“Existence precedes essence” was first mentioned in a public lecture in 1945, which was later published as Existentialism Is a Humanism in 1946, to define and introduce what Sartre saw as the philosophical core of existentialism. Hence, for Sartre, “existence precedes essence” does not only define and decide his own existential thinking or his own version of existentialism, but also every thinking or philosophizing that announces itself as existential. Although Sartre later endeavored to separate himself and his thinking from this statement and its implications, it became the most quoted, repeated, and cited definition of existentialism and of any non-theistic existential thinking.
What Does “Existence Precedes Essence” Mean?
In Existentialism Is a Humanism, Sartre says that since “man is nothing else but what he makes of himself” and since “there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it”, existence must thus precede essence. This means that human beings define, decide, form, and determine themselves through their decisions, actions, thoughts, and choices whilst existing in the world, that is, human beings first exist in the world and then determine and choose themselves.
We are not determined by a God; we have no pre-established, fixed, or determined nature, soul, essence, or self that forms us in a certain way and makes us what we are. We decide and determine ourselves freely, continuously, and absolutely; there are no constraints obliging, controlling, or defining us. It is only us that can grant our existence any essence that we choose.
Sartre clarifies and explains what he means by “existence precedes essence” by showing how triangles and pens have specific, universal, and unchanging essences, functions, or forms that precede their concrete existences. For instance, in order for something to be a triangle, it must first assume a specific form that is necessary, essential, universal, and unchanging. That is, it must have three corners and such corners must add up to 180 degrees. The universality, fixity, or essentiality of this form is what renders a triangle what it is, that is, a triangle.
Similarly, in order for something to be a pen, it must hold within itself a certain fixed and determined essence through which the function of writing becomes a possibility and takes place. That is, in order for something to be a pen and hence to write, it must have a fixed and universal form through which writing itself becomes a possibility; it must have an essence that precedes its own concrete existence. Human beings, on the other hand, for Sartre, differ from triangles and pens regarding their own way of being-in-the-world, for we first exist in the world, and then through our own unique way of existing, we determine and choose our essence.
The origin of Sartre’s formula is Heidegger’s Being and Time, where Heidegger says that “the essence of Dasein lies in its existence”. Yet there is a difference between what both Heidegger and Sartre mean by existence and existing, since in Letter on Humanism, Heidegger distances his thought from Sartre’s understanding of existence, from Sartre’s existentialism, and from existentialism itself.
“Existence Precedes Essence” as a Response to the Traditional Distinction Between Essence and Existence
Sartre’s formula is a response to the traditional distinction in philosophy between essence and existence, that is, between the whatness of a thing and the mere existence of that thing. In traditional philosophy, the essence, or the whatness, of a thing is its universal and unchanging type, nature, form, or category. The essence is the unchanging nature of a thing that the mere existence of that thing represents. The essence is that from out of which existence emerges and announces itself.
Traditionally, essences are placed over against existences, for they are the necessary, universal, and unchanging aspects of reality. Existence, on the other hand, is that which is transient, accidental, and contingent.
Hence, against Plato and the entirely of the Western metaphysical thinking, Sartre says that there is no fixed, pre-established, or universal essence, self, or soul preceding and determining the existence of human beings in the world.
Sartre’s formula is thus an attempt at disrupting this traditional placing of essences over against existences, for according to Sartre, human beings have no fixed or universal essence that could be opposed to their existence. That is, there is no predetermined nature or purpose governing and controlling human beings. We choose, make, and transform ourselves freely, absolutely, and continuously.
Since existence, for Sartre, comes first, we are thus our decisions, choices, and actions. “Existence precedes essence” means that prior to existing no essence can be known, determined, glimpsed, or decided and that we decide and determine ourselves through our commitments, projects, and plans in the world. That is, we first exist in the world and then define and decide our own essence freely according to the way in which we choose we live.
Sartre’s The Transcendence of the Ego and the Cartesian “I Think Therefore I Am”
In The Transcendence of the Ego, Sartre critiques and argues against the Cartesian “I think therefore I am” because it assumes that there is a pre-defined and stable self or essence in which thinking is grounded. That is, Sartre’s “existence precedes essence” should be read as a response to, as a critique of, the Cartesian “I think therefore I am”.
Sartre’s argument against the Cartesian “I think therefore I am” is that there exists a distance and a fracture between the “I think” and the “I am” in the Cartesian cogito; a distance that makes the consciousness that says “I am” different from the consciousness that says “I think”.
Even if this fracture is not radical, it, at least, inserts a distance that separates consciousness from itself, a distance that renders apart and distanced what says “I am” and what says “I think”. This means that, for Sartre, there are two radically irreconcilable and disparate modes of consciousness: the pre-reflective consciousness and the reflective consciousness.
According to Sartre, Descartes mistakenly combines and brings these two modes of consciousness into each other, treating them simply as one thing. For Sartre, on the other hand, there are two different modes of consciousness: the pre-reflective cogito and the reflective cogito.
The pre-reflective cogito is the original mode of consciousness. In this pre-reflective mode, we experience the world and everything that surrounds us without a formed or definite notion of ego or of the self.
The second mode of consciousness, which is the reflective cogito, occurs in its forming and rendering possible of a self that is able to reflect on its past experiences. The reflective cogito means that there is now a self that has been posited in order to think of a world already experienced by a pre-reflective cogito.
The difference between these two modes of consciousness is that the pre-reflective cogito does not yet contain a self or an ego. The reflective cogito, on the other hand, involves a self that reflects on a world already experienced pre-reflectively.
What Sartre endeavors to say here is that in our original encounter with the world, we have no self, no ego, and no essence. In our pre-reflective, or primary, encounter with the world, there is neither selfhood nor a subject. When we, on the other hand, reflect on our past experiences, we impose on ourselves some unity taking place as a self or an ego. This unity arises and occurs only because we now are temporally distanced from our past experiences and it does not have either a metaphysical or an ontological status. That is, this superficial unity does nothing but confirms the apartness lying at the heart of consciousness and rendering it distanced from itself.
Sartre’s Philosophy of Freedom
“Human freedom precedes essence in man and makes it possible; the essence of human being is suspended in his freedom. What we call freedom is impossible to distinguish from the being of “human reality”. Man does not exist first in order to be free subsequently; there is no difference between the being of man and his being free.”
Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness
Because there is no pre-established or decided self, nature, or essence, and because there is no God deciding our essence for us, human existence, for Sartre, is completely and radically free, we are completely free to define, make, and re-make ourselves, constantly and infinitely.
This philosophy of radical and complete freedom is Sartre’s contribution to philosophy and its history. This philosophizing of freedom, of being absolutely free, is the core of Sartre’s existential thinking-philosophizing. The core that the formula “existence precedes essence” announces and confirms.
Sartre does not speak only of freedom, but rather of a condemnation: We are “condemned to be free”. Although this might appear paradoxical, since Sartre brings “freedom” and “condemnation” together into the same place, what he means is simply that we cannot renounce our freedom even if this renouncing of freedom is something that we want. (The article, Sartre on Freedom, Condemnation, and the Situation, explains what Sartre means by freedom and condemnation)
Yet this does not mean that we do not always find ourselves already in a certain situation defined and determined by specific social, historical, and physical conditions. Sartre calls this conditionedness “facticity”. “Facticity”, according to Sartre, is the sum of the conditions defining and determining our situation in the world. But “facticity” is not the undoing and negating of our freedom. Our freedom remains absolute; “facticity” is merely the context in which our freedom assumes its force and realizes its potential.
In other words, this context is that against which we should rebel. Our situation in the world does not limit or negate our freedom, but rather gives it a scope through which it can unfold and realize itself.
This is what is meant by Sartre’s view that freedom is absolute; nothing could either undo or negate it. “Condemned to be free” means that freedom is something that cannot be either lost or gained. Freedom is a necessary condition of human existence, it lies at the heart of what renders us what we are, that is, human beings.
This is what Sartre means when he says in Being and Nothingness that the “being for-itself” is a “being which is what it is not and is not what it is”. Sartre’s statement means that what renders us ourselves is not only the facts surrounding us, but also our dealing with these facts, our passing through these facts in such a way that opens them up to what remains undefined, undetermined, and other. (The article, Sartre’s “Being For-Itself”: What Does It Mean?, explains Sartre‘s notion of the “for-itself”)
Sartre’s statement speaks of a distance separating us from ourselves and hence allowing us to negate our own facticity through our actions and projects toward and into the future. To be what one is not and to be not what one is mean that one is not only the facts surrounding one’s existence at this present moment, but also the possible difference pertaining to one’s free and undetermined heading toward one’s future through one’s own projects.
Camus and Life
In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus speaks of two kinds of suicide. The first one is the event of killing oneself; the second one is faith as a philosophical suicide.
In the writings and works of Camus, two forms of hope are placed over against each other: infinite hope and finite hope.
In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus thinks from out the question of suicide, toward and into happiness, whose dwelling place is the heart of Sisyphus. But how could that whose origin is the meaninglessness of existence and the possibility of rendering oneself forever absent encounter itself eventually as happiness and joy?