Sartrean Existentialism, 45 Pages In

     So, Existentialism appears to be grounded upon the universal truth of the human condition of "cogito ergo sum," "I think therefore I am." However, they expand this to "I think therefore we are," currently without satisfactory justification as of page 45 of Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre. This ultimately leads to the idea of "I think, therefore I ought to act as if I were to dictate the actions of mankind." This progression seems strange and uncertain, and I will attempt to understand it here with my current knowledge. 

    So, one of the pillars of Existentialism is that existence precedes essence meaning that we are born, and we define ourselves, create our own essence, through the choices we make. Someone is a hero because they make heroic choices. Just the same, if that person were to make a choice deemed as cowardice, they would then be a coward. In this sense, identity in Existentialism is fluid, as it solely defined by the choices we make. Sartre asserts that we are all projects, and each individual can understand the project of another given sufficient information. A European can understand the project of an African and Indian, and vice versa. However, Sartre claims that one can understand the project of an idiot, but can they really? Can an idiot understand the project of a smart man?

    My greatest contention so far with Sartre's Existentialism is a Human is the implicit assumption that we are all equal in our ability to choose. True, we are all born into a world where our choices define us. I can agree that every action, including inaction, is a choice. Although, this may be refuted by our understanding of the subconscious and the automatic processes that always occur within the brain. Ignoring this, let's contrast the ability to choose and understand with that of a man born with an intellectual disability and that of a woman with a highly intelligent, healthy mind. 

    Let's assume the man has memory problems and struggles with cognitive organization. It's quite possible that if given sufficient information and enough time, this man may be able to understand the project of a highly sophisticated woman. The necessary component there being time. Due to the man's innate intellectual struggles, by the time he is able to understand one aspect of the woman's "project" she may well be a few steps past his understanding. It's also possible that this man may never be able to understand one aspect of this woman's sophisticated decision-making. If we view aspects of intelligence as a sliding scale of ability, it wholly depends on each individual, their genetic makeup, and their experiences within life that would shape their cognition to simply have the possibility of properly understanding the project of another individual. 

    Where Existentialism seems to have failed is in making this distinction, and where this distinction matters is in whether one should trust their own ability to make choices not only for themselves, but, as Sartre says, for the whole of mankind. The problem with failing to make this distinction lies in Sartre's belief that we require the judgments of others to guide us to self-understanding within different choices. Because of the emphasis of the importance of choice, and because of the reliance of the judgments of others on the consequences of our choices, this alone seems to create an inescapable anxiety that Sartre attempted solve with this very reasoning. 

    He is right in saying that we can not solely rely on self-reflection, or our own judgments, and we must rely on those of others, but because of his assertion that all choices should be made as if dictated for the whole of humankind and that we must reject authenticity (which he seems to use synonymously with emotion) as a guide, it creates an uncertainty and a reliance on moral calculation, which Sartre also seemed to reject. The reliance on moral calculation comes from the rejection of intuition and authenticity, the consideration of making a choice for the whole of mankind, and the social implications of "I think therefore we are." 

    In my current understanding of existentialism, I would advocate for a more cohesive synthesis between the freedom of choice, realistic limitation, and the role of emotion. In Sartre's assertion that choice gives value to emotion, he states that it's often impossible to tell the different between true choice and play-acting to argue the validity of the material choice over the immaterial emotion. However, in Sartre's example of the man with a dilemma between choosing the military or taking care of his mother, let's say the man chooses the mother. The man may feel love for his mother, but may have a seed of doubt unnoticeable from any outside perspective. Over time, this seed of doubt grows as he feels restrained by his mother's needs, and he ultimately ends up wholly regretting his decision and despising his mother and himself. Sartre ignores the complexity and overwhelming nature of emotion in favor of the comfortability of the power of choice. He's ultimately short-sighted in asserting that truly loving her and deciding to stay with her and staying with her under a facade are only the same thing, as he does not acknowledge the consequences of ignoring emotion.