& Philosophy

Author: The Professor

  • Man is condemned to be free

    Jean Paul Sartre, Existentialism is a Humanism

    This quote comes from a lecture given in 1946. In this lecture, Sartre explains that his existentialist understanding of the world is of one where “existence precedes essence” – that is to say, essentially, that man first exists, and then determines what he is and how he fits into the world. This position has to assume that man existed first, and he then created the idea of God.

    Here is an excerpt from the lecture, showing the context around the quote:

    And when we speak of “abandonment” – a favorite word of Heidegger – we only mean to say that God does not exist, and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense.

    Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. 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exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself.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.

    Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free.

    Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does. The existentialist does not believe in the power of passion. He will never regard a grand passion as a destructive torrent upon which a man is swept into certain actions as by fate, and which, therefore, is an excuse for them.

    He thinks that man is responsible for his passion. Neither will an existentialist think that a man can find help through some sign being vouchsafed upon earth for his orientation: for he thinks that the man himself interprets the sign as he chooses.

    He thinks that every man, without any support or help whatever, is condemned at every instant to invent man. As Ponge has written in a very fine article, “Man is the future of man.” That is exactly true.

    Only, if one took this to mean that the future is laid up in Heaven, that God knows what it is, it would be false, for then it would no longer even be a future. If, however, it means that, whatever man may now appear to be, there is a future to be fashioned, a virgin future that awaits him – then it is a true saying. But in the present one is forsaken.

    Read more…

    Historical Context

    As World War II unfolded, Sartre’s philosophy increasingly focused on themes like freedom, authenticity, and responsibility. While serving as a meteorologist in Alsace, he was captured by the German Army in 1940 and spent nearly a year in captivity. Despite the socio-political upheaval, Sartre demonstrated remarkable productivity, publishing several renowned works during this period. Read more…

    With Nazi Germany as a backdrop, Sartre’s emphasis on man’s responsibility and self-determination takes on greater meaning.

    About Jean-Paul Sartre

    Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (June 21, 1905 – April 15, 1980) was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic. He is regarded as a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. Sartre was instrumental in shaping existentialism and phenomenology, and his work profoundly influenced fields such as sociology, critical theory, post-colonial theory, and literary studies. In 1964, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, which he attempted to decline, stating that he consistently refused official honors and believed “a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution.”

    Sartre shared an open relationship with Simone de Beauvoir, a prominent feminist and fellow existentialist philosopher. Together, they challenged the cultural and social norms of their bourgeois upbringing in both their personal lives and intellectual pursuits. The tension between oppressive conformity (mauvaise foi, or “bad faith”) and the pursuit of an “authentic” existence became the central theme of Sartre’s early work, most notably in his philosophical masterpiece Being and Nothingness (L’Être et le Néant, 1943). Sartre introduced his philosophy to a broader audience in Existentialism Is a Humanism (L’existentialisme est un humanisme, 1946), originally presented as a lecture.

    Read more…

  • Leisure is the mother of philosophy

    Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XLVI

    The above quote is by Thomas Hobbes in his mammoth work Leviathan. The section in which it appears considers the social and environmental circumstances required for philosophy to rise.

    Read the excerpt below:

    Of The Beginnings And Progresse Of Philosophy

    The faculty of Reasoning being consequent to the use of Speech, it was not possible, but that there should have been some generall Truthes found out by Reasoning, as ancient almost as Language it selfe.

    The Savages of America, are not without some good Morall Sentences; also they have a little Arithmetick, to adde, and divide in Numbers not too great: but they are not therefore Philosophers.

    For as there were Plants of Corn and Wine in small quantity dispersed in the Fields and Woods, before men knew their vertue, or made use of them for their nourishment, or planted them apart in Fields, and Vineyards; in which time they fed on Akorns, and drank Water: so also there have been divers true, generall, and profitable Speculations from the beginning; as being the naturall plants of humane Reason:

    But they were at first but few in number; men lived upon grosse Experience; there was no Method; that is to say, no Sowing, nor Planting of Knowledge by it self, apart from the Weeds, and common Plants of Errour and Conjecture:

    And the cause of it being the want of leasure from procuring the necessities of life, and defending themselves against their neighbours, it was impossible, till the erecting of great Common-wealths, it should be otherwise.

    Leasure is the mother of Philosophy; and Common-wealth, the mother of Peace, and Leasure:

    Where first were great and flourishing Cities, there was first the study of Philosophy. The Gymnosophists of India, the Magi of Persia, and the Priests of Chaldea and Egypt, are counted the most ancient Philosophers; and those Countreys were the most ancient of Kingdomes.

    Philosophy was not risen to the Graecians, and other people of the West, whose Common-wealths (no greater perhaps then Lucca, or Geneva) had never Peace, but when their fears of one another were equall; nor the Leasure to observe any thing but one another.

    At length, when Warre had united many of these Graecian lesser Cities, into fewer, and greater; then began Seven Men, of severall parts of Greece, to get the reputation of being Wise; some of them for Morall and Politique Sentences; and others for the learning of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, which was Astronomy, and Geometry. But we hear not yet of any Schools of Philosophy.

    We can see from the above that for Hobbes, shared wealth and peace are requirements for a society to begin studying bigger ideas. With this in mind we can reflect on our own modern society and consider how well it is set up for this purpose, and whether that is intentional.

    Historical Context

    Hobbes’s political philosophy was deeply influenced by the widespread sectarian conflicts of his era, including the European wars of religion and the English Civil Wars. These turbulent events led him to prioritize peace and security as the primary objectives of government, believing they must be upheld at any cost.

    Thomas Hobbes (April 5, 1588, Westport, Wiltshire, England – December 4, 1679, Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire) was an English philosopher, scientist, and historian, renowned for his political philosophy, particularly as outlined in his seminal work Leviathan (1651). Hobbes saw government as a mechanism to ensure collective security, advocating for political authority based on a hypothetical social contract. This contract entrusts a sovereign—whether an individual or a governing body—with the responsibility of safeguarding the safety and welfare of all citizens.

    In metaphysics, Hobbes championed materialism, the belief that only material entities are real, and in his scientific writings, he explained all observable phenomena as the result of matter in motion. Beyond his own scientific contributions, Hobbes was a skilled synthesizer of the discoveries of his contemporaries, such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler. However, his lasting legacy lies in his role as a political philosopher, providing a rationale for broad government powers founded on the self-interested consent of the governed.

    Read more about Thomas Hobbes here.

  • No man’s knowledge can go beyond his experience

    John Locke, An Essay of Human Understanding (Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 19)

    The quote above comes from John Locke’s “An Essay of Human Understanding”. The section in which it appears considers whether a person can think without knowing they are thinking.

    Read the extract below:

    That a Man should be busy in Thinking, and yet not retain it the next moment, very improbable.

    To suppose the soul to think, and the man not to perceive it, is, as has been said, to make two persons in one man. And if one considers well these men’s way of speaking, one should be led into a suspicion that they do so.

    For those who tell us that the SOUL always thinks, do never, that I remember, say that a MAN always thinks. Can the soul think, and not the man? Or a man think, and not be conscious of it? This, perhaps, would be suspected of jargon in others.

    If they say the man thinks always, but is not always conscious of it, they may as well say his body is extended without having parts.

    For it is altogether as intelligible to say that a body is extended without parts, as that anything thinks without being conscious of it, or perceiving that it does so.

    They who talk thus may, with as much reason, if it be necessary to their hypothesis, say that a man is always hungry, but that he does not always feel it; whereas hunger consists in that very sensation, as thinking consists in being conscious that one thinks.

    If they say that a man is always conscious to himself of thinking, I ask, How they know it? Consciousness is the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind.

    Can another man perceive that I am conscious of anything, when I perceive it not myself? No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience.

    Wake a man out of a sound sleep, and ask him what he was that moment thinking of. If he himself be conscious of nothing he then thought on, he must be a notable diviner of thoughts that can assure him that he was thinking.

    May he not, with more reason, assure him he was not asleep? This is something beyond philosophy; and it cannot be less than revelation, that discovers to another thoughts in my mind, when I can find none there myself.

    And they must needs have a penetrating sight who can certainly see that I think, when I cannot perceive it myself, and when I declare that I do not; and yet can see that dogs or elephants do not think, when they give all the demonstration of it imaginable, except only telling us that they do so.

    This some may suspect to be a step beyond the Rosicrucians; it seeming easier to make one’s self invisible to others, than to make another’s thoughts visible to me, which are not visible to himself.

    But it is but defining the soul to be “a substance that always thinks,” and the business is done. If such definition be of any authority, I know not what it can serve for but to make many men suspect that they have no souls at all; since they find a good part of their lives pass away without thinking.

    For no definitions that I know, no suppositions of any sect, are of force enough to destroy constant experience; and perhaps it is the affectation of knowing beyond what we perceive, that makes so much useless dispute and noise in the world.

    This extract is basically Locke’s version of “don’t think of pink elephants”. He draws the conclusion that in order to think, you must be aware that you are thinking. Additionally, nobody would be able to tell you that you were thinking if you weren’t aware of it yourself. (Your knowledge cannot go beyond your experience).

    He concludes by criticising the behaviour of those who pretend to know more than they have experienced, accusing this behaviour of being the cause of many arguments and conflicts.

    Consider your own thoughts. Are you aware you are thinking them?

    Historical context

    Locke’s Essay of Human Understanding can be understood in the context of the religious and political conflict occurring in England at the time. It was published in 1689, shortly after the Glorious Revolution that deposed King James II of England.

    James II had come to power only three years earlier after the death of his brother, Charles II. After coming to power James attempted to force unpopular laws through parliament on the basis of his divine right as king.

    John Locke (August 29, 1632, Wrington, Somerset, England – October 28, 1704, High Laver, Essex) was an English philosopher whose ideas laid the foundation for modern philosophical empiricism and political liberalism, particularly classical liberalism. He played a key role in shaping the European Enlightenment and influencing the Constitution of the United States.

    Locke’s philosophical views aligned closely with the emerging scientific thought of his time, notably that of Robert Boyle, Sir Isaac Newton, and other members of the Royal Society. His political philosophy centered on the concept of a social contract between citizens and emphasized the importance of religious toleration. Many of Locke’s political ideals were embraced in England following the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 and later in the United States after the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

    For more about John Locke, click here

  • I think, therefore I am

    René Descartes, Discourse on the Method
    of Rightly Conducting the Reason,
    and Seeking Truth in the Sciences. Part IV

    The quote above came from Rene Descartes who was a philosopher and mathematician (famous also for inventing Cartesian planes).

    Read an extract from Descartes’ Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences below. The language is a bit dense, so I have offered a plain English translation in the right hand column:

    I am in doubt as to the propriety of making my first meditations in the place above mentioned matter of discourse; for these are so metaphysical, and so uncommon, as not, perhaps, to be acceptable to every one. And yet, that it may be determined whether the foundations that I have laid are sufficiently secure, I find myself in a measure constrained to advert to them.

    I don’t know if it’s proper to share my thoughts as they are so metaphysical and unusual that not everyone may appreciate them. However, in order to test these ideas, I find I need to call attention to them.

    I had long before remarked that, in relation to practice, it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain, as has been already said; but as I then desired to give my attention solely to the search after truth, I thought that a procedure exactly the opposite was called for, and that I ought to reject as absolutely false all opinions in regard to which I could suppose the least ground for doubt, in order to ascertain whether after that there remained aught in my belief that was wholly indubitable.

    Often in order to test a theory or process, we need to put our faith in opinions/ideas that we think are doubtful. However I want to test what is true, and to do this I need to employ the opposite method – discard all ideas in which I have even the slightest doubt, so I can find whatever (if anything) is left.

    Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations;

    and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams.

    Since our senses sometimes deceive us, I’m rejecting anything I can observe with them. Also, since people make errors and I am no better, I’m rejecting any conclusions I have drawn from any observations I have made. And because the ideas I have when I am awake I can also have while I sleep, I am rejecting them as well since they could just be illusions like my dreams.

    But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.

    Immediately after rejecting all these senses, conclusions and ideas, I realised that even though I wanted to think that everything was false, it was necessary that I, who was doing the thinking, must exist in some form. I saw that this truth “I think, therefore I am” was so certain that no doubt, however outlandish, could shake it. I concluded that I could accept this as the first principle in my search for what is true.

    Historical Context

    René Descartes’ Discourse on the Method emerged in the 17th century, a time of intellectual upheaval shaped by the Scientific Revolution and challenges to traditional authority in philosophy and science. In this groundbreaking work, Descartes establishes the foundation of modern rationalism, advocating a method of radical doubt to uncover certain knowledge.

    In the excerpt above, he reflects on his internal struggle over sharing his deeply metaphysical meditations, worried they might not resonate with everyone. Despite this, he commits to systematically rejecting uncertain beliefs, ultimately arriving at his iconic insight: Cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”). This realization redefined the pursuit of truth and cemented Descartes’ place as a pivotal figure in Western philosophy.

    René Descartes (March 31, 1596, La Haye, Touraine, France – February 11, 1650, Stockholm, Sweden) was a French mathematician, scientist, and philosopher widely regarded as the founder of modern philosophy. He was among the first to reject Scholastic Aristotelianism, introduced the modern concept of mind-body dualism (and the resulting mind-body problem), and championed a new science grounded in observation and experimentation.

    Using a system of methodical doubt, Descartes questioned knowledge derived from authority, the senses, and reason, seeking to establish certainty on a firmer foundation. This led to his famous dictum, “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum), initially written in French as “Je pense, donc je suis.” This insight became the cornerstone of his philosophy.

    Descartes’ metaphysical dualism sharply distinguishes between mind, defined by its essence as thought, and matter, defined by its extension in three dimensions. His metaphysics is rationalist, relying on innate ideas of mind, matter, and God, while his physics and physiology are mechanistic and grounded in sensory experience, reflecting an empiricist approach.

    Read more about René Descartes here.

  • The unexamined life is not worth living

    Socrates, The Apology

    The Apology is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato, in which Socrates delivers his defence against accusations of impiety and corruption.

    More precisely, The Apology of Socrates addresses the charges of corrupting the youth and not believing in the gods of the city. Read more…

    The following passage is an excerpt from The Apology where the quote “the unexamined life is not worth living” appears:

    Perhaps you think that I am braving you in what I am saying now, as in what I said before about the tears and prayers. But this is not so. I speak rather because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged any one, although I cannot convince you—the time has been too short; if there were a law at Athens, as there is in other cities, that a capital cause should not be decided in one day, then I believe that I should have convinced you.

    But I cannot in a moment refute great slanders; and, as I am convinced that I never wronged another, I will assuredly not wrong myself. I will not say of myself that I deserve any evil, or propose any penalty. Why should I? because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil, why should I propose a penalty which would certainly be an evil?

    Shall I say imprisonment? And why should I live in prison, and be the slave of the magistrates of the year—of the Eleven? Or shall the penalty be a fine, and imprisonment until the fine is paid? There is the same objection. I should have to lie in prison, for money I have none, and cannot pay.

    And if I say exile (and this may possibly be the penalty which you will affix), I must indeed be blinded by the love of life, if I am so irrational as to expect that when you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you will have no more of them, others are likely to endure me.

    No indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely. And what a life should I lead, at my age, wandering from city to city, ever changing my place of exile, and always being driven out! For I am quite sure that wherever I go, there, as here, the young men will flock to me; and if I drive them away, their elders will drive me out at their request; and if I let them come, their fathers and friends will drive me out for their sakes.

    Some one will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that to do as you say would be a disobedience to the God, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me.

    Yet I say what is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you. Also, I have never been accustomed to think that I deserve to suffer any harm. Had I money I might have estimated the offence at what I was able to pay, and not have been much the worse. But I have none, and therefore I must ask you to proportion the fine to my means.

    Well, perhaps I could afford a mina, and therefore I propose that penalty: Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus, my friends here, bid me say thirty minæ, and they will be the sureties. Let thirty minæ be the penalty; for which sum they will be ample security to you.

    Historical Context

    It’s often the way that powerful people with vested interests don’t like it when someone rises to prominence by asking difficult questions, and the situation with Socrates was no different.

    In 5th-century BCE Athens, three men formally accused Socrates of impiety and corruption, representing the interests of politicians, craftsmen, scholars, poets, and rhetoricians.

    Socrates stood trial before an assembly of approximately 500 Athenians to defend himself. Despite being given the chance to appease the jury by making minor concessions to the charges of corruption and impiety, Socrates refused to compromise his integrity to avoid the death penalty. Ultimately, the jury sentenced him to death. Read more…

    About Socrates

    Socrates (c. 470 BCE, Athens – 399 BCE, Athens) was an ancient Greek philosopher whose life, character, and ideas profoundly shaped Classical antiquity and Western philosophy. A well-known and controversial figure in Athens, Socrates was often the target of satire in comic plays, most famously in Aristophanes’ The Clouds (423 BCE).

    Though Socrates left no writings of his own, his philosophy and conversations were preserved by his admirers, most notably Plato and Xenophon. These works depict him as a man of remarkable insight, integrity, self-control, and mastery of argument. His influence was further amplified by the dramatic circumstances of his death. At the age of 70, Socrates was tried on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth. Refusing to compromise his principles, he was sentenced to death by poisoning, likely with hemlock, by a jury of his fellow Athenians.

    Plato’s Apology of Socrates claims to recount Socrates’ defense during his trial. It offers a compelling argument for the examined life and a critique of Athenian democracy, making it one of the foundational texts of Western thought and culture.

    Read more about Socrates here