So this morning, I made the decision to write an article on Existentialism as I had promised earlier, rather than turning over and going back to sleep. Now, I couldn't change the past, where I sincerely made the promise, so I could spare myself another day to prepare for it or probably go back to sleep. That was given and fixed. Similarly there are lots of things that are given, that one has no power to change. Jean Paul Sartre, a french novelist and an exponent of Existentialism, calls this, the FACTICITY of the IN-ITSELF philosophy. Being-in-itself refers to a mode of existence that simply is, with no fixed nature or essence.

However, in this scenario, nothing given, dictated my decision to wake up and write this article. I couldn't count on the laws of nature or God to get me out of bed and get to work. I had to make the decision. Thus, I am a FOR-ITSELF, unlike an IN-ITSELF(like a rock), product, aware of my own consciousness. I am condemned to be radically free.

Such philosophy can, however, be opposed and argued by questioning an individual's nature or his/her deeds. This means that one might say that I promised to work on an article this morning and being a person of great values, I had to get out of bed and get to work.

Sartre would, however percieve it as an act of escaping freedom. I couldn't do both, roll over and go back to sleep and fulfill my promises. But I could roll over and go back to sleep and thereby, break my promise. Thus, my promise in the past was a part of the facticity of the IN-ITSELF philosophy. However, my decision to get ready to write the article was not. I had to decide and there was nothing in the world, developed up to the moment of decision, that forced me to decide to get out of bed. That decision wasn't made, I had to make it. Thus, there is no essential nature that fixes who I am and what I do. My decisions and actions define my nature, not the other way around. As Sartre calls it, "Existence precedes Essence".

Existentialism is a sort of generalization of all of this. Not only each individual, but humankind in general, is responsible to create its own nature. God didn't determine the essence (spirit or nature) of humankind, it is a human who is condemned to make his/her decisions.Just how biology doesn't fix the nature of humanity but just the way we digest things and ability to percieve and move our bodies in various ways. These are all inclusive in the FOR-ITSELF philosophy.

Having said that, even athiests believe in an objective realm of values considering our freedom extends only so far. Thus, human decisions can't determine the math of 2+2 being 4 or pi being an irrational number.Just how they can't determine that keeping one's promises is right. Those questions are still left in the air, unanswered, merely supported by a rather subjective defense of "aren't those things given?".






Yet, Sartre's philosophy remains intact and strong for there is no objective realm of values that fixes the nature of right and wrong.This is the way that his existentialism differs from other versions of secular humanism.It’s all up to us.For humankind as well as for each individual, existence precedes essence. Objective values are just one more way of trying to escape from freedom.

Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.
4



  4