“Man is condemned to be free: condemned, because he did not create himself, yet nonetheless free, because once cast into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
-Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism, p.29
This ominous phrase, “man is condemned to be free,” seems to clash with everything that I have been taught. I am left puzzled and must ask myself, “how can anyone be ‘condemned’ to freedom?” As an American I have been raised to believe that freedom, God, and the National Football League are the only completely good things on this earth. The Founding Fathers certainly did not risk their lives in order to “condemn” themselves to freedom. Americans fought and died on the beaches of Normandy in order that France could be free, so why is this crazy French guy with a name I can’t pronounce running around saying that I am condemned to be free?
The fact of the matter is that “freedom” is a word that is thrown around too easily these days. It’s overused and, frankly, has become a bit stale. We are told that the Americans currently sacrificing their lives in barren desserts and isolated mountain ranges on the other side of the globe are doing it all for the sake of our freedom, but how often do most of us question what this freedom really means? Although Sartre is not referring specifically to political freedom, his message still applies. Indeed, Sartre reminds us that freedom does not come freely. It carries with it a great burden of responsibility for us to be informed of the circumstances and outcomes of our actions. As Americans we should be proud of our freedom and we should discuss it constantly, but not as we do now, not in passing, not as a political slogan devoid of all meaning.
In fact, it is time that we recognize that our freedom is threatened by a poison that is far more cancerous than international terrorism – a venom that has already begun to eat its way through our democracy from the inside out. I refer to the political apathy that runs through America today. Americans complain that their government is out of touch with their needs and desires, and so they don’t vote and they don’t organize. This is the height of absurdity. It is our duty to force government to bend to the will of the people! Our constitution condemns us to be free individuals. It charges us with the enormous responsibility of governing ourselves. The time is now for us to critically examine our freedom and to finally take it seriously once more.
Colin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sartre's idea that freedom can be condemning. We are faced with daily choices that, with one "wrong" move, could alter our future for the worse. It is my freedom to choose if I will do my work for school. If I choose not to, I do not only effect myself, but my family, friends and classmates.
I feel Sartre would agree with Eleanor Roosevelt's quote "With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect." If we choose not to acknowledge our freedom, and what we can do with it, it becomes wasted, negatively affecting those it had the potential to help.
I couldn't agree more with your assertion that "freedom" has lost its true meaning. It seems to me, and unfortunately so, that the term has simply succumbed to over- and improper use as one of our generation's biggest buzz-words.
ReplyDeleteAny time we overuse a word or phrase it loses novelty and sharpness. That actually reminds me of a quote from Orwell's 1984. Something to the effect of "When war becomes continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous". Orwell is speaking here about the numbing effect of constant war, but similarly, it seems to me that as we continue to misuse and overuse words like this, their poignant meanings will certainly be lost.
This is a really nice post. I completely agree with you. In a bit of a different light, I read this quote and felt that we are "condemned" to freedom through what actually makes us free, godlessness. True freedom implies the absence of God, despair, and subsequently, a complete responsibility, and in my personal experience, it is appropriately referred to as condemnation.
ReplyDeleteI like your take on the issue, but would have to take Sartre's side on this one. Man is truly condemned to freedom. I however, read this more as the inevitability of freedom than the sheer negativity. While freedom can truly be disheartening, it can never be relinquished. It can be denied, but even such denials are done freely.
ReplyDeleteI was really interested in this post, because in my Southern Lit. class we have been talking about realizing one's freedom. When a person realizes their own freedom, they see that that they are the only barrier between what they want to do and that action being taken. If we don't realize that we have the ability to change aspects in the world: government, jobs, etc. then we are not realizing the full potential of our own freedom. However, I am not sure that being part of a collection of people can ever truly result in the type of Freedom that Sartre is talking about. Individual freedom cannot always be exercised in a group dynamic.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the responses guys. They're quite thought provoking.
ReplyDelete@Ryan: I agree with you that the root of Sartre's freedom is the absence of God. People have been struggling for thousands of years to try to make the existence of free will compatible with the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God, but nothing has convinced me that this is possible. Sartre's argument that there is no God, and therefore that we are truly free, is the only one that has satisfied me. I would rather live alone and without God, then to live without free will - something which I don't consider living at all.
@Will: I'm afraid that I didn't say what I really intended to convey. I agree with you that we really are condemned to freedom. The denial that you speak of is where I see Sartre's greatest relevance in American politics. Americans pride themselves on being free but then shrink away from the immense responsibilities such freedom entails. When that freedom becomes hard to bear, we like to pretend that it doesn't exist. Nothing could be more dangerous for our democracy.
I believe this post is very accurate in America's depiction of freedom. To say all Americans use the word freedom for what it is isn't true. I have a grandfather who is a WWII veteran who hasn't forgotten a day in his life his friends who died serving with him to preserve that freedom. Soldiers aren't the only ones that can grasp this concept. Some Americans exercise their rite as American citizens to the fullest extent. They vote when their country calls on them to vote. They abide by and work with the Constitution to keep America heading in a strong direction. Many of us have lost sight of these values and have just relied on the assumption that this country will run on fine without my input. These are the ignorant minorities that are condemned to freedom and need to be devoted to freedom.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the quote that Colin provided, Sartre believes that every man is free and thus, responsible for his every action. This also implies that man is completely dependent on himself, even in those situations where we usually count on other people, for example, seeking comfort. Sartre argues that man must look to himself to find comfort. However while studying for my Psychology exam I came upon some information that would contradict this belief. According to research "a human infant cannot live without care and attention for its own kind. Without other people, we languish physically and emotionally; without the universal need for affiliation and cooperation, human societies could never have survived. Human beings, therefore, are predisposed to form attachments and learn from others." (Tavris and Wade 87). I wonder how Sartre would have explained this?
ReplyDeleteIf it is accurate that most people need the support of their fellow humans in order to survive and to develop communities and civilizations, then I feel that it is an individual's responsibility to act in such a way that he or she does not alienate themself from other humans. In some extremely rare cases (I have only heard of one or two), individuals that have existed in areas that lack human contact altogether have developed relationships with the animals in that area and used those relationships to survive. I don't think that an inborn need is something that would necessarily limit freedom, but it is something that would provide the given person with even more choices on which they could exercise their freedom.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(This is Cole not Will, my account apparently doesn't work anymore)
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting blog. I feel it is important to distinguish Sartre's freedom, one's freedom and control over his actions, from American freedom, which is clearly (as in vaguely) laid out for us through various pieces of paper. I actually feel like America promotes more freedom then it actually delivers. I realize we supposedly have a ton of freedom compared to everywhere else, but this is where I feel it is necessary to distinguish Sartre's freedom from the government's. Where am I more likely to feel the wrath of government for speeding, here or Africa? Where could I get away with murdering someone, here or Africa? Sartre's freedom is the same in both places, however the government is different. I would say in Africa my freedom would indeed by much less restricted by the government. However, I would also be much more likely to get murdered in Africa. (I've never been to Africa by the way.) While I'm not saying that I don't like it this way, it is true that our government restricts many of our freedoms.
Cole- I think that you bring up a valid point about our freedoms being restricted by the government. This topic is something that I wanted to mention during our human rights discussion in class, but I wasn't quite sure how to word it. Part of the Social Contract Theory that we read about earlier this year states that we voluntarily give up some of our rights in order to live in a civilization that protects us from the state of nature. I feel that our freedom while under the social contract allows us to express our freedom in any way we wish until our freedom restricts someone else's freedom or rights in a negative way. It is when this happens that issues similar to those that we discussed in class arise.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between existentialist and American political freedom certainly is important to recognize, but I'm not sure that they are so mutually exclusive. In fact, I would argue that the ability to actualize the potentiality of existentialist freedom is much more guaranteed in America than it is in Africa. Our government may take away the freedom to speed or to murder with impunity (neither of which are freedoms promoted but not delivered), but in return we gain the immense freedom to elect our government, to organize and speak our minds, to practice our religion or to not practice religion at all. In Africa there currently are millions living under corrupt and tyrannical regimes, which forbid freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and which in some cases are carrying out religious based genocide. It is much easier for man to "be what he makes of himself"(Sartre 22) when those freedoms are not being restricted.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is reasonable to argue that people on the whole are more politically free in Africa than they are in the United States. Our government restricts our freedom to harm and kill each other because, as Aaron states, of the social contract (vis-a-vis "what would happen if everyone acted as I do"). In many African nations, the government does not uphold its side of the contract, and instead largely restricts political freedom. This leads to a restriction of existentialist freedom; you cannot actualize your potentiality when you are dead.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete