Jean-paul Sartre – I am not what I am

Rousseau’s approach assumes that there is such a thing as a natural self. Sartre disagrees. Trying to connect to a ‘self’ inside me is a fantasy, or self-deception.

As a human being, according to Sartre, my essence is that I don’t have an essence. In other words, there is nothing inside me that determines my personality, my values, my choices, my beliefs – except for my own free will. I am completely free to choose who I am. Even my past does not take away my freedom: If I made a decision ten minutes ago, I am still free to change it now. Even in jail I can decide what kind of a person I am. In Sartre’s words, I am condemned to be free.

In fact, it is inaccurate to say that I am free. More correctly, I am freedom; I am an openness. To quote Sartre: “I am not what I am, and I am what I am not.” Or: “Existence precedes essence” (i.e., at every moment I determine my essence, or who I am).

All this suggest that authenticity cannot mean being faithful to my inner nature. Rather, I am authentic if I am faithful to the fact that I DON’T HAVE an inner nature; if I am faithful to my openness, to my freedom.

Thus, being authentic for Sartre means that I am aware of my freedom, that I take full responsibility over my life, and don’t pretend that some fact made me the person I am. It means that I do not consider myself a victim of my psychology, of my education, of circumstances, of logical or moral consideration, of God, etc. I don’t have excuses for being the person I am.

***

Matt tells Linda that Sartre’s idea of radical freedom is too extreme. “Obviously I am constrained by my past experiences, by my fears, by my tendencies. My psychology determines many things about me.”

Linda suggests that what is important is not whether or not Sartre’s theory is true, but rather what it has to say to Matt. Besides, even if my psychology limits my freedom, even if my freedom is much narrower than Sartre thinks, his main point still remains: that my ‘true self’ is my freedom, not my psychological mechanisms. To be authentic is to be faithful not to something that already exists in me, but rather to my openness.

For a while they discuss this. Then Linda suggests to leave these issues open.

“Contemplation is not a matter of finding solutions or opinions,” she tells him. “It is a matter of listening to the dialogue between you and the text. Why don’t you put aside your opinions and contemplate this text?”

When Matt contemplates Sartre’s notion of “existence precedes essence,” he is astonished. A thought formulates in his mind: “I am a question, not an answer.”

Later he tries to digest his realization and put it in words. Is it possible, he thinks anxiously, that there are no answers, no meanings, no values, only a never-ending question, a meaningless emptiness? Is it possible that there is no right and wrong in my decision to quit my job or to stay?”

Historically speaking, there is nothing original about Matt’s new understanding. But originality is not the point here. The point is that this understanding speaks to him. It is meaningful in a personal way.