So we understand that there are two types of being: a being in itself and a being for itself. A being in itself is comprised of facts (facticity). It is also a being that is circumstantial. It has no choices and is a product of the world and the circumstances that it is thrown into. A being in itself is objective. For instance, a table, a chair, or a plant. They are all products of circumstance. They have no free will to choose what it is. They cannot transcend their beings and make their own choices.
A being for itself on the other hand, is a being that is free. Even though it is in part facticity, more importantly it is transcendent. Unlike objects, a being for itself has choices. It can knowingly make react to circumstance even if it is limited to it. Human beings are a being for itself. Whether or not one knowingly denies it, it is a reality. A being for itself cannot just brush off hard decisions, but they can still in their mind deny responsibility for that decision. This is an instance of bad faith. Bad faith is when a person denies its transcendent state and acts merely as a object (a lie).
To me, so far so good.
So then the topic of sincerity arises, and from what I understand is the exact opposite of being in bad faith. But Sartre says that even a person that is sincere is just acting or playing at being sincere. Even the sincere person is also living in bad faith. So technically, everybody is living in bad faith.
This is where I begin to lose sight of what he is trying to say. Even though I assume that he does not mean that living in bad faith is bad, what is the point of it all? I know that there is something more to it, and so far I lack the understanding of his motives behind this. I still cannot help to feel somewhat disappointed. I feel disappointed not because we are all living in bad faith, but the fact that I just do not see how understanding this can make me a better person.
I know that we are not done talking about Sartre yet, but this is how I feel so far. Tell me what you think.
I agree completely. I am really struggling with the passage about the homosexual and his "sincere" friend too. How can one be both sincere and in bad faith? Isn't bad faith just a false sincerity?
ReplyDeleteGuys, to my understanding, the point of sincerity is that you can't be sincere. Asking someone to be sincere is asking him to be his true self, but he already is his true self. I believe Sartre calls the homosexual's friend in bad faith because the friend is implying there is only a single way for someone (the homosexual) to behave, which denies the transcendent quality of a being-for-itself. Thus, sincerity is a form of bad faith.
ReplyDeleteAs for how knowing this can make you a better person: I don't know that it's supposed to. Maybe it's just intended to make us aware of the things that we do or believe that are not in line with our natures, in hopes that we will commit them less frequently.
That's a good point you're bringing up. It does seem silly at first that Sartre goes through this much effort to explain something that we do that is common to all humans. You raised a concern about how to be a better person from this commonality. I think it's important to remember that bad faith does not inherently have any moral components. Maybe, since it is common to everybody, bad faith does have some important implications for the human condition that we haven't realized yet. From reading Existentialism is a Humanism before, I suspect that it will have to do with Sartre's responsibility themes.
ReplyDelete