Prologue

As I concluded my formal philosophy studies, I was tasked with critiquing various philosophical ideas within the Continental tradition. One pivotal concept I selected was Sartre's assertion about bad faith.

We are unable to escape bad faith, yet we have no justification for it.

The primary reference point was Existentialism is a Humanism (Sartre, 2007), which includes a transcript of a public lecture Sartre delivered in Paris in 1945 to address critiques of his existential doctrine presented in Being and Nothingness (Sartre, 1943, 2018).

This transcript invites a critical interpretation of Sartre, and while some argue it overlooks the complexities of Being and Nothingness (Dawsey, 2021), a pressing question remains. If Sartre's existentialism embodies a universal truth of the human condition, shouldn't it also be universally comprehensible to those it claims to represent? It would seem that sophisticated arguments are unnecessary.

Evidently, Sartre himself believed otherwise, suggesting that his existentialism is “the least scandalous and the most austere [of all philosophical doctrines]:

> [I]t is strictly intended for specialists and philosophers. Yet it can be easily defined.” (Existentialism is a Humanism, 20 — emphasis added).

It is somewhat ironic that more than six hundred pages of intricate arguments were needed to arrive at something so "easily defined." Yet, Sartre's public assertions indicate that his existentialism presents a dichotomy between polemics and paternalism, akin to the choice between being a waiter and a bohemian philosopher.

This essay offers a mildly critical perspective on Sartre's proposition. It begins by situating his existentialism within a loosely defined historical framework, then explores the idea of bad faith through the lens of his atheistic foundation, before briefly addressing the notion of being without justification. A discussion surrounding the problematic nature of the proposition leads to the conclusion that it is, at best, trivial, if not irrational.

Life is a Challenge… So It Seems.

Sartre posits that life is a series of unavoidable bad faith decisions from which we cannot escape.

In a café setting, both the waiter and the customer bear the burden of these inescapable choices. Each is engaged in a performance, assuming roles that deny the fundamental human condition. The waiter serves, while the customer judges.

Yet, in that moment, they are simply navigating their lives, each in their unique manner and to varying degrees. They likely draw something positive from their shared, albeit fleeting, experience. Judging someone based on a momentary glimpse of their life seems unfortunate—akin to assessing a book solely by its cover.

From this perspective, Sartre's proposition appears trivial, if not irrational. What is the merit of a negative, condemnatory, seemingly self-evident "truth" that is unavoidable? Its apparent depth conceals its triviality. Perhaps this is overly harsh, considering the historical context from which it emerged and its inherent appeal.

Context Matters

Sartre’s existentialism must be understood against the backdrop of the Enlightenment, which lifted the curtain on two fundamental aspects of existence: the world and our human experience within it.

The realms of science and philosophy ushered in an era of questioning the world through a secular lens. While science achieved remarkable success, philosophy struggled to keep pace as the complexities of life became increasingly apparent during the 18th century.

In the 19th century, both fields expanded significantly, influencing various facets of Western culture. This era also saw the waning influence of Christianity and the rise of secularism and atheism, especially among intellectuals.

The culmination of these shifts contributed to a prolonged period of political, social, and economic unrest that concluded with World War II—over six years of profound existential upheaval, during which many undoubtedly invoked the seeming abandonment of humanity by God.

Another significant transformation in European philosophy was the shift from a divine perspective to one centered on human experience. The emergence of phenomenology, influenced by advances in psychology, redirected focus from an independent world of objects to the inescapable subjectivity that shapes our understanding.

For Sartre, phenomenology was not about passively accepting life's flow; rather, it was a means through which individuals actively construct their lives, driven by what he posits as the universal truth of the human condition—radical freedom and responsibility. This doctrine is what “makes human life possible” (Existentialism is a Humanism, 18). To ignore, deny, or remain unaware of this is to act in bad faith.

It is noteworthy that existentialism was viewed more as a movement or ethos rather than a rigid philosophy. It lacked a unified doctrine, embodying a revolutionary spirit fueled by the explosive renewal following World War II.

Sartre emerged as a prominent figure during this time, a bohemian philosopher and public intellectual distinguished by brilliance, attitude, and self-confidence. Interestingly, his long-term partner, Simone de Beauvoir, was often regarded as the more insightful philosopher (Bakewell, 2016), yet this tends to be overshadowed by the romantic narrative surrounding Sartre as the quintessential café-dwelling intellectual provocateur.

Bad Faith Arises from Nothingness

Sartre's concept of bad faith can be explored from various angles (e.g., Solomon, 2006; Reynolds and Renaudie, 2022), all of which highlight that his existentialism is firmly rooted in an atheistic foundation. The absence of God implies there is no pre-existing "human nature" (think: immortal soul) and no pre-established moral framework.

This has profound implications. Unshackled from divine determinism, we consciously and intentionally shape our identities from the moment of birth until death. Sartre succinctly encapsulates this in his famous slogan:

> Existence precedes essence.

At every juncture, the options available to us arise from our radical freedom. Our choices are not dictated by an immortal soul or a divine moral code. According to Sartre, this is the universal, absolute truth of human existence.

Drawing on Descartes' conclusion that our existence is the only certainty, Sartre posits that the absence of God grants us radical freedom, from which our existence emerges. There is no pre-existing supernatural authority, no binding moral laws, no inherent “soul”—we are fundamentally free.

To suggest that our choices are dictated by any preconceived state or standard denies this truth. Engaging in such denial is to fall into bad faith. Sartre's radical stance is that only complete commitment to this truth is acceptable. Even opting to reject this radical freedom paradoxically remains an inescapable choice.

A well-known example Sartre uses is that of a waiter in a café. The individual in the role of a waiter performs specific actions aligned with societal expectations. By doing so, they may become unaware of, or deny, the absolute truth of their situation. Although they choose to play the role of a waiter, they still act in bad faith.

No Faith Equals No Justification

If limiting radical freedom is an unavoidable reality, why are we without excuses? Sartre's existentialist perspective views the abandonment by God as a source of profound disturbance when individuals acknowledge Her non-existence. The two foundational principles of human existence attributed to God—the immortal soul and moral framework—are, for Sartre, inseparable from Her essence.

This has significant consequences. The void left by God’s absence removes our existential anchors. We are left solely with our existence, which must precede all else.

The lack of God leads Sartre to assert that we cannot excuse our choices and actions. The absence of existential anchors—divine causation and morality—leaves us to construct our existence from the radical freedom that arises from this nothingness. One might ponder whether Sartre echoes Nietzsche’s warnings about pride and free will in Beyond Good and Evil (2009), albeit without Nietzsche’s skepticism regarding the concept of ‘free will’:

> “The desire for ‘freedom of will’ in the superlative, metaphysical sense […] involves nothing less than to be precisely this CAUSA SUI, and, with more than Münchhausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.” (§21)

We enter existence with radical freedom. Our actions define us and we bear full responsibility for our decisions. We cannot escape this existential truth, which an authentic individual must wholly embrace; thus, we find ourselves without justification. Otherwise, we risk becoming inauthentic individuals serving coffee to bohemian philosophers.

Mmmmmm? Really?

A generous interpretation of Sartre suggests he builds upon the foundations laid by those who came before him. From this vantage point, he exposes the hypocrisy of Christianity that obscures the stark reality of the human condition, a truth made painfully apparent by the events of his time.

It is difficult for those of us living in contemporary Western societies to fathom the reality of being amidst one of history's most horrific episodes of collective insanity spanning over six years.

However, the starkness of Sartre's proclaimed "truth" could be seen as both a nerve touch and a deliberate provocation, straddling the line between critique and fanaticism. Sartre's assertion that Dostoevsky’s claim, “If God does not exist, everything is permissible,” serves as the “starting point of existentialism” provides insight here (Existentialism is a Humanism, 28/29).

Sartre establishes a false dichotomy based on his atheistic premise. Our choices are either:

• Determinism = universal (God + immortal soul + pre-existing moral creed)

or

• Freedom = universal non-(God + immortal soul + pre-existing moral creed)

The universality remains intact even after rejecting the supernatural and the notion of immortality.

There is no middle ground; any divergence from strict adherence to this universal claim about the human condition is dismissed as bad faith. This neglects the possibility of secular morality. Sartre dismisses the failed attempts of late 19th-century French philosophy to find a middle ground regarding secular morality (Existentialism is a Humanism, 28).

God Implies Morality?

In Sartre’s framework, the concepts of an immortal soul and a universal moral code are essential preconditions in God’s design for human existence. But does this "existence" refer to individuals or the species? For Sartre, it is irrelevant, despite the observable complexities of human society.

Regardless of God’s existence, the origin of humanity, or the existence of multiple deities, every individual is born into a society rich with cultural customs and moral traditions. Sartre’s assumption that a moral framework is inseparable from God’s existence invites scrutiny.

The idea of God entails absolute being; there is no room for contingency. Thus, if God does not exist, then God has never existed, indicating that “God” is fundamentally a construct. Consequently, the notions of an immortal soul and universal moral code are also constructs.

Belief in an immortal soul is a matter of faith and thus subject to skepticism. However, moral codes undoubtedly exist and continue to shape societal customs and traditions. The assertion that such moral frameworks are pre-existing is also beyond dispute.

Sartre’s connection of morality to God is questionable, as is his dismissal of secular morality. By rejecting secular morality, Sartre clears the existential terrain for a-priori absolute freedom, effectively sidestepping the middle ground.

Simple observation contradicts Sartre’s conflation of morality with God. The origins of moral frameworks are irrelevant to their existence, which persists despite uncertainty about a divine entity.

Freedom – But Only if Altruistic Determinism Exists

The irony of being subjected to absolute freedom is striking. We cannot evade the universal human condition of radical freedom, even through the exercise of that very freedom.

It is no surprise that Solomon posits Sartre’s concept of bad faith as a secular rehashing of Christian Original Sin. We are born free to make choices, yet cannot escape the reality that those choices are influenced by prior circumstances.

However, limiting Sartre’s notion of bad faith solely to freedom may overlook an integral aspect of his doctrine: the equally radical responsibility that accompanies it. This can be distilled into a well-known adage:

> With great freedom comes great responsibility.

In essence, Sartre argues that every time we exercise our freedom, we do so on behalf of all humanity. Yes, let that sink in:

> Every choice we make represents, in some way, all of humanity.

Our decisions, regardless of their ethical nature, effectively become collective choices. We are inherently both self-serving and altruistic in equal measure.

No matter the specific circumstances we encounter, our unconditional commitment to our choices also implicates “humanity as a whole” (Existentialism is a Humanism, 44). We are inescapably free and responsible on both personal and collective levels. This binary of freedom and responsibility seems to parallel Kant’s categorical imperative.

While Sartre’s extreme freedom-responsibility binary may appear impractical, a more lenient interpretation could draw it back towards a common moral responsibility. The exercise of freedom inevitably carries consequences, for which we are judged and held accountable. Freedom devoid of responsibility is an irrational, meaningless notion, akin to rights without obligations or the concept of up without down.

The challenge of such a lenient view is that it diminishes the radical essence of Sartre’s existentialism, which resonated with the public due to its appeal to egoism, amplified by Sartre’s brilliance and status as a public intellectual. It adorned the irrationality of extreme self-interest with a veneer of respectability, suggesting a promise of universal freedom and altruism as inseparable commitments.

Claiming that bad faith is inescapable renders the notion nonsensical. Yet, this idea has been embraced by those captivated by the romanticized narrative of the bohemian philosopher. In light of Sartre’s other assertions, one might question if this was merely a radical disguise for the eternal rewards offered by Abrahamic faiths.

Conclusion

Despite the inherent challenges of Sartre’s proposition, his existentialism—whether viewed as doctrine, philosophy, ethos, or lifestyle—exudes a rebellious attitude towards the essential nature of human relationships:

> They are collective relativities, not absolute individual abstractions.

However, setting aside this rebellious stance reveals valuable insights into the human condition, as illuminated by Sartre’s literature rather than his philosophical musings. In essence, his literary works often convey profound truths about human existence in ways his philosophical arguments cannot aspire to. These insights remain immediate, raw, intuitive, and strikingly relevant even after more than seventy years.

One clear takeaway is that the conscious decision to be a waiter represents just one snapshot in the larger narrative of the individual’s life. Their actions are intertwined with our café experience, influencing our desire to return—or not—based on how their actions align with our expectations.

Yet, as illustrated in Sartre’s No Exit (BBC, 1964), there is undeniably much more happening beneath the surface of the public personas we each present. In this sense, we may not always embody our “authentic” or “true” selves.

Despite the questions regarding authenticity this raises, the waiter’s skill in fulfilling their role contributes significantly to our enjoyment of the café experience, just as our ability to engage as bohemian philosophers or ordinary customers impacts the overall atmosphere.

By adhering to generally accepted social norms of respect, we can enhance our interactions with fellow “radically free” individuals who, for whatever reason, have chosen to engage in particular ways. Engaging genuinely can enrich our experiences, even if it occurs while we are, in Sartre’s view, being inauthentic.

We may choose to judge them for acting in bad faith according to our absolute principles. However, we cannot fault them for finding fulfillment in performing their craft—skills and talents showcased in this single vignette of their ongoing existence. We would likely express gratitude for their service if they were, say, our mother, surgeon, or banker. To accuse any of these figures of bad faith is, at best, trivial, if not irrational.

Epilogue

We might ponder whether Sartre’s legendary status stemmed from bohemian café lunchtimes spiraling out of control—a viral phenomenon of its time. To paraphrase Tom Wolfe and Benjamin Cain, his ideas escaped, or perhaps were liberated from, the confines of “specialists and philosophers” into the broader world.

Sartre’s purported universal truth regarding the human condition was unleashed upon those it claimed to depict. We might be grateful that it was primarily directed at those sipping apricot cocktails in cafes, looking down on others. However, we can criticize, if impotently, that only half of his message gained traction—the “freedom” aspect.

Admittedly, this perspective is facetious and polemical, tinged with arrogance. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Sartre contributed brilliant and unique insights into the human condition at a pivotal moment in Western history. Yet, as the biblical adage suggests—when we take up the sword, we may expect to perish by it. This principle, after all, seems to resonate within the realm of philosophy.

Bibliography

• Bakewell, S. (2016). At The Existentialist Café. Chatto and Windus.
• Dawsey, J. (2021). Freedom, Resistance, and Responsibility: The Philosophy and Politics of Jean–Paul Sartre. The National WWII Museum, New Orleans.
• Nietzsche, F. (2009). Beyond Good and Evil. Project Gutenberg.
• Reynolds, J., Renaudie, P-J. (2022) Jean-Paul Sartre. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Summer 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
• Sartre, J-P. (2007). Existentialism is a Humanism. Yale University.
• Sartre, J-P. (2018). Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology. Taylor and Francis Group.
• Sartre, J-P. (1964). “No Exit.” British Broadcasting Corporation.
• Solomon, R C. (2006). Dark Feelings, Grim Thoughts: Experience and Reflection in Camus and Sartre. Oxford Academic.
• Wolfe, T. (1983). From Bauhaus to Our House. Abacus.