Sartre's Version of Freedom

Sartre was just carrying me away with his "optimism" when it occurred to me how unforgiving his theory is. There are no excuses for us. We are the sum of our actions. I felt myself being enthused by the thought that I could be anything and that in the end it was all down to me. But how true is that? When we are with our clients, aren't we constantly trying to identify the constraints upon them? We are always measuring them in some way or another. Sometimes where they live is identified as a constraint or a possible "excuse". In doing so we are considering, as Zola did, that environment has an effect on how we shape our lives. Some people cannot be what they want to be because they have to look after another person. Young people are restricted in many ways by the adults who are in charge of them. Other young people can soar into their desired path in life because their parents actively encourage them. Then there is money. If you have it, surely this is an advantage, an aid to freedom.

How wrong then was William Wallace if he did say, "You can take our lives but you cannot take our freedom?" For are we ever truly free?

As for religious constraints Sartre says, "...what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God." He is saying that belief in God or Gods distorts man's view of himself, and allows excuses for his behaviour. I agree with him on this point. One religion has the stance that God will judge us not by the sum of our actions but by the sum of our intentions. That is a comforting thought, but may well prevent what Pete called "self-efficacy".

Humanism and existentialism have their common ground usually bound up in aetheism and the belief that death is the end. I am not convinced however that existentialism would produce kindness and good deeds.