On Self-Deception & Bad Faith

Jean-Paul Sartre 

No Exit (Huis Clos : behind closed doors)

  On Self-Deception & Bad Faith

What I find most interesting and quite modern of Jean-Paul Sartre is his ability to communicate philosophical arguments via the work of fiction. His play, “No Exit,” appears to embody his philosophical argument regarding self-deception and bad faith. 

One room, three personalities and one philosophy — Sartre unmistakably depicts the uncomfortably realities of vanity and self-deception, and how it restricts a person’s freedom. 

This is most transparent in the play when the characters are constantly looking around for mirrors in order to avoid each others’ judging gaze.

"Hell is other people." 

                    —Jean-Paul Sartre

Why does Sartre create such scenes of utter torture and despair by simply putting three people in an empty room? What does he mean by “Hell is other people?” Perhaps it refers to a persons ability to allow others to inflict judgement and define you as an individual rather than you having the authority on your own identity. 

This leads me to what Jean-Paul Sartre would call being in “bad thought.” 

Before I explain Sartre’s concept of being in “bad thought,” first I must explain Sartre’s perspective on existentialism. 

According to Sartre, one exists, and then one invents oneself through the choices he or she makes. Sounds fairly liberating, right? However, Sartre’s definition of an individual can also be interpreted as rather daunting and lonely. 

By his logic, each individual is solely responsible for what he or she becomes in life. I find this conclusion rather one-dimensional. How does Sartre’s claim explain the circumstances of a person’s birth (e.g. institutionalized racism, socioeconomic disparities, pre-existing societal standards, pre-established gender-dynamics, etc) that do define and affect a person’s ability to develop into who they want to be?

“I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant; it is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.”

— Pokémon : The First Movie 

Jean-Paul Sartre says in order to alleviate our burden of choice, we will try to deceive ourselves by pretending to not be free — therefore "acting in bad faith." And by letting other people make judgements and choices for us, we continue to act in what Sartre calls “bad faith.”

Do you agree with Sartre?  Do you believe that humans have the ability to choose and define their individual characteristics, “or essence?” In order words, does existence indeed precede essence?

Is the concept of absolute responsibility simply an ideal or a plausible reality? Can choosing not to choose also be considered a choice?

The Ignorant

I don’t know what do you guys feel about the article TO THE RE PUBLIC OF GENEVA MAGNIFICENT, MOST HONORED, AND SOVEREIGN LORDS, but when I read this I felt that Rousseau was  ignorant. Maybe you will laugh at me, claiming that Rousseau is a great philosopher who have made a huge influence on the world so how can he be ignorant. However, here I don’t mean he knows nothing. Instead, he knows a lot but he doesn’t know how to get a right conclusion and he is a little bit naive. The following is some points where I think can be talked about further. 

  The first thing I want to talk about is his idea of the republic of Geneva. In this essay, he spoke highly of this country and indeed he admired the country and the people who lived there. “In looking for the best maxims which good sense might dictate regrading the constitution of a government, I was so struck to see them all implemented in yours that, even if I had not been born within your walls, I would have believed myself unable to refrain from offering this picture of human society to the one people which seems to me to possess its greatest advantages and to have best forestalled its abuses.” As we can see in the article, the republic of Geneva is exactly his dream country. According to my research of this country at that period of the time, it is not how Rousseau has said. On the contrary, it is more like an oligarchy. The real power of this country is controlled by a small parliament constituted by 25 persons, which is even less than the amount of that of Athens. There were 30 persons to make a decision. Without a very clear investment, Rousseau regarded the country as the best. He is not convincing and too careless. Only an ignorant people will judge without proofs. I don’t appreciate his words. 

  The second point is about his Utopia. Let’s see what he said about his dream country. “If I had had to choose my place of birth, I should have chosen a society of a size confined to the range of human faculties, that is to say to the possibility of being well governed.” “I should have wished to be born in a country where the Sovereign and the people could have had only one and the same interest, so that all the motions of the machine might always tend only to the common happiness.” “I should have wished to live and die free, that is to say so far subject to the laws that neither I nor anyone else could shake off their honorable yoke.” “I should have wished, then, that no one inside the State could have declared himself to be above the law, and No one outside it could have imposed and law which it was obliged to recognize.” I just quoted a few from the essay. Yes, from his words we can feel the world he depicted is almost perfect. Everyone can live a happy life there. But is this world really reachable? I really doubt that. Someone may argue that the solutions are told in his article The Social Contract. Let’s first not talk about whether his solution is effective or not. Let’s just face a simple question: what size is the perfect size for a country? What kind of location is perfect which no other country will attack it? Rousseau doesn’t give us an answer.  Until now, nobody can find a perfect solution. I think Rousseau is a liar. He depicted a wonderful world to make people feel interested and get convinced. However, if you really think of it, what he says is far from building a wonderland. 

  The third point I want to make is about his idea of woman. In his essay, he praised woman a lot. “Could I forgot that precious half of the Republic which causes the others’ happiness, and whose gentleness and wisdom preserve its peace and good morals in it? Amiable and virtuous Citizen-women, it will always be the lot of your sex to govern ours. How fortunate when your chaste power, exercised in  conjugal union alone, makes itself felt solely for the State’s glory and the public happiness.” Whereas, women are still defined as a role at home rather than outside. I am guessing that he did this because he wanted to get support by those women(for example those women in the salon), making them to feel that they are important. But this is not the fact. Women still were not equal to men. Here talking about women, a movie just jumped into my mind and I really wanted to share it with you guys. It’s called the hours. A little bit out of today’s topic but since we talk about women, I hope everyone can enjoy this movie. I cannot find a full free version of it, just put a trailer. If you are interested, please buy the full version to watch it. I promise it’s a good movie.

  Here, I listed three points. Maybe Rousseau should not be called as an ignorant, but in my opinion, according to this essay, he wanted to get attention too eagerly. Without investment, he said the republic of Geneva was good. The world he showed could not be reached. The women he praised indeed was not regarded so important. All these small tricks were done to get attention, to make his ideas known to the public. He succeeded. But in my mind he is idealist and too romantic, which is why I don’t appreciate him and his works.

  I know my opinion is strange and a little bit aggressive, and maybe biased. I really want to discuss with you guys. Hope for your comments.

Rousseau Rousseau Rousseau

What could I possibly say about Rousseau to keep on trying to give all the glory to the creator Jesus Christ? There is no way I could do anything decent without starting to discuss his anthropological perspective. Rousseau manages to narrate a state of nature in which men are really independent and isolated from one another, men who at first only encountered each other to satisfy their natural instinct of reproduction so that then they could have a good nap with their chests all filled up with pride. So then you know how it goes, two make three and there it is, a new amazingly loud and perseverant crying hungry mouthed baby. This creates cooperation from within the also new borne family structure derived from the natural state of compassion, and the development of language, love, social interaction, private property, vanity and envy.

As from my point of view the establishment of the social contract itself could be the key point into trying to shake Rousseau's philosophy, which seems to have found its may point, that men are good and that society corrupts them, before its construction; As if building a bridge in between to cliffs starting from the middle. However, I do find marvelous how he managed to narrate a state of affairs in which nobody did question if men where actually compassionate in their natural state, and I can not imagine a different kind of approach that could have destroyed monarchy, which was clearly not the way to go.

But, a question remains in my head: How can one argue that a change in a system is needed when the system itself, no matter the kind, will end up corrupting its naturally good people? I think it has a really bold move and that the possible negative and positive repercussions where not seriously waged. What if men where not actually good in the state of nature? Who can actually say something away from speculations regarding this point? As I say I cannot imagine another way to have accomplished to change that incredibly poor low social mobility system without attacking the anthropological paradigm that reigned, however I do not see clear evidence rather than an amazingly well written cause-effect speculation fantasy.

Moreover, what could be the actual impact of giving a moral value judgment to men that are not possibly going to be involved in a state of affairs confined outside a social contract? As for my point of view that could have been left alone and if Rousseau was aiming for political development he should have state from within the political paradox. But what’s done its done. I think I do not have to dwell to much into how the fact that men think they are naturally good has given them the greatest weapon that has ever existed, a self-excuse from anything, a "peacefully" internal way out of anywhere. Adolf Eichman would have probably sincerely think, ""I’m good, I was just following orders."" Or some heroine junky in E-side Vancouver, ""I’m good, always been, my instincts to, is just the system who f***ed up my family"" This anthropological perspective gives us the chance to easily wash our hands up and blame others, who will also blame others. Consequently, I just fell confortable in saying thanks to Rousseau for having us delivered us from monarchy to democracy, but that this system could work much better if embracing the fact the we are not as good as we think and that we could use the help of a much greater one, ready to help us fight the best fight against mediocrity and "positive" self-denial: El Rey Jesús.

Does human really born good ?

  By now, I still have a confusion of Rousseau’s “nature”, and that he defines that human “nature” is the best, and what make us who we are today, is all because of the bad social structure.

In the article he mentioned: ”I dare almost affirm that a state of reflection is a state against nature, and that the man who meditates is a degenerate animal.” Which, in my understanding, means that once we start meditate, we are already not at the “natural” state.

However, he also mentioned that,” that nature alone operates in all the operations of the beast, whereas man, as a free agent, has a share in his. One chooses by instinct; the other by an act of liberty.” To act liberally, we need to think, and make decisions, and thus, to have wisdom is the difference between us and animal.

But I think it is paradoxical. If we start thinking, then we are not at the state of “nature”, however, if we don’t think, then there are no differences between us and animals? So is the state of nature really exist?

Perhaps I have some misunderstanding!?

Rousseau considers that man are born good. This concept make me thinks of the ancient Chinese philosopher, Zeng Zhi(曾子) and Xun Zhi(荀子). The former one consider that human were born good; whereas the latter one consider human were born bad. This is still an ongoing debate.

Even though Zeng Zhi has the same opinion as Rousseau (they both think human were born good), there are still differences between them, which I think is quite interesting. Zeng Zhi thinks that there’s a moral status born in human, and the moral we had is the main differences between human and animal. And to prove it, he gave an example of a kid be pushed into a well, we will feel sad for him, and will want to save him(which I think is the pitie that Rousseau mentioned). This is the classic example he gives to show that human is born good.

As for the Xun Zhi, he thinks that people were born to care only about his own benefits, and if we let this “bad”, selfish nature goes on, then we will turn out to perish. “Goodness” is something we work hard to learn and to achieve. Therefore, to have moral rules to obey is what we need, and we need to control ourselves to be a “good” person.

This is by far what I understand, and might not be absolutely right, however, I think its quite interesting to think about it.

But I think that perhaps, there’s no “good” or “bad ” in our natural state, we just change as the environment changes. Like water, it changes its shape considering which kind of glasses we put them into.

Why is society not the cause of evil of Man

Rousseau in his second discourse on the Origin of Inequality among men suggests that man is good by nature, but it is society that corrupts it. In the state of nature, men live in isolation, since the only natural community is the family, and only during the time that children need from their parents; then they dissolve family ties. Since, in this state, men have not been corrupted, humans are mostly strong, healthy and self-sufficient. In this state men are basically the same as the inequalities that there are only due to their physical condition. Rousseau concludes therefore that man is good by nature. However, the man becomes evil and full of vices, with the creation of human societies, becoming, then, as Hobbes said in a wolf to man. Therefore, for Rousseau it is society that causes the corruption of man.

But how can be possible that of the addition of pure naturally good beings  arises something- the society- which is a source of pure evil ? How can it be created something bad from a union of only good elements? Following the same line, would come to that, or humans are not naturally good, or the society is not the source of the evils of man. What cannot be possible is that of the union of elements with certain characteristics emerge another element with opposite characteristics.

Is human being good by nature? Rousseau says yes, Hobbes says no, and many others support different theories. Rousseau's argument is based on the wild man while living in its natural state was good and happy, living in peace and harmony with nature. Moreover, the historical man, living in society is bad and selfish, because life in society has corrupted him. However, society is made up exclusively of men. Therefore, for society to be able to corrupt man, it is necessary that at least one man was not good, what is not possible because all human beings are equal in nature. Then it should be true that the evil has created itself, which is ridiculous to suppose. We can conclude then, that the human being is not naturally good as it is able to create evil. Does this mean that man is evil by nature? The answer is no. If human beings were evil by nature, then there wouldn´t be kindness. Human beings are naturally good and bad in that it is potentially good and bad, and as such, able to create good and bad.

We ask now for society. Is Society the cause of evil? Rousseau states

“Whoever sang or danced best, whoever was the handsomest, the strongest, the most dexterous, or the most eloquent, came to be of most consideration; and this was the first step towards inequality, and at the same time towards vice. From these first distinctions arose on the one side vanity and contempt and on the other shame and envy: and the fermentation caused by these new leavens ended by producing combinations fatal to innocence and happiness.”

It is clear that for him society is the cause of all evil, and man is a victim of it. But how can it be possible that the mere fact of living in society causes such evils without the condition that allows these evils to be developed in men? Something innate in the human being,something in the essence of man must be that allows such evils to exist. If it were not so, then it must be true that any species living in community – such as bees, birds or ants is corrupted and then, exists in them vanity, envy, shame or hatred. Therefore, is the society the cause for the evils of man? I think the answer is no. Society can be the catalyst for the evils, but not the creator of them. Of the fact that life in society arises feelings like vanity or hatred, doesn´t imply in any way that this is the creator of such evils. There is something innate in humans that makes to wake these feelings when they live in society. So it is with love and good feelings; there is something in man that enables man to develop these feelings when they live in society. The society is the way that makes it possible developing human potential, but it is in no case the creator of these.

Rousseau takes a comfortable position to blame society of men, as it is freed of the responsibility that comes to recognize that man is the cause of the goodness and evil that afflicts him. To assume that the human being is potentially good and bad at the same time comes the responsibility of taking charge of one's existence and try to do it only benefits.

Can we benefit from a modern society?

Rousseau argues that the natural state occurred before we were corrupted by politics. Human society is not part of this natural state but is one which is made so we can work cooperatively in a system and therefore we must accepts some constraints in order. Although we lose the ability to release our inhibitions and feel the rain on our skin we expand our civil liberty which allows us to have reason and gain a more moral  character, We stop acting like animals and contribute intellectually in a society. We act as rational being, and keep to moral law.

Rousseau believed that we should think for the greater of the state and not think to pursue just our own personal interest. This can be seen in today society where the rich interest may be to cut tax and the poor need more social programs that would help them. However the ideal state the rich would want to provide social programs for the poor. The poor on the other hand would support taxes cuts to help stimulate the economy.

In a civil society there needs to be laws that are universally acceptable that work for the greater good for its citizens, a good society will make good people and a bad society makes  people become bad,  who break these laws are not working to make was a believer in the death penalty as he believed that criminal will corrupt a healthy civil society, and although he supported the idea of pardons, he argued that these people will hinder the civil society and will thus impact the general will and hence the individual will.

I found it interesting when Rousseau spoke about the climate influence the type of governance that should prevail. In the hotter climates in the south such as parts of Africa there should be monarchies because there are greater surplus the land is more futile so the people are more spread out where as in the colder climates in the north lets say Denmark Norway with the colder climates should have democracy as there will be less land and less people spread out. In order for the best civil society to work he argues that it need to be small enough to govern. An ideal size would of course be Geneva which luckily is where Rousseau grew up. So I have some questions for you: would the ideal society designed by Rousseau hold up in the present day and if so where? Is there a perfect area in which it would? It seems to me that the suggestion of this difference in governance to hotter climates to colder is a sort of elitist view, that the countries that are best suited to a democratic civil society would be in the north. 

Rousseau's Notion of Perfectibility as a Motivator In Our Own Lives

        When I was in first grade, I begged my parents to let me play the violin. They thought it would just be another phase, like when I begged them to let me get a skateboard when my brother got one, and subsequently stopped begging rather quickly when he came home with a new bleeding limb daily. However, I never let up. And finally, a couple months later, I got my first minuscule violin. Though at the beginning I wouldn’t put it down, the excitement of the new instrument soon wore off and it became the classic case of parents nagging their kids to practice their instrument. There was, however, something that has never got old about playing, and this is where Rousseau comes in. 
You see, if I could have learned everything there was to know about the violin as a little

first grader, I would have had no reason to keep playing. It was the fact that I had to constantly strive to improve my technique, work on my rhythm or my bow arm, get a piece ready for an audition or performance, that have kept me playing for so long. It is the imperfection that drives me to keep taking lessons do my best to understand everything I can about the instrument. I think Rousseau was really onto something with his notion of perfectibility.
Rousseau believed that man was not perfect, but he could strive to perfect himself. “. . . human understanding owes much to the Passions which, as is commonly admitted, also owe much to it. It is by their activity that our reason perfects itself; we seek to know only because we desire to enjoy. . . “ (Rousseau 149). I think he meant that dedication to learning and knowledge would make for the most fulfilling life. Though there were many other, more negative, aspects of Rousseau’s second discorse, I found this one to be the most applicable, though perhaps that is just the optimist in me. Whether it is for a violin performance or for any other aspect in your life, if you have the opportunity to strive for perfection, guaranteed you will be more satisfied with the outcome than if you had stood idly by without making the effort for greatness. 

Life is an expedition

Candide written by Voltaire mainly talked about the expedition of Candide, a man raised in optimism but gradually recognize the real essence of the world through all the miseries and blessings, and finally Voltaire draw the conclusion of “we must cultivate our garden”.

The novel was full of fantasy, and as a western tradition, it described South America in a visionary tone. The description of “El Dorado” reminded me of “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” and “Aladdin”. The illusion of treasury in a faraway kingdom is a traditional topic of western stories. 

treasury in the story of Alibaba

The novel contained much philosophical thoughts and criticized Lebnizian optimism, but it did all of this thorough the means of storytelling, and obviously the story was not convincing. However, expedition novels had always been popular from “Around the World in Eighty Days” written by Jules Verne to “The Alchemist” written by Paulo Coelho, and even the movie “life of Pi” in 2012 continued this theme. The story of Candide is not the most bizarre one, but it’s so influential and really took a place in French literature.

Around the World in Eighty Days also contained a worldwide expedition

Though the development of science is quite complete and we all get scientific education, we are still in favor of fantasy, because there are metaphors in the stories. We get resonance of Candide, not because we suffered same thing, but because we all suffered from miseries and got blessings. Though they got exaggerated in the novel, but the feeling was same, and the conclusion of cultivating the garden, which is a metaphor of one’s heart is universal.

Everybody could view his own life as an expedition, and we get educated through these expedition novels which wrote about others’ lives.

The Noble Savage: at a glance

On Rousseau’s Second Discourse: 

The Noble Savage

Rousseau’s analysis on the animal or “savage” condition is intriguing at the very least. I enjoy the most from Rousseau his ability to construct and build on his arguments—which he does rather well both within his texts and by building on his philosophy’s over the course of his career. He inlays his arguments well when he begins by discussing the elements of the beast and its consciousness, then proceeds to juxtapose the human, then finally leads to an analysis of the noble savage. 

 On animals in nature:

“I see in any animal nothing but an ingenious machine to which nature has given senses in order to wind itself up and, to a point, protect itself against everything that tends to destroy or to disturb it.” [15]

Rousseau perceives the same thing in the modern human being, “with the difference that Nature alone does everything in the operations of the Beast, whereas man is a free agent” — and here arises the ever-old argument for freewill and its force on our standings in society, which is quite prevalent in Rouseeau’s Second Discourse. 

“Every animal has ideas, since it has senses; up to a point it even combines its ideas…” just like humans!

“Some Philosophers have even suggested that there is a greater difference between one given man and another than there is between a given man and a given beast” [16].

Rousseau writes that it is man’s ability to think and act freely that distinguishes him from beast.

On Perfection & Ambition: “Amour Propre” 

As an extension to his argument on free will, another distinguishing feature between man and animal, Rousseau argues, is the concept of self-perfection. 

“…the Beast, which has acquired nothing and also has nothing to lose, always keeps its instinct, man, losing through old age or other accidents all that his perfectibility has made him acquire…” [17]. 

“Regardless of what the moralists say about it, human understanding owes much to the Passions.” [19]. 

“We seek to know only because we desire to enjoy, and it is not possible to conceive of why someone without desires or fears would take the trouble of reasoning.” [19].

French director and screen writer Bruno Dumont makes an interesting claim I encourage you all to consider and possibly even challenge:

“At the root of the Noble Savage myth is this basic truth: the savage is good, but he's also violent. This is why Rousseau propounded the need for contracts between the savage and society. The savage also shows that in order to understand the need for civilization and culture, mankind needs to see barbarism. One could not exist without the other.” 

—Bruno Dumont

 What do you think? 

Is savagery a lesson on the importance of civilization? Or is civilization inherently corrupting as well? We touched on this a little when the professor began discussing Rousseau’s influence in educational theory with his famous text “Emile.” 

Do you think the “state of nature” is as peaceful and prosperous before our modern conception of society? Do you think the state of nature or savagery was ever the ideal as Rousseau seems to believe? Is an ideal every plausible in our conception of human history? 

Finally, are we, as a society, on a positive trajectory from “savagery” to prosperity? How do you define these two elements?

~ Are you Team Civilization or Team Nature? ~