartre's admiration for Camus, as Sartre gives his commentary for The Stranger the rigor it deserved. Nevertheless, both works are fine and insightful, even when comparing the styles of the two. Don't be misled by the bare surface of the one, or the polished surface of the other; they're both asking for something more, and deservedly so.
If anyone is interested in what existentialism is, I would suggest picking up this book to give you a general idea of existentialist doctrines. But be warned: This is not an introduction to Sartre's more complicated work Being and Nothingness. In any case, the ideas in the lecture and commentary are relatively basic enough to be readily understood by anyone who's willing to think them through. Think of the lecture, rather, as a transition of thought from one period to another. The time demanded it do so. Perhaps after reading this, one will then realize why Sartre was referred to as France's conscience.
