Bad faith

A critical claim in existentialist thought is that individuals are
always free to make choices and guide their lives towards their own
chosen goal or "project". The claim holds that individuals cannot
escape this freedom, even in overwhelming circumstances. For instance,
even an empire's colonized victims possess choices: to submit to rule,
to negotiate, to act in complicity, to resist nonviolently, or to

Although circumstances may limit individuals (facticity), they cannot
force persons as radically free beings to follow one course over
another. For this reason, individuals choose in anguish: they know
that they must make a choice, and that it will have consequences. For
Sartre, to claim that one amongst many conscious possibilities takes
undeniable precedence (for instance, "I cannot risk my life, because I
must support my family") is to assume the role of an object in the
world, merely at the mercy of circumstance—a being-in-itself that is
only its own facticity
CB: Well yes, Comrade Sartre, Ye Olde problem of free will and
determinism.  Humans do have free will; so do dogs. But a human
individual still exercises her choices among alternatives that are
given to her _by society_. The alternatives or "menu" from which she
chooses do not originate and well up from within her individual being
or person. The feelings and emotions that determine her choices are
learned from her society and culture; their genesis is not in her
individual infinite "soul" or "psyche" or "Mind". Valuing supporting
one's family is learned and socially determined.

Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to