On Sartre’s Existentialism and the Meaning of Human Existence

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s essay, Existentialism is a Humanism, he seems to argue against any inherent meaning in human existence. He believes that “existence precedes essence,” and that to begin with, Man is nothing. It is only through recognition of one’s own existence that an individual can begin to make decisions. Since an individual makes decisions that are best for him or herself, and these decisions reflect their image of the ideal person, people make decisions on behalf of all Mankind. It is the lack of confidence behind these decisions that causes the anguish of our existence, and in turn, according to Sartre, the lack of meaning in human life. Without a higher power to appeal to, individuals must dwell over what is truly best for themselves and all Mankind. 

Assuming that the above assertions are correct, and assuming that (according to Sartre) there is no God, it is still possible to find meaning in human existence. Sartre argues that life lacks inherent meaning given by a higher power, because existence precedes essence. However, he never argues that essence does not exist; he simply views the significance we attribute to our lives as meaningless, because it is not inherent from the start of life and is never validated by a celestial authority. By reevaluating Sartre’s take on existentialism, meaning can be attributed to our lives without the existence of God, primarily through the freedom of our own subjectivity and the responsibility that we have to the rest of Mankind.

Though an individual has to make decisions without appealing to a higher power, this does not mean that these decisions are “wrong” or without value. On the contrary, Sartre asserts that there is no higher power and thus no universal rules to live by; every decision that an individual makes is the correct decision because it is best for the individual. Each decision requires no further validation from a being outside of the individual’s own subjectivity. While Sartre believes that this means humans are “condemned to be free,” it is more of a gift than a curse. 

Without God, the freedom to choose one thing over another allows people to make decisions without the fear of breaking universal morals. If there were a God, the anguish of responsibility would be replaced with fear of punishment and guilt over amoral decisions. In other words, the “validation” of decisions is unnecessary, because under the assumption that there is no God, there are no inherent values to determine what is right or wrong, valid or invalid. By appealing to one’s own subjective intuition, individuals can make the best decisions for themselves, and in turn all of Mankind.

Though decisions themselves do not need to be validated to hold meaning, this does not solve the issue of anguish. People will continue to want their decisions validated. This never-ending anguish seems to imply an absurdity in human existence. However, a life without anguish actually would be meaningless. After all, if you have a higher power to appeal to and you never have to struggle with decisions, what would be the point of living? 

While Sartre sees the freedom of choice as a condemnation and further evidence that life is meaningless, it is actually the sole source of meaning in human existence. Assuming that existence does precede essence, we create our own “essence,” or meaning, through our decisions. Though we may dwell on whether or not our decisions are “right,” they are still our decisions.

To quote Sartre: “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” By making decisions that, to the best of one’s knowledge, benefit the individual, we give meaning to human existence. We have nothing to appeal to but our own subjective intuition when making decisions, so we have the authority to give those decisions meaning. The anguish we feel about our decisions is a burden, but it does not destroy meaning. Instead, it helps define the human struggle as just that, a struggle. By having the ability to live an existence that is difficult and requires us to make decisions without any guidance from a higher authority, we can give our struggles purpose.

One could argue that, without a higher power who creates a universal code of morals to aid people in making decisions, human existence would be completely chaotic and devoid of meaning. However, it is the sense of responsibility for Mankind that helps solve this dilemma. Since individuals make decisions that are representative of their ideal image of Man, they are making decisions on behalf of all Mankind. As a result, they are responsible for making decisions that are best for themselves and humanity as a whole. Although an individual will always lack confidence in their decisions, they will still make decisions that are best for all, because they will make decisions that are best for themselves. For example, if a person chooses to volunteer at a homeless shelter, that person is making a decision that they believe the ideal person would make. 

Essentially, just by living our lives and making decisions, we are projecting individual concepts of what Man should be. We are responsible for those projections because we are representing ourselves (by presenting ourselves as the ideal person) and representing all of Mankind (by projecting our beliefs of what the ideal person should be). Our decisions may not directly impact Mankind on a large scale, but they show our perception of the meaning of human existence, and we are responsible for this perception. Since we have nothing to appeal to but our own subjective intuition, and we are responsible for that perception, our decisions have value and meaning.

Using Sartre’s belief that God does not exist and his argument that existence precedes essence, we can derive meaning from the significance we place on individual subjectivity. Rather than assuming life is meaningless without God, the argument that existence precedes essence proves that humans give their own lives meaning. Although we lack confidence because we do not have an all-knowing authority to appeal to, we still use our perception of human existence to form decisions, and we create meaning through those decisions. Since that meaning is created by decisions we make within our own subjectivity, and that same subjectivity is the only authority that an individual can appeal to, it stands to reason human existence is not without meaning.

For more information on Sartre’s existentialism and its representation in film, check out 10 Existential Films for Philosophy Students.