A well-known existentialist work, "Existentialism and Humanism" is actually a mis-translated title. The intended title, as
written in French, is "Existentialism is a Humanism", a fundamentally different meaning. The book, actually a refined version of a lecture given by the author, is miniscule in length, yet lush and green as the Amazon in terms of philosophical content.
There are is one particularly intriguing point made in E&H, a feature of the book my mind is cosntantly returning to, and it is this: the clear-cut judgement the great Frenchman makes on the ancient philosophical debate between the
subjective and the
objective, or a priori and a posteriori , to use the precise.
To explain, there is a timeless debate in philosophy as to whether value is subjective (internal, bestowed only through human choice) or objective (retains the value regardless of human opinion or interference). Of course, objective/subjective value can be applied to anything - from objects, such as a Chippendale item - is is valuable because humanity has chosen it so, or would it be valuable regardless of our input? - to music, such as the Beatles (same question applies). However, it is upon the point of morality which humanity seems to find itself most divided.
Sartre outlines in his work his belief that all value, of any kind, is subjective. I shall now explain his reasoning behind this.
Sartre is an atheist, an says that because there is no God, there can be no pre-determined path for humans. This leaves humans with total free will (and therefore, in his mind, total responsibility - though some would call this a non-sequitur).As we have total free will, this leaves humans having to choose their path for themselves. This can be clarified in terms of a quote Sartre uses from Russian philosopher Dostoevsky: "if there were no God, everything would be permitted". In other words, with nothing above humanity to concieve of it and to govern what is right or wrong, there can be no objective values.
This leads Sartre into subjectivism, and his opinion that "choice bestows value". In other words, nothing has value before it is chosen. This is applied in terms of morality too, meaning that something is only given the value "good" or "bad" through its having been chosen by humans.
Take, for example, the action of killing. Sartre argues that, because choice bestows value, killing is only "wrong" or "bad" if we choose it to be so. Until we choose, the action itself is valueless, thus morally neutral.
Now, most of you will have noticed that this doesn't comply with the traditional thought that actions such as killing are wrong in and of themselves. This view is objective, accepting that if the entire of humanity was wiped off the face of the earth, all actions would retain the same values - killing would be bad and charity good, for example.
However, what is interesting about this is the way this subjective approach can lead your everyday existentialist back along the pathway to Nihilism 9the philosphy upon which it is founded) - the view that all values are baseless. Existentialism tries to curb the destructive potential of Nihilism, presenting the purposeless of life, the universe and everything as the ultimate freedom. Ironically, one of the philosophers most greatly associated with Nihilism, Nietzsche himself, presented the idea of Nihilism as one which would destroy all conventions of religion and morality, leaving the world as a blank canvas upon which beauty could flourish.
Through reading E&H, I myself realised the depression that the realisation of the true pointlessness of life can bring. However, today I discovered that utter random purposelessness can be a beautiful thing. I urge you to look at fractals. Fractals are graphs of colour made by putting numbers through an iteration equation again and again and again, forming beautiful, infinite patterns of colour, and to me are reminders of the universe - infinite, like a cirle of time, the deeper you look the more chaos (i.e. random patterns) is formed out of order (i.e. iterations). So pointless, yet so beautiful; like life itself.
This has been random, and enjoyable (hopefully for the both of us).