Sartre on Bad Faith

The concept of self-deception when applied to Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism in particular refers to man and his search for purpose in order to assert his existence, the 'goal' if you will, of freedom. We deceive ourselves by suggesting that various things have been forced onto us when we actively seeked such circumstances independantly. We blame external factors for our own shortcomings and failures rather than assuming full responsibility. And in principle, this is a very valid philosophy. Yet, sadly, I believe that we cannot disregard external factors were at play. We cannot deny that circumstances beyond our control will affect our actions and decisions, and this is the crux of this essay. It is an expansion of my presentation of Sartre's concept of self-deception and my belief that self-deception is unavoidable.

First, I which to make it known that a great deal of this essay deals with the concept of self-deception as I have come to see it, being applicable to outside factors and their effect on Sartre's concept of freedom, indeed, this was the crux of my presentation and stemmed from interpretation of and interest in the work. It focuses on the belief that man cannot make excuses for his actions rather than assuming complete responsibility for them and therefore acting freely. It addresses the 'excuses' man creates for both his actions and his existence. Sartre's examples include people who seek to justify their existence as necessary rather than an 'accident' of being, people who blame 'cowardly' heart, brain or lungs for cowardice or people who say that they could not fully develop their talents because outside factors prevented them from doing so.

After Melissa and I presented Sartre's self-deception and asked questions the class began to discuss the material and how we had posed and interpreted it. Primarily, the class centred on whether or not freedom of choice meant that essentially we are always free even when our decisions, or final choice, is bound by Sartre's concept of self-deception. I would say that yes, freedom always exists, yet it finds itself at the centre of a centrifugal force. I have created my own fanciful vision of freedom existing as a globe surrounded by an orbit of self-deception upon which man is to be found, constantly circling and yet never reaching freedom. That is, by some gravity, mankind is going to constantly find itself at the borders of self deception, surrounding the central goal of freedom. Melissa bought up the example of the man who takes money from a register in order to make up the money that is missing from his pay, and he rightfully is entitled to. She said that whatever the outcome or moral character that signifies this particular situation, essentially the man is acting of his own free will, and making a conscious choice on whether or not to take the money. Does this not suggest that whenever a choice is presented to a person that they are exhibiting freedom? The class at first denied such a concept, and so did I. For isn't this man, at the time he is taking the money, constructing an excuse to present to his employer when the act is discovered? Isn't he mentally constructing a justification for his action? Of course he is, for this behaviour is essentially an unavoidable human trait, and therefore, as I stated, self deception is unavoidable. Indeed, it is an essential part of human character.

This may be pessimistic, I am not in the position to believe so, but others may see it as such. Melissa fought to demonstrate that at all times, a kernel of freedom exists in every action as the presentation of more than one avenue of action therefore demonstrated thus. I say no, because this implies that restriction to these possibilities means that the arena for any action to occur has been limited by outside factors. We cannot simply do whatever we please; freedom at its core; because we reflect on or estimate the consequences and related ethical considerations and then say to ourselves: "No, only these avenues are viable". We limit our choices, we reflect on external factors and we seek to integrate all things within an acceptable mental and/or social framework. Therefore, Sartre's self-deception is inevitable. As Sartre's work seems to be professing that man must avoid self-deception at all times, at the cost of his own freedom, doesn't this concept seem like more of an ideal than a reality? Man-kind will never achieve true freedom if we consider that in order to achieve freedom we must not be engaged in self-deception. This invokes the idea of performing an action and then refraining from any single thought about it afterwards. How can we not think about what we have done or are about to do? How many amongst us can say we are therefore free? Even the most menial of decisions requires some rational thought and reflection on the matter!

We may be aware of freedom, strive to achieve it or even propose to have it...but in truth, if we are discussing Sartre's freedom, I'm sorry to say that we have none! Rather, we have a thought process that is constantly analysing our actions and striving to interpret them, and therefore engaging in self-deception. I will rename self-deception if I may be so bold, as self-justification. We seek to justify our actions and therefore interpret their place in our lives. Sartre states himself that we are striving to establish some identity or purpose to our existence, and I say that we do this by assimilating everyday occurences, emotions and thoughts in a manner we see as fit or understandable, that is, we justify or seek to explain and integrate everything. We cannot reach a state at which we claim all responsibility for our actions because we are constantly acknowledging outside factors that come into play. We consider consequences, we consider logic and we consider morals and ethics.

After I asked the question "Is there any moment in our lives in which we are truly free?" the class came up with some good answers. The one I will address here in length is sleeping and dreaming. Do we have freedom to act with full freedom in our sleep. The act of sleeping without dreaming is somewhat of an inert state considering thought and therefore freedom in the context I uphold. But dreaming is different. I say no, again we construct justification. We have dreams in which we know we are dreaming and dreams in which we assume that ethereal landscape as reality. If we know we are dreaming we may be able to say "I can act however I choose, in total freedom, because I am dreaming", but this is to be engaged in self-deception because we construct a justification; an external factor that allows us to act in such a manner. There is also the dream in which we assume the dream as reality. The example was given in class of walking in a desert completely alone and coming across treasures found in a chest. We have assumed this reality. The woman who was dreaming (forgive me, her name escapes me!) stated that she ended up not touching the treasure because she considered that it both belonged to someone else and should be left for others to see as well. She has constructed a justification for her actions immediately she says '...because..'. There may not have been anyone else around and she may have had unlimited choice on what to do theoretically, but we see her decision being moulded by her own thoughts and therefore limited. She has assumed this reality and carried her moral 'sieve' into this reality. It is still her in a reality she has created mentally or unconsciously, but she is still limited in her decision making thanks to imposed external or internal factors.

It was also discussed (although it may be detracting from the point) that perhaps the only times we act freely are during our earlier years of life (from birth onwards) and at the exact point a spontaneous action takes place. Not true. I consider that the early child acts due to a biological necessity for action - hunger, thirst, pain, fatigue etc. and after a certain time when either abstract thought or memory begins we start to engage in conscious reflection and analysis of events and so are engaged in self-deception. And as for the point at which a spontaneous and reflex action takes place being the exact moment that freedom is 'distilled' (for want of a better word), how can the such an ethereal moment be validated and considered? Even reflex actions have some cause. And after the action, we always ask ourselves "Why did I do that?" or "Why the hell did that happen?", and therefore consider external circumstances and events that lead to that action...engaging in self-deception.

To further illustrate that self-deception is natural and how I understand this concept (indeed, I believe it strongly) I present two more situations or circumstances. First, consider the man who for example consults the tarot (which was mentioned ever so briefly in the tutorial) or the psychic prognosticator and asks "What is to come?" or "Why did this happen?". Here we see self-deception more distinctly than in other facets of human endeavour in that man is constructing a fate or destiny and therefore justifies actions which may pertain to or follow the predictions laid out. After the action has occurred; and often, due to suggestion, (is) actively sought out; the man can or may say "it was meant to be" or "it was told by the cards" (perhaps not as theatrically, that's just me). But I consider this as just a reflection of man's natural tendency to construct his future or his behaviour according to circumstances he is faced with and then his tendency to reflect on what has occurred then and why. The consultation of the cards or the prognosticator is an outward reflection of an inward and constantly occurring process. Mental deliberation. This was also addressed in a previous class - that is, we seek out others only to justify or provide further clarification of what we have already decided.

Second, consider the complete lunatic. He may be said to be acting out impulses which he assumes full responsibility for. He even has the choice of acting beyond normal moral and ethical bounds. He may kill, maim or perform such acts that are inconceivable to the ordinary man. Yet, he still acts according to outward circumstance and introspection. He may state "the voices made me do it" or "I am ill and therefore cannot act independantly". Or even without recognition of his illness has accepted a new reality in which new or constructed quota come into play. There is method in his madness in that there is always something that leads to his actions. In the risk of deceiving myself I say 'nothing happens without a reason'.

In conclusion, I wish to say that it must be recognised that Sartre is stating a philosophical idea, not a doctrine upon which society is to live. He may be saying 'stop deceiving yourself if you want to be free', but this cannot be taken to heart. I have presented this philosophical notion of self deception as I understand it (and it seems the class also understood it) but have also expressed my belief that this deception is unavoidable, like gravity. And like gravity keeps us constantly in orbit of Sartre's 'freedom'.

* I use the term abstract to describe the voice in one's head, which itself only develops with language, so as to avoid a debate considering whether a child is thinking from birth or before. A debate which often occurs within tutorials, sometimes even considering animals and their 'thinking'. I do not wish to become distracted by what was eventually coined as the notorious "cats and dogs debate".

"Beam me back to The Musings of Dan, Scotty!"
or
Click your heels three times and say: "There's no place like The Lair of Dan!!"