Condemned to Be Free: Sartre's "Existentialism Is a Humanism"

Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism Is a Humanism began as a public lecture, delivered in Paris just after the Second World War, and it remains the most accessible statement of his philosophy. Sartre wanted to defend existentialism against the charge that it was gloomy, defeatist, and amoral, and in doing so he produced a ringing, bracing manifesto of human freedom and responsibility. Its central slogan, that “existence precedes essence,” sounds abstract but carries an enormous and liberating, and terrifying, claim: that there is no fixed human nature, no blueprint we are born to fulfill. We are nothing until we make ourselves, and we are utterly responsible for what we become.

Here is what Sartre taught me about existence preceding essence, about the burden of radical freedom, and about why he insisted existentialism is a humanism.

Key takeaways

• “Existence precedes essence”: we exist first and define ourselves through our choices.
• We are “condemned to be free,” with no excuses and total responsibility.
• In choosing for ourselves, we choose an image of what humanity should be.
• “Bad faith” is fleeing our freedom by pretending we have none.
• Existentialism is a humanism because it places dignity and responsibility in human hands.

Existence precedes essence

Sartre’s foundational idea is captured in the phrase “existence precedes essence.” Consider a manufactured object, say a paper-knife: its essence, its purpose and design, exists in the maker’s mind before the object itself. For most of history, humans were thought of similarly, as having a fixed essence, a God-given nature or purpose that defined what we were meant to be. Sartre denies this. For human beings, he argues, existence comes first: we simply find ourselves existing, and only afterward, through our choices and actions, do we define what we are. There is no pre-written human nature, no script. We are, first, and then we make ourselves into something through how we live. This is both exhilarating and vertiginous. It means I am not fated to be anything; I am the sum of my choices, and nothing more.

Condemned to be free

From this follows Sartre’s most famous and most demanding claim: man is “condemned to be free.” Condemned, because we did not choose to exist; free, because once we do exist, everything is a choice, and there is no God, no fixed nature, no external authority to make our decisions for us or to take the blame. We cannot hide behind our upbringing, our emotions, our circumstances, or human nature; in every situation, we choose, and we are wholly responsible for that choice. There are no excuses. This is a crushing weight, and Sartre does not pretend otherwise; he speaks of the anguish, abandonment, and despair that come with confronting our total freedom. But it is also a profound affirmation of our dignity and power. We are the authors of our lives, with all the terror and responsibility that authorship entails.

Choosing for all humanity

Sartre adds a striking and often overlooked dimension to this freedom. When I choose, he argues, I am not only choosing for myself; I am implicitly affirming that this is how a human being ought to act, choosing, in effect, an image of humanity. If I choose to be honest, I am declaring that honesty is good for all; my choices are a kind of legislation for everyone. This is how Sartre answers the charge that existentialism is amoral: far from freeing us to do whatever we like without consequence, it loads every choice with the weight of universal responsibility. And it is why he insists, against the pessimists, that existentialism is a humanism. By placing meaning, value, and responsibility entirely in human hands, it affirms human dignity and refuses to outsource our lives to fate, nature, or the divine. We make ourselves, and in doing so, we make our world.

What I’m taking with me

Existentialism Is a Humanism is a bracing slap of a book, and I came away both unsettled and energised. What I am taking from Sartre is the radical idea that I have no fixed essence to live up to, only a freedom to create myself through my choices; the sobering recognition that this freedom comes with total responsibility and no excuses; and his warning against “bad faith,” the self-deception of pretending we are not free, that our circumstances or nature decide for us. Sartre’s vision is heavy to carry, but it is also a summons to take full ownership of my life. There is no one else to do it for me.

Frequently asked questions

What does “existence precedes essence” mean?

Sartre’s idea that human beings have no fixed, predetermined nature. We first exist, and then define who we are through our own choices and actions, rather than fulfilling a pre-given purpose.

What does “condemned to be free” mean?

That because there is no God or fixed human nature to decide for us, we are wholly free and therefore wholly responsible for our choices, with no excuses, a freedom Sartre says can feel like a burden.

What is “bad faith” in Sartre?

Self-deception in which we flee our freedom and responsibility by pretending we have no choice, blaming our nature, circumstances, or role rather than owning our decisions.

References & further reading

1. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism. (1946; translated by Philip Mairet, Methuen, 1948.)
2. Warnock, Mary. Existentialism. Oxford University Press, 1970.
3. Murdoch, Iris. Sartre: Romantic Rationalist. Bowes & Bowes, 1953.