Explanation of Sartre Statement’s ‘Man Was Condemned to Be Free’

“Man is condemned to be free” - The Meaning and Implications

“Man is condemned to be free: condemned because he did not create himself, yet free because, once flung into the world, he is accountable for whatever he does,” said Aristotle.

The Issue of Human Freedom and its Philosophical Exploration

Theorists have discussed the issue of human freedom for many centuries. In contrast to the Eastern philosophers, who developed multidimensional explanations of the self and its free will in the context of the community and all of humanity, the theistic religious paradigm has an influence on these talks in the West.

Exploring Existentialism and Its Key Concepts

It was in the 19th and 20th centuries that serious exploration of the issue of radical freedom was done. In this manner, labeled Existentialism is not a formal systematic philosophy. Amongst the many authors and philosophers who expounded on existential concepts, only Sartre and Kierkegaard used them in their works. ”Man is condemned to be free”; is a phrase made by Sartre in his major work in philosophy and has deep implications for humans. This paper shall discuss the meaning of this statement and how it affects human behavior.

Sartre’s Statement in ”Being and Nothingness“

”Man is condemned to be free“; is a statement made by Sartre in ”Being and Nothingness“ (BN) and his renowned discussion, ”Existentialism is a Humanism.“ This was his huge achievement in his philosophical work. This statement has been subject to a lot of interpretations from various corners. As Sartre asserts that man is free to make his own decisions, however, is condemned to be free. Although humans are placed on earth without their permission, they ought to decide and conduct themselves freely in each circumstance they find themselves in. Every act humans do is because of the freedom they have been given by God. The only choice they miss actually is not that of having choices.

The Responsibility of Human Beings

Humans are not just condemned to freedom since they never choose to exist, but are condemned since they are the only creatures that have to take responsibility for their acts. Nonetheless, there is a notion that God has determined everything for them and simply just makes humans think they are free. The fact is that no one is sure of this and may never know as long as they exist. Human beings just ought to discern if their freedom is to be esteemed and to select ways they would wish to utilize that freedom. Sartre’s key point is that starting from the instant humans are put on earth; they should be totally accountable for what they do (Sartre 18). No eternal morals exist where they may base ways in which they live. It may not be sensible to use the phrase, ‘cannot or ought to’ since eventually they do have the liberty to do what they deem fit. When people conduct themselves in a certain manner, they cannot put the blame on anybody except themselves, and thus, this necessitates them to be accountable for their conduct even if they might not be happy about it.

The Loneliness and Freedom of Human Existence

Sartre states that individuals cannot say that they choose one act over the other since God wanted to or it was in their nature to do it. The accountability is theirs and theirs alone. Sartre thought that all through everyone’s existence, people ought to establish meaning in their lives. They have responsibility for their fate, and the way they live is shaped from what they make of themselves. It is as if Sartre sees this freedom to be a curse. The utilization of the statement ‘condemned to be free’ shows that he views this freedom in negative ways instead of it being a blessing (Brinton and Walter 246). Because Sartre does not trust in God, he is lonely in the world with nobody to rely on except himself. Sartre believes that God never existed and thus He never limits what humans do. An individual cannot give excuses for their acts since God does not exist so as to be accountable to, but since that individual has opted to do the act on his own. Implying, individuals are condemned to confront life and the accountability that emanates from it.

The Role of God and the Individual’s Choices

Sartre still may have believed in God, however, it may not have changed the circumstances. Some people may just want God to help them in making decisions. This might start giving people room to make excuses for their own acts and eliminate that sense of freedom. Additionally, humans might have had to choose if they wanted to follow God’s rules in the first instant and might have to take responsibility for these choices.

The Consequences of God’s Absence

There are consequences for this side of contention well. If God never exists, all things are allowed since no God is present to stop them from doing what they want. A person would not be accountable for their conduct because there is no God to judge them. With no absence of ethics or ideas predefined in human nature, no determinism in regards to their actions in every incident. Sartre writes that by simply being human implies assuming responsibility for their decisions (Brinton and Walter 246). Assuming there is no God, then what should human make of themselves? Who decides what is right or wrong? How can they decide on what is good if there is no set standard to show whether it is even or not? Sartre answers this by stating that it is upon individuals to discern the goodness of their choices.

Individual Agency and the Freedom of Choice

Humanity is to decide on choices that bring values and keep on defining humans. When people think of a choice they are to make, Sartre argues that they have already made up their decision on what they shall do and if they decide not to, that is still their choice. In spite of the burden of freedom, a person ought to capitalize on his condemned freedom since the forfeiting one’s freedom means giving up humanness too. Humans would rather be condemned to be free instead of being condemned to be God’s puppet.

The Concept of ”Existence Precedes Essence“

Sartre employs the concept of Existentialism, ”existence precedes essence,“ in his statement to prove that humans have a choice in everything. This notion that existence comes before essence implies no pre-existing concept of man is present. Human essence is not something determined but rather a man establishes it for themselves. Human beings are very different from other creations (Brinton and Walter 247). Plants and animals might have life but do not have a conscience to think like humans do. Sartre is simply attempting to show that human beings exist first and then now have a choice to decide on what they make of themselves. If existence really comes before essence, no determinism exists, man is free. People make choices based on the future; this cannot be said that man has essence first, but rather, they are always ahead of themselves.

The Rejection of Determinism and the Notion of Responsibility

This conviction that ”existence precedes essence“ connects to the fact that existentialist does not trust in God. If human beings are created by God, then human essence was determined already. In the existentialist viewpoint, human beings determine their own fate. They have the experience of making decisions in spite of determinism. Sartre additionally states that seeking advice from people implies making a choice for oneself since the person already knows what the other people shall say. This responsibility for self-determination might be difficult to acknowledge as humans would want the ability to blame others or something else for their acts.

The Disapproval of Determinism and the Embrace of Freedom

Sartre talks about the act of blame and non-responsibility as self-deception and is just disloyalty to individual self. The determinist viewpoint, like Laplace contends, that determinism is true; determinists refute human freedom and responsibility and, as such, it ought to be rejected. This determinist view believes in God, and only God can deal with something as complex as human beings and humanity. Sartre opposes this viewpoint as it denies the innate freedom of a human (Sartre 34). Libertarians like Sartre assert that human responsibility and freedom ought to be acknowledged; determinism disqualifies determinism, and therefore, determinism should be rebuffed.

Personal Accountability and the Impact on Others

Human beings ought to search for their own path in the world and make their own choices since they determine their own fate. This freedom of choice is actually very vital since there are some who may want to commit wrongful acts then blame it on other people. It is beautiful that each person determines their own destiny. Therefore, they are bound to be careful in their actions. Although Sartre does not acknowledge God, he acknowledges that humans are connected with one another; even if God is not present, humans have the conscience to know that their actions affect others.

Awakening Humans from the Concept of Excusability

The main intent of Sartre in this statement is to awaken the humans from the concept that they use excuses for their own behavior.

Works Cited

Brinton, Crane, and Walter Kaufmann. ”EXISTENTIALISM FROM DOSTOEVSKY TO SARTRE.“ (1957): 246-250.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. ”Existentialism and Humanism (1947).“ Philosophy: Key Texts (1948): 115.