Book: Existentialism is a humanism

We want freedom for the sake of freedom in every single case. But, striving for freedom, we find that it depends entirely on the freedom of other people and that the freedom of others depends on our freedom.

Dishonesty is obviously a lie, for it conceals complete freedom of action. In the same sense, it can be said that a choice is dishonest if it is claimed to be preceded by some pre-existing value. I contradict myself if at the same time I want to establish them and declare that they oblige me.

Man creates himself. He is not created initially, he creates himself by choosing morality, and the pressure of circumstances is such that he cannot but choose a certain morality. We define a person only in connection with his decision to take a position.

Historical situations change: a person can be born a slave in a pagan society, a feudal lord or a proletarian. The only need for him to be in the world, to be in it at work, to be in it among others and to be mortal in it does not change.

the only thing that allows a person to live is action.

For a coward there is always an opportunity to no longer be a coward, and for a hero to stop being a hero. But only complete determination counts, not special cases or individual actions - they do not capture us completely.

A coward is determined by a perfect deed. What people dimly feel and what terrifies them is that the coward himself is guilty of being a coward. People would like cowards or heroes to be born.

I can't count on people I don't know based on a belief in human kindness or a person's interest in the public good. After all, man is free, and there is no human nature on which I can base my calculations.

No universal morality will tell you what to do; there are no signs in the world. Catholics will argue that there are signs. Let's assume that this is the case, but even in this case, I decide for myself what their meaning is.

As André Gide put it well, the feeling that is portrayed and the feeling that is experienced are almost indistinguishable. Deciding that I love my mother and staying with her, or acting out a comedy as if I'm staying for my mother is almost the same thing. In other words, the feeling is created by the actions that we do. I cannot, therefore, turn to feeling in order to be guided by it. And this means that I can neither seek in myself such a true state that would induce me to act, nor demand from any morality to prescribe how I should act. However, you object, because he also turned to the teacher for advice. The fact is that when you go for advice, for example, to a priest, it means that you have chosen this priest and, in fact, you already more or less imagined what he would advise you. In other words, choosing an advisor is again deciding on something yourself.

I can establish the significance of a given feeling only when I have already committed an act that affirms and determines the significance of the feeling. If I want the feeling to justify my action, I find myself in a vicious circle.

Whatever the person, there is always an unknown future ahead of him.

Dostoevsky once wrote that "if there is no God, then everything is allowed." This is the starting point of existentialism. In fact, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and therefore a person is abandoned, he has nothing to rely on either in himself or outside. First of all, he has no excuses. Indeed, if existence precedes essence, then nothing can be explained by reference to this human nature once for all. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom.

Existentialists, on the other hand, are worried about the absence of God, since with God every opportunity to find any values in the intelligible world disappears. There can be no more good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect mind that would think of it. And nowhere is it written that the good exists, that one must be honest, that one must not lie; and this is precisely because we are on a plain, and only people live on this plain.