Professional Documents
Culture Documents
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
Jean Paul Sartre’s:
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
Existentialism is Humanism
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
Critical Review
Michał Gomułka
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
2
“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through its wisdom, it
pleased God through the foolish preaching (cross) to save those who believe.”1 I have begun this
essay with this particular passage from the Bible because it shows me what is at stake; blindness.
No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again. In this instance Sartre is blind
and he is unable to see the kingdom. Thus what the wisdom of God proclaims to be true he
apologetics and philosophy will be used in order to convey the point of the argument. One might
say that this is a critique of Sartre‟s work. In I Corinthians 1:21 Paul the Apostle indicates the
true wisdom and that is obviously Jesus Christ and Him crucified. To the Greek it is foolishness
and to the Jew it is a scandal. At the heart of the argument is that when God the Creator and
Sustainer of the universe is taken out, all else falls apart because there must be a first cause. Any
type of philosophy or ethical system based on humanism is faulty and must be exposed by the
light (Jesus) because what can be known about God has been displayed in the universe. Just as
atheists make a case that there is no God all Christians ought to make a case for them to prove
that there is no God. Actually Christians ought to expose the weakness of atheistic “ethics” such
as Darwinism and have them prove their theory which of course they cannot. Thus before
anybody asks us to prove the existence of God, one ought to ask, “prove that there is no God.”
This essay will be dual in nature because it will critique Sartre‟s Existentialism is Humanism on a
broad level and it will critique issues that I find crucial, more in depth than others. Thus I have
already assumed after reading Sartre‟s essay what the major and the minors are; in a nutshell the
1
I Corinthians 1:21, reference added.
3
“My purpose here is to offer a defense of existentialism.”2 Sartre begins his work as a
according to Sartre.
“Atheistic existentialism, of which I am a representative, declares with greater consistency that if God does
not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it
can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality.” 3
Upon being given the definition above one can make two major assumptions. First, there is no
God and second, existence precedes essence. I am fond of this sort of “doctrine” because it
shows me how depraved human beings really are. What I mean by this is simple, man is at the
center of life, man is sitting on the throne and God is not! Now, this can go even further as to
“how” Sartre defines Existentialism. Existence precedes essence. He is already assuming that
anything that “begins” to exist starts to “form or develop” an identity, particularly human beings.
It is already a “given” to Sartre because he knows he was born at a certain point in time, and he
knows that he begun to exist, yet his essence is not included there, it follows later. This is what
he means by “existence precedes essence: “We mean that man first of all exists, encounters
himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.”4 Thus, according to Sartre,
He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no
human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply
what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already
existing – as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he
makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism. 5
2
Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
4
Again, I am not surprised at all that Sartre has titled his essay Existentialism is Humanism.
What even surprises me is that as a Christian myself I totally agree with that statement;
Existentialism is humanism! It really is! Whenever man is at the center and everything depends
on his actions and on what he chooses to do ignoring God it comes down to one simple principle;
humanism. This is man-centered mentality verses the God-centered mentality. Why did I say it
like that? Basically because there exist only two worldviews or two religions; Christianity and
everything else. One might say what a broad canon you have used to make this assumption!
Don‟t you know about Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Wiccans, Roman Catholics, Baptists,
Kabala? Frankly I am familiar with all of them and what separates Christianity6 from all else is
not based on some ethical or religious standard but on a person, Jesus Christ! Jesus is the Gospel;
He is our righteousness, wisdom, sanctification and redemption.7 Thus the Christian worldview
before all else is Christological. This is where the rubber meets the road. Sartre by no means
showed us anything new. It is only this old lie whispered in the garden to Adam and Eve; “You
shall be like God.” Surely it puts on new “image” very intellectual what harm could it do? People
like Sartre one might say are highly educated; this is a man with wit and virtue! Yet what kind
of wit and virtue does it present? In the rest of the essay I will not be focusing if Sartre is right by
saying that Existentialism is Humanism because I have already established that point; it is! Sartre
is totally correct by saying that. All I want to present from now on is the horrific lie of this
Humanism has not always been the enemy of Christianity. Actually during the Renaissance
of the 15th century thanks to Humanism people like Erasmus put the Greek New Testament
6
By Christianity I mean what the Old and the New Testament hold together as a unit, in essence faith in Jesus Christ
apart from works by grace through faith alone.
7
I Corinthians 1:31
5
together and others translated it into the “vulgar” language of the people. “Erasmus laid the egg
which Luther hatched.” Yet with time humanism took on a different spin of separating itself
from the “ecclesial environment” because it was no more popular to have God in the equation.
Sartre definitely was an atheist; a good atheist. Before I expend on this let me mention that Sartre
For we mean to say that man primarily exists – that man is, before all else, something which
propels itself towards a future and is aware that it is doing so. Man is, indeed, a project which possesses a
subjective life, instead of being a kind of moss, or a fungus or a cauliflower. Before that projection of the
self nothing exists; not even in the heaven of intelligence: man will only attain existence when he is what
he purposes to be. Not, however, what he may wish to be. For what we usually understand by wishing or
willing is a conscious decision taken – much more often than not – after we have made ourselves what we
are. I may wish to join a party, to write a book or to marry – but in such a case what is usually called my
will is probably a manifestation of a prior and more spontaneous decision. If, however, it is true that
existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is
that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his
existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when we say that man is responsible for himself, we do
not mean that he is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. 8
Here we have the Kantenian idea that man is responsible for himself and others! Man is
responsible for his actions as well as all men. At first glance anybody who has not read the Bible
cover to cover would say, “What a great Christian, Mr. Sartre is a good person!” Obviously the
person who would make that statement above is not able to smell the rat of humanism in this
statement. What is good? How does one define what is good? Going back to the example of the
good atheist long time ago I heard this example, I do not know from where it was taken but it is
not mine I just want to make that clear. Well, the example went like this: There was this good
atheist and he had a friend who was sick but they lived 50 miles apart from each other. It was a
very cold winter night and the good atheist decided to bring the medicine to his dying friend. The
medicine was the only way to save this person. The good atheist makes the trip and finally
delivers the cure to his friend and saves his life. What has he done? Again, someone not familiar
8
Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism
6
with the God of the Bible will right away say, “A good deed indeed!” Yet if a Christian looks at
this from a Biblical worldview he will indeed say, “This man has sinned!” “Well how did he sin,
he just saved that man‟s life!” The punch line is that the good atheist has not given glory to God
who alone is good and his motive was for vindication of self, “look at me what a good person I
am!” That is sin! That is taking away the glory that is due only to God! Humanism has a
tendency to dress in white yet underneath is filled with dung, puss and ashes. No wonder some
people consider Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Christians because they are “good people.”
Christianity above all else is Christ-centered; Christological. Buddhism minus Buddha still
equals Buddhism. Existentialism minus Sartre still equals Existentialism. Christianity minus
Jesus does not equal Christianity! Thus Mr. Sartre will die one day yet even without him
Existentialism will function because it is a system of ideas that is not subjective to anything else,
Being a good person and carrying for others is essential to Sartre yet if only in this life we
have hope according to Apostle Paul we are the most wretched of all men! Sartre said that “man
is before all else” yet how could that be? I see no purpose in arguing over the fact that the earth
is older than any other human being, yet all must have a beginning, of course this would exclude
the first necessary cause which must be God! What scares me about Existentialism is that it is so
immoral! Now Sartre would argue with me that it is not but I would like to present an example
from life: Imagine a society where more young people are moving in and are adding socially and
economically into the benefit of the city. Yet there exists a large community in that city that is
made up of older people who really are not adding anything to the society. They just “use” the
resources; they are “vegetating” on the resources of others. Now an existentialist might see it as
his duty to add to the “common good” of the city overall. As having this “ability to make
7
choices” he might see it as his duty to remove the old people with the use of euthanasia in order
that they might not consume the goods of the community. Obviously this is not an example but
something that has originated in Holland and is spreading all over the world, for the sake of the
argument lets just call it “silent holocaust.” Sartre is so unaware of the danger that his
Existentialism presents to the society. On the other hand what would a Christian do? Obviously
not what the Existentialist did, murder is a sin, and it is inhumane! In an Existentialist worldview
one dictates his own standards and morals. Morality is so seared that what seems best for “me” is
chosen as a priority. Adolf Hitler for instance was “building a better society” in his mind by
Existentialist? In his mind he was doing a favor to the society by killing others. He was “defining
men” by his standard. Thus If I was born in Germany during world war two I would be
considered a “defect” because I was born only with one properly working eye, my left leg is
shorter than my right and I had a weak heart. Yet what defines man? If there is no absolute
standard than there is no hope because all will do what seems “best” or “worst” in their own
mind.
Going back to the saying: “Existence precedes essence,” man basically becomes what he
chooses to become. We are shaped by our culture and circumstances. Man has no destiny; there
is no prior essence because according to Sartre one must first exist and discover his or her
essence/purpose. It seems strange for something to exist with no prior essence. One makes a car
in order to drive that car. A table is made for a general purpose and so is a chair. We make food
so that we can eat it (cooking). Yet here is this extremely intelligent being that comes into
existence with no prior purpose; man. For Sartre there is no God so all of us are a coincidence an
accident of natural causes! We come into this world and we become what we are by choosing.
8
Everything in the universe has a prior function yet not man Sartre would say. We become by
what we choose to become. I could not be able to live with this “doctrine.” It is correct to say
that our choices have an impact on reality yet the “essence of man” is defined even before their
existence. Coming from a Christian perspective man is made for the glory of God, primarily
above all else to worship God.9 Thus, even before man existed God‟s Word already told us our
purpose. In a Christian worldview there is a Creator and a creature relationship. In the moment a
baby is born into this world he or she already has an ultimate essence or purpose; to worship
God. I do not make a hammer and then decide what I will use it for. Hammer is made for nailing
nails. I personally believe that Sartre is not aware of the problems that his view presents. There
must be a primary purpose for everything because everything in the universe has a purpose!
Now, yes man becomes what he is by his choices meaning that by those choices that I make I
school. These are secondary issues. What is at stake is the primary essential purpose of man! All
birds that fly have wings but not all birds are predators. There is a parrot and a hawk. Again not
all men are doctors but all men are created to worship God. Sartre misses it all together because
he is an atheist. Existence must be specified for a particular purpose otherwise it is not existence
but rather nothingness. A tiger doesn‟t wake up one night and says, “I think I‟m going to try
eating grass and become a lamb.” A man does not wake up one morning and says, “I‟m going to
jump off the cliff and try to fly and see if my hands will turn into wings.” Obviously this is
ludicrous! Let me try this proof: a. everything that begins to exist already has a pre-existent
essence (purpose) b. man begun to exist c. man has a pre-existent essence. I cannot tolerate the
fact that we as human beings come into this world as an empty slate. At the level that Sartre is
presenting his argument, it is true in a sense that our choices “shape us” yet the primary essence
9
Isaiah 43:7
9
is already assumed; that is to worship God! I am convinced that C.S Lewis‟ first five chapters of
Mere Christianity is a deadly rebuttal to Mr. Sartre‟s Existentialism is Humanism. Even though
Sartre does say that morality is assumed by all men (on which I will expend later on in the paper)
he makes a contradiction by already assuming that some “unit in men” already has essence prior
to its existence. Morality is not a product of evolution or something that is learned. Morality
assumes what is expected from the other person and is sure to accuse the other if the “pre-
existent” expectations are not met. There exists this standard in human beings that is used as a
measuring rod to decide what is good and what is bad. It cannot be learned because it already
exists at conception. People in Poland and people in America all are aware of the fact that
murder and stealing is wrong. I do not have to teach someone that murder is wrong, they already
know it. This “natural law of man” is present at the point of one‟s existence thus “essence of
morality” cannot be “developed or formed” it already exists. There is a “standard” that all men
are aware of yet they do not keep it at all times. Thus I believe Lewis would argue that at least
“essence of morality” is already present at existence and cannot be formed or developed by our
choices because it just is. Since morality is present in human beings and is not learned or
developed one can logically assume that it had to be “given” or “passed on” to us by some “other
source” than human beings. In Christianity we know it is God who gave it to us but even in the
world of science one can argue and ask “from where does this pre-existent morality with which
we are born comes from.” One can even argue with atheists about a single cell which is so
complex that it would take long time to explain its function. If the cell is the product of evolution
from where does it get its “commands” which are already there? The power house of the cell,
mitochondria is so complex that to say that the cell “evolved” is just scientifically absurd! One
can say it is “science-fiction.” Thus even the single cell already possesses “commands” that pre-
10
existed before it “evolved” according to science. So where does it come from, these commands?
Again, it is easier to say that there is an intelligent creator such as God than to say that it just
happened. The Bible is very wise to say, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”10
Next on the list “to do” is this scary statement that we are unable to choose the worse.
Again Sartre is taking about the “benefit of all” and this “duty” yet these are mere words which
For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not
one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose
between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to
choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for
all. If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image,
that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much
greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may
choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to
signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man‟s kingdom is not upon this
earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in
consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry
and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my
desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am
thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to
be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.11
What a scary yet true statement! I want to focus on what I have underlined. If a young
woman who is an Existentialist decides to commit abortion because she is a teenager, does not
have enough money and doesn‟t want to offend her parents especially her dad who is a preacher,
is in a sense doing exactly what Sartre says, she is looking for the common good of others and
not just herself. Yet in committing abortion according to Sartre she is defining every other young
woman who is in her situation. After World War II people hated Germans not distinguishing
between those who were Nazis and those who did not participate in the Holocaust. In a sense
men are “stereotyped” by other men. Sartre was right by saying that man defines other man yet
the primary purpose of man has been defined by their Creator from all eternity and that is to
10
Psalm 53:1
11
Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism
11
worship Him! “For we are unable to ever choose the worse” This is taken from the large
paragraph that I just quoted above. This is extremely interesting to me, how do I know what is
best? How do I define what is best? “Sartre! You just said that man makes his choices and he
does what he wants so you mean to tell us that any choice that man makes is not worse but
always better?” Again the factor “best” has not been defined thus man invents what “best” is
according to what he or she believes “the best” is. Humanism is just saturated in Existentialism!
Sartre has titled his essay very properly. One man might choose to save a drowning baby and
consider that the best choice and another man might commit adultery because it seemed as the
best choice. Without defining what is good and what is best we are destined to anarchy! One
might say, “You are insane anarchy? How?” Well, if men do what seems best to their own
convictions then we define the good, the better and the best. The “worse” to an existentialist will
always be that from which he cannot profit! Bible says that God alone is good, in Him is fullness
of joy and pleasures forevermore!”12 In “creating the image of man” as Sartre said man do by
their choices one will wake up one day look in the mirror and see a monster; total emptiness.
What is so sad about existentialism is that “it just is.” “Do it for the sake of duty, make your
choices so you can feel good about yourself and die as a piece of dirt in the ground because that
is all you are anyway!” Existentialism presents radical Humanism at its core! Sartre is just
scratching the surface, but what really is hiding underneath Existentialism is pride of man and
hatred against God! Sartre would never say it like that because he is a good atheist, yet the devil
wants you to know that he is red, has a pitchfork in his hand and is just so scary. Devil wants you
to know that witches, goblins are his cohorts and that he is this scary monster! C.S Lewis has
presented this extremely fashionably in one of his books which is my favorite, The Screwtape
Letters. Devil wants you to know that he is either this ugly red monster with a pitchfork in his
12
Psalm 16:11
12
hand or that he does not exist at all! Why do we then marvel that Existentialism is “Satanic” at
its core because it is dressed in white! Paul the Apostle was correct when he said in II
Corinthians 11:14, “even Satan disguises himself as the angel of light.” Sartre in essence is
saying that men are creating the image of other man. Genesis 1:26-27 says that we were made
(created) in the image of God! Man has a defined image that was assumed before his existence;
the image of God. Yet the devil being “the father of lies” and he has been lying since the
beginning and there is no truth in him is deceiving the “cosmos”13 by putting on a suite and
waving some degree in philosophy from a secular university. One cannot see this because it is so
clever! Who would imagine that the devil has some of his best soldiers in schools, religious
organizations and politics! Yet Existentialism will remain Humanism; God hating.
morality at a general level. “The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular
moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense.”14 Wow! This sounds so
“politically correct!” Why would Sartre say this? He wants to say that because he wants people
to view Existentialism as an ethical system that does not include God in the equation yet at the
same time is not antagonistic as some other atheists such as Satanists. A very crafty device the
devil has used. Existentialism does not have to suppress God and be „God-hating” as the
Satanists are but it has already accomplished its job by putting the man on the throne and giving
God no place to sit. The moment we say that God does not exist it does not matter if we try to
say that “it‟s okay for Christians to meet on Sunday and worship, let them have their fun as long
as they are not radical and are not terrorizing the rest of the society with this creature of theirs;
13
world
14
Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism
13
God.” It does not matter because this is really what atheists think of Christians, “In fact let them
worship but keep quite we do not need to feel terrorized let‟s just have love, ah yes! Love is all
we need. This God of Old Testament is so blood thirsty masochistic child abusing father that we
However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values
should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered
obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one‟s wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are
going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same,
inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. In other words – and this is, I believe,
the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall
rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-
of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely
embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an
intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect
consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie,
since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: “If God did not exist,
everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed
permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend
upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed
existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one‟s action by reference to a given and specific
human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom.16
Sartre will not deny the necessity of a “moral society” yet he makes it very clear that this
society most definitely can exist without God. In the paragraph above I have underlined the first
sentence which I believe to be the “Achilles‟ heel” of the argument that Sartre makes; mainly
that existence precedes essence. This French man assumes that moral values such as to be
honest, not to beat one‟s wife and to bring up children must have a “prior existence?” I smell a
contradiction! Mr. Sartre so you would agree that man before coming into this world already
knows what is right and what is not? He would not say it like that but he cannot deny it. Whether
realizing this weakness in the argument or not Sartre is addressing what we Christians call
morality or conscience with which we are born, it is a given! Well, Mr. Sartre from where did
this pre-existing, prior ability to know what is morally right and wrong has come from? Well
15
John Lennon and Richard Dockins, paraphrased by the author
16
Sartre, Existentialism is Humanism
14
again Sartre can voucher for those Existentialists who are theists and say what I have underlined
in the second part of the paragraph that I quoted from Existentialism is Humanism, mainly that
Existentialists are embarrassed that God does not exists. A clever strategy Mr. Sartre yet you say
that you belong to those Existentialists that are atheists! One cannot deny that prior ability to
make choices had to arrive with the design. All men have morality; as C.S Lewis said, they either
accuse or rationalize. This level of „what is expected” exists in all men. It is in all man, not an
instinct, it is transcendental and trans-chronological and it is not learned. People all over the
world know that murder and stealing is wrong! This “morality” can be seared in some but
according to Lewis the society considers people like that sociopaths. Sartre is so unaware of the
weakness of his argument because morality pre-exists, thus one cannot learn that stealing is
wrong, they just know it. God must be present at the equation, it just has to be, it is so logical!
„Yes Mr. Sartre I know, you are asking me to prove that God exists or better show me God! Mr.
Sartre have you ever loved?‟ Most likely he has, I am assuming. Well can you show me love?
Sure he will say, „I have bought flowers for this woman, I have married her and I am faithful to
her, we kiss each other and hold hands, this is love!‟ „No Mr. Sartre I have not asked you to
show me the means by which you love but show me “the love!” You cannot!‟ „Well I pray to
God I mean we talk a lot, I read my Bible because that is how I know about God and I try to love
others as myself because God requires that of us. I mean just look at me I was made by God!‟
This little analogy might be ridiculous but it shows that not always what we think is so simple or
common to all man like love could not be shown in its purest form because it cannot be. I can say
that God exists by showing the means by which I know he does exist. I think it takes a lot of
17
Faith in the fact to be so sure that there is no God 100% sure to say that there is no God and prove that there is no
15
“In the end, it is feeling that counts; the direction in which it is really pushing me is the
one I ought to choose.”18 Okay, I have a big problem with this one! What if an Existentialist feels
it is proper to kill other people for the good of the society? Sartre is probably screaming from the
grave, “Show me one!” Well, Hitler. Wasn‟t he an Existentialist? He chose to make one master
race for the benefit of the German nation by exterminating peoples groups such as Jews and
Gypsies. Personally I believe that Hitler is just one of the many antichrists that will come before
the actual Antichrist comes into the scene. Feelings hang on a swing! One day they go to the left
and the other day to the right. There is no standard, yet there must exist a moral code, a given!
Again it is impossible because Sartre took God out of the equation. Another statement made by
Sartre that I want to expend on is this, “You are free, therefore choose, that is to say, invent.”19
By inventing I can see only one catastrophe; sin. Let me say what I mean by that. In Romans
1:30 Paul is listing the sins of the nations and one of them is that they are “inventors of evil.” By
choosing what you “feel” is right without being subjected to God, judgment and life after death
there remains only one result and that is new manifestations of sin by human kind. There is just
so much sin out there! People really do invent “new ways of sinning.” By this freedom to choose
and invent Sartre is really giving ammunition to those who will take his “philosophy” and just
Every theory which begins with man, outside of this moment of self-attainment, is a theory which thereby
suppresses the truth, for outside of the Cartesian cogito, all objects are no more than probable, and any
doctrine of probabilities which is not attached to a truth will crumble into nothing. In order to define the
probable one must possess the true. Before there can be any truth whatever, then, there must be an absolute
truth, and there is such a truth which is simple, easily attained and within the reach of everybody; it consists
in one‟s immediate sense of one‟s self. 20
Thus Sartre believes in something called “an absolute truth” and that is immediate sense
of one‟s self. Thus “I know therefore I am.” To Sartre the truest reality is the “knowledge of self
existence.” On a certain level I agree with him since we can know that we exist and him being an
atheist it would make even more sense because there is no God. Yet what constitutes an absolute
truth? Men change and are not stable, God is immutable He cannot change! If we want an
absolute truth it has to be true all the time! Only God meets that requirement.
“In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always
choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice.”21 I have found this
statement very interesting. I have never thought of the fact that when I chose not to do something
the act of not choosing in itself is a choice. I am just quoting it because I like it. It is very logical
to me.
What man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even
a valid proof of the existence of God. In this sense existentialism is optimistic. It is a doctrine of action, and it
is only by self-deception, by confining their own despair with ours that Christians can describe us as without
hope.22
Paragraph above is the way Sartre ends his essay, Existentialism is Humanism. Wow!
What Sartre is assuming is that belief in God causes this fear not to act and be passive! Man must
climb the hill, the show must go on! He is so right, Existentialists are indeed without hope! This
Stoic mentality will take them to the grave and then straight to the judgment seat from where
there is no partiality and all have fallen short of God‟s glory! Existentialism is indeed Humanism
and it is a philosophy of the devil himself where man is god and there is no God.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
17
In conclusion, a lie from the Garden of Eden in the ages past has taken many forms but
this time it is called Existentialism. There is nothing new under the sun and Existentialism is not
new either. It is already a defeat for Sartre to say that morality exists before essence because that
means that “someone or something” had to put it there in the first place; obviously God. This
“natural human law” just screams at all humanity, “There is a God!” Existentialism is destructive
and takes away the glory from God. Just as Paul the Apostle said that man in their own wisdom
did not come to know God because God is revealed only in Jesus Christ who is the exact
representation of the Father. Sartre is gone, Buddha is gone, Mohamed is gone, Kant is gone,
Hume is gone, Hitler is gone yet God as He always existed from all eternity is here and will be
here because He has no beginning nor end, this is absolute truth, a truth that remains forever.
Jesus rose from the dead and so will those who trust in Him. Sartre is still in the grave; Jesus is
risen from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father…hmm? I am going with Jesus!