Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir were lifetime lovers with polyamorous practices. Setting aside their less-than-virtuous lifestyles, some of the things they said really can make you think. Maybe this is some food for thought. Maybe it's gibberish bullcrap. But if you can fathom it, it is one interesting perspective on the purpose of man's existence.
Sartre the existentialist is quite different than the existentialism we know today with the substance beat out of it until nothing is left but BS. Most famous is probably his idea of "
existence preceding essence." Man’s purpose is determined after he is created and born. Before giving meaning to himself, he simply is. Contrary to religions heralding a higher order, man has no predetermined reason to exist. Contrary to theories about human nature, man has no universally definitive essence. What he eventually chooses for himself after he enters the world becomes his being, or his essence.
There is nothing necessarily valid about a universally shared experience of existence. Existence is a subjective experience. Man wills himself to be something, and this something is not universally shared. When man makes his own experience and determines his own purpose, it is a subjective act. His experience is unique to himself, shared with no one else. This contradicts the idea of a universal truth. There is no essential truth. Individual experience is
the universal truth.
Contrary to what others charge against existentialism, it is an optimistic outlook on human existence. It is optimistic because it allows for the possibility of complete unrestraint in action and grants complete agency to the individual. On the other hand, theories about human nature are pessimistic because they bind man to a structure, a set of constraints, that will subsequently determine how one can act.
Although insightful, I can't quite see eye to eye with the way he dismisses the poor, sad, and decrepit conditions one is born into. I cannot help but think Sartre is being a bit disingenuous when he talks about “every man realiz[ing] himself in realizing a type of humanity.” (Sartre,
Existentialism is a Humanism) He has this perspective because he is a European living in a time period that privileges Europeans. “Every purpose, even that of a Chinese, an Indian, or a Negro, can be understood by a European.” (ibid) Can it really? Their experiences are vastly different. It is arrogant, when one comes from a position of privilege, to say that this is the circumstances you were born into, don’t question it. Deal with it.
That makes me feel better. Anything I do from here on out will be my personal value judgment in regards to how I think the world I live in should be. And if I can't deal with a crappy situation, I can relegate my behavior to self-deception and hence avoid the anguish that comes with total responsibility and agency.
De Beauvoir is also an interesting character. Her idea of women as the second sex conceptualizes gender relations in a different way than how we might traditionally think of it, namely as an oppositional dynamic. Firstly, the definition of femininity can never be mentioned without discussing its relation to the conception of the other sex, masculinity. Femininity, as it stands, only has relevance relative to masculinity—it can never stand as an objective definition on its own. “A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man.” (de Beauvoir,
The Second Sex) Woman, on the other hand, is presented as everything man is
not.
In actuality, man and woman are not polar opposites, but positives and negatives, respectively. What is more interesting is de Beauvoir’s idea that man is the “neutral,” or the default. He represents, at once, the primary and the basic. He is the “absolute human type.” (ibid) Masculinity is the embodiment of “a direct and normal connection with the world,” whereas the female is not because of the particular biological qualities she possesses and simultaneously, the attributes she lacks. (ibid)
Just a dose of de Beauvoir.
Do you see anything wrong with the fact that the entire female population, on average, makes 77 cents to a man's dollar? I do. And if you do, then you're a feminist. There's nothing wrong with being a feminist. Most feminists are not bra-burning, obscenities-shouting, man-hating she-males. It's a little more subtle than that. If you value equality, if you feel that there is nothing inherent that makes men more superior earners, if you feel that the empowerment of women can only do good for the societies in which they live, then you are a feminist, and you should wear the badge with pride.
Gosh I love Porto's potato balls. Potato-ey, meaty, greasy, fried goodness. And lavender honey ice cream. Oh, the woes of balancing good food with a good figure. Sometimes I feel it's a tradeoff.
