Jean-paul Sartre (1905-1980)
Jean-Paul Sartre was a French philosopher, novelist, screenwriter, professor, political activist, literary critic, and intellectual of existentialist thought. His philosophical works include:
The Transcendence of the Ego (1933),
Theory of Emotions (1936),
Being and Nothingness (1943),
and Existentialism and Humanism (1946).
Sartre's take on consciousness posits that there is no phenomenal "what it's like" feature, only an intentional directedness towards the external. His philosophical positions aim towards ethical ends, and therefore he is a perfect example of philosophy made active.
The Transcendence of the Ego (1933),
Theory of Emotions (1936),
Being and Nothingness (1943),
and Existentialism and Humanism (1946).
Sartre's take on consciousness posits that there is no phenomenal "what it's like" feature, only an intentional directedness towards the external. His philosophical positions aim towards ethical ends, and therefore he is a perfect example of philosophy made active.
Free Will
The topic of free will comes up in Philosophy of Mind when analyzing the causal chain between mind and body. What happens when you decide to act and how does that translate to behavior? Before answering that, one has to consider what a mind is. Even after over 200 years of academic discussion, we have not settled upon a widely recognized answer. Rene Descartes believed the mind was an immaterial spirit of sorts, that influenced the material, physical body and activated a series of machine-like movements, which led to observable behavior. Materialists believe that there is nothing about minds or consciousness that is immaterial, for our bodies are very clearly physical; there can be no logical causal link between immaterial and material as they exist in wholly separate planes of reality.
So we accept that we're not quite sure what type of 'thing,' for lack of a better term, that is the mind. However, the necessity of causal theory brings into focus another concept altogether. Science has proven a physical cause-and-effect chain in the natural world; it seems that there is no spontaneous action caused in the physical world that has no previous cause. All our current actions have roots in previous events that stretch back for eternity, and will cause future events that stretch forward forever--it would seem our lives are pre-determined.
If this physical causal chain is paralleled by the mind-body connection, then it seems that there can be no spontaneous mental activity either; there are no spontaneous consciousness decisions with the ability to alter the flow of events. The deterministic causal chain proven by science leads some to believe that all the seeming decision-making power in the conscious mind is nothing but illusion; therefore, free will can be nothing other than an illusory concept created by mankind as a necessary tool for existence. In order for humans to be able to cope, mentally and emotionally, with the self-awareness of their existence, they have to believe that they are free agents, whether or not that is true.**
Opponents to this view could argue that any measure or comparison of the mental in relation to the physical is inherently flawed; if the mind is immaterial, you can't assume it will follow the same rules as the material. Such a nice, clean theory effectively sidesteps the scary idea that we aren't active agents in our lives and allows for some intangible reason why our minds can affect the external world.
**Taking the truth determining content in the previous page, and if the deterministic causal chain theory is true (and free will isn't real), then a wide content viewpoint must also be necessarily true. But as we have no way of knowing, without contention, whether or not free will is an illusion, since we can not determine what plan the mind exist on and how it interacts with the world, the result of that proof are inconclusive.
So we accept that we're not quite sure what type of 'thing,' for lack of a better term, that is the mind. However, the necessity of causal theory brings into focus another concept altogether. Science has proven a physical cause-and-effect chain in the natural world; it seems that there is no spontaneous action caused in the physical world that has no previous cause. All our current actions have roots in previous events that stretch back for eternity, and will cause future events that stretch forward forever--it would seem our lives are pre-determined.
If this physical causal chain is paralleled by the mind-body connection, then it seems that there can be no spontaneous mental activity either; there are no spontaneous consciousness decisions with the ability to alter the flow of events. The deterministic causal chain proven by science leads some to believe that all the seeming decision-making power in the conscious mind is nothing but illusion; therefore, free will can be nothing other than an illusory concept created by mankind as a necessary tool for existence. In order for humans to be able to cope, mentally and emotionally, with the self-awareness of their existence, they have to believe that they are free agents, whether or not that is true.**
Opponents to this view could argue that any measure or comparison of the mental in relation to the physical is inherently flawed; if the mind is immaterial, you can't assume it will follow the same rules as the material. Such a nice, clean theory effectively sidesteps the scary idea that we aren't active agents in our lives and allows for some intangible reason why our minds can affect the external world.
**Taking the truth determining content in the previous page, and if the deterministic causal chain theory is true (and free will isn't real), then a wide content viewpoint must also be necessarily true. But as we have no way of knowing, without contention, whether or not free will is an illusion, since we can not determine what plan the mind exist on and how it interacts with the world, the result of that proof are inconclusive.
Sartre's existentialism as a humanism
Sartre enters the arena of debate on free will with his existential ideologies, which are succinctly captured in the video below.
Many thinkers deeply opposed Sartre's opinions because, on the whole, they seem to reflect a pessimistic view of the world and humanity; but woven within his viewpoint is a glimmer of something that gives power and responsibility to the individual:
All humans have the responsibility to choose. Their choices affirm certain values that may
be reflected in the choices of others. In that way, we do have a sort of causal relationship
with our environment and the others inhabiting it.
All humans have the responsibility to choose. Their choices affirm certain values that may
be reflected in the choices of others. In that way, we do have a sort of causal relationship
with our environment and the others inhabiting it.