As I understand it, Sartre's “bad faith” refers to a human being denying his or her ability to transcend the givens of a particular situation – that is, pretending as if it is feasible to make no decision at all when presented with a choice. A paradox arises, which was stated in class several times: if one chooses to not choose, they've still made a choice. Otherwise we as humans would be equal to a desk or a chair or, as Sartre would prefer, an inkwell.
In class, we also discussed that a man working as a waiter is not a waiter in the same way that an inkwell is an inkwell. The discussion made me wonder, are human beings anything in the same way that an inkwell is an inkwell? I'm not even sure if one could say that humans are human in the same way that an inkwell is an inkwell, since the meaning and purpose of human existence is somewhat more complicated than that of the inkwell. Nor could I say that I am myself in the same way that an inkwell is an inkwell because the notion of “myself” is fairly indeterminate.
In Sartre's example of the waiter, the occupation of a human is examined. In his example of the woman on a date, the circumstances and reactions of a human are examined. In his example of the homosexual, a characteristic of a human is examined. None of the examples investigate the individuals themselves and whether or not they are wholly them. Introspection and the concept of one's self are also mentioned by Sartre during his evaluation of sincerity, but does he mention whether or not a human can ever be anything as wholly and purely as an inkwell is an inkwell? He very well may have, and I could have completely missed it.
I know all humans demonstrate bad faith at one point or another when they deny their own freedom, refusing to transcend givens. The woman on the date attempts to ignore the implications of her suitor by separating her human consciousness from her physical body. The waiter is simply playing the role of a waiter, turning himself into an object. But again, those are only circumstances and occupations. I am just curious as to whether or not there's a category humans can wholly fit into or if, as a condition of our complicated existence, we never attain the inkwell-is-an-inkwell simplicity.
The only facticity of our existence is our ability to transcend facticity. It is our freedom that makes us inherently human. This is actually something we talked about in relation to Heidegger, but I think it will help answer your question. We talked about essential and accidental characteristics. Our only essential characteristic is our existence. Everything else about us is accidental. This is Sartre's idea of existence preceding essence. It is they idea that we define ourselves, that we are categorized only by our freedom.
ReplyDeleteWe are essentially asking whether there is such a thing as human nature, and the apt Satreian answer certainly seems to be that we are capable of transcending our facticity (a simplification of the old dualism of mind and body or body and soul). While this formulation of our common humanity, as far as it goes, seems accurate enough, I am inclined to maintain a somewhat more elaborate notion of human nature, deriving from this intersection of facticity and transcendence. Or perhaps, it is better to say, that in the bare fact of our transcendence over facticity is hidden a number of other important characteristics (such as our apparent inability to ever completely transcend, that is choose, in an entirely self-consistent manner; i.e, we are imperfect) that seem to define humanity just as much. Or so it seems to me.
ReplyDeleteThe idea you raise of human beings lacking the concrete definition of human beings such as an inkwell is an inkwell is a rather profound thought worth bringing up to Dr. J.
ReplyDeleteContinuing the response to your post, Sartre -- as far as we have read -- never gives a way in which humans can achieve the existence that the inkwell has wholly for the reason, which Patrick pointed out, that human beings -- as being with consciousness -- are, by their facticity, unable to remove completely their ability to transcend being (i.e. they cannot transcend their transcendence).
Because of this fact, it seems almost impossible to define just what is human -- even with facticity. Our faculty for transcendence may be the only thing which defines as human (also as Patrick mentioned), but that seems a thing line of separation under examination. Perhaps humans cannot not be defined because of their transcendence, or it may simply be that Sartre did not explore the idea further -- expecting us to fill in the gaps. It may be, quite simply, that humans -- as beings with transcendence -- can never be placed into any particular category.