Published in 1943, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology,
is considered a cornerstone of the philosophy of existentialism. If Nausea is his most important
fictional work, this is his most non-fictional book. While in a German prison in the 1940s, away
from all the fightings, Sartre sat down and read one of the most difficult philosophical books,
Martin Heidegger’s magnum opus, Being and Time, in which the German philosopher settled on the
idea of death giving life a meaning it lacks. In other words, to be authentically alive,
one must fully realise death. So Sartre wrote his book in reaction to Heidegger
but most crucially in response to the religious notion that we are created by god. Sartre says,
no, we are nothing prior to our birth or being. We are born first, and then we become something
that has an essence. We have no divine essence or divine creator. Like a flower, we germinate,
grow and blossom to become a flower, but nobody plants us, we are self-made.
Sartre also responds to the psychoanalysis movement led by Sigmund Freud who argued
that beneath the conscious mind, there is a whole new and hidden world called
the unconscious mind where all sorts of suppressed emotions, repressed
urges and thoughts are kept. According to psychoanalysts such as Freud and Carl Jung,
the unconscious is a much bigger pot than the conscious mind. In other words,
we are only aware of a fraction of what’s going on inside our minds. Sartre says that is rubbish. He
argues that we do not have a hidden self floating in the unconscious cave or soup, but we are what
we know. Anything we are not conscious of is not us. So Sartre agrees with Rene Descartes,
I think, therefore I am. But unlike Descartes, Sartre doesn’t believe in innate knowledge from
birth. For Sartre existence precedes essence. We are born, and then we develop the self.
Edmund Husserl, a German philosopher, was Sartre’s teacher at one point. Husserl’s
philosophy, called phenomenology, argues that our consciousness is always conscious of something.
When we know something, we know something, an object or idea or an image. This goes
back to Kant who divided knowledge into two: the world of phenomena which is knowable through our
animal senses and perception, and noumena which is the unknowable world of things in
themselves. So phenomenology is the philosophy of consciousness through the world of phenomena
that we get to know through our senses, which removes or ignores the unknowables such as god
or afterlife or even the psychoanalytical hidden unconscious posited by Freud. So for Sartre,
our consciousness is rooted in objects, not some divine essence or hidden unconscious. So Sartre
says consciousness is tied to objects. It doesn’t come from itself and neither
from god. But Sartre also adds that not only consciousness allows us to be aware
of the world, but consciousness is also aware of itself as a kind of transparent
phenomenon. Not only is it aware of objects but simultaneously it’s aware of this awareness.
It knows that it knows. It’s like a camera that can see but also knows that it can see.
In Being and Nothingness, Sartre starts with nothingness as the basis of existence,
then moves on to how we fill this void with social role or fake identity and
finally he also rejects psychoanalysis of Freud. But first, what’s nothingness.
To Understand Nothingness let’s imagine an object we call Mr Self who bumps into objects
and obstacles like rocks in space. Through these random collisions, it shapes itself
into something. Quote: “Nothingness carries being in its heart.”—Jean-Paul Sartre. To
understand Sartre, let’s go back to Martin Heidegger. The German philosopher said that
our existence can be summed up by two ends: birth and death. So we exist in time. In other words,
our life is finite meaning we have limited time as a being. So being and time are two
sides of the same coin so to speak. One cannot separate existence from time. Sartre takes this
as a starting point and then just focuses on the being itself, but instead of talking about time,
he shifts his focus to nothingness. Since we have no divine essence or purpose, we exist as nothing.
In other words our nothingness makes us totally free to float around. But this nothing being has
to deal with the external world, such as objects and other people, which curtail our freedom.
Through our interactions with the world and other people, we have to make choices,
which limits our freedom but also causes us to feel anxiety. To escape these constraints
or this limit on our freedom, we escape into our imagination, or rely on someone else for
guidance or defer authority to a figure such as god to make choices for us. In other words,
existence is like walking in the wilderness that’s full of dangers and pitfalls which
limit our freedom so to escape this non-freedom we seek answers in our mind,
by imagining things or inventing things. This often leads us to act unconsciously or take
roles in life or take refuge within an identity given to us, like nationality, job, activist
etc like some flushed out characters in a novel. I’m a YouTuber because I want to fill the void
of my existence. We take on roles in order to escape our anguish for the lack of choices but
also for the abundance of choices we experience. So since we are sandwiched between an unbridled
imagination or thought and tightly constrained world and regulated actions, we develop a sense
of self. In other words, the self is created by free thoughts floating in nothingness,
colliding with the unfree outside world of existence. Hence we are beings in nothingness.
A good analogy might be a planet. It started as a misshapen rock floating about, until it
lost its edges through gravity or collisions with other objects in space and took a more
spherical shape and found a stable orbit in which it can exist. Although, for Sartre,
humans are different because we exist, not like an object-in-itself like a rock or a tree,
but we also exist for-itself, which means we are also our aware of our existence. To escape
this awareness, we take a role, like a teacher, which means we exist in-itself. In other words,
we fulfil a role, which means we exist for others, not for ourselves. But we can never fully become a
thing in-itself. We can only manage it for a time and we have to convince ourselves to be a teacher,
a thing in-itself. In an attempt to become a teacher, a Frenchman or a YouTuber, we try to
convince ourselves to be what we are not. This is bad faith. So we come out of nothingness,
but we want to be something. To fill the void, we almost fake it, which is bad faith.
Bad faith, for Sartre simply means living a false existence or self-deception which is also close
to a Marxist notion of false consciousness prevalent among the working class who buy
into their pride in nationalism or identity as peaceful, moral citizens or good workers
which prevent them from rebelling against an exploitative system. Marx wanted all workers
to unite to overthrow the system but they rarely did. So he blamed on false consciousness which
prevent the workers see themselves as victims. Today, another term often used is internalised
racism or repression in which one goes against their interest in accepting the status quo.
For Sartre, bad faith means the negation of existence as a thing for-itself. For example
when we take a role or job, we act as if we exist for others or a thing in-itself.
A waiter acts as though he or she is someone whose only purpose is to wait.
Quote: “Society demands that he limit himself to his function… There are indeed many precautions
to imprison a man in what he is as if we lived in perpetual fear that he might escape from it,
that he might break away and suddenly elude his condition.”—Jean-Paul Sartre.
In other words, their entire being is reduced to their job. This is also true in terms of social
status, nationality, a fan of a sports team etc. For Sartre, humans as sentient beings,
we cannot fully become a thing-in-itself, so what we often do is attempt or pretend to be
a teacher or a YouTuber, reducing our entire existence to one role. This is bad-faith or
self-deception. Why do we do it? It limits our freedom or endless choices we face in life, which
is in a way a coping mechanism, because a defined role or action can calm us down. We don’t have to
worry about making choices or mistakes. In other words, endless freedom or choices can paralyse us.
To escape bad faith, Sartre says we must accept our existence as what it is, not something that
is not. An authentic person has endless choices at any moment as he or she is facing the future,
but as a waiter, he or she limits it to one choice which is inauthentic or bad faith.
For Sartre, bath faith also includes social norms, moral values, religious dogmas and
legal obligations which limit our existential journey of fulfillment as true authentic beings.
While social or moral values are created by others, Sartre also considers thinking too
much about our own past as bad faith. We always limit our future projections to what happened to
us in the past, so this is also bad faith. If we had a bad romantic experience with one person,
we project that onto our future partners, which is a form of bad faith. Proust spent his entire novel
talking about the past, in an attempt to regain or recreate his past selves or lost time. Sartre says
that’s living inauthentically because you only see yourself in the past that no longer exists,
not now or future. Sartre’s philosophy is a teleologically progressive one,
similar to Hegel and Marx, that we are heading towards perfection or completion.
Sartre spends large portion of the book talking about sex. He treats sex as a social act,
not just as biological or physical. Being for others is another form of bad faith. When we build
relationships with others, we tend to limit our freedom for acceptance. Sartre gives the example
of a shop mannequin that we sometimes mistake for a real person. We behave differently when
we realise it’s not a person. This shows how much we regulate our behaviour for others, depending
on the kind of relationships we have. The closer, the more we curtail our own or their freedom to be
for themselves rather for others. So our purpose becomes being for others, not free existence per
se. We exist to maintain the happiness of the other. For instance, you do everything to make
your partner happy, which Sartre says is nothing but emotional alienation because our entire being
is taken hostage by how they make us feel and how we make them feel. So love is nothing but
a bad faith conflict or battleground for control of the other. You want them, and you want them
for yourself, and nobody else. No wonder, Sartre had an open relationship with Simone. In reality,
Simone didn’t exercise that freedom as much as Sartre did, which perhaps shows that men and women
are different on a biological level. Men have millions of sperm ready at any moment while women
only have one egg, which dictates the level and intensity of sexual urge among the sexes. Sartre,
however, rejects a biological reason for sex. Sex for Sartre is our attempt to create a completion
but upon orgasm you go back to square one. This stems from nothingness and emptiness
of existence. You hike up a mountain or jump on a bungee and at the end, it’s never complete. I
think Sartre stretches it a bit by saying that there is no biological basis for sex. Evolution
doesn’t care about Sartre’s opinion, because he failed to procreate so his genes died with him.
But Sartre does make sex different from other basic human urges such as food and survival,
because for sex to happen, you need another person. Unless, you go the DIY route.
The third major point in Being and Nothingness is consciousness. For Sartre,
our consciousness makes us who we are. Anything we are not conscious of or aware of is not us.
This goes against the fundamental point psychoanalysts make that consciousness
is just the tip of the iceberg. The unconscious controls much of our choices and actions in life.
According to Sartre, the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud removed the responsibility from his patient
by blaming the hidden unconscious for their behaviour. Sartre argues that there is a paradox
in psychoanalysis that relies on patients reporting a hidden world of unconsciousness
where repressed emotions are kept. You either know, or don’t know. If you don’t know, how can
you repress those emotions, urges and ideas? Repressed emotions hidden in the unconscious
is just an excuse according to Sartre. He says if a patient has repressed certain emotions or
urges, and they refuse to divulge such unsavoury ideas, on some level they are conscious. So the
hidden unconscious theory is flawed. Pretending you don’t know is self-deception for the sake
of self-preservation. We lie so we can avoid responsibility. If we self-censor
or hide something in our unconscious, it has to be a conscious decision. You do
not hide something that you do not know. We knowingly hide treasure or past mistakes. So
for Sartre the theory of the unconscious posited by Freud and Jung is nothing but
an excuse to make their patients feel better about their bad choices in life.
To sum up, in Being and Nothingness, Sartre, just like Heidegger,
makes a distinction between being in-itself like non-conscious phenomena such as a tree
or rock and being for-itself like humans. The difference is that the thing-in-itself exists
yet is neither aware of its existence nor has freedom while the thing-for-itself is not only
aware of its own existence but also because of this consciousness we are condemned to be free.
So Sartre’s existentialism is founded upon nothingness in which existence comes about.